Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    I think they want it to be more neutral? Or in my case, for an equivalent left-wing media outlet. Which of course, would be attacked with rigour by screaming rightists, as they do now with the BBC.
    That's fair enough. And the second point is true (although I must admit to being disappointed with the wording used by the BBC on a great many articles but that is a discussion for another time).

    In any event, the whole "Fox News is biased" outrage is pointless. They are within their rights to act as they do so I fail to see why people are spending so much time "exposing" it and getting annoyed about it. It's as stupid as me getting annoyed that EastEnders is a load of nonsense. You don't like it don't watch it and if enough people agree with you it will change or go bust.

    As I've said before it sounds like kids screaming "It's not fair! His toy is bigger than mine".
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    Could all those complaining about Fox please post just once saying what they want to happen? Do they want it to be shut down? Do they want to dictate to it what it can broadcast? Do they want a disclaimer saying "this is all Republican brainwashing"?. Yeah its biased, but what do you care? What do you want to happen?
    Like I have said, I want I want a regulator like Ofcom (Which is independent of government) to come in and force them to clean up their act. All media outlets should be asked to uphold a broadcasting code of conduct which maintains the highest standards of integrity, impartiality and objectivity.

    The ironic thing is of course that Ofcom was brought in through an act of parliament; which the present American government would never ever agree to.

    PS
    I think the FCC is Ofcoms equivalent in America. I don’t know enough about it to make a comment, but I will assume that they are pretty incompetent or have their hands tied behind their back by the government.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    The FCC has nothing to do with cable television. It only regulates the free and public airwaves. I'm not sure if Ofcom is the same; as I said, Fox News is on Sky, I get it myself.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    That's fair enough. And the second point is true (although I must admit to being disappointed with the wording used by the BBC on a great many articles but that is a discussion for another time).

    In any event, the whole "Fox News is biased" outrage is pointless. They are within their rights to act as they do so I fail to see why people are spending so much time "exposing" it and getting annoyed about it. It's as stupid as me getting annoyed that EastEnders is a load of nonsense. You don't like it don't watch it and if enough people agree with you it will change or go bust.

    As I've said before it sounds like kids screaming "It's not fair! His toy is bigger than mine".
    I think the reason it is rightly exposed as it is and people are kicking off about it is because it does have a huge monopoly within its sphere- lots watch it, and becuase there aren't enough strong opposites, neutrality can be very easily lost.

    If you don't like Eastenders, you have Coronation St, Neighbours, Hollyoaks, Emmerdale...what do people who don't ike Fox news have that is similar in scale?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    I think the reason it is rightly exposed as it is and people are kicking off about it is because it does have a huge monopoly within its sphere- lots watch it, and becuase there aren't enough strong opposites, neutrality can be very easily lost.

    If you don't like Eastenders, you have Coronation St, Neighbours, Hollyoaks, Emmerdale...what do people who don't ike Fox news have that is similar in scale?
    I hardly think that is a valid argument. They can do without if they don't want it. It's not like it's a necessity because they can get news elsewhere.

    Even the idea of getting a regulator to censor their broadcasts is wrong. They are privately owned and (I think) privately financed and are therefore only accountable to their shareholders. If they libel then sue, if they merely have an opinion you don't agree with, then switch off. That's it. At least with the BBC people can claim that they are forced to pay for it. But with Fox, people choose to. And if they choose to watch they cannot complain about the content.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    If you don't like Eastenders, you have Coronation St, Neighbours, Hollyoaks, Emmerdale...what do people who don't ike Fox news have that is similar in scale?
    I'm home in the States, and I have:

    CBS Evening News
    ABC Evening News
    NBC Evening News
    CNN
    CNN Headline News
    MSNBC
    PBS
    BBC World News
    CNBC

    All available to anyone who has cable or satellite, which is the only way to get Fox News Channel.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    It's as stupid as me getting annoyed that EastEnders is a load of nonsense.
    Its not, becasue news isnt a dramatic presentation, or at least news isnt supposed to be. Plus Eastenders, given people know the genre is a distortion of reality and a form of enterainment which assumes a high level of willing disbeleif, is not like news, which is conversely there to present reality as best it can. I sometimes wonder whether, especially in the current information age, news or purposefully informative media should be treated the same profit chasing wise as Hollyoaks or whatever. Im not sure whether its a normal economic good. If you are going to regulate it, you could still have it flexible enough, such as only having main news bulletins heavily scrutenised for fairness or lack of analysis, whereas other shows, such as political commentary, wont have to be. I think this regulation, if it was put in place, should also come down harder on media companies whose presentation of waht they do isnt exacly the same as what they actually do.

    I dont see how this choice argument counters bias, if theyre all biased in one way or another then it doesnt matter how many you have, they're all failing in their goal in providing to as good a level as possible in an accurate conveyance of today's events.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    Does anyone on here do much more than give their opinions on matters based on what they've learned about and agreed with? Do you do any more on here tahn spout one-liners, ask rhetorical questions, bat away good questions, and use the "sarcastic" smiley face far too often?


    Fox news is terrible, but what do people expect? BBC news is far better.
    Do you honestly not think that what he said is conspiratorial nonsense?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    I hardly think that is a valid argument. They can do without if they don't want it. It's not like it's a necessity because they can get news elsewhere.

