Mass Effect

oh man, you are so clever

editing footage to make it look like people actually go to their rallies. and fox, 'news' is more objective than 'fox and friends'(ie.glenn beck) which is just a circle jerk for the far right

It's not as biased as it used to be, but they're still keeping fucktards like Bill O'Reiley and Sean Hannity around.

>>11700
>>11702
That isnt news. That is some guy voicing his opinion.
Look at Chris Matthews and Olberman. Those guys make O-reilley look like a saint. They are total jerks.
Opinion pieces =/= news.
Glenn Beck? NOT news
O-rly? NOT news

>>11664

Because when it comes to politics (as in most things where people are divided) everyone is a hypocrite - "our news is unbiased! YOU are the propagandists!"

I love the sources Fox quote.

"Well some people think that"

"Well I talked to a couple of people and"

"Well this guy I talked to"

There's an image floating around that shows how FOX parlays biases and shoddy reporting into ratings, I just don't have it.


anyway, here's a taste:
http://www.outfoxed.org/

>>11715
because they're the most watched tv opinion shows on television they should keep them around

Hannity's ratings spiked way way way up once that gerbil looking freak Alan Colmes left the show

Yea, too bad they cant be accurate as CNN!
I also bet CNN is the most popular news station in all 57 states!

>>11734

Typographical errors =/= biased reporting.

Not saying that CNN doesn't suck, its just not the intentional bias of FOX

>>11715
They may be opinion shows, but they do report news that I would never had heard on CNN or another FOX station

>>11734

Well, that's more hilarious than politically damaging.

>>11747
still have not shown any proof of a bias

if Fox is bais, then so are CNN, and ABC etc. Fox has actually been reporting on things, while CNN hasn't

I turn it to CNN and they are either fully promoting "health care" or reporting on Lindsey Lohan.
I turn to Fox and they are reporting on stocks, senate happens, and other REAL stuff.

>>11734
>18 times speed of light

Oh how I wish we had that type of technology.

>>11734

CNN sucks too, since they're slightly biased toward the other end of the sphere, and they own Newsweek.

However, CNN Int'l is slightly more neutral than Fox, but not by much, since they have Zakaria and Amanpour.

>>11771

Forgot to add that citing Zakaria and Amanpour was proof of CNN sucking.

during the teapartyist rally on september 12th of last year, several fox news pundits did two things:

1. they claimed that over 500,000 people showed up to the protests. the actual counts were less than 50,000.
2. they claimed that no other news network was covering the protests. cnn and msnbc did extensive coverage of these protests.

i won't provide links but i know a simple google search will corroborate the two above facts.

POST SUCCESSFUL!


>>11765

Please. FOX makes it a POINT to take the most controversial/outrageous parts of a story (EVEN STORIES THAT THEY CREATE) and make them the forefront.

its not like one video is going to change your mind, but here's some evidence for you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqcyz3UDvGw

Fox's opinion shows greatly overshadow its actual news coverage.

When the average joe comes home from work and turns on Fox News and sees Glenn Beck, he might as well be the news because Fox's actual news coverage (without the opinions...lol yah right) are aired at times with the least potential for people to be watching.

Honestly I think all news media sucks. They're all bias in some way but I look past that and just merely watch of headlines and information. I usually switch between all those stations.

>>11777
>only 50,000 people showed up

Does this look like 50,000 people to you?

>>11777
CNN coverage was basically trolling and insulting the "tea baggers" and calling them racists.
yea, not biased at all. Just look at the linked video.

I'm waiting for that wall of rage image I see in /v/ all the time with several dozen screen shots of terrible Fox News headlines.

Sure, OP is trolling, but it's a funny image.

Get your news from the associated press.

cable news shows exist for one purpose: ratings and thus ad revenue.

THey'll do anything as long as you watch.

Is Fox News Biased against Mustaches?

We report, you decide

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNO6G4ApJQY

EXPLODING VAN!

I insult it because I don't agree with their views

>>11795
actually, yes it does.
>>11797
i'm not commenting on the biasedness of cnn, or any other news station. in fact, i think all of them are biased in their own ways. fox news, in my opinion, happens to be the most blatant, but msnbc/cnn is no better. just watch countdown with keith olbermann. there's no news, there's just bashing of rush limbaugh/orly tates/glenn beck/republicans.

Baghdad Bob returns to report on the 9-12 tea party rallies that apparently didn't happen and a simple google search will verify that fact

>>11797

Wait, since when was this about CNN? You wanted us to show you how FOX was Biased and he're we're doing it.

