Jack_Jefferson wrote:  All broadcast news programs these days are driven by the desire to increase market share, and thus advertising revenue.  (Paddy Chayevsky's nightmare vision has more or less come to pass; think Glenn (Howard) Beck(Beal).  (Although Beck was a morning zoo DJ to begin with, not a news anchor).  And the competitive world of cable news broadcasting does seem to be leading to increased niche marketing approaches, much like newspapers in the UK; you watch the programming that reflects your substantially unchanging world view.

Let's assume arguendo that Fox viewers are the least educated, or someone else's viewers are the most educated with regard to world events (or however you want to define "educated").  I think there is a correlation equals causation fallacy at work here.  Just because I watch Beavis and Butthead, or Masterpiece theatre, doesn't mean I'm more or less educated because of what I watch.  There might be more of a basis for proposing that Rupert Murdoch's FNC viewers were less educated than others as a result of watching Fox News if the primary function/mission of Fox News (or MSNBC or CNN) was informing viewers, but we've already established (I believe) that that's not their primary goal.  Nor is it the primary goal of virtually any other so-called "broadcast news organization"; their goal is to entertain people to drive up ratings and revenues.  So they give us entertainment dressed up to look like "news", "reporting", and "informed opinion".

musik_knut wrote:

With all that said, when a news story breaks, how is it that FOX sucks? When the Chilean miners were being rescued, FOX stayed on the story while MSNBC had drifted off to a story important to mostly liberals, meanwhile CNN floundered elsewhere.  
How did Fox News Suck?  I happened to see their coverage of the miners' rescue.  I was at a restaurant where it was on.  Most of it was waiting for the next miner to be rescued.  In the meantime, they kept re-iterating the obvious and throwing a bone to those that thrive on sensensional BS ("Hey, that miner has a wife and a mistress!").  A big, boring waste of airtime.

First off, let me say I agree with Knut about MSNBC.  Olbermann's commentaries can be good and insightful at times (heavy handed, but good nonetheless), but I quit watching because I couldn't stomach his ending segment about tacky people like the Octomom, Sarah Palin, Kate what's-her-name, Donald Trump, OJ Simpson, etc. However, I think MSNBC's demise started with them becoming as blatantly biased as Fox News.  That MSNBC morning show is such nonsense, but I think all of those morning shows are nonsense. 

Now about Fox's morning show: it started out promising with a diverse trio of co-anchors (an African American man, a scatterbrained blonde haired woman and a homosexual).  But behind that seemingly cheerful facade, the tone of that show was no better than that time spent around the water cooler with that terminally PO'd co-worker.  I've even seen the weather man on Fox make backhanded remarks about the president or Harry Reid.  I asked a regular viewer of the show about that.  His response was that they have been doing stuff like that for years on NBC.  Maybe so, but not to that degree.  I don't recall Willard Scott or Gene Shalit dissing Reagan or Bush while showing storm fronts or waxing about the latest Dudley Moore film.  

 musik_knut wrote:

With all that said, when a news story breaks, how is it that FOX sucks? When the Chilean miners were being rescued, FOX stayed on the story while MSNBC had drifted off to a story important to mostly liberals, meanwhile CNN floundered elsewhere.  

I think therein lies the secret of Fox's success.  Chilean miners have no bearing on how I make decisions in my life, impact the price of gasoline or shape policy where I live.  Yet some of us are drawn to things like that.  I think there is a specific demagraphic that they are trying to appeal to with such stories, a demagraphic more encompassing than just conservatives.  I'd be curious to know what that story was that was "important to mostly liberals".  I'd be willing to bet it was an issue that should be relevant to all voters/consumers/workers, but not near as sexy as rescuing people you've never met before in a continent south of here.  Sadly, most people are drawn to sensationalism, even moreso than information that has an impact on their day-to-day lives.  I think the only time I can recall Fox not covering a such a story was when Dick Cheney shot that guy in the face.  They even went so far as to say it wasn't that big of a deal, which I guess it wasn't, since that guy apologized to Cheney once the stitches were sown.

 musik_knut wrote: 

While I'm not trying to defend Olbermann's impartiality by any means, he probably stands atop the pile because you disagree with most of his views, relative to other commentators. Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck would hold that post for me. In my opinion, they are the embodiment of what is wrong with Fox News and conservative talk radio; however, I'm sure I feel that way in part because I disagree with most of the beliefs and viewpoints they are pushing.

The problem I have with Fox is that it pushes opinionated viewpoints as "news". (I have only watched MSNBC a couple of times, but you may share the same complaint concerning their network.) If you're going to be opinionated and biased, just admit that you are. Don't give me a tagline of "fair and balanced" when you're anything but.

Sic 'em Knut!

I watch Fox just for Bill O Reilly.
I find him entertaining and funny.
And he backs up what he reports on.

Hannity is way over the top IMHO.
Just as is that dorkus Colmes.

 hippiechick wrote: 

Oh that's right...how could I forget...FOX got their talking points from The White House...and that was confirmed by Left wingers like Olbermann...good to know an unbiased source confirmed a lie they were spreading...

Of course FOX is lying. I am comfortable in stating again, you are the most steeped partisan in RP...


Once again, the views of Mr. Olbermann cannot be seen by anyone as less than extremely biased...so to him, all FOX is all bullshit...he only sees the truth as a radical Left winger sees it.

“A generation ago you would have expected Americans to place their trust in the most
neutral and unbiased conveyors of news,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy
Polling. “But the media landscape has really changed and now they’re turning more
toward the outlets that tell them what they want to hear.”

 musik_knut wrote: 
Whatever you think of Olbermann, HE is the one that called out the bullshit by Fox, which admittedly became an arm of the Bush White House and was used to spread propaganda and lies. And that was a good thing.

