Fox news fair and balanced?

[amicus]

Fox News, attn. Brit Hume, managing news editor:

Fox news fair and balanced?

Watching your Sunday afternoon news/talk format, I am extremely disappointed yet again.

Employing the services of the always sensationalistic Geraldo Rivera does the concept of objective reportage a tremendous disservice.

I can imagine the difficult decisions involved in fielding crews and equipment in expectation of the effects of Hurricane Dean. However, the disappointment shown and the facts ignored that the hurricane had passed over Kingston, Jamaica, when clearly on the screen one could see the eye of the storm had gone south of the island. Geraldo flatly refused to accept the ‘fact’ of the situation and continued to repeat, as did following announcers, the same faulty information.

It was only when a real Meteorologist came on that acknowledgment was made of where the storm track actually was.

In addition, the entire content of the information provided was that the storm would track through the Gulf with possible threats to Texas and Louisiana. Again, it took the meteorologist to clarify that the track of the storm would not, repeat not, threaten directly either Texas or any other State.

The overall ‘fair and balanced’ philosophy seems to bleed over into hard news for one thing, for another, presenting two extreme views in opposition to each other, does not serve to accurately and objectively present news, even political and social events, let alone hard news.

Since I have not received any response from previous emails to you, not even the acknowledgment of a receipt of my communication, I doubt anyone reads incoming commentary anyway.

Why ask for it if you just ignore it?

CNN and MSNBC are blatantly left wing oriented with no pretense to fair and balanced.

Were there another source of unbiased objective reporting, Fox news would be a thing in my past.

Amicus...

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Fox demonstrates pervasive rightward tilt in its news judgement/story selection, and its opinion shows. In this it's the perfect bookend on the right for the tweedle dee, tweedle dum CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and MSNBC. Of course most of the content emitted in equal measure from all these entities is pure melodrama and pathos, free of any signifigance or meaning to the lives of any person beyond those of its subjects.

 

[S-Des]

There is no such thing as fair and balanced, because humans have their opinions. Even the anchors and reporters of old had bias and it showed in their reporting (granted, not to the extent of what you see today). I like Fox in general because they don't pretend to be what their not. O'Reilly & Hannity tell you they're conservative and that what they're giving are opinions (sometimes more like wishful thinking, but still opinions). Colmes is an unapologetic liberal, although I like his substitute Beckel much more. Greta's show is mainly about the legal system and her guests portray some bias, but never seem to take the law for granted. It's the most informed show of any of the news ones I've seen. The other shows are adequate, but don't stand out in any way to me.

The other networks are identicle with the way they handle things, which is why it always amuses me to see people so upset with Fox. You think you're getting "news" from MSNBC? Keith Olberman once gave Hannity his "Worst person in the world" award for his Freedom Concerts, which raise money for the children of soldiers killed or wounded in the war. Why was Hannity the worst person in the world that day (instead of a suicide bomber, rapist, crooked politician, etc...)? Because one of his sponsers was from Hong Kong. Yeah, that's balanced.

 

[CharleyH]

Fox News, attn. Brit Hume, managing news editor:

Fox news fair and balanced?

Watching your Sunday afternoon news/talk format, I am extremely disappointed yet again.

Employing the services of the always sensationalistic Geraldo Rivera does the concept of objective reportage a tremendous disservice.

I can imagine the difficult decisions involved in fielding crews and equipment in expectation of the effects of Hurricane Dean. However, the disappointment shown and the facts ignored that the hurricane had passed over Kingston, Jamaica, when clearly on the screen one could see the eye of the storm had gone south of the island. Geraldo flatly refused to accept the ‘fact’ of the situation and continued to repeat, as did following announcers, the same faulty information.

It was only when a real Meteorologist came on that acknowledgment was made of where the storm track actually was.

In addition, the entire content of the information provided was that the storm would track through the Gulf with possible threats to Texas and Louisiana. Again, it took the meteorologist to clarify that the track of the storm would not, repeat not, threaten directly either Texas or any other State.

The overall ‘fair and balanced’ philosophy seems to bleed over into hard news for one thing, for another, presenting two extreme views in opposition to each other, does not serve to accurately and objectively present news, even political and social events, let alone hard news.

Since I have not received any response from previous emails to you, not even the acknowledgment of a receipt of my communication, I doubt anyone reads incoming commentary anyway.

Why ask for it if you just ignore it?

CNN and MSNBC are blatantly left wing oriented with no pretense to fair and balanced.

Were there another source of unbiased objective reporting, Fox news would be a thing in my past.

Amicus...

Which cave have you been hiding in, Ami? You seriously can't believe that any news is actually objective? News is so constructed these days that it's a wonder anyone believes in democracy in America.

There was a time (you should look it up) when news was about objectivity, yet that quickly ended shortly after America's loss in Vietnam.

