Outfoxed
So now we find out that the Federal Emergency Management Agency staged a phony news conference with FEMA employees pretending to be independent reporters posing obviously predictable soft and gratuitous questions to the agency’s deputy director (“Fake news conference costs director his job,” Oct. 30).
What — was Fox News unavailable?
Paul W. DiSalvo, Highlands Ranch
no the main stream media was still in bed with all the dumocrat want ta be president folks.
Posted by on November 3, 2007 06:42 AMToo funny. You really can't make this stuff up.
And Republicans wonder why they have a credibility gap the size of the Grand Canyon
Posted by jay on November 3, 2007 11:37 AMPaul-
What, you miss the independent Bush hating journalists that gave us hysterical doomsday reports during Katrina about cannibalism , hundreds of thousands dead and Georges evil weather machine that creates hurricanes that only kills black people?
Those independant journalists?
Posted by Get Real on November 3, 2007 11:39 AMAs far as "hysterical doomsday reports" go, you certainly can't beat "Voting Democrat is voting for the terrorists!" or "Gay marriage will cause civilized society to come to an end!"
Posted by Hans Christian Brando on November 3, 2007 12:18 PMThat should read: Fox "News"
Posted by Liam on November 3, 2007 12:26 PMI guess I don't get it. Why do so many people have hissy fits over FOX News?
Is FOX biased? Sure they are. But they're no more biased than CBS, NBC, CNN, or any other news network. The only difference is FOX's bias favors the right instead of the left.
Where's that same indignation towards the other networks? If it wasn't for double standards, some of you folks would have no standards at all.
Posted by Wolfgang on November 3, 2007 04:02 PMOh, I don't know, wolfgang, maybe its because faux news claims to be "fair and balanced"?
That just might have something to do with it.
Posted by on November 3, 2007 04:54 PM
Wolgang said "Is FOX biased? Sure they are. But they're no more biased than CBS, NBC, CNN, or any other news network. The only difference is FOX's bias favors the right instead of the left. "
Too precious for words!
So are you saying that Fox is on the right and "CBS, NBC, CNN, or any other news network" are all on the left?
Actually a fair bit of research has been done on this and found that Fox viewers tended to be impressively wrong on many key facts, and Fox's coverage was far more biased than any of the others.
Don't worry though, the others are trying hard to catch up and we are well on our way to having a whole range of equally biased right-wing channels to pick from.
Posted by Bangalore Skank on November 3, 2007 04:56 PMBangalore Skank,
CBS's Memogate. Reuters' doctored photos. Newsweek's koran flushing fairytale. And FOX is the most biased news outlet?
As I said, if it wasn't for double standards, some folks would have no standards at all.
Posted by Wolfgang on November 3, 2007 06:15 PMWolgang, you seem to be under the impression that I judge Fox by what similar mediums say.
The others are all pretty biased, Fox just outdoes them all by a good margin. But as I said, no worries, the others are trying to catch up.
I know it's a popular meme amongst Conservatives that the media in the US is liberal, but let's face it, it's a fairy-tale
Posted by Bangalore Skank on November 3, 2007 07:55 PMBS,
The only people who believe the media in the US is not liberal are flaming liberals.
Posted by jgd777 on November 3, 2007 08:17 PMBango-
Why would you not judge Fox compared to what the rest of the media say?
How else could you possibly make a fair evaluation of any level of bias?
Can you concede the fact that the majority of the media slant to the left or should we assume you're just ignoring the obvious because you like the status quo?
Posted by Get Real on November 3, 2007 08:36 PMBangalore Skank,
I kinda have a hard time believing FOX is more biased than a network that fabricates news in an attempt to influence a presidential election. So if you could provide some links to the research that shows FOX is the most biased, that would be great.
Posted by Wolfgang on November 3, 2007 09:46 PMGet Real asked “How else could you possibly make a fair evaluation of any level of bias?”
By using scientific research techniques and publishing in a suitable journal where others can check the approach, the methods, and data, and the findings.
