Fox Offering More News Talk Than News (Sour Grapes Alert)

ContraCostaTime (Bay Area Rag) ^ | April 10, 2003 | Chuck Blarney

[SamAdams76]

AN AMERICAN flag logo adorns the upper left corner of the screen. Dramatic stand-up-and-salute drumbeats pound away under regularly scheduled updates. Gung-ho, self-aggrandizing commentators behave like cheerleaders sans the pompons. Dissenting viewpoints get summarily crushed with the verbal equivalent of bunker-busting bombs.

[antaresequity]

Jennifer Eccleston

Jennifers seductive delivery is intoxicating. She sways gently in punctuating her delivery; the warm Jordanian desert breeze gently tosses her casual hair style about. And those eyes...oh so riveting...especially when she finishes her delivery...as if delivering the news 'feels good'

Oh...sorry this thread was about what?

[FrankR]

"Nice catch. Obviously the author didn't spend very much time researching his subject or he would have known that Ollie North is embedded with the Marines, not the Army. Guess this author had an agenda and isn't very "fair and balanced." "

Exactly.

Liberal journalist types DO NOT RESEARCH anything. To "Research" implies gaining some knowledge of FACTS...which are very seldom present in a liberal journalist presentation.

Liberals live and die...on feelings. Feelings = opinions.

Most liberal stories include such words as "maybe, might, could be, might have been, etc"...seldom does a journalist let a little thing like the FACTS cloud his/her "masterpiece" of drivel.

If the Bush Administration and this war has done nothing else, it has shined the bright and blinding light of truth on the mainstream media and the liberals who support it.

I'll watch FNC - if for no ther reason - because I trust them 99% of the time.

One has to ask the question..."WHY would I watch ABC, CBS, ABC, CNN, etc?". If I wanted to hear lying I could call my ex, or local politician.

CNN and the rest can hire all the pretty blonds and hair-sprayed talking heads they want, but we're all tired of left-leaning news.

bill clinton wants a legacy...well there is it...most of us will seldom believe any liberal democRAT again. clinton - once the "savior" of the democRATs, has proven to be its downfall.

[canyon]

My only problem with fox news is E.D. Hill and Hannity and Colmes.

E.D. is just obnoxious. She comes off as an airhead to me. Hannity and Colmes are so polar opposite that all they do is argue and not actually discuss issues.

I still watch Fox and Friends in the morning and put up with E.D. But I turn the channel when Hannity and Colmes is on.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

I dunno - I gotta go find a cigarette, though. That mental image was crossing with one involving Kiran Chetry, and I was starting to mentally compose a letter to Penthouse Forum.

[SamAdams76]

In searching for this piece, I stumbled across another anti-Fox piece from Australia that was hilarious. I think I'll post it here later. Yes, the liberals are melting down and it's so much fun to watch.

[MEG33]

I agree..This war has me cruising for embed reports from anyone..but I stick to Fox otherwise.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

When I want to be droned to sleep, I put on Aaron Brown.

[TomB]

For God's sake Chuck, wipe your nose already. You're sniveling all over my screen.

U.S. troops are routinely referred to as "we" and "us" and "our folks."

Uh, Chuckles, that's because they ARE ours, moron.

Commentators with an attitude: Fox relies heavily on loud, bombastic, in-your-face personalities who dish up heaping helpings of opinion, which tend to be hawkish and ultra conservative.

As opposed to the quiet and thoughtful Phil Donohue, James Carville, and Paul Begala.

For example, Jeff Patterson, a soldier who opted not to fight in the war, was a recent guest on "Hannity & Colmes," but was repeatedly cut off and interrupted before a sneering Hannity abruptly dismissed him by saying, "You're not a very deep-thinking person."

This coming from a man who joined the Marines and was shocked, SHOCKED I SAY!, to find out they expected you to fight.

A well of emotions: No network tugs on the heartstrings as effectively Fox.

You see Chuckles, when you have to resort to outright lies to make a point, you show yourself to be the laziest of "journalist", which isn't to say you don't have lots of competition. NOBODY goes after the emotions, specifically in an attempt to drum up anti-war sentiments, better than Katie Couric and the worthless Today show. I've been stuck with my local NBC affiliate many mornings, and all you see are constant interviews with families of the killed and captured, some only the day after. Vultures.

To add to this point, I had to sit through the NBC coverage of the statue yesterday, and Katie sounded like she was covering a funeral, and that is not exaggerated ONE BIT. She was totally taken aback at the celebrations by the newly freed Iraqi people. She is the lowest of the low. I was actually relieved when Tom Brokaw took over for her.