 

[sr71plt]

"There is no such thing as fair and balanced, because humans have their opinions."

Bingo. It's just nice that most people know that off the top now and can pick and choose what slant they prefer to watch (if any).

 

[amicus]

Fox demonstrates pervasive rightward tilt in its news judgement/story selection, and its opinion shows. In this it's the perfect bookend on the right for the tweedle dee, tweedle dum CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and MSNBC. Of course most of the content emitted in equal measure from all these entities is pure melodrama and pathos, free of any signifigance or meaning to the lives of any person beyond those of its subjects.

~~~

I am sure others have commented that you have a facility for the use of words seldom approached by anyone.

Very pleasing... thank you

amicus...

 

[S-Des]

Bingo. It's just nice that most people know that off the top now and can pick and choose what slant they prefer to watch (if any).

Or choose to watch a little from both slants to try to understand each side. I don't trust the news in the first place, because they do get it wrong so often. I prefer to understand the opinions of both sides because the perspective of the general populace is often as important (if not moreso) than the facts of an individual story.

 

[amicus]

The problem with claiming or admitting or believing that you, personally cannot be objective and thus, no on can do but express opinion, is that it carries over into every field of human endeavor.

If there is no objective truth, or, even if there is, humans cannot perceive or communicate it.

That seems to be the consensus of this forum and in essence, precludes any intellectual endeavor of 'searching' for truth, as by your declaration, it does not exist.

What then the purpose of 'thinking' at all? Why not just feel and emote?

Oh, sorry, that's all you do anyway.

Amicus...

 

[S-Des]

The problem with claiming or admitting or believing that you, personally cannot be objective and thus, no on can do but express opinion, is that it carries over into every field of human endeavor.

If there is no objective truth, or, even if there is, humans cannot perceive or communicate it.

That seems to be the consensus of this forum and in essence, precludes any intellectual endeavor of 'searching' for truth, as by your declaration, it does not exist.

What then the purpose of 'thinking' at all? Why not just feel and emote?

Oh, sorry, that's all you do anyway.

Amicus...

You were good until the last few lines. What's the reason for searching for the truth? Exactly that. Pursuit of the truth is a noble endeavor. Stryiving to learn, despite knowing that you can't learn everything (and everyone's ability to learn is limited by their capacity to learn), is what we are all about. We can't make America perfect (just talking to the American's for the moment), but does that mean we give up trying? People have their biases, but that doesn't mean you can't learn from them.

 

[amicus]

You were good until the last few lines. What's the reason for searching for the truth? Exactly that. Pursuit of the truth is a noble endeavor. Stryiving to learn, despite knowing that you can't learn everything (and everyone's ability to learn is limited by their capacity to learn), is what we are all about. We can't make America perfect (just talking to the American's for the moment), but does that mean we give up trying? People have their biases, but that doesn't mean you can't learn from them.

~~~

I should just let that slide...but, sighs...I cannot.

I've chased lots of ladies in my life, from about the 6th grade until an hour ago at the market. Now, if I believed, then and now, that all I could do was pursue them and never, ever, by definition, capture one...would I, would you, continue a useless quest as a 'noble endeavor'.

I think not.

I think also that unless ole Tom Edison knew he could find the right material for a filament for an electric light bulb, he would never have spent the frugal years of effort.

It may well be that the best part of the journey is the journey, but without arriving at a destination, one may as well just wander about anywhere?

There is truth, there is objective, absolute truth and the mind of man can both comprehend and communicate that truth whether you believe so or not.

Amicus...

 

[S-Des]

~~~

I should just let that slide...but, sighs...I cannot.

I've chased lots of ladies in my life, from about the 6th grade until an hour ago at the market. Now, if I believed, then and now, that all I could do was pursue them and never, ever, by definition, capture one...would I, would you, continue a useless quest as a 'noble endeavor'.

I think not.

I think also that unless ole Tom Edison knew he could find the right material for a filament for an electric light bulb, he would never have spent the frugal years of effort.

It may well be that the best part of the journey is the journey, but without arriving at a destination, one may as well just wander about anywhere?

There is truth, there is objective, absolute truth and the mind of man can both comprehend and communicate that truth whether you believe so or not.

Amicus...

There's no need to let it go, Ami. I'm not fragile. What you're missing about my point isn't that you couldn't catch some of the women, but that you couldn't catch them all (or the perfect one). You had to be content with the ones you were able to catch. Tom Edison made great inventions, but were they perfect? Did he ever realize his greatness in his lifetime? On one hand you're asking for "perfect" news without balance, but on the other defending greatness (which still falls short of perfection). We're arguing the same thing, just not with the same qualifiers.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Employing the services of the always sensationalistic Geraldo Rivera does the concept of objective reportage a tremendous disservice.

*laugh*

"Serious journalism."

"Geraldo Rivera."

I think you might be able to start a matter/antimatter explosion with those terms alone. Hope for fuel in the future?

That sounds like genuinely wretched reporting (what you describe in your original post), and yet so familiar - especially that barely disguised note of disappointment when a potential catastrophe fails to occur. It's fascinating how the first casualities of "human interest" emotional reporting are inevitably humanity and emotion.

I like the BBC website's news coverage. I go in at the World Service page. It's not always as detailed on the US as I might like, but it's more thorough on the rest of the world, and they work hard to be balanced and factually accurate. Their strong and fair coverage of two particular instances in which the BBC itself was found to be in the wrong in public disputes convinced me that there are still some investigative journalists with real standards out there.

 

[amicus]

There's no need to let it go, Ami. I'm not fragile. What you're missing about my point isn't that you couldn't catch some of the women, but that you couldn't catch them all (or the perfect one). You had to be content with the ones you were able to catch. Tom Edison made great inventions, but were they perfect? Did he ever realize his greatness in his lifetime? On one hand you're asking for "perfect" news without balance, but on the other defending greatness (which still falls short of perfection). We're arguing the same thing, just not with the same qualifiers.

