A news station that wishes to be taken seriously should have no place for opinionated rubbish (be it left biased, right biased or even centre). Leave the opinions for the talk shows on the entertainment channels. The fact that a news station is presenting mere opinions while a graphic in the corner reads "News", "Fair And Balanced", "The No Spin Zone" or "We Report You Decide" is grossly misleading.usmarine wrote:
you guys really reach don't you? its called product placement.Braddock wrote:
It's a good point usmarine in terms of semiotics. Some inbred hick watching that with his beer in one hand and his pig's foot in the other is going to see the show, see "FOX News" in the corner of the screen and think this is the news. To be honest it all looks and feels the same, the sets don't even look that different. The BBC equivalent 'Hardtalk' at least has a different set, hardly any graphics on the screen and distinctive beginning and end title sequences to bookmark the segment and make it distinguishable from regular news programming.usmarine wrote:
wow.....just wow.
so is re-writing stories and stamping the bbc name on it.
I know the BBC have been guilty of bias in the past but please give me links to specific examples if possible so I can debate properly on them. FOX shape stories to fit their agenda too usmarine, what's your point? The BBC is still nowhere near as bad as FOX for allowing personal opinions to be stamped on regular news items...I defy you to find examples that would prove otherwise.usmarine wrote:
so is re-writing stories and stamping the bbc name on it.
I disagree. I find them one in the same.Braddock wrote:
I know the BBC have been guilty of bias in the past but please give me links to specific examples if possible so I can debate properly on them. FOX shape stories to fit their agenda too usmarine, what's your point? The BBC is still nowhere near as bad as FOX for allowing personal opinions to be stamped on regular news items...I defy you to find examples that would prove otherwise.usmarine wrote:
so is re-writing stories and stamping the bbc name on it.
MSNBC does it with Keith O, yet I do not hear people bitch about that. CNN does it with larry king, and I hear no bitching. You guys just hate bill O, and it makes you guys one sided and far beyond objective.
seems pretty opinionated to me.....also seems to be VERY important news...lulz
and oh look, a little bbc stamp on the screen while opinions are given.................oh noes!!!!!!
and oh look, a little bbc stamp on the screen while opinions are given.................oh noes!!!!!!
I was up till 3am this morning because I've got a bad cold, so I had the TV playing away in the background. On BBC News 24, a talk show appeared called HARDTALK, can't take the BBC seriously anymore then.Braddock wrote:
A news station that wishes to be taken seriously should have no place for opinionated rubbish (be it left biased, right biased or even centre). Leave the opinions for the talk shows on the entertainment channels. The fact that a news station is presenting mere opinions while a graphic in the corner reads "News", "Fair And Balanced", "The No Spin Zone" or "We Report You Decide" is grossly misleading.usmarine wrote:
you guys really reach don't you? its called product placement.Braddock wrote:
It's a good point usmarine in terms of semiotics. Some inbred hick watching that with his beer in one hand and his pig's foot in the other is going to see the show, see "FOX News" in the corner of the screen and think this is the news. To be honest it all looks and feels the same, the sets don't even look that different. The BBC equivalent 'Hardtalk' at least has a different set, hardly any graphics on the screen and distinctive beginning and end title sequences to bookmark the segment and make it distinguishable from regular news programming.
Sounds kind of hot.M.O.A.B wrote:
On BBC News 24, a talk show appeared called HARDTALK, can't take the BBC seriously anymore then.
Uh, actually, if you're in the USA you should speak English or gtfo. I hate people who come into my country and try to speak to me in a different language. If you're going to live there, learn-the-fucking-language.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
What if they have to communicate with a non-English speaking citizen, and everyone speaks English?SenorToenails wrote:
Virginia has been speaking english for 400 years. This country has 230+ years of english tradition. While it may not be an nationally ordained language, it is the language of the law and the majority of the country.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Left out. As I said in the other thread, there is no reason English is to be preferred over Spanish, as long as the whole crew is speaking the same language. Limiting it to English is a right view, though granted an obvious and popularly held one.
