FOX News Bias

  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Dec 13, 2010 12:08 AM GMT
    As if we needed verification icon_rolleyes.gif

    LEAKED EMAIL: Fox boss caught slanting news reporting

    December 09, 2010 7:31 am ET by Ben Dimiero
    At the height of the health care reform debate last fall, Bill Sammon, Fox News' controversial Washington managing editor, sent a memo directing his network's journalists not to use the phrase "public option."

    Instead, Sammon wrote, Fox's reporters should use "government option" and similar phrases -- wording that a top Republican pollster had recommended in order to turn public opinion against the Democrats' reform efforts.

    http://mediamatters.org/blog/201012090003

    <object width=">
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 13, 2010 2:04 AM GMT
    What a revelation, almost about as shocking as finding out that msnbc, cnn and cbs are biased.

    On a more important observation, I can't even watch this guy speak. He is so unprofessional and has no oratorical skills whatsoever.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 13, 2010 2:08 AM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidWhat a revelation, almost about as shocking as finding out that msnbc, cnn and cbs are biased.

    GQjock offers a specific example of FOX News slanting, by one of their managing editors. Where are your specific examples of comparable news slanting by the organizations you name? Or are you just talking out your ass?
  • funkymonkey

    Posts: 194

    Dec 13, 2010 2:15 AM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    mocktwinkie saidWhat a revelation, almost about as shocking as finding out that msnbc, cnn and cbs are biased.

    GQjock offers a specific example of FOX News slanting, by one of their managing editors. Where are your specific examples of comparable news slanting by the organizations you name? Or are you just talking out your ass?


    o feisty, but seriously every news channel will be biased to some extent.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 13, 2010 2:33 AM GMT
    Well there's no major media that does bias quite as obviously, overtly, over zealously, over the top and overdone as FALSE NEWS UNFAIR AND BIASED as is possible. Just my opinion ya see !!!!
  • funkymonkey

    Posts: 194

    Dec 13, 2010 2:50 AM GMT
    news is boring and depressing, all it says is the country is fucked, i tell ya ireland has been raped more in the past 3 years by the banks, the government and the e.u than the brits did in 800 years

    to all you Brits out there you know i fucking love you guys!!!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 13, 2010 3:07 AM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidWhat a revelation, almost about as shocking as finding out that msnbc, cnn and cbs are biased.


    I would hope we all agree the commercial news is watered down and aims toward the lowest common denominator - playing to their audience - and I would say that's somewhat true of all, including MSNBC.

    But that's not what's happened in this instance. This is an editorial decision buy senior management telling their on-air reporters to purposefully propagandize about a political issue. Goebbels would be proud.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3274

    Dec 13, 2010 6:49 AM GMT
    I surf between all of the channels. I frankly heard enough of the word public option to nauseate. So not sure how effective that effort was since the principal politicians were using Public option.

    Im not sure how long the government option was played out, but it must have been short.
    There's nothing wrong with saying “government-run plan.” That's what the public option would have been. And its not particularly descriptive.



    Time blog/article: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/12/09/in-defense-of-the-fox-news-ban-on-public-option/#ixzz17yPDJnqL

    The whole bill is gonna go in the trash bin anyway.


    *By the way, Anyone remember when the Senate had a narrow Repub majority? And there was talk of a NUCLEAR option? Nuclear option was repeated over and over again. Except for a few political wonks, no one knew what the hell that "Nuclear Option was". It had nothing to do with anything NUCLEAR. Im sure it wasnt to paint what is now called the "constitutional option" by MSNBC and CNN since democrats have a majority in the senate.

    Love the Young Turks video, wow they are competing with democracy now.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Dec 13, 2010 11:45 AM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidWhat a revelation, almost about as shocking as finding out that msnbc, cnn and cbs are biased.

    On a more important observation, I can't even watch this guy speak. He is so unprofessional and has no oratorical skills whatsoever.


    Thing is Mock

    There are whole journalistic reviews and articles written on the republican bias of this "so called News Agency" ...... see I can do it too

    .... but the bias from msnbc, cnn and cbs just exists in your biased mind

    So the term stands ..... either put up or shut up
    give us a for-instance where these other news agencies slanted their reporting
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 13, 2010 4:48 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    mocktwinkie saidWhat a revelation, almost about as shocking as finding out that msnbc, cnn and cbs are biased.

    GQjock offers a specific example of FOX News slanting, by one of their managing editors. Where are your specific examples of comparable news slanting by the organizations you name? Or are you just talking out your ass?


