Fox News, the thinking is done for you

[Tonington]

Gawker's John Cook has unearthed a White House memo from the Richard Nixon Presidential Library with Roger Ailes hand writing all over it, detailing the plans to put the GOP talking points on the news.

Shocking, I know.

The Ailes Files

 

[gopher]

Very interesting reading. I book marked it and will finish it later on. Thanks for posting.

 

[taxslave]

Well the left has Tyee News and various union papers that do much the same thing so it is not surprising.

 

[Tonington]

Well the left has Tyee News and various union papers that do much the same thing so it is not surprising.

Is the Tyee actually putting one parties propaganda on the air? I'm not at all surprised by this, I just thought the line about thinking being done for the viewers was comical :lol:

 

[The Old Medic]

Surely Tonington, you are kidding, aren't you?

EVERY political party strives to get its "talking points" on the news. EVERY ONE OF THEM, EVEN THE CANADIAN ONES!

If you actually bothered to watch Fox, you would discover that it has a LOT more diversity of opinion on it than any of the Networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, Public Television), and FAR more diversity of opinion than MSNBC, CNN or any other cable channel. They have people appearing of every political stripe, from ultra left to ultra right, and they actually allow those people to state their opinions without mocking them (unlike MSNBC, CNN, etc.)

At one time, CBS was the absolute class of all news organizations on television. They would not allow any bias at all in their content, and any opinions were clearly mentioned as being opinions. Walter Chronkite would not allow any other procedures.

Unfortunately, after he was FORCED to retire at 65, CBS news came under the control of people who could not, or would not, tell the difference between truth and opinion. Dan Rather repeatedly let his biases color his "news reporting", which finally got him fired because he went so far as to use totally falsified documents as his "source" to attempt to bring down the President of the USA. When it came out that he knew that the document was a fake PRIOR to his broadcast, even his ultra liberal bosses at CBS could no longer defend him.

I wish that there was still the ethic that news is news, and it is NEVER to be colored by opinion. Opinions should be limited to the editorial pages only. Sadly, that is no longer being done.

 

[Tonington]

Surely Tonington, you are kidding, aren't you?

No, I'm not kidding...

EVERY political party strives to get its "talking points" on the news. EVERY ONE OF THEM, EVEN THE CANADIAN ONES!

So which channel do I tune in to get the NDP view only? Do you understand yet?

 

[CDNBear]

So which channel do I tune in to get the NDP view only?

SunTV...

 

[Tonington]

If you actually bothered to watch Fox, you would discover that it has a LOT more diversity of opinion on it than any of the Networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, Public Television), and FAR more diversity of opinion than MSNBC, CNN or any other cable channel.

Oh really? Post a clip or article written or produced by FoxNews that you feel had a diversity of opinion on the lead-up to the vote on healthcare.

If Fox News is so diverse in opinion, why do self-identifying Fox News viewers show up as the most misinformed? Most who regularly view media sources are better informed about the world, but for some reason Fox News viewers are consistently misinformed...like believing: stimulus caused job losses, that most climate scientists think climate change is not occurring, that the stimulus legislation included no tax cuts, that most Republicans did not support TARP. And on and on...

 

[EagleSmack]

I wonder what the big deal with FOX is. Certainly it is right leaning... just as MSNBC is left leaning. Nobody really freaks out over MSNBC... not as much as they do with FOX.

I simply don't watch a channel that I do not like.

Although I enjoyed watching the MSNBC crew meltdown during the last US Congressional Elections. I did find joy in that and would NEVER want them censored or banned.

 

[Tonington]

I wonder what the big deal with FOX is.

Misinformed viewers, thinking for their viewers. True independence from a political view point isn't really possible, but some are worse than others. Hugo Chavez leveraged the media for the same purposes that this memo from the Nixon White House is extolling.

 

[Just the Facts]

If Fox News is so diverse in opinion, why do self-identifying Fox News viewers show up as the most misinformed?

That's just something Jon Stewart said, which, ironically, it turns out is....you guessed it, misinformation. Hey Tonnington, looks like you're misinformed.

