Gays vs. Blacks: Hope and Unity in California

no channel has unbiased reporting. Fox News, CNN, MSNBC etc. all have their own agendas and biases just like everyone else in the world. My major beef with Fox News was the day James Brown died. On the bottom of the ticker was something about a major helicopter crash in Iraq and some other pretty important world events. But what was the focus of the next 2 hours? (i was stuck in a waiting room) How many people showed up at the Apollo to mourn James Brown. Dont get me wrong, i love my music and know that James Brown is a major influence on music today: but come on, celeb news just isnt that important. Maybe all the channels were doing it too: i didnt have a remote to check. I will also say though CNN on election night was trying to act unbiased and the like. The next night on Larry King they talked to Bill Maher and Michael Moore about Obama winning. 1. Why the fuck do their opinions matter? 2. Both of them are just as intolerant as the people they preach against. Im not saying i even disagree with their leanings: just saying everything is spun and bullshitted to a point where its all agenda and propaganda nowadays

Wow, now I understand why you get into these stupid ass semantics fights with Matthew... You're the one who brought that up in the first place!

But I never accused you of saying that Fox News is the only flawed news network, so it was a rather odd response to me.

if there's such a thing as "the conservative agenda", you better be sure that Fox News gladly endorses it.
...

For each election, Fox News clearly and outrageously favors the conservative canditates, you don't even have to read between the lines to see that.

That's strange, because I watched Fox News for a while on election night and all I heard was them gushing about the "historic" nature of Obama's victory. Same with the aftermath. That said, their news shows (Brit Hume) don't strike me as having any bias toward Republicans whatsoever. They were covering the "Obama speaks in Town X, promises blah blah blah to millions of adoring fans" stories all day long just like everyone else, as well as airing pretty much every obnoxious Palin skit featuring TIna Fey. Didn't really cover any of the nearly-daily Obama scandals that faded away into the depths of the internets almost immediately. I don't really care for them because they're too liberal, you because they're too conservative. I haven't heard anything about true conservatism from a well-known media outlet, outside of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, in a long time.

my country

Are we talking France or the U.S.?

But I never accused you of saying that Fox News is the only flawed news network, so it was a rather odd response to me.

Well, that's how I interprete this:

Give me an example of an unbiased and flawless (or minimally flawed) news network then...

Didn't really cover any of the nearly-daily Obama scandals that faded away into the depths of the internets almost immediately.

You actually think there were not enough scandals about Obama being "thoroughly" covered?

I don't really care for them because they're too liberal

Not too sure what's your definition of "liberal" here...

Are we talking France or the U.S.?

My country is France, evidently the US did go to war.

Well, that's how I interprete this:

Give me an example of an unbiased and flawless (or minimally flawed) news network then...

A possible scenario with what i said in mind would be 100 flawed networks and one flawless one, or 50 heavily flawed ones and 50 minimally flawed ones. Nothing about only one singular flawed network.

You actually think there were not enough scandals about Obama being "thoroughly" covered?

Not even close to enough. Every single one that popped up was immediately denounced as the equivalent of ignorantly calling him a Muslim.

Not too sure what's your definition of "liberal" here...

I used the wrong definition for comprehension's sake. Modern American liberal aka progressive aka the Republican and Democratic parties.

My country is France, evidently the US did go to war.

I don't know what you mean by "my country rightfully decided that it was the worst idea ever to invade Iraq." The government decides the citizens' foreign policy opinions for them? You're saying the Fox News anchors were blasting France over this or something?

Every single one that popped up was immediately denounced as the equivalent of ignorantly calling him a Muslim.

So you're saying that you actually give some sort of credit to the zillion rumors like that one, and that it should have impacted the outcome of the elections, had the coverage been more adequate? Or are you being sarcastic?
Something tells me that you would have been the first one to dismiss this type of garbage if it had targetted McCain instead.

The government decides the citizens' foreign policy opinions for them?

Well, that's not really an exclusivity of France. Italians, British, Spanish,...all were against the war, yet their government decided to be good little puppies and participate to the invasion. Even in the US, it's not like a whopping majority of citizens wanted it that way, but they had a choice either...The only difference is our government made the right decision, which happened to be in synch with the popular opinion.

You're saying the Fox News anchors were blasting France over this or something?

That's exactly what I'm saying, the entire network was ridiculously insulting towards France and Germany for at least a few weeks, it did not even deserve to be called journalism anymore.

So you're saying that you actually give some sort of credit to the zillion rumors like that one, and that it should have impacted the outcome of the elections, had the coverage been more adequate? Or are you being sarcastic?
Something tells me that you would have been the first one to dismiss this type of garbage if it had targetted McCain instead.

You must have misunderstood me - I'm saying that perfectly valid scandals (not rumors) were being lumped into the same category as the "Obama is a Muslim" blatant lies, to protect his image. The MSM did the same thing for John Edwards, somehow almost completely successfully.