>>11795
Yes, yes it does.

Y'all niggas postin a troll thread.

>>11819
Oh really?

I don't think so Tim

>>11664

WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA

WHY DO YOU WANT THE TERRORISTS TO WIN

WHY DO YOU WANT PEDOPHILES TO ROAM THE STREETS

WHY DID YOU KNOCK DOWN THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWERS

>>11827
that's an image of the inauguration. i'm talking about the 9/12 teaparty protests.

>>11824

When is a post on /n/ not a troll thread?

>>11827

So you posted a photo from Obama's Inaugration?

>>11837
That's an estimation from the inauguration of how many people are at the Washington Mall depending upon how full the area is you fucking dipshit. Use your fucking brain, look at >>11820 and judge how many people are there based on >>11827

Why do I have to spell out everything to morons like you every time? Are you really so retarded you can't follow simple points like this?

>>11842
another moron detected

Try to follow along people this isn't that complicated

>>11856
the image given of the teaparty protests is of pennsylvania avenue. if you had attended high school, you would have learned that the capital mall, is, in fact, wider than that street. your point?

>>11856
So when that area was filled during the inauguration it was estimated at over 1 million people.
But when it was filled or the 9/12 protests, it was a mere 50,000?

http://www.youtube.com/user/LiberalViewer

This is a whole channel dedicated to tracking and exposing Fox News Bias. Piece by piece, bit by bit. Every single thing. Over 100 videos of clear conservative bias and fact twisting.

>>11856

>Why do I have to spell out everything to morons like you every time? Are you really so retarded you can't follow simple points like this?

Calm down, sparky. Name calling on the internet is a sign of weakness.

The fact of the matter is that you showed us a photo of the washington mall that has absolutely no title or date or any way to confirm what it actually is, then expect us to 'assume' its a tea party rally.

Post sources (you know how to do that, right?) and maybe you'll be taken more seriously. Get your tongue off the keyboard and type a reasoned sentence for once.

LIKE THIS:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/12/taxpayer-march-on-washing_n_284477.html

"Tens of thousands of people marched to the U.S. Capitol on Saturday"

>tens of thousands
>tens

>>11856

Because we're too busy assuming you're a total moron who could confuse statistics from one event with its diametric opposite?

report from the wall street journal regarding the tea party protests:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125276685577405975.html

says official numbers were "in excess of 75,000." that does not translate to half a million.

inb4 500,000 is in excess of 75,000

Gota love the MSM.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTWY14eyMFg

>>11881

Too liberal for you?

okay, here's "a name you can trust"

"The tens of thousands of protesters marched to the U.S. Capitol chanting various slogans and waving posters that voiced a rather broad array of grievances against big government and the leaders, particularly President Obama, who the protesters blame for its size and scope."

>Tens of thousands

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/12/tea-party-express-takes-washington-storm/

are we done yet? Are you still going to push your point with photos and anecdotes? Or are you going to call us morons again and leave it at that?

>>11902

continuing from that

tl;dr report from DC fire/police department says "in excess of 75,000"

Anytime a Republican messes up, FOX's 'reporting' has them branded as a Democrat. Mark Foley, McCain...

Because their blessed party can do no wrong, ever ever.

>>11929
i'm a fox-news-hating liberal here, and i have to say, that's some weak evidence. typos don't count. now if they had extensively reported him as a democrat, that would be bias. but come on here, that's just looking for mistakes.

>>11868
this picture >>11820 is the mall

>>11870
They're filling half the area so yeah I'd say 500k is a good rough estimate

>>11881
That picture was taken on the day of the 9-12 protests whether you want to believe it or not

Also Huffpo has a reason to understate the numbers, considering they are the primary left wing news site on the internet now, you know, they don't like tea baggers very much now do they?

And they flat out lied about the numbers that day, as they always do about pretty much everything

>>11885
only morons here are you guys who can't put two and two together without it being spelled out for you and are quoting huffington post to back up assertions that simply aren't true about issues that huffpo is going to be biased about.

>>11929

To be fair, on a keyboard the 'd' key and the 'r' key are pretty close together.