Fox still is lying, as shown in my post, which got skipped over, but instead turned into a discussion of Olbermann.

 sirdroseph wrote: 

In the pantheon of arrogant, obnoxious, rude and mean spirited 'commentators', Mr. Olbermann stands atop the pile. Only recently has he seen fit to draw his unique name calling, smearing, lying brand of rubbish upon Mr. Obama and only because Mr. Obama had the temerity to reach a compromise with Republicans and worse, because Mr. Obama has not taken us as far Left as Mr. Olbermann would want. While Mr. Olbermann and Mr.  Hannity and others are not journalists in the purest sense, there are considerable differences: to Mr. Olbermann, anything said in a negative vein about Mr. Obama invites an often vulgar 'Special Commentary' where the targets are seen in Hitleresque stature by Mr. Olbermann. It bears keeping in mind that twice since 2008, MSNBC, the very network pulled hard to the Left by Mr. Olbermann, has had to rein him in for his blatant biases. Where the wheels of MSNBC began to fall off can be traced to the employment of Mr. Olbermann. MSNBC once had some following, they now lag behind 3AM infomercials. For whatever reasons, FOX leads MSNBC and the continually sinking CNN. That cannot be traced to the usual rationale provided by, in particular, MSNBC: well, FOX viewers are mostly racists and other slurs without proof or warrant. I guess when you're drowing by your own hand, you try to take others down by name calling.
With all that said, when a news story breaks, how is it that FOX sucks? When the Chilean miners were being rescued, FOX stayed on the story while MSNBC had drifted off to a story important to mostly liberals, meanwhile CNN floundered elsewhere. When you see the field reporters of any network, they all do the best job possible, usually pass on the same information and cite the same sources. It's amusing to see so many Liberals rant on FOX while using the same reasons and words. FOX is despised by Liberals mostly because of their 'talking heads' and the bias they bring. Gee, and the other networks don't bring bias with their talking heads? FAUX News, suggestive of make believe news. Hardly. News is news and while one network might skim over what another concentrates on, reporting the news as FOX does is just reporting the news as the others do.

The difference is MSNBC tells the TRUTH!

 musik_knut wrote: 

Some editorial bend? That's like saying Hitler wasn't really that nice of a person. It's not a bend for Fox (and MSNBC, for that matter)...it's a twist. Neither of these networks can even claim to be bi-partisan or "fair and balanced".

 musik_knut wrote: 
I am sorry, but I have watched both networks and other than the fact that MSNBC does not have "news" if thats what either of these networks call it 24/7, I see no difference between the two. They are both partisan as hell and useless to objective eyes. For every Olbermann there is a Hannity and so forth. If anyone who tries to tell me that either of these entertainment networks even resembles objective news, they are revealing their own partisan leanings.

 RichardPrins wrote: 

Study Confirms That Fox News Makes You Stupid
A new survey of American voters shows that Fox News viewers are significantly more misinformed than consumers of news from other sources.

 hippiechick wrote: 

FOX reports the news, no less and certainly no more than most *with the exception being MSNBC which does not offer news coverage 'round the clock, instead opting often for reruns of lockup facilities yadda yadda yadda*. FOX, like most, does exercise some editorial bend but no one comes close to the Olbermann led MSNBC which does not feature anything but the most left of reporters and commentators. FOX, despite Liberal notions, employs a broad spectrum of reporters and on air personalities. We last saw this in stark constrast just 8 weeks back when FOX had several liberal commentators and pollsters on air during Election Day while MSNBC went with a solid line up of an all white, very liberal, Democratic Party sympathetic panel that could barely constrain themselves as the results poured in: they were despondent and it showed. One might think Liberals would challenge MSNBC on their usuall all white line up but no, those very Liberals, champions of diversity, are too busy hating FOX as if instructed to do so.

 RichardPrins wrote: 

Another day, and another piece of incontrovertible evidence that the folks at Fox News are exclusively in the business of pushing propaganda, rather than reporting “news.”

Last week, The Daily Beast reported the existence of a memo by Fox News Vice President and Washington Managing Editor (and former Washington Times editor) Bill Sammon, on October 27, 2009. It advised all on-air personalities to “use the term ‘government-run health insurance,’ or, when brevity is a concern, ‘government option,’ whenever possible.”

The memo followed an on-air conversation between right-wing Republican consultant Frank Luntz and Fox News host Sean Hannity, in which the former advised, “If you call it a public option, the American people are split,” but “If you call it the government option, the public is overwhelmingly against it.” “A great point,” Hannity replied. “And from now on, I'm going to call it the government option, because that's what it is.”

After that, Fox News hosts all marched in lockstep to the Luntz/Hannity/Sammon-scored music. For instance, anchor Neil Cavuto began an interview on the day of the memo with then-House Republican Leader John Boehner by explaining, “My next guest says name it what you want; it is still government-run.”

This week, we learned of yet another propaganda-driven order from on high. Politico reports that Sammon sent an email to staff last December insisting that everyone at the station refrain from recognizing the global scientific consensus on man-made global warming.

Sammon wrote, “We should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies.”...

Memo: Fox News reporters ordered to promote Climategate conspiracy theory

and under the same corporate umbrella:

Phone hacking approved by top News of the World executive – new files

 Mugro wrote: 
BBC world news on PBS is good, too. 

 Manbird wrote: 

Absolutely the best news our tax dollars can buy!!!

(I say this as a regular consumer of PBS/NPR news and other related content. I am making sure I get my money's worth!)

 islander wrote: 
This is why Wolves only inhabit a mere 3-5% of their historic habitat.