    Do a web search on "JournoList". There's also info at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JournoList. These are primarily newspaper guys, but the media culture is pretty monolithic.

    Looking at most reporters, including voting records, there's a definite left bias. Of course, if you're personally far left, the media looks middle-of-the-road.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 13, 2010 4:56 PM GMT
    rkyjockdn said
    Art_Deco said
    mocktwinkie saidWhat a revelation, almost about as shocking as finding out that msnbc, cnn and cbs are biased.

    GQjock offers a specific example of FOX News slanting, by one of their managing editors. Where are your specific examples of comparable news slanting by the organizations you name? Or are you just talking out your ass?


    Do a web search on "JournoList". There's also info at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JournoList. These are primarily newspaper guys, but the media culture is pretty monolithic.

    Looking at most reporters, including voting records, there's a definite left bias. Of course, if you're personally far left, the media looks middle-of-the-road.


    Apples and oranges.

    Apple = editorial decision to promote propaganda as a policy of the "news" agency.

    Orange = Like-minded individuals discussing issues as private citizens on a private forum.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 13, 2010 5:29 PM GMT
    From a journalist:
    http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/26328

    [It] sounds like a fiendish plot to hijack the health insurance debate.

    Except government option is more accurate than public option.

    From Howard Kurtz: “The public option — an alternative insurance exchange for those who could not get health coverage from their employers — would in fact have been run by the Health and Human Services Department. (The provision was eventually dropped before Congress passed the legislation.) The significance of the marching orders is that they were issued to the news division, which aims to be fair and balanced and is run separately from the opinion side, populated by the likes of Hannity and Glenn Beck.”

    The ABCs of journalism are Accuracy, Brevity and Clarity.

    I give Fox News an A on this one.
    By the way, all news departments have “marching orders.” They are called Stylebooks. And yes, managing editors occasionally memo changes.

    Bosses do that. It is called management.


    Calling it the government option does seem to be more accurate and precise than the public option - and that's probably why more people are against it. Chicken or egg?

    Further, if you want further insight into media bias, have a look at Reuters' characterization of "terrorist": 'Reuters global news editor Stephen Jukes wrote, "We all know that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and that Reuters upholds the principle that we do not use the word terrorist."'

    Stylebooks are not unusual nor are changes to reporting made by management. The reference from mediamatters is unfortunate given that it is a well known funded arm of George Soros - the reference directly to Howard Kurtz would have been more convincing.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 13, 2010 5:35 PM GMT
    Think your facts may be wrong. According to the polls most people were FOR the public option, so calling it a public option would be appropriate.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 13, 2010 5:48 PM GMT
    wrestlervic saidThink your facts may be wrong. According to the polls most people were FOR the public option, so calling it a public option would be appropriate.


    That's just illogical. Whatever the public was for or against is irrelevant. The question is what is most accurate. What the public understood to be the "public option" and what was ultimately provided are entirely two separate functions given how it is being proposed to be administered. As Howard Kurtz in the original article points out, it is in fact provided and administered directly as a government program.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 13, 2010 7:41 PM GMT
    riddler78 saidFrom a journalist:
    http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/26328

    [It] sounds like a fiendish plot to hijack the health insurance debate.

    Except government option is more accurate than public option.

    From Howard Kurtz: “The public option — an alternative insurance exchange for those who could not get health coverage from their employers — would in fact have been run by the Health and Human Services Department. (The provision was eventually dropped before Congress passed the legislation.) The significance of the marching orders is that they were issued to the news division, which aims to be fair and balanced and is run separately from the opinion side, populated by the likes of Hannity and Glenn Beck.”

    The ABCs of journalism are Accuracy, Brevity and Clarity.

    I give Fox News an A on this one.
    By the way, all news departments have “marching orders.” They are called Stylebooks. And yes, managing editors occasionally memo changes.

    Bosses do that. It is called management.


    Calling it the government option does seem to be more accurate and precise than the public option - and that's probably why more people are against it. Chicken or egg?

    Further, if you want further insight into media bias, have a look at Reuters' characterization of "terrorist": 'Reuters global news editor Stephen Jukes wrote, "We all know that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and that Reuters upholds the principle that we do not use the word terrorist."'

    Stylebooks are not unusual nor are changes to reporting made by management. The reference from mediamatters is unfortunate given that it is a well known funded arm of George Soros - the reference directly to Howard Kurtz would have been more convincing.