These firefighters should speak english. What if they need to communicate with another citizen while on duty? How can they do that effectively?
Besides, chances are if they all spoke Spanish, the majority of the citizens would speak Spanish.
Again though, we're getting into the territory of opinion, which is exactly what the question is asking. Neither side is exactly right or wrong, they both have their merits, and as such don't deserve to be on a news service.
English is so easy to learn - to get a grasp on at least. If it was Chinese or Thai, I'd understand, but for fuck's sake...
-konfusion
Well they're talking about a program that was to be aired and the guy in the studio made reference to things said about the religion in British courts, a bit vague but not as bad as "some sources say" as FOX often like to say.usmarine wrote:
seems pretty opinionated to me.....also seems to be VERY important news...lulz
and oh look, a little bbc stamp on the screen while opinions are given.................oh noes!!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WA5VsSF6FZA
The issue here is whether or not this guy in the studio's opinion is relevent to the news item or not. He is the Editor of the program in question so it could be argued that he is. The one bit of unnecessary opinion is the news presenter's view that the footage was "quite astonishing", the interviewee also admits that the guy in the clips acted badly in the program. I'll admit that the story itself is a bit of a non-story and is clearly a bit of self-promotion (the programme in question 'Panorama' is a BBC programme).
Was that the best clip you could find? Nothing on Iraq or anything like that?
I actually like HardTalk but I'd be happier if it was on regular BBC TV and not the news station because it is based on the way one person (usually Stephen Sackur) chooses to grill the interviewee. I actually think Sackur is good as an interviewer, I've seen him nearly reduce to tears every variety of interviewee from hard-line Neo-Cons to tree-hugging, hippy liberals.M.O.A.B wrote:
I was up till 3am this morning because I've got a bad cold, so I had the TV playing away in the background. On BBC News 24, a talk show appeared called HARDTALK, can't take the BBC seriously anymore then.
Not unless Stephen Sackur floats your boat...usmarine wrote:
Sounds kind of hot.M.O.A.B wrote:
On BBC News 24, a talk show appeared called HARDTALK, can't take the BBC seriously anymore then.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mj … EzMmRhZjA=Braddock wrote:
Was that the best clip you could find? Nothing on Iraq or anything like that?
I couldn't find the video clip of actual bias in that link, just some observations from some pro-war guy. Did you paste the right link?usmarine wrote:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mj … EzMmRhZjA=Braddock wrote:
Was that the best clip you could find? Nothing on Iraq or anything like that?
SenorToenails wrote:
What's the name of the channel again?Pierre wrote:
If Bill O'Reilly isn't the news, then why does it mention in the left corner 'Fox news'?
Oh right. Fox News.
I forgot this is a video game forum... so I'll try to explain this in a way you'll be able to get the point.usmarine wrote:
wow.....just wow.Pierre wrote:
If Bill O'Reilly isn't the news, then why does it mention in the left corner 'Fox news'?
As all networks, FNC is biased to a certain extent because it's people who decide what's on the news, and it depends on the political and social opinion of the editors what's actually broadcasted. It's the same in the US as in Europe, where you can easily make a distinction between the national broadcast company and the commercial networks. Try Italy for good example.
FNC is considered to be the voice of the conservatives, so it brings what conservatives, republicans, rednecks or whatever, want to hear the way they want to hear it. Defence, WOT, security, law & order, the post 9/11 war rhetoric says it all. We all know that 'facts' are not important on FNC, only their message is, so they try to present their conservative message to their viewers as facts, in a tendentious way.
One of the easiest ways to deliver your message to the viewers is to disguise it as 'news', so people can not easily make the distinction between what's really news (facts) and what is a biased comment. One of the ways to achieve this is showing onscreen the word 'news' 24/24, even when Bill O is showing.
You call it productplacement, merely mentionning the name of the channel, but fact is they could easily call it 'FNC' just as BBC or CNN. But they don't, this is not only clever marketing (you think you're watching news), they can present their blatant rightwing propaganda as 'news'. With 'Foxnews' everything is the news.
