It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
I find it useful to scan the "print" article headlines on the "front page" of the Fox website every day to keep up on their perspective. Most of what appears there appears to be newsworthy. And, sometimes they cover topics I don't see being covered elsewhere. The articles bear their slant. But, I am encouraged because that slant appears to be becoming somewhat less divisive in the post Roger Ailes period.Fox News viewers have a very different view of coronavirus -- its origins, the search for a vaccine etc. -- than do non-Fox viewers.
The truth here is that Fox News knows exactly what it's doing. It -- or, really, the late Roger Ailes -- has created a brand that revolves around its viewers' distrust in societal pillars like government, the education system and, yes, the media. Every story -- and I mean every story -- is funneled through that lens.
The most noxious part of all of this -- and it's what Oliver's 11 words hit directly on the head -- is that Fox News is covering the story this way not because it comports with known facts or because they believe it's the "real" narrative but rather because they know that covering the coronavirus pandemic this way means more viewers -- and more money to sell ads.
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved.
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved. Powered by Vanilla
Comments
It may or may not be true but I read that FOX wasn't even licensed as a News network but as entertainment unlike the other networks like NBC CBS CNN and even MSNBC.
And so it goes
Peace and Flatten the Curve
Rono
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fox-news-entertainment-switch/
The Snopes piece is not quite correct either. It says that while cable channels are not licensed, broadcast networks are ("The Fox Broadcasting Company is an over-the-air television network licensed by the FCC.")
In reality, the FCC only licenses broadcast stations, not networks. Remember Trump's bombast about pulling NBC's "license" in 2017?
Politico: The FCC, an independent federal agency, issues broadcast licenses to stations and oversees license holders. It does not license networks.
Forbes, quoting the FCC: We license only individual broadcast stations. We do not license TV or radio networks (such as CBS, NBC, ABC or Fox) or other organizations with which stations have relationships (such as PBS or NPR), except to the extent that those entities may also be station licensees. We also do not regulate information provided over the Internet, nor do we intervene in private disputes involving broadcast stations or their licensees. Instead, we usually defer to the parties, courts, or other agencies to resolve such disputes. [Emphasis in Forbes' piece.]
Paddy Chayefsky saw what was coming.
Thanks msf. It smelled a bit like fake news. Shoot, these days, you just drop 10% off from either end of the spectrum and call it good. In 2016 we were on an Alaskan land and sea trip. When we got on the cruise ship, our news choices were Fox, MSNBC and BBC. The first two are so biased, we chose the BBC. feh.
and so it goes,
peace,
rono
And Hannity is on Fox News.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/4/22/21229360/coronavirus-covid-19-fox-news-sean-hannity-misinformation-death
https://salon.com/2020/04/20/trump-warns-americans-that-fox-news-is-on-a-bad-path-after-nancy-pelosi-appears-on-the-network/
“Using both a poll of Fox News viewers over age 55 and publicly available data on television-watching patterns, they calculate that Fox viewers who watched Hannity rather than Carlson were less likely to adhere to social distancing rules, and that areas where more people watched Hannity relative to Carlson had higher local rates of infection and death.”
Sophisticated new research links Hannity’s coronavirus misinformation to “a greater number of Covid-19 cases and deaths.”
>> Don't think MSNBC and CNN are any better. They are ALL the same. The problem is ... news channels are voicing opinions and BS. Let's not pretend one source is better than another anymore than one mutual fund manager is better than another.
Jesus Christ, what a thing to write these days, much less think.
I came up with only one page on Fox News, with the title Media erupt over Trump comments on disinfectant and sunlight to cure coronavirus: Here's what he said
Most of the MSNBC search results were duplicative in the sense that they were pages with links to the same few video pieces, including:
- Trump suggests disinfectant to kill virus inside the body (Morning Joe video)
- Lysol manufacturer warns against internal use after Trump comments (Morning Joe video)
- Medical expert 'worried' about Trump after bizarre question on injecting disinfectant (The Beat/Ari Melber video)
Fox headline says that this is just a media "eruption"; MSNBC headlines say that Trump's statement worried medical experts, that Trump's statement worried Lysol's manufacturer, or simply that Trump suggested using disinfectants internally.Fake media or false equivalency? We report, you decide®.
Edit: forgot to add the trademark above.