    I agree. I think it just makes it easier for the average person to understand exactly what it is by calling it "government option".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 13, 2010 7:54 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    wrestlervic saidThink your facts may be wrong. According to the polls most people were FOR the public option, so calling it a public option would be appropriate.


    Incorrect:

    filz0iitkkqpdycvxfjulq.gif


    And another twisted attempt to make the facts fit SB's ideology. Note the word "system". The public option doesn't fundamentally change the existing private market based system. What that poll was asking was do you prefer a system run by the government versus one that is run by private companies, which is not the same as whether or not one supports have the option to join a government administered program.

    In fact, the public option is more popular than HCR as a whole:

    ABC News PollPUBLIC OPTION – On specifics in the health care plan, 55 percent support a so-called public option, with 42 percent opposed – slightly less opposition than in last month's 52-46 percent division, but still shy of the initial reaction in June, 62-33 percent support.

    That June poll found that support for a public option drops dramatically if it would put many private insurers out of business, as critics claim. This poll shows a flip side: Support for a public option swells to 76 percent if it were available only to people who can't get coverage from a private insurer. The increase is most dramatic among Republicans, a 32-point gain to 59 percent support; and seniors, a 33-point gain to 68 percent. Something like this was suggested by Obama, who said in his address the option would be available only to people who "don't have" insurance; herein may be a path to compromise.


    http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Politics/obama-health-care-abc-news-washington-post-poll/story?id=8536886&page=3
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 13, 2010 7:56 PM GMT
    riddler78 saidFrom a journalist:
    http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/26328

    [It] sounds like a fiendish plot to hijack the health insurance debate.

    Except government option is more accurate than public option.

    From Howard Kurtz: “The public option — an alternative insurance exchange for those who could not get health coverage from their employers — would in fact have been run by the Health and Human Services Department. (The provision was eventually dropped before Congress passed the legislation.) The significance of the marching orders is that they were issued to the news division, which aims to be fair and balanced and is run separately from the opinion side, populated by the likes of Hannity and Glenn Beck.”

    The ABCs of journalism are Accuracy, Brevity and Clarity.

    I give Fox News an A on this one.
    By the way, all news departments have “marching orders.” They are called Stylebooks. And yes, managing editors occasionally memo changes.

    Bosses do that. It is called management.


    Calling it the government option does seem to be more accurate and precise than the public option - and that's probably why more people are against it. Chicken or egg?

    Further, if you want further insight into media bias, have a look at Reuters' characterization of "terrorist": 'Reuters global news editor Stephen Jukes wrote, "We all know that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and that Reuters upholds the principle that we do not use the word terrorist."'

    Stylebooks are not unusual nor are changes to reporting made by management. The reference from mediamatters is unfortunate given that it is a well known funded arm of George Soros - the reference directly to Howard Kurtz would have been more convincing.


    Reuters is an actual news agency and regarding the word terrorist, they are absolutely correct. If you're British, the IRA is a terrorist group. If you're Irish, they are freedom fighters. The same can be extrapolated to Muslims.

    Your Soros allusion is hilarious as he didn't fund Media Matters until about two months ago when he made his first gift to them. Please stop watching
    Glenn Beck, as you're usually much smarter than this.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 13, 2010 8:18 PM GMT
    Yet the same could be said about the New York Times! But......the people bitching about Fox news are silent about the New York Times; why is this so?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 13, 2010 11:53 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 saidFrom a journalist:
    http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/26328

    [It] sounds like a fiendish plot to hijack the health insurance debate.

    Except government option is more accurate than public option.

    From Howard Kurtz: “The public option — an alternative insurance exchange for those who could not get health coverage from their employers — would in fact have been run by the Health and Human Services Department. (The provision was eventually dropped before Congress passed the legislation.) The significance of the marching orders is that they were issued to the news division, which aims to be fair and balanced and is run separately from the opinion side, populated by the likes of Hannity and Glenn Beck.”

    The ABCs of journalism are Accuracy, Brevity and Clarity.

    I give Fox News an A on this one.
    By the way, all news departments have “marching orders.” They are called Stylebooks. And yes, managing editors occasionally memo changes.

    Bosses do that. It is called management.


    Calling it the government option does seem to be more accurate and precise than the public option - and that's probably why more people are against it. Chicken or egg?

    Further, if you want further insight into media bias, have a look at Reuters' characterization of "terrorist": 'Reuters global news editor Stephen Jukes wrote, "We all know that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and that Reuters upholds the principle that we do not use the word terrorist."'

