If the O'Riley thing wasn't bad enough,Follow

Gbaji, the difference is, do all of the other news sources say they're "Fair and Balanced" in their slogan? No.



This is what is generally called "False Advertising".

I would be for someone suing a liberal slanted news company if they were said they were fair and balanced as well.


Edit:


Oops. Heheh. Fixed it to say what I meant for it to.

Edited, Thu Oct 21 20:11:23 2004 by Chtulhu

Edited, Thu Oct 21 20:12:24 2004 by Chtulhu

Isn't there a general assumption that the "news" is supposed to be non-biased? Are you suggesting that it's ok for media outlets and news agencies (non-editorial) to be biased as long as they don't claim they are non-biased?

Hell. I would *love* for that point to be raised in this case. I'm beginning to think the Left just stepped into a big trap...





Again. You have to define what "fair" and "balanced" mean in terms of a news agency. I'm actually starting to suspect that Fox did this deliberately *hoping* someone would sue them so that they could open a discussion on exactly how "balanced" the news is today.

Don't you get that it's relative? In order to prove that they are not fair or not balanced, they have to open up all other broadcast news organizations to scrutiny. I guarantee you that's exactly what Fox wants. MoveOn just got suckered...

Edited, Thu Oct 21 20:10:14 2004 by gbaji

To the first point: Only if you're naive.


As for Fox suckering MoveOn into something.... Pfft. Fox isn't doing anything that heavy handed, they're not smart enough to.


It isn't relative. There needs to be no other standards to judge fair and balanced by.

If I'm the only news station, and I saw that John Kerry sucks ****, that obviously isn't fair and balanced, yet I'm the only one there.

You don't judge something based on others doing a similar job, you judge it on the truth. For it to be fair and balanced, it would have to give the absolute truth with no slant whatsoever.

Fox doesn't do that.

Give me an example then.

What's funny here is that most examples of Fox being biased that I hear from the Left is that Fox *doesn't* slant stories to the Left.

When Bush makes a statement, Fox just reports what was said while everyone else implies that Bush is lying or kinda rolls their eyes while reporting it. And Fox is blased for *not* doing the same.

I'm serious here. Find me an example of Fox new being obviously biased in a story. I bet ya I can find 5 examples of CNN slant to the Left (or against the Right if you prefer) without even trying hard.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136258,00.html


They say that the Muslim groups are only voting Kerry because they don't like Bush, yet go on in the same story with quotes of the groups saying they agree with Kerry on some issues....



And that's only spending half a minute looking.

I'm a bit confused how this is biased though? The point of the story (the "news"), is that the AMT submitted a "qualified endorsement" of Kerry.

The body of the story then goes on to show that there are multiple different opinions within the Muslim community in the US, explaining why the endorsement is "qualified".

There are quotes supporting Kerry. There are quote supporting Bush. There are quotes explaining why some Muslim groups dont support either.


How exactly is that article not "fair and balanced". Because it doesn't slam Bush? I'm serious here. Bias is when the facts say one thing and the story says another, and that other thing is consistently aimed negatively at a particular political alignment.

Give me a few minutes and I'll show you bias...

Quotes in the article bashing Bush:

The call to vote against "the progressive order of the Bush administration


President Bush's (search) administration has been "extremely insensitive to the civil liberties and human rights of American Muslims, Arabs and South Asians.

Quotes in the article supporting Kerry:

While the Kerry campaign has critiqued several egregious misdeeds of the Bush administration, (yes, this bashes Bush too)

Quotes in the article that are anti-Kerry:

so far the Kerry campaign has failed to affirm its support for due process, equal justice and other constitutional norms



We are disappointed that the Kerry campaign has shied away from expressing unambiguous support for principles enshrined in the U.S. Constitution (search) which prohibit use of ex-post facto laws, secret proceedings and use of secret evidence."


mindful of our many disagreements with Senator Kerry on domestic and international issues, including the war in Iraq


Meanwhile, the Muslim Public Affairs Council (search), a Los Angeles-based policy organization, broke from the AMT this week, saying neither Bush nor Kerry deserved its support.


Quotes in the article pro Bush:

President Bush has over 50 Muslims currently working inside the White House, which is more than any other president. He is also the first sitting president to visit a mosque," Khan said.


Some Muslim leaders say they just want a public sign of Kerry's support for their community, such as visiting a mosque. That sign has not yet come. After Sept. 11, Bush visited a mosque and declared Islam a peaceful religion.
----------------------------------------------------------------

The point being, fox news is spending a lot more space and time explaining why the endorsement is qualified, and very little spae explaining why he was endorsed in the first place.

Endorsements mean they prefer the candidate right? then why are almost all the quotes about what they don't like about him?

Hell. Here's one that I already had on my desktop from an earlier thread:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5897569/

Note, that the topic is Keyes and his attack on Cheney's daughter's sexuality. All of that is fine. I have no problems with that.