Last edited by Pierre (2008-04-11 03:30:14)
You asked a simple question. I gave you a simple answer. The O'Reilly Factor, Hannity and Colmes, On the Record, etc... are clearly opinion shows. The network is named "Fox News", so their logo is in the corner. What is even funnier is that there is also an "O'Reilly Factor' logo that appears frequently to warn those not smart enough to figure it out within 30 seconds. This is all very easy to understand.Pierre wrote:
stuff
Should I start bitching that CNN is just as bad? Larry King's show has the CNN logo in the corner also.
Last edited by SenorToenails (2008-04-11 03:50:59)
Yes, they are clearly opinion shows. However, they tout complete fabrications as facts. O'Reilly especially is continually caught in lies...so blatantly he's launched careers of a comedian and a sports announcer who have fun setting the record straight. He does this, and tells people "This is the no spin zone, I'm presenting this to you as facts with no bias, blah blah blah." He's allowed to do this repeatedly. And Fox News keeps him on the air, because he pushes the talking points, ass kisses the far right guests, and shouts down the center and left. THIS is the point.SenorToenails wrote:
You asked a simple question. I gave you a simple answer. The O'Reilly Factor, Hannity and Colmes, On the Record, etc... are clearly opinion shows. The network is named "Fox News", so their logo is in the corner. What is even funnier is that there is also an "O'Reilly Factor' logo that appears frequently to warn those not smart enough to figure it out within 30 seconds. This is all very easy to understand.Pierre wrote:
stuff
Should I start bitching that CNN is just as bad? Larry King's show has the CNN logo in the corner also.
A man comes on the air, blatantly tells lies that can be proven as lies, and touts himself as the "no bias, no spin, super stand-up honest guy", and Fox News keeps him on the air.
Now, where news stories get in trouble, let me count the ways:
The "Cavuto" Question - Scrolling at the bottom of the screen, a political smear disguised as a rhetorical question.
"Some People Say" - Fox has transformed this from "not divulging sources" to easily injecting off-the-wall political opinion in regular news interviews and commentary. "Some people say" can now be translated to "Today's right-wing talking points are..."
Party Tag Reversals - They get busted on this all the time. Sometimes a Republican fuck-up is just too good not to put on the air. The solution? Switch their parties in the tag line to a nice fat "D".
Talking Points - Yes, this is a very real thing and not some conspiracy theory. All local and national affiliates are actually given short bulletins each morning containing the "talking points", which their live broadcasters must work into their shows in some way. You ever notices that catch-phrases like "appeasement" seem to be nowhere and then everywhere at the same time? Rush and select RW radio hosts get the same memos.
Heres some more -
Yes, unfortunately these are things a lot of networks are doing...but leaning Right Wing in an attempt to out-Fox Fox News. What's been done is that Fox News holds itself up as a bastion of conservatism, and anything to the left is considered FAR LEFT LIBERAL ZOMG!Method #1: Non-reporting. A news story about rising gas prices blames regional environmental clean air standards. According to Fox News, "some officials say environmental regulations are driving up prices by forcing fuel refiners to develop different blends." This is only partially true. The reporter does not mention other factors including the lack of refining capacity in the United States; OPEC holding back production; the simple economics of high-demand in the U.S.; poor fuel efficiency of U.S. vehicles; and the fact that even with price increases, the U.S. STILL has the lowest cost per gallon of gas in the world. The Fox News spin is that the only reason gas prices rise is because of those liberal environmental laws. (June 3, 2004)
