Posted on 05/30/2015 11:15:01 AM PDT by MNDude
That was nearly 30 years ago. I also recognize that FOX is as biased toward the left as the rest of the alphabets, but sadly, many right-minded conservatives fail to recognize it. Yet.
It is the supreme irony that the network is named "FOX," because in terms of the MSM, it is truly case of the fox guarding the conservative hen house.
The first time the light bulb came on for me about media bias was one of the Reagan vs. Mondale debates. There was a question about abortion (of course, Reagan knocked it out of the park). After the debate, when the talking heads were discussing the responses, they got to the abortion issue and one of them said something like, “Mondale clearly won that exchange.” The others made some agreement noises and they all moved on.
I still liked to watch broadcast TV for breaking news and it was during Katrina that I finally gave up. There had to have been thousands of important and interesting stories going on, not only in New Orleans but from all around that region. All I saw was non-stop Bush bashing. I’d finally had enough.
When David Brinkley, John Chancellor, and Howard K. Smith left the scene. Rarely after that but I would watch Peter Jennings once in a great while. Tom Brokaw was okay but I have never ever watched Brian Williams.
Local MSM network news is a bit of a joke too. Its like they all report from the same lineup of stories. Plus there are too many fluff and feel good stories that pass off as ‘news’. Pretty pathetic. Made for TV journalism with an indirect line to Hollyweird.
Take WND with a grain of salt. My advice as a schooled journalist. Although it doesn’t lean to the left, it DOES lack credibility for good reason: many of its “reporters” are people with agendas who pretend they don’t have one. The only journalism worthwhile is from reporters who may or may not have agendas, but who at least sincerely recognize their own biases and attempt to compensate for them in their reporting by seeking out info they may not want to hear and if it’s true, publishing it in spite of their agendas. WND is ... a bad choice for news, IMO.
The MSM have always lied and been disingenuous since they first started publishing/broadcasting. For me it was around the time of the Dan Rather lies.
When Obama got elected. I had already seen how O’Reilly fawned over him before the election, and I knew I just couldn’t take it after that.
If I could point to any one thing, it would be the rise of internet news sources that helped me see just how full of BS the MSM had become. It got steadily worse through Bush. With obama, it is off the charts. The MSM are nothing but mouthpieces for the liberal agenda. There is no "news" there, few facts, mostly distorted spin, opinion, and "message."
It was cumulative rather than any one thing. Free Republic outsourced my news, I’ve been here since 1999. Dan Rather may have been a key tipping point. But it hardly matters, the bias and distortion is now so blatant that the divorce is final and not reversible.
I don’t need to write an answer. Yours will do for me too.
The first time I heard Susan Estrich sometime 1995
The early 80’s when Reagan won.
The MSM were incredibly disrespectful, and even as a young man in my 20’s, I could see how they spun things to the left. Sam Donaldson ‘ s sarcastic news spin was a tipping point.
When CNN, who had firmly established the term “luxury tax,” switched terms when reporting it was repealed for destroying too many middle class jobs.
Shortly after discovering FreeRepublic. That would be about 1998.
Here’s an example of why we need internet sources. I don’t recall the LSM reporting that Baltimore is seeking 20 million Fed dollars for their mayor sanctioned riot damages until I read it here on FR. They feed us their censored sound bytes and not much else that goes against the lefty agenda or meme.
During my pre-cable years, I sometimes lived in areas where the broadcast network news for a couple of channels were on the hour and one was on the half-hour.
I noticed watching 2 different networks that 90% of their stories were basically the same. The order may have differed. Some stories were even ‘word for word’.
I realized then that there was little difference in what the networks were calling news.
In late 2002, I got cable. Have never watched a network news broadcast since.
I initially watched FoxNews all day and many evenings, but it became the same old guests and the same old topics.
For years, I have only watched FoxNews for the overnight/morning headlines. I turn it off about 10:00 a.m., assuming nothing is going on.
If breaking news happens, I tend to try CNN first and FoxNews second.
Most of my news comes from FR and raw video feeds via the Internet.
1989. Last year of Ronald Reagan’s Presidency.
I never stopped watching TMZ for all my important news / S
Am extremely grateful for the rise of the alternative media. Conversely, am distressed by the voluntary idiocy of our populace. MSM vs. Alternative Media demonstrates conclusively that you can lead a fool to knowledge, but you cannot make him think!
You are absolutely correct! FR is my primary source of news with a little bit of Drudge thrown in for good measure.
I read my hometown newspaper, The Fargo Forum, to see how the city is growing, employment opportunities and of course the obit section.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.