WHY Is Fox News So Biased?

[abajan]

Barbados has had access to Fox News, CNN, ABC, MSNBC, BBC World and a host of other news channels for some time now. Out of the lot, Fox News comes across as extremely biased against the Democratic Party in general and President Obama in particular. Most people here simply refuse to watch it and the few who do watch it do so just for the entertainment value and blonde anchors! (If nothing else, their news is certainly fun to watch.) They are so biased that “Fair and Balanced” is now widely used to sarcastically refer to anything that’s just the opposite.

Some Googling has led me to discover that Fox’s head Roger Ailes used to be a “heavy” in the Republican Party. So what? Does that mean he has to completely abandon his objectivity and not be responsible enough to at least try to steer news coverage at Fox News down the middle of the political aisle?

Then there’s this latest ad which I understand appeared in Friday’s Washington Post. OMG, man. I can’t vouch for ABC, CBS, NBC or MSNBC but CNN gave extensive coverage on that event. As someone on CNN stated, Fox seems to have confused reporting on the tea parties with supporting them.

I think most people who have watched MSNBC for any length of time would recognize that they also have a bias but in favor of the Dems. Still, their bias is mild in comparison to Fox’s. Come on, Fox. I know you can do better.

[John Scott]

I think most people who have watched MSNBC for any length of time would recognize that they also have a bias but in favor of the Dems. Still, their bias is mild in comparison to Fox’s.

LOL LOL LOL

MSNBC is a bit left of Marx.

Come on, Fox. I know you can do better.

Better would be more in favor of individual rights and more opposed to socialism. So you want them to promote the ending of ALL wealth redistribution? That would be a bit extreme, IMHO. Too many people are accustomed to getting welfare checks every month.

[Allen Farlow]

I don't always agree with the slant Fox News has, but I must say, if it were not for Fox News the current administration would get away with even more than they already have gotten away with.

If not for Fox News, we'd never have heard a thing about ACORN.

Somebody needs to 'spill the beans', and if the ACORN scandal is any indication, that certainly will not be CNN, MSNBC, NBC, or ABC...they've hardly even said anything about the ACORN scandal, even though it involved child abuse of minors, prostitution, illegal immigration, criminal enterprise, tax evasion and a few other juicy things, I'm sure.

In a perfect world news would be unbiased, but news is run by people and people will never be perfect. Without investigative news revealing what TPTB don't want us to know, there would be no checks and certainly no balances. (Maybe fair and balanced? Nah...)

Fair? Who cares? I just want to know what's going on, so if I don't like it I can protest it.

So far I haven't seen much about Obama that I've liked. (Did you hear Obama has told the Governor of New York to forget about running for Governor of New York in 2010? True.)

What business does Obama think he has messing around in New York state politics? It's nothing but power and politics...

[John Scott]

You know, I wonder why nobody has implemented a really educational news format. Instead of hacks promoting liberal socialism or hacks promoting conservative religious nonsense, why not have highly intelligent individuals on each side presenting the facts and briefly debating it?

[Allen Farlow]

Naw, the truth is just too much trouble, John.

It's more fun to make wild, unsubstantiated claims and then issue psuedo-apologies buried on page 17 when someone calls ya on it...

Heck, if someone actually had a show with nothing but un-biased news, what would O'Reilly, Hannity and Dobbs have to go on about?

Oh, that's right, they'd have to yammer about some show that dares to put forth un-biased news to the masses...

That would be something to see. I might actually tune in to see what they have to say about it.

[Advertise]

I have to agree with John, Fox news is more conservative MSNBC is a hair short of socialist. And like Allen said, these channels are ran by people and people have opinions, and the same way Fox is hammering on Obama's administration, MSNBC did the likes during President Bush. Not to mention that other analists like Colberg, Colmes, and extreme liberalist (if not socialist) film director Micheal Moore never missed a chance to take a shot a Bush. But that is, the beauty of living in a FREE country, with freedom of speech. That, was the first thing our founding fathers gave us upon writing the Constitution. The first amendment gives us the freedom of speech and the freedom to gather publicly and protest. These are liberties that lead to violent and deadly outbreaks in other countries, and are often times punishable. NOT IN THE USA!!!