Method #2: Conceptual Name Calling. A news story about global warming is titled "Junk Science." The first line of the newscast says: "The global warming treaty known as the Kyoto protocol is politically dead in the U.S. But the treaty's left-leaning environmental extremist supporters haven't given up their fantasy of creating a socialist global economy through controls on energy use." This report includes no scientific evidence of global warming and ends with the comment that "the junk science-fueled Kyoto protocol would be an economic suicide capsule." (June 4, 2004)
Method #3: Political Name Calling. The Fox News Channel makes a sharp distinction between Democrat and Republican and liberal and conservative. Network news always identifies political party affiliations. For example, a report on Congressional hearings involving Bush administration Attorney General John Ashcroft said Democrats "accuse John Ashcroft" and "Democrats kept focus on a series of memos" which lead to a "frustrated Attorney General" who did his best to stay on topic. The newscast portrayed the Democrats attacking Ashcroft who was only trying to protect the U.S. from terrorism. (June 9, 2004)
Method #4: Warped Reporter Analysis. In a report about Democratic Presidential nominee John Kerry, reporter Carl Cameron's voice-over identified the public's "lagging perception in the polls that he can protect the country from bioterrorism" and the "Massachusetts Democrat as usual slammed the President for not doing enough to protect the homeland." Cameron then goes on to explain how George Bush increased the defense budget. The report then shows a poll map of states the candidates will focus on, with it clearly showing that Bush already won the election (see image to the right). Cameron ends the report with Vice President Dick Cheney attacking Kerry. Cameron says "Cheney slams Kerry" and "Cheney focused on Kerry's various positions on the Patriot Act." The report then shows a video of Cheney saying that Kerry takes "both sides" of important issues. (June 3, 2004)
Method #5: Skewed Statistics. Fox News' anchor Brit Hume said in a report that "Two hundred seventy-seven U.S. soldiers have now died in Iraq, which means that statistically speaking U.S. soldiers have less of a chance of dying from all causes in Iraq than citizens have of being murdered in California, which is roughly the same geographical size. The most recent statistics indicate California has more than 2300 homicides each year, which means about 6.6 murders each day. Meanwhile, U.S. troops have been in Iraq for 160 days, which means they're incurring about 1.7 deaths, including illness and accidents each day." Not only is this report silly and illogical, but does not take into account the populations of California versus U.S. soldiers in Iraq. On a per capita basis, these statistics make no sense. (August 27, 2003)
Method #6: Unflattering Images. When choosing pictures and video, Fox News chooses ones to serve its needs. For example, to the right are images the network used to identify political differences between John Kerry and George Bush. Clearly, the network choose a pretty bad picture of Kerry. Video clips also show lowlights of Democrats and highlights of Republicans.
The reality is that the far left hasn't been seen on main stream media in decades. Olbermann, that "friend of the far left", is actually quite moderate-right in his views, leaning libertarian. He would be the first to slam a Democrat just as much for the same abuses of power. Michael Moore, who actually is moderately left-leaning, was NEVER a friend of the Clintons which FoxNews touts as satanicly "far left".
I watched on a finance show on FoxNews where a female reporter kept throwing in "Hillary Clinton is FAR LEFT" every 3rd sentence out of her mouth, leading the other commentators with puzzled looks, but nobody corrected her. Hillary, like Bill, is center right on any objective political scale.
I will agree that O'Reilly is full of shit. I don't watch him very often, and ever since I saw his show surrounding Eliot Spitzer, I haven't watched it at all. His whole deal is deciding on some bullshit uninformed opinion, and then overtalking and silenceing his 'guests'...unless they agree with him.GorillaTicTacs wrote:
Long Post
But the fact remains, those are opinion shows. The news reporting shows themselves aren't nearly so bad. I try to watch the Fox Report with Shepard Smith, but I also read AP and Reuters throughout the day. I don't mind the conservative viewpoint, but that's not the only one I get.
