BF2S Forums Prime Example

CameronPoe wrote:

Parker wrote:

Parker wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Rather

specifically, this:
"At the end of Rather's time as anchor, the CBS Evening News lagged behind the NBC Nightly News and ABC World News Tonight in the ratings, although it was still drawing approximately 7 million viewers a night. Criticism of Rather reached a fever pitch after 60 Minutes II ran his report about President Bush's military record; numerous critics questioned the authenticity of the documents upon which the report was based and the documents were quickly proved to be forgeries. In the aftermath of the incident, CBS fired multiple members of the CBS News staff but allowed Rather to stay on. Rather retired under pressure as the anchor of the CBS Evening News at 7:00 eastern time, 9 March 2005."


"retired under pressure" is the nice way of saying, "congrats dickhead, you fucked up your career!.".

so, i guess none of the "fox news is evils" crowd would like to discuss dan rather?

CNN is drivel as well. You won't find me arguing in their favour.

so why didnt you include them in the OP?

what i dont get about this, is we all know that fox news is biased....we all know that EVERY media outlet is biased.

so since we all know that, i dont know why you wouldnt include all of them.....after all, i think more prime examples of media bias by OTHER outlets have been brought to light in this thread.


so i guess, the point of this really comes down to, all media is biased.
not just fox news. which is why i dont understand why we are so hung up on it.

Parker wrote:

not just fox news. which is why i dont understand why we are so hung up on it.

The issue arose from people in an earlier thread contending that Fox News (as opposed to its editorials) was unbiased. I suppose I should have dredged up that thread and tacked it on there but I was lazy.

CameronPoe wrote:

imortal wrote:

But you don't go into a foaming-at-the-mouth rant about CNN like you do about FOX News.  That, in and of itself, is a bias.
EDIT: Oh, and Dan Rather was CBS News, not CNN.  Leftovers from the days when the evening news on the "Big 3" (ABC, CBS, NBC) were the only way we got our national news, other than by newspaper.

Is there anyone on this earth without bias? I have a major problem with Rupert Murdoch and his designs for this world ergo I, like most of the non-American world, find Fox to be abhorrent tripe that is poisoning America.

No, there is no one on this earth without bias.  Just glad you admit it.  Many, most, people turn a blind eye to 'incidents' when they benifit them or made by people we consider similar to ourselves, while pointing out the same incident or actions conducted by those we consider 'agaisnt' us or on the other side.
You, and many others, rant and rave about the evils of FOX News, and while you say you do not condone the actions of CNN, you do not spend as much effort trying to bring them to light.  You do not search their website for, what is all honesty looks like a throwaway, slow-news-day story.  You fear Robert Murdoch, but you give Ted Turner a pass? You let them slide. 

Now, whie I am sitting up here preaching, I will admit I tend to do the same thing myself.  I tend not to want to bring negative elements of stances more in line with mine.  So I am not trying to preach here and claim that my shit doesn't stink.  But I try my hardest to be fair, and admit when mis-deeds are more bi-partisan.

All the news networks suck. I don't mind their bias so much because all media is bias some way or another but the stories they run can be so fucking stupid and irrelevant that I find them insulting. I don't give a fuck about that stupid whore that has been labeled a "celebrity" or the gay dog that found its pwner after three years. I don't, I find those types of stories insulting.

Peter wrote:

Is it me or did they mispell Osama Bin Laden?

Fox News wrote:

A South Carolina pastor says he was not trying to be political when he posted a sign in front of his church linking Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and Al Qaeda leader Usama bin Laden..

That is one of the acceptable spellings.

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

http://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/NewsStory.aspx?cpath=20080422%5cACQRTT200804220527RTTRADERUSEQUITY_0276.htm&&mypage=newsheadlines&title=Pastor%20Posts%20Sign%20Before%20Church%20Linking%20Obama%20With%20Osama%20Bin%20Laden

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080422/ap_ … rch_sign_2

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/0804 … rch_sign_1

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c … d=rss.news

http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news … en/300070/

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/ap … bin-laden/

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2008/ … 66-ap.html

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/polit … 38953.html

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20 … Laden_.htm

Some more biased papers and websites, including the San Fransisco Gate and Express India...

If there is any bias out there, it is yours.

The FACT is, this is an Associated Press article, NOT a Fox News article

Are you seriously telling me you think that coverage of this non-story does not represent bias? Seriously? When I posted the OP that non-story was STORY NUMERO UNO on the front of the Fox News website. Do you really consider that news? If so then I guess we have different priorities when it comes to news. The subliminal message in that story is obvious. To contend otherwise is naive.

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOdlnzke … re=related

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.

a) I am talking about Fox News. I am not talking about bias in other networks (even in european ones omgzzz!!).

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.

Look Cam...whether you want to admit it or not, you have an obvious bias against Fox news and "chose" the headline to prove how Fox news is some how more evil than all the other biased media outlets. You are essentially doing what you claim Fox news is doing by choosing what you want others to hear. You did nothing different, so I guess you are evil too....just kidding.

