Support NeoGAF

[Steve Youngblood]

I've posted multiple studies showing FNC was at least the most balanced when it came to covering the Presidential candidates...

You're really ignoring the circumstances surrounding that coverage in order to raise your point. You're talking about during the primaries, are you not? If so, then I fail to see why they would have any reason to be biased in a left vs. left battle. McCain emerged as the presumptive nominee fairly early in the process, and it wasn't until June when the left vs. right battle presented itself clearly in the form of McCain vs. Obama. They had no reason to throw jabs when it was Obama vs. Clinton for the Democratic nomination.

Are you arguing about how unbiased their coverage is today?

 

[UltimaKilo]

I've posted multiple studies showing FNC was at least the most balanced when it came to covering the Presidential candidates...

I thought that award went to MSNBC? FOXNEWS and CNN treated the Clinton-Obama primaries far less biased than MSNBC. I just found this looking through Youtube and I laughed my butt off at Chris Mathews making Obama seem like a prophet "almost biblical". Poor Hillary had it all going against her in terms of the media.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9zp19KTT4c

 

[Anth]

Excuse me if I'm wrong, I don't follow US politics and news closely, but is there actually any kind of outlet or person that is considered neutral, fair and balanced in the US? All I see are party crusaders, that wear their biases on their sleeves.

Maybe that's just a consequence of a two party system in a country that is so large and varied, or maybe it's just my lack of knowledge about the country itself, but I really can't see how this works. How could anyone possibly take someone like O'Reilly seriously?

 

[Tamanon]

Excuse me if I'm wrong, I don't follow US politics and news closely, but is there actually any kind of outlet or person that is considered neutral, fair and balanced in the US? All I see are party crusaders, that wear their biases on their sleeves.

Maybe that's just a consequence of a two party system in a country that is so large and varied, or maybe it's just my lack of knowledge about the country itself, but I really can't see how this works. How could anyone possibly take someone like O'Reilly seriously?

Don't get mixed up. There's news and then there's punditry. There are unbiased news sources generally. It's when punditry jumps in, or when the way to talk about a story is to bring on partisan strategists that you get bias shown.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Poor Hillary had it all going against her in terms of the media.

This discussion was talked to death during the primaries, so I don't care to explore it too much, but Hillary's miserable campaign in the early stages should not be ignored in favor of focusing on media bias.

 

[maynerd]

Excuse me if I'm wrong, I don't follow US politics and news closely, but is there actually any kind of outlet or person that is considered neutral, fair and balanced in the US? All I see are party crusaders, that wear their biases on their sleeves.

Maybe that's just a consequence of a two party system in a country that is so large and varied, or maybe it's just my lack of knowledge about the country itself, but I really can't see how this works. How could anyone possibly take someone like O'Reilly seriously?

I've always felt that the PBS news hour was pretty balanced maybe a slight tinge to the left but for the most part down the middle.

 

[Incognito]

In other news, the grass is green and the sun rises from the east...

 

[UltimaKilo]

So it seems like MSNBC has been biased for a while according to one of their own anchors:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtybO23_9X0&feature=related

 

[APF]

You're really ignoring the circumstances surrounding that coverage in order to raise your point. You're talking about during the primaries, are you not? If so, then I fail to see why they would have any reason to be biased in a left vs. left battle. McCain emerged as the presumptive nominee fairly early in the process, and it wasn't until June when the left vs. right battle presented itself clearly in the form of McCain vs. Obama. They had no reason to throw jabs when it was Obama vs. Clinton for the Democratic nomination.

Are you arguing about how unbiased their coverage is today?

I'm also talking about even before it became a contest, and between right vs left candidates.

 

[UltimaKilo]

Don't get mixed up. There's news and then there's punditry. There are unbiased news sources generally. It's when punditry jumps in, or when the way to talk about a story is to bring on partisan strategists that you get bias shown.

True, but just about every piece of news is biased is one way or another.

 

[Stoney Mason]

Don't get mixed up. There's news and then there's punditry. There are unbiased news sources generally. It's when punditry jumps in, or when the way to talk about a story is to bring on partisan strategists that you get bias shown.

The problem is our punditry and our "straight news" are hopelessly intertwined at this point in the game.

 

[Tyrone Slothrop]

I dunno, I think they'll be doing great in the case of an Obama win as the whole "conservatives-in-exile" bit that Rush has been trying to press.