    Stylebooks are not unusual nor are changes to reporting made by management. The reference from mediamatters is unfortunate given that it is a well known funded arm of George Soros - the reference directly to Howard Kurtz would have been more convincing.


    Reuters is an actual news agency and regarding the word terrorist, they are absolutely correct. If you're British, the IRA is a terrorist group. If you're Irish, they are freedom fighters. The same can be extrapolated to Muslims.

    Your Soros allusion is hilarious as he didn't fund Media Matters until about two months ago when he made his first gift to them. Please stop watching
    Glenn Beck, as you're usually much smarter than this.


    For clarification, are you saying that Media Matters did not receive any funding from Moveon.org a few years ago? It is ironic that for a supposed media watch dog it is so opaque with respect to its funders. You're usually smarter than that - now, as for watching Fox News, I haven't watched any for at least 6 months and at the time I think I was at an airport lounge so I doubt Beck was even on.

    The issue between usage of the term public and government options is one of nomenclature. Government option remains the more accurate description of the program.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Dec 14, 2010 12:35 AM GMT
    LOL .....

    The issue between usage of the term public and government options is one of nomenclature. Government option remains the more accurate description of the program.

    It isn't a matter of potato or Caribbean icon_rolleyes.gif

    Frank Luntz polled both terms and the public "LIKED" the term public option over the term Government option
    and Bill Sammon the managing editor ......... "suggested" all the News people use only that term

    Email listed below icon_cool.gif
    Subject: friendly reminder: let's not slip back into calling it the "public option"



    1) Please use the term "government-run health insurance" or, when brevity is a concern, "government option," whenever possible.
    2) When it is necessary to use the term "public option" (which is, after all, firmly ensconced in the nation's lexicon), use the qualifier "so-called," as in "the so-called public option."
    3) Here's another way to phrase it: "The public option, which is the government-run plan."
    4) When newsmakers and sources use the term "public option" in our stories, there's not a
    lot we can do about it, since quotes are of course sacrosanct.

    ...... and uh btw this is the same Bill Sammon who wrote
    At Any Cost: How Al Gore Tried to Steal the Election; Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism from Inside the White House; Misunderestimated: The President Battles Terrorism, Media Bias and the Bush Haters; and Strategery: How George W. Bush Is Defeating Terrorists, Outwitting Democrats, and Confounding the Mainstream Media
    Love the even handedness in his journalistic ideals ... don't you?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 14, 2010 2:18 AM GMT
    riddler78 saidFor clarification, are you saying that Media Matters did not receive any funding from Moveon.org a few years ago? It is ironic that for a supposed media watch dog it is so opaque with respect to its funders. You're usually smarter than that - now, as for watching Fox News, I haven't watched any for at least 6 months and at the time I think I was at an airport lounge so I doubt Beck was even on.

    The issue between usage of the term public and government options is one of nomenclature. Government option remains the more accurate description of the program.


    Moveon.org is a nonprofit advocacy group, not a grantmaking entity, so while not impossible, I don't recall one funding the other. In any event, Moveon.org is not was not founded, nor is it run by George Soros. He did give a substantial challenge pledge in 2004, but so did others included Peter Lewis, Linda Pritzker. In fact, MoveOn is largely funded by small individual contributor with an average gift of $50. So, yes, they receive some money from Soros but it's small percentage of their $60 million per year budget.

    The organization I work for recently received $5 million from a hedge fund manager. Does that mean he controls us?

    And Media Matters is any more or less transparent than most 501(c)3 and certainly more so than those that spent hundreds of millions to help the Republicans win back the House.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3274

    Dec 14, 2010 3:18 AM GMT
    GQjock said
    mocktwinkie saidWhat a revelation, almost about as shocking as finding out that msnbc, cnn and cbs are biased.

    On a more important observation, I can't even watch this guy speak. He is so unprofessional and has no oratorical skills whatsoever.


    Thing is Mock

    There are whole journalistic reviews and articles written on the republican bias of this "so called News Agency" ...... see I can do it too

    .... but the bias from msnbc, cnn and cbs just exists in your biased mind

    So the term stands ..... either put up or shut up
    give us a for-instance where these other news agencies slanted their reporting


    so how many of msnbc's people are former politcal operatives?1/2 of there front lineup.

    These are less news, mostly opinion anyway.

    It doesnt bother me that MSNBC is biased. Its actually a love to hate relationship.

