quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

They are bias in their views towards the US and other countries at odds with the UK...

Britain is America's first and most powerful allie, Butch. What you wrote above makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
I don't have to be locked into agreeing with the source just because of who the source is regardless of the content. I don't like any form of prejudice. You should try it.

When's the last time Fox conducted a real independent investigation and innovated with the news again? They make their income from pundits and commentators. In Fox' case, the source matters MORE than the content: Fox' content is tainted by its own brand. I thought that you would have realized that by now, with your business background.

quote:

ORIGINAL: zenny

A person's perception of reality may be subjective. Reality is not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crush

And another thread wastes valuable energy...

Are our news organizations biased?  Certainly. 
1) They choose which stories to report and which to not report.  Cherry picking.
2) They are advertiser-supported.
3) They have too much time to fill...24/7/365. 
4) We've been "indoctrinated" into Politically Correct B.S. and a belief in self esteem over accomplishment.  So we've lost our honest and rational reactions to "the news" because of the filters we've imposed.
5) Bias is inherent in each of us.  We tend to flow toward those with the same "bias" as ourselves. Hence Fox has its draw and CNN, MSNBC, etc, have their draw.  We want to believe the world works in our chosen image of the world.  Hence, some people believe we can have a dialog with terrorists and others think the best solution is the atomic solution.  Probably both are wrong. 

If we believe what we are told, then we are fools, or at least, lazy.  We'll find more honesty on E! news than many other "news sources" we get.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
Please enlighten me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: VanessaChaland

Umm yea, we all know/knew it, they finally admit it. And yet some people still act/pretend that they are an unbiased outlet of news and "facts". :)

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/23/fox-vp-opposition/

quote:

ORIGINAL: MarcEsadrian

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

quote:

ORIGINAL: MarcEsadrian

The death of "real journalism" is bemoaned regularly in the culture Fox has helped create. That considered, Mr. Shine's words come not without a strong note of irony. It's clear the network is heavily conservative in ideology, or else it would have coined the slogan "the voice of opposition" much earlier.

I for one am glad to see the demise of the conservative majority for now. Conservatism in it's pure form has some sound points, but I think religious and commercial special interest have tinkered with the cause too much. That said, some honest form of libertarianism is in strong need of a real mouthpiece in Washington. The polarization that the two current political parties bring to American leadership worries me.

You put your finger on the root cause of the death of true conservatism in this country. Classic, traditional libertarian conservatism has been replaced by authoritarian conservatism. Where are the Eisenhower Republicans? The party of "leave me alone" has become the party of "you can't do that."

The party of "leave me alone" has become the party of "you can't do that."

Sadly, that's an accurate (and funny) nutshell. Here I was thinking that was the duty of the left!

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy
....like most things, objectivity is analogue not digital. When it comes to news organisations it's not a question of which one is objective...it's a question of which one is more objective. Fox has decided that the people who its advertisers want to sell to don't want objectivity, they want partisanship. Fair enough, it's a commercial decision.
The difference between Fox in this regard and the BBC is that the BBC doesn't have advertisers. Therefore it is free to be more objective.

Now you also appear to adhere to the belief that 99% of the media has a liberal bias. Have you considered the possibility that reality may have a liberal bias?

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: zenny

A person's perception of reality may be subjective. Reality is not.

...actually, i'd go further. A person's perception of reality is necessarily subjective. Even a scientist reading data from impersonal dials and read-outs can unconsciously inject personal bias into what they read. 
Like many, many things in life.....it's not achieving the aim that's important, it's how much someone strives towards it. Absolute objectivity in news broadcasting is impossible. For a start it runs foul of the most basic of problems in communication models. Sender-medium-receiver. At any point in that three mode model errors can occur.
So, given that objectivity is impossible, on what basis can we judge a news broadcasting outlet? i'd argue we can judge on how hard it strives to be impartial and what it does when it confronted with its failures. The BBC publicises its failures and attempts to improve both its objectivity and how it can be held to account. Fox news doesn't even try.....it just declares itself partisan. The recent furore over the shameful remarks on its Redeye programme regarding the Canadian military is a case in point. The lukewarm apology isn't even reported on the programs webpage.