Do you think those media outlets named are well known for their research abilities?
Wolfgang, in turn, I find it surprising that anybody would think that Fox isn’t horrendously biased.
Here are three studies for you to chew on, but I am sure you could go look for more.
1. Kull, Steven. “Misperceptions, The Media and The Iraq War”, in The Pipa/Knowledge Networks Poll, October 2, 2003
2. Della Vigna, S. Kaplan, E. “The Fox News Effect: Media Bias and Voting” 2006 at http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~sdellavi/wp/foxvote06-03-30.pdf
3. PEW Research Center http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=319
BS,
You liberals just hate it when both sides of an issue are brought to the attention of the general public. When Ajad spoke at Columbia, you screamed "a well informed public is essential to freedom" When Churchhill stood in front of his students and spewed out his hate America garbage, and got standing ovations. When Fox news present shows like Hannity and Colmes you call them far right. I guess if it was just the Alan Colmes show you would consider that "fair and balanced.
The far left media has been in control for years, fox news is simply a counterweight. It is far more fair and balanced than any other news media in this country.
Is Fox news far right and the mainstream media in the middle or is Fox news in the middle and the mainstream media far left? The driving force in the mainstream media is the New York Times and it is about as far left as you can get.
Posted by jgd777 on November 4, 2007 07:31 AM"When Fox news present shows like Hannity and Colmes you call them far right. I guess if it was just the Alan Colmes show you would consider that fair and balanced."
Except that Colmes gets about half the camera time Hannity does. Anyway, one token liberal--especially a little "forgive me for living" weasel like Colmes--does not make for "fair and balanced."
Posted by Hans Christian Brando on November 4, 2007 10:22 AMHans,
It is very difficult to find a liberal who isn't a "forgive me for living" weasel. You are just angry that the public is beginning to hear both sides of the issues. Guess that "informed citizens make for better citizens' thing only pertains when they only hear the liberal half truths, or hear nothing conflicting with the liberal garbage.
Posted by jgd777 on November 4, 2007 11:00 AMMost of the time what I see in the MSM are facts that can be verified. A bridge collapses, so many bodies are found in Iraq, etc.
Are you guys confusing news with opinion columns?
Even Fox can`t mess with the facts, although when something happens, say a fire, Fox always reports the number of casualties too high and corrects down later.
The best Hannity show was when Bob Woodward was on and Hannity was faced with a real expert on something. Hannity was reduced to hum and mmm for most of the show.
Gest the transcript and see.
Posted by Sharon B. on November 4, 2007 12:05 PMBango-
Lets see,
Fox News has a number of Liberals on its staff and provides air time for their views.(Geraldo Rivera,Allan Colmes, Greta Van Sustrin, Ellis Hennigen,Wesley Clark Juan Williams,Susan Estrich...).
Can you please list the Conservatives employed at ABC,CBS,NBC.CNN,MSNBC that are given similar air time?
Since it shouldn't take long to compile the list maybe you could take the extra time to ponder this-
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/143lkblo.asp
Sharon B,
How many facts have you seen on MSN regarding the SCHIP bill?
For example:
Half of all smokers are from families making less than $40,000 a year. So people making less than $40,000 will be paying for healthcare for families making $60,000 or more a year?
Did you hear, in order to finance this bill an additional 22 million people will have to start smoking?
Did you hear, the funding for this bill drops 80% in the last year. This distorts the actual cost of the bill by some 40 billion dollars?
Regarding the Iraq war
Did you hear on MSN that civilian deaths have dropped 50% since the surge?
Or how the Sunni tribal leaders are turning against Al Qaeda?
Roadside bombing has decreased, and number of US soldiers killed has dropped by over 50%
These are all facts that you will probably never hear about, from the mainstream media. But then again, maybe you really don't want to know both sides of these issues.
Posted by jgd777 on November 4, 2007 03:45 PMJgd777 tried it on with ” You liberals just hate it when both sides of an issue are brought to the attention of the general public”
First off, who is your “you liberals” eh Mr.plop-features?