~~~

Where did I insert the concept of 'perfection' in my commentary?

Understanding the truth of 'gravity', in the context of planet earth does not hold with the context of micro gravity in space, or on the surface of the Moon or Mars, but each little truth, in context, applied to gravity in general, gives us 'absolute' knowledge, again, within context and accurate, objective knowledge, that even I can relate to you with my meager braincells.

I think the term, perfection might apply to a sphere, or the definition of a square, or a right angle triangle, but to insist that all truth must be, however you define it, 'perfect', makes no sense to me.


amicus...

 

[CharleyH]

The problem with claiming or admitting or believing that you, personally cannot be objective and thus, no on can do but express opinion, is that it carries over into every field of human endeavor.

If there is no objective truth, or, even if there is, humans cannot perceive or communicate it.

That seems to be the consensus of this forum and in essence, precludes any intellectual endeavor of 'searching' for truth, as by your declaration, it does not exist.

What then the purpose of 'thinking' at all? Why not just feel and emote?

Oh, sorry, that's all you do anyway.

Amicus...

I think people do mistake news for objective truth these days. I think you make this mistake a lot, Ami, and I believe it is an unfortunate mistake that you make (COUGH COUGH).

Pointed question: Are you objective, Amicus?

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=CharleyH]I think people do mistake news for objective truth these days. I think you make this mistake a lot, Ami, and I believe it is an unfortunate mistake that you make (COUGH COUGH).