What's interesting is this bit that the AP reporter felt compelled to put in:



Relevant portion is bolded. What the hell does Cheney's position on Gay Marriage have to do with this? For a story about how Keyes is in hot water for blasting the Reblican VPs daughter, they still managed to squeeze in the "message" that Cheney and Bush don't agree on some issues. Um. Relevant how? Not at all. Just a way to stick in a bit to imply inconsistency in the Republican party is all...



How about we look at the front story on CNN?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/21/election.main/index.html

Now this one is interesting. From the front page you get a "Bush/Kerry talk about Health care" teaser. Following the "full story" link gets you to this point. There are four paragraphs devoted to Kerry at the top of the story. Then 3 paragraphs about polls showing Kerry ahead in Ohio (Ok. Still mostly relevant). And finally 4 (noticably smaller) paragraphs devoted to Bush.

Note the language used:

"Kerry embraced science and technology" (embraced is a positive term).

Followed by the feel good bit with Reeve's widow and more on stem cell research.

"Kerry accused Bush of stifling stem cell research" (accused implies something wrong by the other guy).

Followed by a pretty zingie quote from Kerry slaming Bush on tech.

In the Bush section:

"Bush stuck to his standard theme when he attacked Kerry's health care proposals"

I particularly love this one. First sentence of the Bush section implies nothing new (negative connotation). The next is wonderful wordcrafting. "attacking" is bad and implies brutishness (negative for Bush). Also they manage to fit in that Kerry has "proposals", while Bush has none (cause he's sticking to his standard theme, right?). Wow. This one sentence oozes with slant.


This is then followed by a couple of pretty weak quotes. Nothing zingie at all to them.

What's great is that there's then another "full story" link that has stuff about Bush's position. Of course, you only get to read that after wading through a story where the bulk of it is pro-Kerry. Interesting, no?


In the All-Politics section on CNN http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/ things are still interesting. Let's look around.

Same story as the frontline. But this time, there's only a picture of Kerry with Reeve's widow. Sympathy plays well I guess.

Note to the right. "Poll: college voters moving toward Kerry"

In campain views below that, note the top two headlines:

"Bush attacks Kerry's health care plan, malpractice suits"
"Kerry promotes science, technology as job engines"

Just for those who didn't read the story, let's again present Bush as a brutish guy with no plan, while Kerry is "promoting science" (with the implication that he'll get us all jobs as well.

They couldn't say that Bush "questions" Kerry's health care plan? Nope. He "attacks" it. Wordsmithing is the key here. Which ones you use have a huge impact on how the reader percieves the people being written about.

So basically, in a section where they're making it look like each candidate is getting the same coverage, they're actually slamming Bush in every one. Funny that...


Let's look at the Education section: http://www.cnn.com/EDUCATION/

Hmmm... Headlines to the left don't mention Bush at all, but do say that "Kids give Kerry win on Nov 2". Nice...

Is that top story maybe about Bush then? Anything positive? Let's see... http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/10/19/campus.teach.ins.ap/index.html

Nope. A story about a "teach in", that's basically an war-protester teaching kids to be war protesters. Great... This one is so slanted it's not even funny. Continuous implied questioning of military service, terminology, and the Bush policy in Iraq. No real news here. Just a politically slanted article in the guise of informing the public.

At least the story about the CDC and flu issues at schools is actually unbiased. I'm actually amazed that they didn't take the opportunity to make a stab at Bush for being at fault for the shortage of flu shots or something.


Hmm... That's just the few I've spotted so far. I could move to another news source and find more. Its not hard to find liberal slanted news out there...

This thread got real dumb, real fast.

Just postin'

You're right. Cause we should never ever question the motives or methodology of those who feed us our news. That would just be silly, right?

You go on ignoring the man behind the curtain if you want.

1 paragraph telling that Kerry was endorsed.

1 paragraph telling why he was endorsed merged with why it was qualified.

2 paragraphs on why it was qualiied

1 paragraph of the dissenting group who wants to be neutral

2 paragraph of background info

8 paragraphs on why the dissenting group that wants Bush wants Bush

why does the minority's reasons get 8 paragraphs while the majority's gets 3?

Why is 2/3 of the majority's space devoted to explaining why it's hedging?

Why is this, which should be a somewhat positive thing for Kerry, presented in such a negative light?
----------------------------------------------------------------
yes, the "activism is worse than global warming for the third world" was an editorial. My bad. Though the Disney's Saudi connection appears to be news.
----------------------------------------------------------------

so you found some diction that you think is anti Bush? well, I'm convinced.

oh, and an article about Cheney's daughter mentions some political ramifications abbout Cheney's daughter

Edited, Thu Oct 21 23:43:37 2004 by Taber

Edited, Thu Oct 21 23:43:56 2004 by Taber

Edited, Thu Oct 21 23:44:58 2004 by Taber

WGARA.

Republicans are getting more sex and with better quality than Dems.

/does a pelvic thrust

Who's yo daddy now, beeotchs? Huh?

Totem