But no, I love a public punch-up and where there are two sides, then it is champion to see them interrogated for all to see.
” When Fox news present shows like Hannity and Colmes you call them far right.”
No, I call them “a pathetic display that should fool nobody and makes me want to vomit they are so puerile”.
It’s such an unequal and boot-licking little dog and pony show.
” Is Fox news far right and the mainstream media in the middle or is Fox news in the middle and the mainstream media far left?”
The mainstream is to the right, and Fox is out beyond the edge of the stage in the next auditorium with some of the other “belief-based” folk.
” The driving force in the mainstream media is the New York Times and it is about as far left as you can get.”
Oy vey!
The Grey Lady is somewhat right of centre, and is a good benchmark but by no means a driving force for anything but nostalgia.
” It is very difficult to find a liberal who isn't a "forgive me for living" weasel”
Well it’s difficult to find liberals in the US, full stop. - but even so, I suspect you confuse empathy with weakness.
I am very empathetic, but you are more than welcome to see if I ask forgiveness for living and come over all wobbly when pressed.
GetReal said ” Fox News has a number of Liberals on its staff and provides air time for their views.(Geraldo Rivera,Allan Colmes, Greta Van Sustrin, Ellis Hennigen,Wesley Clark Juan Williams,Susan Estrich...).”
Oh come on, molest me not with this milksop apologetics.
What does it matter that they employ a little coterie of token liberals and pretend-leftists, when their editorial policies drive a sickening embrace with championing everything that is Conservative?
There is enough research and have been enough exposé’s done to make that abundantly clear.
The report you quoted is fascinating. It is a very good example of how things work and also how you think.
Yep, more journalists are self-proclaimed liberals than conservatives. Trouble is that the advertisers, owners, shareholders, management, and editors all drive hard in the opposite direction. The other problem is the self-report thingy, it’s how they act and what they turn in for publication that matters, not how they would like to see themselves.
Anyway, journo’s soon get that liberal stuffing knocked out of them if they want a paycheck and a chance to get a bit of the limelight and recognition.
Bangalore Skank,
I liked your links. But they told me what I already knew, FOX is biased to right. I don't believe I ever said otherwise.
But as far as FOX being the MOST biased - sorry, you haven't convinced me. As I mentioned before, I don't see FOX fabricating news stories trying to sway the voters right before an election.
All I've been asking is why aren't people pointing the finger of outrage over CBS's blatant bias toward the left? Or Newsweek's blatant bias? Or any other news outlet's bias? Why is it only FOX who's constantly singled out?
It all goes back to those darn double standards again.
Posted by Wolfgang on November 4, 2007 04:52 PM
BS
"The mainstream is to the right, and Fox is out beyond the edge of the stage in the next auditorium with some of the other “belief-based” folk."
If you honestly believe the media is to the right, then I would like to hear your meaning of "the left". To me the left, means supporting illegal immigration, socialized healthcare, welfare state, defeat in the war on terrorism, and the war on Christianity to name a few. Sounds like the front page of most of the mainstream media to me.
One question! Have you ever actually watched Fox News?
Posted by jgd777 on November 4, 2007 05:21 PMjgd777 said ” If you honestly believe the media is to the right, then I would like to hear your meaning of "the left". To me the left, means supporting illegal immigration, socialized healthcare, welfare state, defeat in the war on terrorism, and the war on Christianity to name a few. Sounds like the front page of most of the mainstream media to me.
One question! Have you ever actually watched Fox News?”
Yep, I honestly believe it, and am happy to describe the “Left”.
Let’s walk through the points you list.
- Illegal immigration: the Left certainly believes in the brotherhood of workers and believes that workers should be free to move from one country to another if they so wish. They are however very much against scab workers, which is exactly what the bulk of the illegal immigration is. The left sees the illegal immigration at work currently as a corporate tool to undermine worker’s wages and job stability, and blames the firms that employ them and encourage them to come. I bet you also see how they are undermining the job market, you just blame the worker and not the bosses who employ them.