As to reality being objective. Well, now we're into the realm of the existential. It may well be objective, we can even agree that it probably is. But how the hell can anyone claim to know precisely what reality is, when we're all necessarily biased by virtue of the fact we percieve reality via imperfect biological mechanisms?

Which brings me to my third point in reply to you. Thousands of years of nature red in tooth and claw. Fair enough. Even possibly true (although some interesting studies have been done in how natures often uses cooperation as a survival mechanism). The point is that the reality of our future is a story we tell ourselves. Mercy, altruism, charity. All these are human artefacts......and as humans we have the incredible ability to create these concepts. To toss out our ability to 'think of the children' is to deny the most human facet of our animal selves. Our unique characteristic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

I see you injecting your bias without proof or examples of said bias.  When I see it I'll make a judgment...so far I have not seen the bias you talk of.  We can have all the political views we like and still present the facts... Facts are all that is important.

Why does it make a difference in the truth if the facts are presented honestly with a Republican or Democratic viewpoint?  

Butch

OK, here's an example I've talked about before.

I was watching Fox televise one of  Governor Blagojevich's last live news conferences.

I kept flipping back between CNN and Fox.

CNN aired his speech in its entirety and had editorial comment after.

The Fox News anchor inserted constant voiceovers during his speech calling him a liar and a fraud, among other things.

Now, I'm not a supporter of Blagojevich, but this was more like high school journalism than a professional news network.

I had to double-check to make sure I wasn't watching The Daily Show or SNL.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: VanessaChaland

Umm yea, we all know/knew it, they finally admit it. And yet some people still act/pretend that they are an unbiased outlet of news and "facts". :)

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/23/fox-vp-opposition/

I'm sorry...did I miss something rather key here...you thought (any) news programs were unbiased?

And you're how old?

quote:

ORIGINAL: zenny

This would be where you and I differ. A reading from a dial is by its very nature objective. One cannot be more objective than a simply stated fact. However, once the same scientists says "I find checking this dial is tedious and annoying" then that person is delving into their subjective side. Regardless of the second statement, the first is objective.

quote:

This separation of base subjective and objective statements would give us a simple ratio scale. A news organization could in actuality be completely objective. Just state the facts. Let the audience decide.

quote:

As to the other portions of your post it appears you're going into post modernism. I don't delve into that crap. However, I will say, we are animals, and there are many instances of animals being those three listed "human atrefacts". Want to know what separates us from our fellow animals (other than genetic makeup)? Technology. It's that simple.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

I see you injecting your bias without proof or examples of said bias.  When I see it I'll make a judgment...so far I have not seen the bias you talk of.

Butch

OK, here's an example I've talked about before.

I was watching Fox televise one of  Governor Blagojevich's last live news conferences.

I kept flipping back between CNN and Fox.

CNN aired his speech in its entirety and had editorial comment after.

The Fox News anchor inserted constant voiceovers during his speech calling him a liar and a fraud, among other things.

Now, I'm not a supporter of Blagojevich, but this was more like high school journalism than a professional news network.

I had to double-check to make sure I wasn't watching The Daily Show or SNL.

Stating the truth is not bias... I can see you not liking the style but unless they are altering facts then it is up to them how to present them.

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsu

Stating the truth is not bias... I can see you not liking the style but unless they are altering facts then it is up to them how to present them.

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadAxeman

Regarding the BBC.
It is independent of government interference.
Unlike any other publicly funded news organisation in the world. It stands alone in reporting stories that damage both left and right, based on facts.
Successive and opposing governments have attacked the BBC for not supporting (in their eyes) the Falklands conflict, Iraq, expenses for MPs, personal data intrusion, financial skullduggery and barefaced lying. There is no propoganda agenda there, it is resisted at the occasional cost of jobs.
If they occasionally fuck up, they retract with the same volume that they were mistaken.
Recently there has been increasing pressure to lose the license fee, become more commercial and populist. In other words more like all the others. I'm proud we have a news organisation that stands up to our own and any other government. I don't like all the programming but am happy that there is so much variety and that minority, sometimes rarified tastes are served. Claiming BBC bias just reveals to me the squealing of the found out, the extreme, the deluded.