Well, that's not really an exclusivity of France. Italians, British, Spanish,...all were against the war, yet their government decided to be good little puppies and participate to the invasion. Even in the US, it's not like a whopping majority of citizens wanted it that way, but they had a choice either...The only difference is our government made the right decision, which happened to be in synch with the popular opinion.

That's nice that you continue to portray opposition to Iraq as objectively correct; I don't happen to agree. All I can say is thank God the French, Italian, British, Spanish, and American citizens aren't the ones responsible for deciding whether or not to declare war.

That's exactly what I'm saying, the entire network was ridiculously insulting towards France and Germany for at least a few weeks, it did not even deserve to be called journalism anymore.

Are you saying that opposing the Iraq War, or in general supporting the most popular opinion, means that you're unbiased and that supporting it, or giving a less popular viewpoint airtime, means you're a biased partisan hack? I can't really get anything from your anecdote without seeing what you're referring to.

You must have misunderstood me - I'm saying that perfectly valid scandals (not rumors) were being lumped into the same category as the "Obama is a Muslim" blatant lies, to protect his image. The MSM did the same thing for John Edwards, somehow almost completely successfully.

Alrighty, sorry for misunderstanding.

All I can say is thank God the French, Italian, British, Spanish, and American citizens aren't the ones responsible for deciding whether or not to declare war.

Well, if citizens' opinions could actually be considered every now and then rather than special interests and power-hungry politicians, we'd probably avoid more fiascos such as the Iraq invasion.

Are you saying that opposing the Iraq War, or in general supporting the most popular opinion, means that you're unbiased and that supporting it, or giving a less popular viewpoint airtime, means you're a biased partisan hack? I can't really get anything from your anecdote without seeing what you're referring to.

Nope, I'm saying that blatantly supporting the views and opinions of a particular side, whether popular or not, while you're supposed to be as neutral as possible in providing the news, that makes you very much biased.

Nope, I'm saying that blatantly supporting the views and opinions of a particular side, whether popular or not, while you're supposed to be as neutral as possible in providing the news, that makes you very much biased.

Why are they supposed to be neutral? They're human beings.

Until post-World War II, journalism by nature had nothing to do with objectivity and neutrality. And even then, they weren't neutral or objective, they just claimed they were, and since there were only so many sources of media and listening to authority was popular they were believed.

You two guys are always pretty swift at bringing up the "liberal agenda",

Wat?

You just have to watch several news programs to notice the clear difference. FOX News is utterly biased because of the way they report anything that can ultimately be linked to the policital climate here in the US. The lines that the anchors use, the on-screen design ("ALERT!", "TERROR!!"), the majority of people that they interview, in or outside of their studios.

Again, a lot of claims, little support for them...and still nothing that is setting Faux off from the rest. (CNN BREAKING NEWS!!! Etc.)

Not every news network is controlled by Murdoch and News Corp., that's already a pretty big bias right there.

Lulz. Of course! But then again not every news network is working with Democrats to air forged documents, not every network is running with outright smears sourced from non-existant think tanks and not every network is covering up Saddam's crimes to maintain access either. It's not a group of angels.

For each election, Fox News clearly and outrageously favors the conservative canditates, you don't even have to read between the lines to see that.

Strange, I didn't see that. There are media studies that say Faux's news coverage was equally negative on both of the major Presidential candidates, while the others were postive on Obama and negative on McCain. If that's "favoring the conservative candidates" I don't want to know what you think postive McCain and negative Obama coverage would be. (Although it's clear that in this election cycle, hating everyone was somehow considered "conservative" just look at that Obama/McCain thread amirite?)

I remember back in 2003, when my country rightfully decided that it was the worst idea ever to invade Iraq, it was an absolute lynching fiesta on Fox News, the anchors were not even trying to hide their opinions, it was one of the most pathetic and childish things I had ever seen on TV.

Alright, if you can find me actual proof of the news anchors (not O'Reilly, not Hannity, not Brit Hume in his commentator position on Faux News Sunday but in his Special Report position) "lynching" the French on the air, that would be just great.

And your country was wrong and just greedy for moar oil. (See wat i did thar!)

True, but just watch the shows, and think about the ways the news are being brought to you. Does it feel like they're trying to convince you of something, with underlying propaganda that even a toddler could notice, or does it feel like you're being offered facts and just facts. Fox News will always fall in the former category for me.

And if you're putting any single media source in the latter, you're as delusional as one can get.

And I mean really, where is the evidence that Faux News's reporting is any more biased. You're ranting about presentation, but where are they "making up stuff" or "airing propaganda" instead of offering "facts and just facts"? Where are the news networks that are by comparison offering just "facts"? And that's the problem. It's an indictment that cannot be proven to a significant degree, because you can point out one or two instances and then someone else can go and look at the news coverage on other networks and find the same crap. It's why there's FAIR and it's where there's MRC. (Media Mutters doesn't count because they're stuck in the "COMMENATOR SAYING OPINION = BIAS" loop. Really, Rush Limbaugh is biased? HOLD THE PRESSES!)

