The point that none of the major news networks covered it, just a small number of right wing websites and city dailies in the US?lowing wrote:
When I did it, ALL of the ones I "drilled" was on page 1 so I stopped looking. You know what the point is here Cam,
I actually enjoy watching Fox news sometimes, just like I enjoy looking at the msnbc news. Why? Actually, i can get a feel where the middle is or where the probable truth exists. Again, I don't depend too much on our media to give me the most accurate info. Look at the mess the media has become. All the fake stories, fake journalists with their own agenda, fake pictures, doctored videos...etc.
If people seriously look at our media as the sole source for what is going on in this world...then we are in serious trouble. I find many news stories almost comical because of how far they go. I live in Michigan and our local news channels have gone from a half hour at 6:00 pm to starting now at 5:00 pm. So now we get the same damn news for an hour and half before the national news takes over. 2 fucked up hours of the same BS and if you want to see bad news...watch local news in America and see how desperate they are to fill an hour and half. It is hilarious.
It has gotten to the point that when it rains outside...we get an interruption in whatever show is on to tell us that their is a "storm watch".....REALLY....I couldn't tell by rain clouds outside my window. Local weather news is probably worse than anything. They act like all of us just got off the boat from Hawaii and never experienced snow fall, cold weather, thunderstorms and small tornadoes. Warn me when something serious is happening...not when the sky is dark and you interrupt my American Idol to tell me it looks "scarey" outside....lol. Seriously, that is basically how annoying and laughable our media gets....okay, enough of my tangent rant.
If people seriously look at our media as the sole source for what is going on in this world...then we are in serious trouble. I find many news stories almost comical because of how far they go. I live in Michigan and our local news channels have gone from a half hour at 6:00 pm to starting now at 5:00 pm. So now we get the same damn news for an hour and half before the national news takes over. 2 fucked up hours of the same BS and if you want to see bad news...watch local news in America and see how desperate they are to fill an hour and half. It is hilarious.
It has gotten to the point that when it rains outside...we get an interruption in whatever show is on to tell us that their is a "storm watch".....REALLY....I couldn't tell by rain clouds outside my window. Local weather news is probably worse than anything. They act like all of us just got off the boat from Hawaii and never experienced snow fall, cold weather, thunderstorms and small tornadoes. Warn me when something serious is happening...not when the sky is dark and you interrupt my American Idol to tell me it looks "scarey" outside....lol. Seriously, that is basically how annoying and laughable our media gets....okay, enough of my tangent rant.
mmkk.CameronPoe wrote:
a) I am talking about Fox News. I am not talking about bias in other networks (even in european ones omgzzz!!).Ender2309 wrote:
you're ignorant cam. you have no idea at all how print media (yes, this does include the internet) is run do you? see, its like this.
at the bottom is the reporters, who report on things that are newsy.
next is text editors, who get rid of spelling errors.
next is page editors, who decide what goes where on a given page (front, world news, etc).
next would be the editor in chief, the boss editor. he decides whether something should be bumped from page A to page B, whether something should be paged at all, and what stories to run from the wire (IE the AP) and the pool of work done by the lowly reporters.
now, lets apply this to our little obama story here. some person from the AP sees this sign and says, hey! i can fill my quota writing about this crap!
so he does, and it gets sent off to wherever. of course, since all media (including europe's, shut up now) focuses on day to day goings on during a political campaign rather than issue content, this is tagged as a must have. now the editor in chief decides where to put this. since this is CAMPAIGN NEWS it goes instantly to the front page, no ifs ands or buts, unless its covering something trivial that nobody will care about (unlike this; think ignorant masses) like hilldog's cat getting neutered.
now, what we see is in fact not a bias of the media, but a successful application of a business model. sure, maybe the page editor put it in the wrong place, in your opinion of course, but all we see is at best a bias of the page editor.
now, kindly shut up and stop spewing worthless drivel out of your mouth, especially when you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. peace.
b) Your little obvious insight into news handling (thanks for that, I really needed to have those processes clarified for me) is exactly what generates the bias of which I speak. The procedures in place for news content at Fox threw up this stupid Obama story into the 'headline with photos' position. The procedures put in place by the editor threw this into the 'limelight'.
c) You really are naive if you think the job of maintaining the headlines of a news station or front page of a news website is given to some mindless automaton who just automatically throws up any old guff that comes his way. This story didn't make it to any other national network because they realised it wasn't newsworthy and it didn't paint the picture that their own bias wished to paint. lowing's links and a google search of my own confirm that the story was covered by practically nobody and those that did were generally right leaning. Try doing the search yourself.
Now kindly remove your cranium from your rectal cavity and wash the faeces from under your tongue.
i realize you are talking about fox's bias, see, what i was trying to do there was highlight that fox follows the same rules as the other stations.
b) yes, i covered that. like i said: it doesn't represent and inherent bias by the network; it only shows that the editor has a bias, or that he made a mistake.
C) like i said before, its possible that fox has a bias, but this article doesn't prove it. in fact, i'll openly admit that fox has a bias, but this article does not prove that bias true. the reason for this is that fox is primarily a television media. you want people to buy into your theory you need to prove from there, because very few people here actually look at the fox news website, because its not what they see as fox, although this is a bit of an assumption.
its very possible that rupert murdoch himself saw the story on the ap wire and said run this on the front and top. possible, but not proven, which is pretty much the point i was trying to make.