    Even the idea of getting a regulator to censor their broadcasts is wrong. They are privately owned and (I think) privately financed and are therefore only accountable to their shareholders. If they libel then sue, if they merely have an opinion you don't agree with, then switch off. That's it. At least with the BBC people can claim that they are forced to pay for it. But with Fox, people choose to. And if they choose to watch they cannot complain about the content.
    Yes, but if one news outlet has such power, and there is none to match, then whether or not you agree with the validity of the argument, you must surely see why people on the left care enough to speak out about it?

    I think you( and so many other intelligent people), too quickly forget the superiority of your own mind to the general masses, and people not into poliics in any way. Have you heard of thr "Hypodermic Needle Theory"? The theory that for the majority, manipulation and coercion through media is extremely easy. These people just take what they see and read without question, because they don't have the intelligence to do otherwise. I bet there are millions who use Fox News as their source of information, oblivious to the fact that it is biased, and so they think they are getting a balanced view of the general news, which is subtely swaying thier opinions. I truly think that this is something that we can legitimately speak out against.

    How many people do you seriously believe have turned on Fox News, decided it was biased, and changed channel? From the general, politically apatheitc, politically retarded general public?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Do you honestly not think that what he said is conspiratorial nonsense?
    No. Perfectly sound to me. Things are always "conspirational nonsense" when they aren't politically aligned with ones own views, aren't they?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shady lane)
    I'm home in the States, and I have:

    CBS Evening News
    ABC Evening News
    NBC Evening News
    CNN
    CNN Headline News
    MSNBC
    PBS
    BBC World News
    CNBC

    All available to anyone who has cable or satellite, which is the only way to get Fox News Channel.

    There are many brands of cereal, but i always go for Kellogs. There are many fastfood joints; i tend to stick to KFC. There are thousands of different software programmes; i use Microsoft. Cleverly branded things always keep the majority with them. For a lot of people, Fox is almost the default channel to watch.

    You list all of those different channels- but how many non-politically aware people bother to check them out? Agin someone who believes the masses are as in-tune as they are when it comes to curent affairs, media outlets and politics.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Most people watch terrestrial news, which are the first three that I mentioned. They are by far the most watched news programs, far above Fox News.

    You want to make a conspiracy where there is none. People who watch Fox News want to. On cable, all of the news channels are next to each other, you can easily flip to CNN or MSNBC with hardly any effort. They WANT to watch the nonsense.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    The thing is, we shouldnt even have to be forced to fish around various channels watching different versions of the SAME news becasue the media has got to such a stupid state. Its fine to have political analysis if its clearly labelled as that, but bulletins shouldnt be merged into analysis. I always dread the words 'now lets get some reaction on that' in the 10 o clock news hour or whatever. No, lets not, lets just be told what the deal is.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shady lane)
    Most people watch terrestrial news, which are the first three that I mentioned. They are by far the most watched news programs, far above Fox News.

    You want to make a conspiracy where there is none. People who watch Fox News want to. On cable, all of the news channels are next to each other, you can easily flip to CNN or MSNBC with hardly any effort. They WANT to watch the nonsense.
    Sorry, i wasn't aware of any conspiracy i agreed with? I said i think Fox News is crap. I said it is clearly biased. Another person said that he thinks its stupid people care about it, for the reasons you have said. I gave reasons for why it isn't stupid to care about media bias. Simple as that. What conspiracy are you even talking about?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    do people think that e.g. Hannity and O'Rilley are so divisive and get pissed off about so many things in real life?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The people who are defending it are not looking at the bigger picture.

    Don’t forget that the media has an invaluable place in a democracy. As individuals most of us only make several pencil marks of a contribution to democracy, but the media is there all year, every year, holding the government to account. If the media no longer function as the watchdog, who will? We cant let standards slip.

    I know people are saying just flick the channel but that really isn’t good enough in my view. They currently have one of the largest cable shares, so there has to be sections of society that get their news solely from Fox. These people will then have a distorted view of the world, especially when they get their information from people who claim to be 'Fair and Balanced'.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Metropolitan)
    Fox News is a pile of ****e. I watch it a lot on the Sky TV platform, it's broadcast 24 hours a day. And I still think it's a pile of ****. I can't believe people are actually defending it.
    I completely agree with you mate. Fox News is an affront to journalism.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Micky666)
    The people who are defending it are not looking at the bigger picture.

    Don’t forget that the media has an invaluable place in a democracy. As individuals most of us only make several pencil marks of a contribution to democracy, but the media is there all year, every year, holding the government to account. If the media no longer function as the watchdog, who will? We cant let standards slip.

    I know people are saying just flick the channel but that really isn’t good enough in my view. They currently have one of the largest cable shares, so there has to be sections of society that get their news solely from Fox. These people will then have a distorted view of the world, especially when they get their information from people who claim to be 'Fair and Balanced'.
    Did you read anything that was said in this thread? The reason Fox has such high ratings is because it's the only news outlet with a right-wing slant. Virtually all the other ones have a left wing slant, which means the left wing audience will be split between them. It's like saying that if there's an election with 100 moderates and one extremist and the extremist gets more votes than any one moderate, that the electorate is supporting extremism.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Did you read anything that was said in this thread? The reason Fox has such high ratings is because it's the only news outlet with a right-wing slant. Virtually all the other ones have a left wing slant, which means the left wing audience will be split between them. It's like saying that if there's an election with 100 moderates and one extremist and the extremist gets more votes than any one moderate, that the electorate is supporting extremism.
    Fox does not provide a slant it provides dogma.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Micky666)
    Fox does not provide a slant it provides dogma.
    I was just about to say that. Claiming that Fox News has a right-wing 'slant' would be a gross understatement.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: December 3, 2007
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.