After that I started researching other pieces Oliver has done. I liked his show and kinda assumed he is 100% legit. I was extremely disappointed. His show no longer records on my DVR. Few months back I reached the same conclusion regarding VICE news on HBO. We just assume certain sources are legit. I've learned the hard way they are not. It's all about ratings, and the ease with which material can be obtained from external sources. They neither spend the effort nor feel the need to verify anything.
>> Don't think MSNBC and CNN are any better. They are ALL the same. The problem is ... news channels are voicing opinions and BS. Let's not pretend one source is better than another anymore than one mutual fund manager is better than another.
"John William Oliver (born 23 April 1977)[1] is an English-American[2] comedian, writer, producer, political commentator, actor, and television host. Oliver started his career as a stand-up comedian, both in the United Kingdom and United States. He came to wider attention for his work on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart as its senior British correspondent from 2006 to 2013. Oliver won three Primetime Emmy Awards for his work as a writer on The Daily Show and was its guest host for an eight-week period in 2013. In addition to The Daily Show, Oliver co-hosted the satirical comedy podcast The Bugle (2007–2015) with Andy Zaltzman, with whom Oliver had previously co-hosted the radio series Political Animal, and hosted John Oliver's New York Stand-Up Show on Comedy Central from 2010 to 2013. He has also acted on television, most notably in a recurring role as Ian Duncan on the NBC sitcom Community, and in films, notably voice-over work in The Smurfs (2011) and its sequel, and the remake of The Lion King.
Since 2014, Oliver has been the host of the HBO series Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. He has received widespread critical and popular recognition for his work on the series, whose influence over US culture, legislation, and policymaking has been dubbed the "John Oliver effect".[3][4] For his work on Last Week Tonight, Oliver has won eight Emmy Awards and two Peabody Awards and was included in the 2015 Time 100, being described as a "comedic agent of change...powerful because he isn't afraid to tackle important issues thoughtfully, without fear or apology."[5][6] Many have described Oliver's work as journalism or investigative journalism,[7][8] a claim both Oliver himself[9]and other journalists dispute.[10]"
John Oliver
News channels do not report news or have any journalistic integrity any more. They are all op-ed pieces. NY Times and Washington Post can claim to have higher "morals" than Brietbart, but they really do not.
You are entitled to your opinion. I'm entitled to mine. And because I don't like anyone attaching any "label" to me or accept it, I don't get offended by anyone who doesn't share my opinion. To each his own.
The difference between CNN and FOX is crap and utter crap. On any given day they switch the level of crap AFAIAC.
How you see it is crap and I bet you secretly know it in your heart. You are way too smart and considered to believe this. Not one word you say is accurate except for the shaming part, so maybe that's it.
I have no party, lots of people don't, but anyone such in their right mind who watches the news or reads the papers knows that your take is wrong. Ignorant, uninformed.
More important here, it is so wild given all your other posting. Maybe your smart kids can explain it to you. NYT and WaPo like Breitbart? CNN and Fox swappable? Christ on a crutch.
I think you better sell all of your holdings and go hide somewhere.
On another note, I stop getting bullied when I was 12 and have still have scars on my knuckles. I don't find online bravado intimidating. Just like I'm trying not to get offended, you can keep trying to do so. Someday one of us will win. Either ways it will be a bad day.
nor is showing superiority, nor intimidation, nor winning.
Indeed I say these charges of yours are as unfair, wrong, and wack as your media takes.
(I think the times have made your brain soft.)
As for the "president" and reelection, there are no non-wrong reasons.
But I'm done here. If you seriously maintain
>> Don't think MSNBC and CNN are any better. They are ALL the same. The problem is ... news channels are voicing opinions and BS. Let's not pretend one source is better than another anymore than one mutual fund manager is better than another
then I got nothing. And if you think (if I'm reading you right) Trump's defeat will be 'a bad day', less than nothing.
Think yellow journalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism
But there is a difference between interjecting bias surrounding the facts vs making up (or presenting blatantly false facts). For example, stating 2+2=4 & debating whether "4" is good or bad is not the same as stating 2+2=frog & then giving an opinion about that.
Trump is so outrageous in what he says publicly &/or tweets that anyone reporting about him appears to be equally as outrageous. It's totally exhausting as well.
Interestingly, IMHO, it was the media that created Trump & had a large part in his being elected. The coverage he would get after each of the republican primary debates was mind boggling to me. Though to be fair, it always amazes me just how any of these post debates (republican or democratic) are covered.
Regarding balanced reporting, I would recommend the AllSides website:
https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news
The print copy of The Week also will have coverage from multiple sides but their online content is more left leaning (it's where I get to catch John Oliver on Monday mornings).