Pointed question: Are you objective, Amicus?[/QUOTE]

~~~

Well Charley, I am human, after all, although most would not accept that possibility, I do make mistakes and misjudgments and even sometimes rush to judgment and find myself in error; I try not to do those things.

And your pointed question of entrapment, Charley, yes, I am objective with several caveats, one of which involves perception versus accumulated knowledge in an anecdotal manner, for example: If I meet 999 lovely ladies and each one can spell 'Yogurt' correctly but not 'Epistemology', then although I know better, I may indeed prejudicially decide that number 1,000, will do the same.

It always surprises and humbles me when I err in such things.

Rather like the seldom appearing, 'The Earl', on this forum, who each time I hint he is one of the 'usual suspects', he tells me I am wrong to assume that; there are several here, gender indeterminate or muddled, that I cannot get a handle on 'objectively', but I do form an opinion which colors what ensues.

As to the news...dunno how much of my past I have related or you have read, but I listen and read a great deal of news and can usually determine with a search or two, the validity of an item of interest, so I doubt very much that I make the 'mistakes' you accuse me of.

Although I think one can be objective towards all things if one chooses to, it can be difficult at times. I coached three of my children, two boys and a girl in little league baseball. As a coach I had to assign a starting line-up on a fair, unbiased, objective manner, as best I could. When I left my own son out of the starting line-up, my SO at the time was infuriated.But then, she was a woman and a mother and I understood. I slept on the couch most of the time anyway.

chuckles....bye...


ami

 

[sr71plt]

Or choose to watch a little from both slants to try to understand each side. I don't trust the news in the first place, because they do get it wrong so often. I prefer to understand the opinions of both sides because the perspective of the general populace is often as important (if not moreso) than the facts of an individual story.

I check both for the flip side. Neither slanted-view media spectrum helps all that much into understanding whatever the "facts" are in the issue. What they do for me is give me an idea how the public reaction is going to be shoved or teased or whatever. Most of the public is as subtle as a McDonald's arch. They lap it up and take it as gospel and that's what usually drives what happens in response to events. That's why I watch the media coverage at all--to help determine where we're going from here. The "facts" that set it off usually have little effect on this.

 

[sr71plt]

The problem with claiming or admitting or believing that you, personally cannot be objective and thus, no on can do but express opinion, is that it carries over into every field of human endeavor.

I just love it when folks seem to think they have a vote in such things. Admitting/believing you personally cannot be objective isn't a "problem." It's a reality. Just accept it and go from there rather than assuming you can decide otherwise. And of course it carries over into every field of human endeavor. And so, what do you do? The best you can do is to bend over backwards always to make room for the other perspectives tooling around.

 

[sr71plt]

I like the BBC website's news coverage. I go in at the World Service page.

I agree that BBC has about the most objective coverage going (on everything but anything on the UK or its colonies/former colonies other than the U.S., of course). For years I fed direct original-source translations into their monitoring service and they seemed the most careful about not embellishing from their own perspective (as long as there wasn't a UK angle, of course).

 

[Liar]

Fox News are confusing 'balaned' with 'balancing'. They claim to be balaned, but show that they try be balancing, a counterweight to the left wing bias they see from CNN, MSNBC et al. So they lean in panic in the opposite direction.

Oh and Geraldo Riviera has ten times more more facial hair than integrity.

 

[WRJames]

I watch the BBC news (along with the others) to try to get some idea of what is going on in the world -- try it. You will be shocked at how many important things are never (or rarely, or belatedly) reported by ANY news network in the US.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Oh and Geraldo Riviera has ten times more more facial hair than integrity.

Beautiful. Reminds me of the captain's assessment of Rimmer in Red Dwarf: "Probably has more teeth than brain cells."

 

[only_more_so]

First of all, I have no idea why Geraldo Rivera isn't in jail for that idiocy revealing troop positions. Also, why anyone would hire him for news is beside me.

As for the hurricane... Guess what, it did go over Kingston Jamaica. The "eye" of the storm tracked south, but the hurricane is tens of miles wide (the eye alone of a hurricane Dean's strength is 5-10 miles wide), with the right side being the most devastating. I would actually rather have the eye go over my home than be on the right side of a hurricane.

Also, earlier computer models of the storm showed storm tracks heading for the US. Most tracks put landfall at the Texas Mexico border, but at least one track showed it veering north for Lousiana. Now, none of the tracks show that, but that could change again. So perhaps it was just older news that the reporters in the field were referring to.

It is easy to armchair quarterback just about anything, including the news.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I think, regrettably, that too much stock is taken in the "nothing's perfect" cliche'. Fairness and Balance is entirely possible--even with "humans" in the equation. It's not some kind of crazy logical impossibility because "everything man touches is imperfect".

I hate cliche's a LOT.

Can you tell?

 

[S-Des]

I think, regrettably, that too much stock is taken in the "nothing's perfect" cliche'. Fairness and Balance is entirely possible--even with "humans" in the equation. It's not some kind of crazy logical impossibility because "everything man touches is imperfect".

I hate cliche's a LOT.

Can you tell?

It's not a cliche or a stereotype, Joe. I was watching Chris Matthews the other day and he ended a segment by repeatedly saying how much he "hated" this war and how sad it made him. This isn't a news statement and shows his bias (even if you think that bias is a good thing). My earlier example of Olberman is one of many I could have used (he is the "Sean Hannity" of MSNBC). Similarly, you can watch Bill O'Reilly get angry and begin screaming when he believes someone isn't seeing facts or is putting a "spin" on their comment. I can't even comment on Hannity except to say he makes Rush Limbaugh seem like a credible news source.

What's out there is so extremely unbalanced, that to even get someone remotely close to neutral would be a miracle at this point. We have them at the local level (I've listened to Ron Magers since I was a teenager and still couldn't tell you what his political opinions are), but to make it to a national level they are required to pander to groups. The ones who get there because of their political connections come straight from someone's campaign and you'd have to be insane to think they were neutral (seriously, George Stephanopoulos hosting a weekly politics show and a Democratic debate??? Can you imagine Carl Rove being hired to do one in 4 or 5 years?).

Is it possible for people to be neutral? Obviously (at least to a point). But if you can point out someone who you feel meets the level of neutrality you suggest (at a national level), I'm all ears. I've seen videos of the old commentators, and there was bias there as well (whether it was pro-American or whatever). Even if the person delivering the news is neutral, it doesn't mean that they themselves did the reporting, editing, and wrote it. My point is, understand the bias, so you can be prepared to watch and listen with the proper level of skepticism.

 

[BlackShanglan]

There's also a difference between unbiased presentation of the facts and unbiased selection of the facts. The former might be possible; the latter isn't. We can't present every fact available and our selections are bound to be based on what we personally think are the most important items. Our ideas of what is important will always vary, because there is no answer to that question that isn't dictated by individual perspective.

Of course, that's just when we're talking about empirically provable facts. Once we get into predictions, theories, and evaluations, we're on trickier ground still.