- Socialized healthcare: you betcha. The idea of profiting off sickness is revolting to the Left, and they see no reason why we cannot band together and provide universal healthcare. To the Left, the excuses that are offered about efficiency and such are just that, excuses. The government is not more inefficient than the insurance companies.
- Welfare state: you betcha. If a brother or sister is down, you help them up, you don’t kick them further. All the steps and tools should be available to all. The Left sees teamwork as a synergy that allows better outcomes than each individual pulling in their own blinkered direction. Isn’t that a central Christian belief?
- Defeat in the war: ok come on, the Left are just as patriotic, they just think it is poor form to go attacking people who did us no harm. War for profit is a revolting concept to the Left, who seek as universal a fraternity of mankind as possible and synergy through working together, not robbing and stealing from weaker nations.
- War on Christianity: there is no war on Christianity, particularly in the US! Christianity here has morphed into a giant corporate entity making profit and changing money at every turn. The Left just finds religion somewhat backward, and wants it available to those who desire its comforts, but just never for religion to have any political or social power of its own.
Yes, I have watched a lot of Fox news and studied it carefully. I was revolted by the crass lowering of standards and the blatant bias in what got reported and what not, who got interviewed and who didn’t, and what they highlighted and elevated in importance and what they papered over. It is a revolting display of humbug and slimy use of marketing tricks to mislead and hoodwink people.
Wolfgang said ” All I've been asking is why aren't people pointing the finger of outrage over CBS's blatant bias toward the left? Or Newsweek's blatant bias? Or any other news outlet's bias? Why is it only FOX who's constantly singled out?”
I think they probably do, but I really don’t keep tally of who blames whom the most. All I know is that Fox is leading the pack and from where I stand they are all on the right. I certainly point the finger less at the others because (a) I haven’t watched them as closely, and (b) they are less to the right than Fox. So pointing out their faults is to my mind is a bit superfluous. I certainly see no left-bias in any of those you mentioned.
I could tell you some criticism I have on the few Left-aligned media that do exist, but they aren’t even on your radar and have such a tiny share, so what would be the point?
Bango-
All that is very nice but I see out of all the other supposed neutral networks combined, you haven't named one conservative that gets substantial airtime.
That alone speaks volumes.
You seem pretty knowledgeable on some subjects- Liberal bias in the media is not one of them.
Posted by Get Real on November 4, 2007 07:28 PMGet Real said ”All that is very nice but I see out of all the other supposed neutral networks combined, you haven't named one conservative that gets substantial airtime.
That alone speaks volumes.”
I think it speaks to no more than that I don’t do any research on the topic anymore, and unless something has changed dramatically from when I did, all I can do (and prepared to do) is give you what insights I had at the time and what research papers I can dig up without much effort.
From my viewpoint, naming Conservatives on the air or in print is a simple matter of listing the entire bunch and deleting a few odd liberals off the list.
Let me also put this again – it doesn’t really matter what the private orientations are, it only matters what they publish and broadcast.
NPR should be dead centre, but from my view they have drifted to the right.
You are free to regard what I have said however you wish, ignore it, reject it, or consider it.
If you want more info, there is plenty of research on the topic in the academic journals, and then there is always Chomsky. He does a very good accounting on how the press and TV work.
Why does it always come down to the far right vs. scientific data and consensus.
don't you guys ever tire of being on the side of ignorance?
why attempt to rationalize your misinformed stances?
Posted by jay on November 4, 2007 08:51 PMJay, I think it is more complex than that, and I don’t think it is fair to just slam the Right for being unscientific.
I think it's more an issue of "belief-based" vs "reality-based".
To the folks who see the planet as 6-10k years old and personhood emerging at conception, science is as corrosive and alien as for those who want to believe that crystals have healing power and that there is an earth goddess doing nice things for believers.
There are strata of the Conservatives that are quite at home with science and have an affinity for the positions on most things of their counterparts on the left. Many technical fields have a high proportion of Conservatives.