John Oliver's show is thought provoking and might make me want to look further into a subject. But he does not pretend to be the news and most definitely does not take himself seriously (unlike multiple other commentators). He's on par with other late night comedians.
The news business is about selling & people consuming (like anything else).
An interesting take on the history of our desire to consume is presented in the book, Packaged Pleasures.
"From the candy bar to the cigarette, records to roller coasters, a technological revolution during the last quarter of the nineteenth century precipitated a colossal shift in human consumption and sensual experience. Food, drink, and many other consumer goods came to be mass-produced, bottled, canned, condensed, and distilled, unleashing new and intensified surges of pleasure, delight, thrill—and addiction."
https://www.amazon.com/Packaged-Pleasures-Technology-Marketing-Revolutionized-ebook/dp/B00MU1AZQ6/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=packaged+pleasures&qid=1587834877&sr=8-1
Though published around 2014, it does not go into the phenomenon of the internet, social media, etc. Which has taken these desires to dizzying new heights.
But isn't that what the stock market & economy depends on, people consuming.
"t was notable that Daniel Dale’s article in CNN discussing today’s about-face was titled, “Fact check: Trump lies that he was being ‘sarcastic’ when he talked about injecting disinfectant.” Media outlets have been uncomfortable calling out Trump’s lies, instead using words like “untruths,” but Dale has fact-checked every Trump rally and speech in real time and regularly uses the word “lie” on Twitter. That the word is showing up more in news media suggests editors are rethinking how best to cover this president.
Their problem is that everything a president does and says is newsworthy, but reporting what a lying politician says without identifying it as false puts the media in the position of amplifying the skewed message, rather than delivering accurate information. This tactic was pioneered by Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s. He would accuse people of being communists and spread lies about them in press releases—which got covered by newspaper reporters—then move onto another story as reporters, trudging in his wake, discovered he was lying. But the fact-checking never got the headlines McCarthy’s extraordinary accusations did, and the accusations stuck.
McCarthy’s right-hand man, New York City attorney Roy Cohn, was Trump’s mentor, and it is perhaps no accident that Trump has always used this tactic to great effect. Essentially, he has made the media his accomplice in spreading disinformation.
Aware that this tactic gave Trump more than $5 billion of free airtime in the 2016 election cycle, media figures have tried to figure out how to cover Trump in 2020 without making the same mistake. This is especially important now that his coronavirus briefings have taken the place of his political rallies, making it hard to cover them without amplifying his political message.
As reporters have tried to fact-check him, he insists they are illegitimate. Yesterday, when Washington Post reporter Philip Rucker asked him to clarify his suggestions about alternative treatments for coronavirus, Trump responded: “I’m the president and you’re fake news.” After Trump won the 2016 election, CBS correspondent Lesley Stahl asked him why he continued to bash the media. He replied, "You know why I do it? I do it to discredit you all and demean you all so when you write negative stories about me, no one will believe you.”"
Although certainly not in all cases, I find davidmoran's attitude rather typical of liberals - they simply cannot understand the fact that not everyone thinks the same as they do! Why is it so hard for them? They are the self proclaimed "intelligent" ones.
If they can't win you over, they make it personal as in this case by reverting to name calling (soft brained). He even tells you to go away and hide. And claims offending you was never the point! Laughable.
Since I am in the minority at my work place, I refuse to discuss politics for obvious reasons. Even so, I have been pressed to the point of harassment and this despite the fact my company has a policy of not discussing politics or religion. I have literally had to tell coworkers to leave my office several times for preaching to me.
In case you missed the link zenbrew provided, it validates your claim that Fox, MSNBC and CNN are in the same boat. There are some fairly neutral media organizations though.
Thanks for sharing your opinion.
https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-ratings
I'm convinced by now that it takes a dramatic event, or someone new, who suddenly introduces a world-shaking, different approach to everything, in order for "the leopard to change his spots."
Jordan Peterson is a genius, though I have major A PRIORI disagreements with him. Yet he's correct about this--- in the same sort of way that Max von Sydow expressed it to Ethan Hawke in "Snow Falling On Cedars:"
"People generally don't change unless a traumatic event occurs in their life which triggers the brain into new action." I was actually looking for something ELSE from him which is even more germane, but that will do. I do wish that logic is all it took to reach agreement, but that's not enough. Which is a big reason why the country and the world are so screwed-up. It's not about logic. It's about protecting vested interests. Alas and alack.