I'm on the fence about a lot of things and I don't spend too much time reading too much internet news. I say what I feel and in most cases base my arguments on what I know, what my experience has been and from more than one source if any. I can see both sides of many issues. I don't get caught up into "exclusive" or "first" reported crap on news networks because usually the "first" news is utter trash until all of it comes out. Anyhow, the nature of our modern day media is to be first, to be exclusive, to report something another media missed...and it makes our media into crap.

Just turn on the national news at 6:30 and it is hilarious how you can go from one network to the next and see the blatant biased they have for certain political sides, certain candidates and how they cover the Iraq war. It's quite entertaining but after about 5 minutes, I have had enough. It is utterly depressing to watch that crap. Everything and anything will kill you, the sky is falling and you might as well dig a hole and jump in.

Last edited by DeathBecomesYu (2008-04-24 03:08:56)

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

To say this story was from Fox News is an outright lie!!, This story is from the AP. and carried by a ton of media outlets, AS WAS PROVEN. To deny this and single out Fox News as the problem while ignoring everyone else who printed the story is BIAS unto itself, Cam.

lol. News agencies gather stories and news outlets COVER them. The bias is inherent in the story selection. Duh. The scant few outlets you uncovered and the political lean of the ones I found quite obviously demonstrate the bias. Plus Fox is pretty much the only national/international network to cover it. It is very telling that the network with the opposite bias, CNN, didn't cover it. QED

The scant few??, Cam, I stopped linking after I THOUGHT I posted enough to prove a point., Apparently I shoulda gone on to pages 2-67.

CameronPoe wrote:

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

Look Cam...whether you want to admit it or not, you have an obvious bias against Fox news and "chose" the headline to prove how Fox news is some how more evil than all the other biased media outlets. You are essentially doing what you claim Fox news is doing by choosing what you want others to hear. You did nothing different, so I guess you are evil too....just kidding.

I'm on the fence about a lot of things and I don't spend too much time reading too much internet news. I say what I feel and in most cases base my arguments on what I know, what my experience has been and from more than one source if any. I can see both sides of many issues. I don't get caught up into "exclusive" or "first" reported crap on news networks because usually the "first" news is utter trash until all of it comes out. Anyhow, the nature of our modern day media is to be first, to be exclusive, to report something another media missed...and it makes our media into crap.

Just turn on the national news at 6:30 and it is hilarious how you can go from one network to the next and see the blatant biased they have for certain political sides, certain candidates and how they cover the Iraq war. It's quite entertaining but after about 5 minutes, I have had enough. It is utterly depressing to watch that crap. Everything and anything will kill you, the sky is falling and you might as well dig a hole and jump in.

I never once stated that I was not biased against Fox News. I am biased against Fox News - I practically stated as much earlier. Hence why I was exposing it's bias. I am a person with my own personal political views. Fox News is a TV network that purports to be 'fair and balanced'. There is a world of a difference between me and a news network. I find the modern mass media in general to be rather pathetic, as do you, but Fox gets to me more as, like I said earlier, my view is that it is poisoning peoples minds. We live in a world where we have free speech though - they can air their news and I can complain about it.

.....So naturally you turn to respected Al Jezeera for accurate unbiased reporting............Never heard ya complain about them...........

FEOS wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

To say this story was from Fox News is an outright lie!!, This story is from the AP. and carried by a ton of media outlets, AS WAS PROVEN. To deny this and single out Fox News as the problem while ignoring everyone else who printed the story is BIAS unto itself, Cam.

lol. News agencies gather stories and news outlets COVER them. The bias is inherent in the story selection. Duh. The scant few outlets you uncovered and the political lean of the ones I found quite obviously demonstrate the bias. Plus Fox is pretty much the only national/international network to cover it. It is very telling that the network with the opposite bias, CNN, didn't cover it. QED

Interesting that you would use CNN not covering a story as proof that Fox covering it is biased.

What CNN (and others) don't cover is often more telling (IMO) than what they do cover.

Not from my perspective. You are showing your perspective as against mine. We are coming at it from opposite sides. The argument holds both ways. Covering a story and not covering a story are two sides of the bias coin. Given the triviality of the story and the importance afforded it by Fox my opinion is that Fox have strongly showed their bias through their story selection process in this instance.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-04-24 03:36:24)

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

lol. News agencies gather stories and news outlets COVER them. The bias is inherent in the story selection. Duh. The scant few outlets you uncovered and the political lean of the ones I found quite obviously demonstrate the bias. Plus Fox is pretty much the only national/international network to cover it. It is very telling that the network with the opposite bias, CNN, didn't cover it. QED

The scant few??, Cam, I stopped linking after I THOUGHT I posted enough to prove a point., Apparently I shoulda gone on to pages 2-67.

I drilled down several google search pages and some of the ones you highlighted still hadn't churned up and other notorious ones like the freerepublic did. I did a word search on CNN, CBS, ABC and BBC and the story didn't turn up. QED

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,