>>11948
>only morons here are you guys who can't put two and two together without it being spelled out for you and are quoting huffington post to back up assertions that simply aren't true about issues that huffpo is going to be biased about.
YOU MORON. WE QUOTED FOX.
>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/12/tea-party-express-takes-washington-storm
>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/12/tea-party-express-takes-washington-storm
>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/12/tea-party-express-takes-washington-storm

>>11948

So fox news must have been biased as well:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/12/tea-party-express-takes-washington-storm/

So seriously, can you find A SINGLE source that puts the numbers at 500,000, or even NEAR that?

please? I'd like to think you're capable of rational argument and you don't just believe things because the voices in your head tell you to.

>>11948
the numbers quoted were estimates made by the DC fire/police department, which i assume is a neutral party here.

The Fox News website is different to FNC, dipshit

>>11979
You know what happens when you assume right?

DC police and fire departments are run by unions, and part of one of the most liberal city governments in the nation, they're more biased than Huffpo, if that's possible

>>11988

So post a legitimate source that YOU consider to be unbiased, or prepare to be ignored.

On another note all teabaggers should be shot on site for being retarded

ITT: Butthurt libtards and /b/kiddies who think hating fox news is funny just because.


butthurt nigger kids too.

http://www.relfe.com/media_can_legally_lie.html

>>11988
So the whole world except for Republicans is out to get you, know? Post a source quoting 500,000 or GTFO.

>>12001

cry more, I can't hear you.

i call it FUCKS NEWS

>>12001

no.

OP, fox news is biased because it's a mouthpiece for the Republican party and by extension the various right-wing organizations in America.

>call other media outlets biased
>what you watch is objective truth

>>12055
i do not disagree with you. i don't think it's possible to have unbiased news, or unbiased anything. everyone is biased.

>>12076

Ideally the only 'unbiased' reports would be simple video evidence of what occurs and what was said. This should technically be possible in today's world, but for some reason the 'news' organizations deemed it necessary to impose their own commentary on the news and tell you what to think rather than simply reporting the occurence.

>>12055

You're assuming we 'watch' anything at all.

>>12112
Because who the fuck is going to sit through hours and hours of coverage on a single story? C-Span can't cover everything. Things need to be reduced, summarized, and presented to the public in a digestible manner.

>>12127

On the internet, you can simply choose which content you wish to view and then peruse it at your leisure, skipping around as you wish.

I guess my point being that cable news organizations are outdated media that are struggling for survival at the sacrifice of quality.

Fox was established by it's creator because he wanted to have a "Right-leaning news network". Whether or not that's BAD is up to your opinion, but it IS biased.

ok here's a good example. unfortunately there's no way I can actually prove what I'm about to say, so you'll just have to take my word for what it is, whatever that may be.

during the palin/biden debate, of course both sides were all riled up. I watched the debate and formed my opinions, then I went online to see what others thought.

after visiting a few news sites and forums, I tried my luck at the fox news website. they had a poll up asking "who do you think 'won' the debate?" palin or biden. I chose biden.

-ERROR! could not perform that action.
okay... -back button-
"who do you think won?"
...-biden-...
-ERROR!
back button, biden, error, back button, biden, error, back button, biden, error, etc etc into infinity.

i thought, "damn, it must be broken or something, and palin's kicking ass right now..."

back button, palin....
..."Thank you for voting in our poll!"

the poll ended up with palin winning in the millions with biden in the hundred thousands.

>>12127

Who choose what is cut and what gets through, though? Shouldn't the public have the ability to get the WHOLE story if they want it?

Recently Geraldo Rivera is seeming more like a reasonable guy. I don't know what to think about this.

Wow, /new/s has a long way to go- you're going to be seeing this thread a lot.

Bin Laden's Talking Points From Far Left?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,182273,00.html

Fox Passes off GOP Press Release as its Own Research- Typo and All
http://mediamatters.org/research/200902100019

>>12162

Really?

Because i've had a problem with Fox news when I try to register on their site they never send me my confirmation email.

I've tried a few times now, but it really isn't that important to me. EIther their servers suck or they have some way of screening out undesireables.

>>12165

That's why we have multiple news stations. MSNBC, Fox, BBC for the middle and if you REALLY want to be anal about it, just read from AP.

>>12149
Not everyone's as computer/internet-savvy as we are. Cable news will survive for a long, long, long time simply because it is so convenient.

If you watch, this kind of shit happens every single minute on Fox News. Literally every minute they make a distortion of the facts, and, whether it's good news or bad news, it's always bad news for Democrats and Obama.
Here they are, attacking the president before he even took office.