I'd be a lot happier if all the news networks avoided the opinion based talk show stuff altogether, it's just simply not news and doesn't belong on a news channel. I guess it's one of the great prices we have to pay for 24 hour news broadcasting.SenorToenails wrote:
I will agree that O'Reilly is full of shit. I don't watch him very often, and ever since I saw his show surrounding Eliot Spitzer, I haven't watched it at all. His whole deal is deciding on some bullshit uninformed opinion, and then overtalking and silenceing his 'guests'...unless they agree with him.GorillaTicTacs wrote:
Long Post
But the fact remains, those are opinion shows. The news reporting shows themselves aren't nearly so bad. I try to watch the Fox Report with Shepard Smith, but I also read AP and Reuters throughout the day. I don't mind the conservative viewpoint, but that's not the only one I get.
So you need a video? And it is the national review, I world hardly call it just some guy.Braddock wrote:
I couldn't find the video clip of actual bias in that link, just some observations from some pro-war guy. Did you paste the right link?usmarine wrote:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mj … EzMmRhZjA=Braddock wrote:
Was that the best clip you could find? Nothing on Iraq or anything like that?
I give up with these leftist cry babies. Nobody from the right or left ever says shit about Keith Oberman on MSNBC, yet he and they do the same thing. Bunch of fucking muppets.SenorToenails wrote:
You asked a simple question. I gave you a simple answer. The O'Reilly Factor, Hannity and Colmes, On the Record, etc... are clearly opinion shows. The network is named "Fox News", so their logo is in the corner. What is even funnier is that there is also an "O'Reilly Factor' logo that appears frequently to warn those not smart enough to figure it out within 30 seconds. This is all very easy to understand.Pierre wrote:
stuff
Should I start bitching that CNN is just as bad? Larry King's show has the CNN logo in the corner also.
I just thought there would be more actual examples of BBC bias in action seen as they're so guilty of it. Right-wingers do know how to use sites like YouTube don't they?usmarine wrote:
So you need a video? And it is the national review, I world hardly call it just some guy.Braddock wrote:
I couldn't find the video clip of actual bias in that link, just some observations from some pro-war guy. Did you paste the right link?
Why dont you just say "you are stupid?" That is what you are saying, you know it, and I know it. So my response to you calling me stupid is for you to go fist yourself.Pierre wrote:
I forgot this is a video game forum... so I'll try to explain this in a way you'll be able to get the point.
Now, I answered with my opinion, and you answered with your yours. And I lump you in with the rest of them, you have such a strong hatred of O'rly and such a strong opinion of the right, that you cannot be objective at all.
Last edited by usmarine (2008-04-11 07:28:09)
I've already made clear my views on opinion based shows...they belong on the entertainment channels not the news channels.usmarine wrote:
I give up with these leftist cry babies. Nobody from the right or left ever says shit about Keith Oberman on MSNBC, yet he and they do the same thing. Bunch of fucking muppets.SenorToenails wrote:
You asked a simple question. I gave you a simple answer. The O'Reilly Factor, Hannity and Colmes, On the Record, etc... are clearly opinion shows. The network is named "Fox News", so their logo is in the corner. What is even funnier is that there is also an "O'Reilly Factor' logo that appears frequently to warn those not smart enough to figure it out within 30 seconds. This is all very easy to understand.Pierre wrote:
stuff
Should I start bitching that CNN is just as bad? Larry King's show has the CNN logo in the corner also.
Yes but why no posts about them? Why no websites about them considering how many there are dedicated to Fox? Its a terrible bias from the left and liberals. And it is beyond hypocritical.Braddock wrote:
I've already made clear my views on opinion based shows...they belong on the entertainment channels not the news channels.
Last edited by usmarine (2008-04-11 07:30:10)
How about the right wingers figure out how to use a computer and create some websites or post some clips themselves?usmarine wrote:
Yes but why no posts about them? Why no websites about them considering how many there are dedicated to Fox? Its a terrible bias from the left and liberals. And it is beyond hypocritical.Braddock wrote:
I've already made clear my views on opinion based shows...they belong on the entertainment channels not the news channels.
The internet is democratic usmarine...I've never created a site or posted a clip bashing FOX and likewise I've never created a site or posted a clip bashing a left wing news group but I can't control what people do or do not put up on the internet, you're talking as if some liberal biased overlord is controlling the internet.