Meanwhile, embedded "reporter" Col. Oliver North issues starry-eyed accounts of his Army bunkmates.

What was I just saying about lazy journalism? Mr. Blarney, that is just plain embarassing. I hope the next Marine you see gently "reminds" you of their amazing history.

Of course, any discussion of Fox News should include not only what is displayed on the screen, but what isn't. Over the course of the conflict, Fox viewers have witnessed very few images of anti-war protests happening across the United States and in other countries, or of civilian casualties, or, for that matter, any Iraqi citizens who might not welcome allied forces with open arms. Is this "fair"? That's highly debatable. Is it "balanced"? Not even close.

You haven't seen anti-war protests or civilian casualties on Fox? Are you sure?

[antaresequity]

LOL...

[Chancellor Palpatine]

I'm trying to remember which one you're talking about.

[rwfromkansas]

There are a couple points in the article I disagree with obviously, but overall, I think it presents a fairly accurate picture that Fox is more overtly opinionated than the other networks. However, I disagree with the idea that the other networks are BALANCED. Well, I salute MSNBC, but what I hear about ABC is not good and CNN shows a lot of negative images. Perhaps Fox should show some negative images to live up to their label of being balanced...on a limited basis when necessary to get the complete story, but showing it to the degree of CNN is insanely biased against the troops.

[rwfromkansas]

What happened to Shep's ratings last night? He isn't even on the chart.

[Spiff]

In other news: ABCNNBCBS News is still full of $#|%!!!

[laurav]

The myth and arrogance of "objective" news is just too difficult to sort out.

No one can ever be perfectly objective. I think objective is the wrong word. A good journalist strives to be fair. To hear what all sides have to say, not edit interviews to make someone look worse or better than they are, choose words carefully so a subject isn't praised or damned by choice of verbs or adjectives. Ask hard questions of anyone -- no fluff just because you personally agree with the other person. Demand to know answers. Understand the reasons behind all sides arguments and not resort to stereotypes or straw men.

A good reporter can have an opinion but still be fair.

[JohnDinLA]

So what? I have to agree with some of it, however, I see nothing wrong with Fox refering to our troops as "us" and "we." Does anyone other than Peter Arnett think of our troops as the enemy?

And Fox does put the stars and stripes out there quite a bit. But again, so what? Does that mean that they can't report the truth?

I do think that Fox has been a bit heavy on the talking and light on the news, but that is a fact of life in 24hour news coverage. There are only so many reporters who can report so many stories in 24 hours.

The problem with the piece is that it gripes about certain aspects of Fox without telling why they are necessarily bad. They just say they are bad. And unfortunately, that's all it takes to get the peacepukes riled up.

[SamAdams76]

I think the ratings were only for the 8-11PM period. That would put Shep out of the running.

[lewislynn]

). So when I mentioned here earlier that I think Greta Van Susteran is a fox, I was immediately jumped on by others here and was informed that Greta used to be on some other cable channel during the 1990s defending Bill Clinton

Gee whiz, a person can be a liberal and still be attractive.

I'm wondering if these aren't the same people who've fallen to Geraldo's feet as a new conservative. Tell the nitwits that jumped on you to grow up and get a real life.

Greta (I think) is a lawyer, her show on the other channel was based on law, and we all know "law" was always a subject when it came to Bill Clinton.

I think she has a good show and does an excelent job of hiding any agenda she may have...if in fact she does have an agenda.

[rwfromkansas]

Interesting analysis. I find it interesting the differing perspectives on Fox even on FR. Some say it is quick to report rumors, while others say they lag behind other networks for trying to get confirmation. I hope it is the latter because that is more journalistically responsible, even if scoops don't happen much. But, it may be the former.

I am not sure which is true myself since I don't get to watch Fox much.

[.38sw]

Actually, the dude's name is Chuck Barney, not Blarney. Just a little play on his name by SamAdams76. I, for one, appreciate a pro-American stance when listening to the news. I'm tired of the anti-American slant; it's bad for my blood pressure.

[Willgamer]

To give a little background, The Contra Costa Times has consistantly positioned itself (imho as a former subscriber) as a leftist suburban paper that idolizes the big East Coast rags. It's front page is littered by Post, Times or Globe pieces. Rarely researching anything for itself it seems to spend most of its efforts on sophomoric headlines reflecting the latest dnc spin.