>>12203
yup, and this was over the course of a half hour to full hour. so it's not like i just caught them on a little server hiccup for a few minutes.

ITT: liberals get told but will never admit they've been told

>>12206

I do read the AP, its about as unbiased as you can find.

I under stand the 'tech savvy' argument, but in many ways computers make things MORE convenient. I'm of the opinion that as the older generation dies off cable news will see its audience die off with it until their reduced to a periphery of pop media. That is, they'll still exist but only as a shadow of what they were formerly.

In the future we'll get personalized newstreams downloaded straight to our brains WITHOUT some douchetard commenting on it and skewing the information... unless thats what you want.

non american here with biased news, trust me, fox is brainwashing you like theres no tomorrow

I can't post these fast enough

>>12245
Oh god I can't help but laugh at this one.

>>12232
It's more convenient to sit down and absorb something rather than to have to go and read the source. Remember, stuff from the internet is biased too. It has to be written up somehow, and all that news anchors do is read directly off the script.

Also, lolbigbrother.

what I find hysterical is that yes, Fox News is terribly biased, but it's out in the open

every other news agency is just as biased, but they vehemently deny the accusations

the main problem with fox's reputation on the interwebs is the idiots confuse the commentary shows which make no beans about being Conservative with the actual news shows who simply report the news, quite well acctually.

This is one of my favorites. I think it was on O'Reilly. Maybe Fox and Friends
Steinberg wrote something that disagrees with the established position at Fox News. Look what they did to his nose, face, teeth, and chin. You had to go WAY out of your way to photoshop that. Completely deliberate.

All 24 hour news networks are propaganda-filled shit.

I thought this was common knowledge.

>>12302

Then why is Fox's motto "fair and balanced?"

>>12319
Haha oh wow. really?

>>12314
This.
Although Fox sometimes reports on retarded things (reporting on the empty site of where, three days ago, some guys protested instead of reporting on the huge gay rights march going on right then), their news is fine. Their talk-show hosts are usually batshit crazy though, including Glenn Beck.

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201001250025

>>12314
>equivocating
Yeah, except there are no actual news shows on Fox. They are all opinion and commentary.

I'll say it again: There are no "straight news" shows on fox.

Look, here's my thing: all major news channels have bias, absolutely, it's a huge problem in American media, which is why my newscast of choice is BBC World News.

However, of all of the offenders, Fox News is clearly the worst as they are the only one which actively campaigns for a party. There are videos of their producers hyping crowds at pro-GOP and Tea Party protests, there is video evidence of them promoting the idea of the Tea Party, and the current leader of the Tea Party admitted the Fox News not only hypes the movement but is responsible for its mere creation. Yes, he said that. On fucking Meet the Press.

Troll or not, you have to realize that Fox News is a very dangerous thing in American politics as it gives the GOP an over-powerful arm with which to control the minds of the American people. Their high ratings mean they can hijack peoples' votes, which is bullshit, a television channel shouldn't have the fucking power to control the will of the American people. But it does, and it's a fucking dangerous problem.

As a journalist, Fox News shocks and offends me as it should the rest of you. The goal of journalism should simply be to deliver the news, without spin or bias, to the people who demand it, who need it.

If you don't believe me, look at who Fox News employs. On their payroll at present: Romney, Palin, Gingrich, Huckabee. These four are considered party leaders of the GOP and are likely to either be 2012 candidates themselves or to play a major part in selecting 2012 candidates. And they all work for this network and are free to promote their view, their candidacy, or their chosen candidate on air on a major channel which is supposed to be news.

Half of these FOKKKS LIES pictures aren't damning in the least.

Having titlework that poses provocative or inflammatory rhetorical questions dates back hundreds of years in print media, and is practiced by every other news channel.

And every time I hear about how bad people like O'Reilly are, I see his leftwing clone sprout up. Take The Ed Show on MSNBC for example, if that's not "can't beat em - join em" I don't know what is.

So declarations of "FOX IS TERRIBUL" would have a lot more weight if all the other news networks weren't trying to copy their format and programming as closely as possible.

>>12324
like "hope and change" amirite?

>And let's be on the lookout for any statements from Iraqui insurgents, who must be thrilled at the prospect of a Dem-controlled congress.

This memo went out to all the producers, who set the stories for the "straight news" programs

>>12379
>People always say that Fox news is biased, or faked. Yet I have never seen anything to back it up. What re some examples of "fake news"?

>I have not seen anything like that from Fox.

You're in the wrong thread