    ( the 5 talking heads of MSNBC while interviewing Michelle Bachman asked if she was in a coma? and called her moronic to her face. I would add Chris Mathews worked on capital hill and should know better.)

    ( CBS ( aka Dan Rather) reported on a manufactured false report of President Bush ( fake national guard letter) without fact checking. Then backtracked on it. with a scandal thereafter that was barely even covered in mainstream news)
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Dec 14, 2010 3:20 AM GMT
    rkyjockdn said
    Art_Deco said
    mocktwinkie saidWhat a revelation, almost about as shocking as finding out that msnbc, cnn and cbs are biased.

    GQjock offers a specific example of FOX News slanting, by one of their managing editors. Where are your specific examples of comparable news slanting by the organizations you name? Or are you just talking out your ass?


    Do a web search on "JournoList". There's also info at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JournoList. These are primarily newspaper guys, but the media culture is pretty monolithic.

    Looking at most reporters, including voting records, there's a definite left bias. Of course, if you're personally far left, the media looks middle-of-the-road.


    You're kidding me with this Wiki - right?

    I hope you are
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 14, 2010 3:30 AM GMT
    musclmed said
    GQjock said
    mocktwinkie saidWhat a revelation, almost about as shocking as finding out that msnbc, cnn and cbs are biased.

    On a more important observation, I can't even watch this guy speak. He is so unprofessional and has no oratorical skills whatsoever.


    Thing is Mock

    There are whole journalistic reviews and articles written on the republican bias of this "so called News Agency" ...... see I can do it too

    .... but the bias from msnbc, cnn and cbs just exists in your biased mind

    So the term stands ..... either put up or shut up
    give us a for-instance where these other news agencies slanted their reporting


    so how many of msnbc's people are former politcal operatives?1/2 of there front lineup.

    These are less news, mostly opinion anyway.

    It doesnt bother me that MSNBC is biased. Its actually a love to hate relationship.

    ( the 5 talking heads of MSNBC while interviewing Michelle Bachman asked if she was in a coma? and called her moronic to her face. I would add Chris Mathews worked on capital hill and should know better.)

    ( CBS ( aka Dan Rather) reported on a manufactured false report of President Bush ( fake national guard letter) without fact checking. Then backtracked on it. with a scandal thereafter that was barely even covered in mainstream news)

    Speaking of MSNBC, don't forget Chris Matthews said he got a tingle up his leg watching Obama. When Fox has liberal guests, as they almost always do on O'Reilly and Hannity, they are treated courteously. Very different from the classless people on MSNBC. But the MSNBC style of rudeness is red meat for the liberal fringe, which corresponds to a relatively small percentage of very vocal RJ members. The same RJ members in another thread who hoped Sarah Palin would get cholera on her trip to Haiti. That's the vocal element here. But most guys on RJ are not like that at all.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 14, 2010 4:43 AM GMT
    musclmed said
    GQjock said
    mocktwinkie saidWhat a revelation, almost about as shocking as finding out that msnbc, cnn and cbs are biased.

    On a more important observation, I can't even watch this guy speak. He is so unprofessional and has no oratorical skills whatsoever.


    Thing is Mock

    There are whole journalistic reviews and articles written on the republican bias of this "so called News Agency" ...... see I can do it too

    .... but the bias from msnbc, cnn and cbs just exists in your biased mind

    So the term stands ..... either put up or shut up
    give us a for-instance where these other news agencies slanted their reporting


    so how many of msnbc's people are former politcal operatives?1/2 of there front lineup.

    These are less news, mostly opinion anyway.

    It doesnt bother me that MSNBC is biased. Its actually a love to hate relationship.

    ( the 5 talking heads of MSNBC while interviewing Michelle Bachman asked if she was in a coma? and called her moronic to her face. I would add Chris Mathews worked on capital hill and should know better.)

    ( CBS ( aka Dan Rather) reported on a manufactured false report of President Bush ( fake national guard letter) without fact checking. Then backtracked on it. with a scandal thereafter that was barely even covered in mainstream news)


    Of MSNBC's prime time lineup, only O'Donnell is an former politico both Maddow and Olberman are career journalist/pundits. Matthews was a politico but not for a very long time and he's on at 5 and 7. Ed Schultz is a talk-radio guy turned pundit. So I'm not seeing the 1/2 of the line up. At best it's 2/5 and their morning lineup is a former Republican congressman and a "liberal" (kind of a neocon, really) journalist.

    And while the Dan Rather documents were found to be fraudulent, several other credible news agencies have found the actual story about Bush is accurate.