I'm cool with that, as long as they're just some fringe right wing network of wonks with no real influence, no real connections to people of power

 

[UltimaKilo]

The problem is our punditry and our "straight news" are hopelessly intertwined at this point in the game.

It's that time of year again!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDzcJUIY7DY

 

[APF]

Excuse me if I'm wrong, I don't follow US politics and news closely, but is there actually any kind of outlet or person that is considered neutral, fair and balanced in the US? All I see are party crusaders, that wear their biases on their sleeves.

Maybe that's just a consequence of a two party system in a country that is so large and varied, or maybe it's just my lack of knowledge about the country itself, but I really can't see how this works. How could anyone possibly take someone like O'Reilly seriously?

US news segments usually start with a fairly objective report, with potential followup questions from an anchor -> reporter (sometimes leading questions, depending on the anchor) which are typically objective in tone but less so than the report, and / or a further analysis segment usually having guests on both [or more] sides of the issue. Analysis pieces, where you have talking heads and commentators of a set POV, and the potential of an anchor asking leading and / or unidirectional questions, is usually where it falls apart, in cable news at least.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

I'm also talking about even before it became a contest, and between right vs left candidates.

Still, it wasn't right vs. left then. It was right vs. right and left vs. left. How has their coverage been since the focus has shifted towards the general election?

 

[Tamanon]

The problem is our punditry and our "straight news" are hopelessly intertwined at this point in the game.

Another reason I think 24-hour news does a disservice to politics. Like Murrow said one time, there's not a second side to every story.

 

[Amory]

uh, yeah. fox news must be the only problem...or maybe its just news stations in general? the only way to get loyal viewers is to pander to a specific viewpoint, that way people come back to your station as opposed to the other options.

 

[Emerson]

I watch Fox News all the time. People need to learn to grow the fuck up and tell the difference between bullshit and the truth. It's the same news, just be open-minded enough to know where the story ends and where their opinion begins.

Fox has the hottest female anchors too.

 

[APF]

Still, it wasn't right vs. left then.

Uhh, so they're only right-biased when we're talking about a direct contest between two candidates of opposing parties?

How has their coverage been since the focus has shifted towards the general election?

dk

Like Murrow said one time, there's not a second side to every story.

No, there's 6.684 billion.

 

[Tamanon]

I watch Fox News all the time. People need to learn to grow the fuck up and tell the difference between bullshit and the truth. It's the same news, just be open-minded enough to know where the story ends and where their opinion begins.

Fox has the hottest female anchors too.

Well that's just a blatant lie. MSNBC's bevy of beautiful brunettes wins by a country mile.

 

[Joe]

if you guys like that video you'll definitely like this one too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0K2pLo8JV5Y

my favorite part:
"have you changed the perception of the war?"
"no but we tried "

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Uhh, so they're only right-biased when we're talking about a direct contest between two candidates of opposing parties?

If the contention that many people argue is that Fox has a right-wing agenda, would that not be more evident in issues that showcase right-wing vs. left-wing issues, like a general election for instance? This doesn't just extend to elections, mind you, but I'm just failing to see how significant it is to point out how unbiased they were while covering the primaries. Primaries are a completely different beast altogether compared to most political coverage and commentary.

 

[RiskyChris]

if you guys like that video you'll definitely like this one too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0K2pLo8JV5Y

my favorite part:
"have you changed the perception of the war?"
"no but we tried "

The comments.

 

[Cheeto]

The comments.

Oh wow, if only we could harness stupid as a renewable energy resource.

 

[Hootie]

Fox News is the best news channel ever!
Much better than that news channel with that Chuck whatever dude.

Good thing you're not serious.

Chuck Todd IS God.

*bow* *bow*

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

On Hardball right now, they're talking about this issue. Scott McClellan was actually on O Reilly's radio show today and he apologized to O Reilly for singling him out.

 

[Dr. Kitty Muffins]

So, they gave talking points to conservative pundits and commentators? I'd hate to break this to you, but the Democrat Party gives talking pints to liberal pundits and commentators who go on shows on MSNBC. Every pundit or commentator, who has a STATED political bias, such as Hannity or others, gets those.

Now, if it was given to REPORTERS such as Smith who does their evening news that would be one thing. And no, it's not illegal and this is just Keith Olbermann being an O'Reily sized douche.

Exactly. This is common and not unheard of to anyone with a so much as a journalism degree. They all get spammed with talking points by the left and right.