The whole idea of "wedge issues" was to split the camps so that the left and right cannot find common ground. The people running election campaigns and political strategy do their best to be as divisive to the "other side" as they can be and to pander as much as possible to their benefactors and donors, whilst papering over cracks or divisions within their own camp. The drive at “values and lifestyles” voters was another way to split people up into little pockets that could be motivated over single-issue bills.
Rove’s success is precisely in this arena.
It’s a pity, because the US has done real and lasting damage to its education system and infrastructure, and has been distracted over silliness when there are very real dangers and challenges in your future.
Here are a few:
- The latinization of the US. In little over 50 years the average household will be Spanish-speaking. This will change the US in very deep ways.
- The emergence of India and China as global superpowers. Both have very established influence in Asia and Africa, and are busy consolidating that, as well as expanding their influence over Asia-Pacific and Europe. During this time the US has been alienating the Middle-east and Latin-America, and has lost a great deal of influence elsewhere.
- Global climate change. The US is wasting time with endless silly gamesmanship over this. Other countries are forming partnerships and alliances, and are developing technology that has not just direct market value, but technology spinoffs.
- Nanotech & BioTech. The US was a clear leader, but political ambiguity and inaction is allowing that lead to slip away. Many of the patents now go elsewhere, and even in the US, many are actually held by foreign nationals.
- Space. The push that was needed was for robotic exploration that will fund and develop robotic technologies usable in many unrelated industries like medicine and manufacture. Instead the US is on a wild goose chase of manned space flight.
At a time when the US needs leadership, it has gamesmanship of the most divisive and tawdry kind, and has no leaders on the field capable of stepping up to the challenge.
As a nation you appear to be gridlocked and stalled over irrelevant social diversions, and the “war on terror” was great as a political crowbar, but is not a productive rallying point for steering a nation. It was a straw clutched by lazy and cowardly politicians who needed a “great enemy” replacement for the loss of the Soviet Union.
BS,
Your philosophy goes against everything this country was built on. This country was founded on and grew into a world power based on individuality not this collective society that you are promoting.
For the last twenty years our government has proven many times over that they are incapable or unwilling to lead this country in a direction that is beneficial to it's citizens. Somehow I don't think turning it into a socialize society would improve anything. Socialism has failed it's citizens in every country in the world.
Maybe if the government would keep their hands out of our pockets, we would have the motivation to achieve some of these things you say we have lost. We are turning into a nation of lazy, fat, cowards, looking for handouts and afraid of our shadows.
Posted by jgd777 on November 4, 2007 10:51 PMJgd777 said ” This country was founded on and grew into a world power based on individuality not this collective society that you are promoting.”
Bollocks.
Do you think barnraising and the space programs were individual pursuits?
The rabid form of individualism to which you lay claim is a fiction and never existed in American history, and I hope for your sakes it won’t exist in your future either.
It’s a neoconservative dream based on a misrepresentation of Adam Smith’s depiction of capitalism.
The notion that everything works for the best if everyone acts only in their own selfish best self-interests is complete nonsense and has no basis in religion, economics, sociology, psychology, neurology, or politics.
” For the last twenty years our government has proven many times over that they are incapable or unwilling to lead this country in a direction that is beneficial to it's citizens.”
I quite agree with you.
To fix that you have to start holding them accountable and voting people out if they fail to deliver. To do that you have to stop being distracted by false “issues” served up to keep your head spinning.
” Maybe if the government would keep their hands out of our pockets, we would have the motivation to achieve some of these things you say we have lost.”
Maybe if they just spent it where you want it to go rather than to feather the nests of parties who spend on election campaigns.
I have seen a few studies showing what Americans want money to be spent on, where they think it is going, and where it actually goes.
For example (if I remember correctly), most Americans want about 10% spent on foreign aid, to help poorer and struggling countries, most Americans think that the government is spending way more than that, in reality they spend less than 1%.
The reverse is true of military spending, what people think is being spent is far lower than what is actually spent.