Last but not least, we can not forget that the cable NEWS stations have political analists hosting their prime time shows. These shows are the OpEds (editorial columns) of TV, which means their content is the opinion of its host and it is up to us to agree or disagree. Sincerely, I agree that if it weren't for these opinion shows we probably would not have found out about all the issues surrounding this administration.

[Allen Farlow]

Advertise, that's funny!:

Originally Posted by advertise

...other analists like Colberg, Colmes, and...

I'm sure you meant to write the word 'analyst'.

Analist is something else, which I won't say here (this is a family forum, after all!), but you may not be too far off the mark.

Lol!

[Hades]

abajan, you won't find any unbiased source of information. Even those that look unbiased in fact are (because they decide which news to show more often and which ones skip in their broadcasts).

You should watch news from many different sources to have a clearer picture.

And Allen is right, for god's sake don't trust analists!

[abajan]

Originally Posted by Hades

abajan, you won't find any unbiased source of information. Even those that look unbiased in fact are (because they decide which news to show more often and which ones skip in their broadcasts).

You should watch news from many different sources to have a clearer picture.

And Allen is right, for god's sake don't trust analists!

You actually read my post and its title, right? What do you understand “So” in the title and “extremely” (emphasized at that) in the second sentence to mean? It is the degree of bias to which I am referring.

And who implied that I don’t watch news from several sources? Certainly not I. Perhaps you were using “You” in a general sense and not referring to me personally because it’s hard to see how one could have drawn such a conclusion from my post. If anything, just the opposite could be said to have been implied.

[Bob Barr]

Originally Posted by abajan

You actually read my post and its title, right? What do you understand “So” in the title and “extremely” (emphasized at that) in the second sentence to mean? It is the degree of bias to which I am referring.

And who implied that I don’t watch news from several sources? Certainly not I. Perhaps you were using “You” in a general sense and not referring to me personally because it’s hard to see how one could have drawn such a conclusion from my post. If anything, just the opposite could be said to have been implied.

Every news source that you cited in your original post has a heavy left bias. (Chris Mathews of MSNBC said he felt "a tingle up his leg" over Obama getting elected.) When the Fox network doesn't fall into line with the others, it's not that they're so biased to the right, it's a fact that the others are just barely to the right of Karl Marx (with the possible exception of MSNBC, which I'm sure is to his left).

If you have viewership numbers available to you, compare the ratings of Fox shows versus the other cable channels. Fox consistently far outdraws their competition. That would not be the case if their bias were as bad as you seem to think it is.

[Hades]

Originally Posted by abajan

You actually read my post and its title, right? What do you understand “So” in the title and “extremely” (emphasized at that) in the second sentence to mean? It is the degree of bias to which I am referring.

And who implied that I don’t watch news from several sources? Certainly not I. Perhaps you were using “You” in a general sense and not referring to me personally because it’s hard to see how one could have drawn such a conclusion from my post. If anything, just the opposite could be said to have been implied.

Yes I did read your post, and I was not criticizing in any way. The You was indeed a general one. I apologize if you felt attacked due to my poor english wording.

[Advertise]

I'm sure you meant to write the word 'analyst'.

Thanks Allen, Yeah that is what I meant!!!! LOL!!!

But, as you said those guys might not be too far from the other word if you know what I mean. Oh, and I forgot to mention Chris Matthews, whom someone else mentioned here. Talk about showing your political bias...

But I have to agree with Bob that the other networks are all along the same political line that whatever Fox says or does seems to be outrageous. And you know what they funny thing is that they are surprinsingly banned from many basic cable providers in a lot of cities (to get them you have to pay more) and a lot of hotels I have stayed at do not show them... Weird, coincidence or deliberate? I don't know... What do you think?

[jamehanna]

They are all biased at times, imho. Just depends on what topic is being discussed, and where you personally stand, that dictates whether you consider them biased or not. Two sides to each coin. Truth somewhere in the middle.