If I watch Brit Hume tonight, is it going to be completely different information than if I watch Katie Couric? Will the DJIA change be different? Will I not hear about Hillary, Lieberman and/or Eric Holder on one? Will they tell me conflicting information on the bailout beggars and deals? What about the sudden surge in pirates? (Ignoring time constraints obviously. Brit has about 40 minutes, Katie's got 22.)

Until post-World War II, journalism by nature had nothing to do with objectivity and neutrality. And even then, they weren't neutral or objective, they just claimed they were, and since there were only so many sources of media and listening to authority was popular they were believed.

Well, I guess you may not be expecting neutrality from your news networks, but I am. Maybe it's just naivity, shouldn't have to be though.

Again, a lot of claims, little support for them...

And again, just watch their fucking news, watch other networks', and compare. You don't need to take extensive notes about it, record them or do any kind of deep study to notice how much more conservative-oriented their views are. I mean, if you can't just watch a program and get an overall feeling of what's underlying, it's either the most neutral show ever, or you're just not paying attention at all.

Alright, if you can find me actual proof of the news anchors (not O'Reilly, not Hannity, not Brit Hume in his commentator position on Faux News Sunday but in his Special Report position) "lynching" the French on the air, that would be just great.

It's always "give me a link or an actual transcipt of this" with you, isn't it? Obviously, you were not watching their news when these events happened, otherwise you would not even ask this...No, it was not O'Reilly and co., it was everyday anchors, but it was the same type of views that were being reflected.

And if you're putting any single media source in the latter, you're as delusional as one can get.

I already mentioned that this is not the case, but if I have to choose between a show that doesn't seem to preach any bullshit but just serves me the news, and one where you always have that feeling that even the most mundane anchor lines were written by a particular interest group or political affiliate, democrat or republican for that matter, I'll certainly go for the former. Yes, some of them might still be controlled by groups that I would not associate with, but if it never reflects on their news, I'm fine with that.

Well, I guess you may not be expecting neutrality from your news networks, but I am. Maybe it's just naivity, shouldn't have to be though.

They're humans. They aren't robots that can objectively just list every single one of the available "facts" for you.

And again, just watch their fucking news, watch other networks', and compare.

Is this the General Talk version of "WATCH THE GAMES, YOU'LL SEE!!!"

You don't need to take extensive notes about it, record them or do any kind of deep study to notice how much more conservative-oriented their views are.

I don't see anything "much more conservative" about Faux News' reporting on the rare instances I ever partake. It's the same stories as elsewhere, but you sometimes get to see more points of view. Offering perspectives traditionally ignored by other media outlets isn't "conservative."

You have the lockstep views of 95% of the media infused into their stories (with the same irrelevant token Rockefeller-Bush-McCain Republican "opposition" point of views), and then you have John Stossel and Faux News which are more likely to include other less media favored points of view in their stories. I have not once ever seen liberal views like school choice or reducing government corruption through the only surefire method, presented equally and fairly by their supporters on most media outlets. Only Faux (when they aren't keeping people like Ron Paul out of debates) and Stossel ever give these views any serious equal presentation.

You're acting like Faux is out there just rabidly spinning every story, and only presenting hard-"right" points of view. And they aren't. Just like newsrooms without any Republicans like CNN and MSNBC "The Power of Change" aren't out rabidly spinning stories to be hard-"left." These newsrooms have obviously political bias (since they're 98% Democrats, even at Faux they're super-majority Democrats) but they aren't actively doing anything. They're not noticing their bias' even when it drips into their stories. They, like you, were opposed to removing Saddam and Bush in general, so they focused solely on problems in Iraq. Faux presented all the same problems in Iraq, but also went "hey, there's some good stuff too" and did a handful of positive stories. Maybe that's "conservative" and "propaganda" and evidence of being the worst news source. But I don't think so.

It's always "give me a link or an actual transcipt of this" with you, isn't it?

Well, when you make a bunch of absurd sounding claims (lynching fiesta), it's nice to have some kind of proof instead of just demanding everyone accept your perspective.

If it's so blatantly obvious, it shouldn't be hard to back up the claims. If Faux is clearly out there not reporting "facts" but just making shit up day in and day out, while everyone else is reporting "just the facts" shouldn't we able to not only see but show some clear perverse difference in their coverage?

It's a myth, and meme, and is just another way for people to reject counter narratives by declaring them invalid instead of addressing them. (Same as declaring people they disagree with as stupid, or ridiculous or not watching the games.)

Obviously, you were not watching their news when these events happened, otherwise you would not even ask this.

Or maybe it didn't happen? I didn't see it, so how can I know it did? The only things I can find on Google are O'Reilly, Gibson, the Faux and Friends mental defectives...

but if I have to choose between a show that doesn't seem to preach any bullshit but just serves me the news

Except you don't get that choice. There is no narrative free "just the facts" news media program. And none that even come close to this.

How can you know this unspecified news progam isn't having bias "reflecting on their news"?