” We are turning into a nation of lazy, fat, cowards, looking for handouts and afraid of our shadows”
Fat yes, lazy no – you now work more hours for less compensation, but you certainly are fearful. You are afraid because you allow marketers and politicians to keep pushing those buttons. You reward them for making you afraid, and so they hone their methods and perfect the art of frightening the crap out of you.
Frightened people with a huge military are incredibly dangerous.
The whole world needs you lot to take a few deep breaths and stop being so easily startled.
" I think it is more complex than that, and I don’t think it is fair to just slam the Right for being unscientific.
I think it's more an issue of "belief-based" vs "reality-based"."
Quite right Bangalore...gut vs brain.
Posted by jay on November 5, 2007 09:52 AMBS,
Just a few comments, barn raising was done by individuals volunteering to help their neighbors, and were not forced to do so, and it worked both ways. In a socialist society the hard working people are "forced" to help the people who have chosen to sit back and collect money and benefits. we are willing to help a neighbor who may have run into a temporary set back, but this "nanny state" is nonsense.
In analyzing where the government spends the tax money, you failed to mention how much was being spent on welfare programs, or as you like to call them social programs.
Fearful, absolutely! If what happened on 9-11 doesn't make you a little fearful for the welfare of the citizens of this country then I don't know what will. Or are you one of the idiots who believe Bush actually destroyed the World Trade Center and killed 3000 people just so he could go to war with Iraq?
Reality is a abstract conclusion based and your beliefs. Your reality seems focus on the idea if everyone were exactly the same, had the same goals, identical needs and wants, and willing to dance to the same drummer everything would be just peaches and cream.
During my time in Asia I saw how the collective society functions and thank you, but no thank you. I chose to "believe" we are better than that and my family deserves more.
Posted by jgd777 on November 5, 2007 10:34 AMJgd777 said ”… barn raising was done by individuals volunteering to help their neighbors, and were not forced to do so, and it worked both ways”
So you reckon that wasn’t a deeply social behaviour, and see it just as unconnected individuals taking isolated actions?
For my part, there is nothing individualistic about raising a barn, and it wasn’t a strictly quid pro quo arrangement either. People did it because they felt it was expected and proper behaviour that each member of the social group could expect from the other. People did it not because they demanded exact recompense in return, but because they thought it was right.
” In a socialist society the hard working people are "forced" to help the people who have chosen to sit back and collect money and benefits.”
Unless you are talking about a Soviet state, I think you are mistaken about anybody being forced. They are democracies and people get to vote, so the tax their representatives apply bears the authority of the voter. No different to here.
” If what happened on 9-11 doesn't make you a little fearful for the welfare of the citizens of this country then I don't know what will.”
Doesn’t make me fearful at all.
I am far more worried about the things that are actually likely to cause me harm, like heart disease, cancer, stroke, MVA, etc.
Far more important than the risk of terrorism imho is the risk of a fearful population getting cowardly politicians to enact dangerous legislation and attack other countries.
” Your reality seems focus on the idea if everyone were exactly the same, had the same goals, identical needs and wants, and willing to dance to the same drummer everything would be just peaches and cream.”
Not even close, mate.
I think there is a great variance in populations and nothing will be “peaches and cream”.
Don’t know why you would think this of me, nor why you think it might be typical of a Liberal.
What I do know is that humans are remarkably obedient and tribal however, and America is no less so than any other nation I have ever seen.
” During my time in Asia I saw how the collective society functions and thank you, but no thank you. I chose to "believe" we are better than that and my family deserves more.”
That’s because you are looking at how Asians construct and use collectivism, an American version would be more aligned with the outlook and habits of Americans.
My guess is that Americans at a ball game or at church are generally very comfortable with that form of collectivism. In fact the patriotism you have for the country and to which you show the tenets of neo-conservatism are example of how you already follow collectivistic patterns of behaviour. Conservatism itself is highly collectivistic, and holds up moral values that people follow. This is collectivism.