So the NYT writes an article about Fox New's slipping ratings. What do we see on Fox today as their rebuttle? (The pictures are the two authors of the article)

Article Here: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003823885

http://www.chadhorn.net/misc/2079_1215119367.jpg


http://www.chadhorn.net/misc/2079_1215119409.jpg

This one's got the video: http://mediamatters.org/items/200807020002?f=h_top

That's just sad.

Some things to learn in life:

When someone says "I'm a christian" - Be prepared to get ripped off.

When someone says "No Problem" - There's a problem.

When Fox News says It's unbiased - it is biased.

When Fox news says something about anything - It probably isnt true.

I still get a kick out of people who actually watch that channel.

Some things to learn in life:

When someone says "I'm a christian" - Be prepared to get ripped off.

When someone says "No Problem" - There's a problem.

When Fox News says It's unbiased - it is biased.

When Fox news says something about anything - It probably isnt true.

I still get a kick out of people who actually watch that channel.

While I do not condone messing with photo's or news stories show me US a news channel that isn't bias in one direction or another..

While I do not condone messing with photo's or news stories show me US a news channel that isn't bias in one direction or another..

There will always be some bias, but as blatant as Fox is? What makes them just plain bad is they are so obviously biased and yet they scream they are not, I don't see that with ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC. The biggest problem with most of those networks is their ignoring the real news and reporting the "fluff". As far as what happened with Rather at CBS, he simply became the fall guy for bad production, the guilty party is the person who created those documents and tried to pass them off as the real ones when the real ones had long ago been destroyed. What Rather did was report the truth but his backup was a fraud but what he reported was most definately true.

Fox on the other hand lacks any journalistic integrity, they just simply make up the news and mask a republican agenda as being news they are so politically entrenched and obviously so other than the shouting mouths screaming insane diatribe they really don't do much more to hide their bias.

But unbiased news? I go with The Daily Show....that is unbiased.

On my side of the isle CNN et al might as well have Lennon or Marx reading the teleprompter..

On my side of the isle CNN et al might as well have Lennon or Marx reading the teleprompter..

Sure I understand that, it is a very marxist thing to report on Paris Hilton or Britney, they did do some really commie things with those reports on how FEMA and DHS in tandem fucked up that whole Katrina response thing and also that crap they reported about no attention being paid to the security of our ports. All in all that type of reporting has no place in America, we need more poignant reports on the secret terrorist fist bumps and the obvious pro muslim terrorist agenda that people like Obama are pushing.

Osg, you have no idea what Marxism or Communism are, or what the difference between the two is. CNN has a bias towards neither of them. CNN has a bias towards making money.

Fox is pretty bad, CNN leans but Fox full on waves the republican flag.

Osg, you have no idea what Marxism or Communism are, or what the difference between the two is. CNN has a bias towards neither of them. CNN has a bias towards making money.

Dead spot on.

Dead spot on.

Yes, isn't it a shame that American companies have stooped to trying to make a profit.

MSNBC is the Bizzaro equivalent of Fox News. Chris Mathews steps all over his guests responses to questions just like the Fox talking heads when he decides his point is more important than letting people answer his questions. I enjoy watching both from time to time more for entertainment than for news; I do like David Gregory and Andrea Mitchell on the MSNBC side, and I also like Shepard Smith and Jane Skinner on the Fox side. The rest are simply shills for the political leanings of the ownership.

I heard Mathews is in the running for the 'Meet The Press' chair, along with Gregory and Mitchell. I won't watch that show again if he gets it. He does not show the same seriousness toward the subjects as Russert, Gregory or Mitchell.

Chuck Todd plz

My point Fil is that news can't be about making money. Once you sign on to that doctrine you lose all cred imho.

That's essentially the crux of it. News organizations can make money (and have, and do, while protecting journalistic integrity), but there is a big difference between making money delivering the news and delivering the news to make money. We even used to have laws and regulations that encouraged them to do it right.

The cable news death spiral has gone down far enough that even local stations are running the "if it bleeds, it leads" philosophy and managing to find shock and scandal in everything while straight up ignoring anything that can't fit into sixty seconds.

It is a shame that people would rather learn about Britney Spear's latest fender bender than mounting tensions among the Serb population in the Kosovo region; or, that Angelina Jolie checking into a hospital in France for necessary care and observation prior to giving birth to twins should trump the devastation in China as a result of earthquake related flooding and pollution.

Unfortunately, networks for the most part cater to the desires of their viewers; and, too many viewers these days would rather invest their interest in the superficial than the depressing news based in the reality of the world around us.

The other thing we don't want (albeit successful in terms of Britain) is state run news or regulations about what they can and can not say - but perhaps some form of not-for-profit organization standing that must be required for our news agencies? Even then adding regulation into reporting starts to get scary.

The current setup is not very far from that situation. The very same money that runs the media is prevalent in the lobby money that buys our government.

I don't see how an obligatory 'not for profit' status for news agencies would have anything to do with what content they were 'allowed' to cover, with the possible exception of religious issues such that shade into prosyletizing; but then again, church organizations and televangelists are tax-exempt to begin with, and could be required to pay for their on-air time out of those tax-free funds.

I think regulations requiring setting aside free airtime on the major networks (as was done, once upon a time, with children's programming) for news programs, and requiring that news agencies/units that *utilize* that free time be non-profit entities would go a fair way in terms of at least providing a channel for topical news programming to get heard in this country. People who *actually* prefer to hear about Britney Spears' latest crotch-flashing episode can always hit E! or other such fluff channels as I seriously doubt they'd be chased out of existence by such measures.

Regards,
Nydia

CNN has a bias towards making money.
I thought they had a bias towards ratings....

I thought they had a bias towards ratings....

And higher ratings = more advertising revenue.

Well, it equals a justification as to why they ask for certain prices for certain timeslots, to be sure.