Misinformed viewers, thinking for their viewers. True independence from a political view point isn't really possible, but some are worse than others.

Ever watched Rachel Maddow? Chris Mathews? Pretty much anyone on MSNBC? They make Fox look like a beacon of objectivity.

 

[Tonington]

That's just something Jon Stewart said, which, ironically, it turns out is....you guessed it, misinformation. Hey Tonnington, looks like you're misinformed.

No, that's not just something Jon Stewart said, inform yourself if you want just the facts:
Voters Say Election Full of Misleading and False Information - World Public Opinion
Public Knowledge of Current Affairs Little Changed by News and Information Revolutions | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press
Asia Times -
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/NBC-WSJ_Poll.pdf
Health Care Reform Closely Followed, Much Discussed | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

 

[taxslave]

Is the Tyee actually putting one parties propaganda on the air? I'm not at all surprised by this, I just thought the line about thinking being done for the viewers was comical :lol:

I don't know about on the air. I've only seen their rag and yes it is onesided.

 

[CDNBear]

No, that's not just something Jon Stewart said, inform yourself if you want just the facts:
Voters Say Election Full of Misleading and False Information - World Public Opinion
Public Knowledge of Current Affairs Little Changed by News and Information Revolutions | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press
Asia Times -
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/NBC-WSJ_Poll.pdf
Health Care Reform Closely Followed, Much Discussed | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

That's in general Ton.

 

[Tonington]

Ever watched Rachel Maddow? Chris Mathews? Pretty much anyone on MSNBC? They make Fox look like a beacon of objectivity.

Objectivity? I don't look for it in the media these days, and anyone who really thinks that one media source is more objective than another is delusional. That said, some do use more dis-and mis- information than others.

That's in general Ton.

? You'll have to clarify what you mean there for me.

 

[CDNBear]

? You'll have to clarify what you mean there for me.

That string started with...

If Fox News is so diverse in opinion, why do self-identifying Fox News viewers show up as the most misinformed?

The studies you cited, were very general, with some studies missing certain specialty news outlets.

I'm not saying that there isn't some truth to it, but JTF is correct that Stewart made an off the cuff remark, based on very misleading, general and selective polls. But here they are at the top of the list.

One of your polls shows that people that watch O'reilly, are only 3 points off Stewart.

Anybody that watches Stewart or O'reilly, to get informed, needs their head examined.

 

[Tonington]

That string started with...



The studies you cited, were very general, with some studies missing certain specialty news outlets.

If you follow the string further back, I was responding to a post by old medic, and he claimed diversity of opinions for Fox News over the other major networks. So, I'm not really interested in specialty news outlets. Second, the polls have more times than naught identified Fox News viewers as having the most misinformed views. Third, as to diverse opinions, there are many internal memos which have been released with Fox editors directing the reporting towards specific talking points. So the Old Medics claims are shockingly, baseless.

I listed the views on which they have been consistently misinformed, which would be enough to cast reasonable doubt on the claim that Old Medic made...if there is evidence that they have not been consistently misinformed with respect to the topics I mentioned, I'd like to see it so I can correct myself.

One of your polls shows that people that watch O'reilly, are only 3 points off Stewart.

Anybody that watches Stewart or O'reilly, to get informed, needs their head examined.

See, now the poll never said people watch O'Reilly or Stewart to be informed, it's a crude correlation.

 

[CDNBear]

If you follow the string further back, I was responding to a post by old medic, and he claimed diversity of opinions for Fox News over the other major networks. So, I'm not really interested in specialty news outlets.

My bad, sorry.

Second, the polls have more times than naught identified Fox News viewers as having the most misinformed views.

That could just as easily be manipulated by specifically targeted demographics.

I don't necessarily trust, implicitly, pollsters.

Third, as to diverse opinions, there are many internal memos which have been released with Fox editors directing the reporting towards specific talking points.

I find them to be as objective as any other news outlet. Which isn't very.

So the Old Medics claims are shockingly, baseless.

This is a surprise?

I listed the views on which they have been consistently misinformed, which would be enough to cast reasonable doubt on the claim that Old Medic made...if there is evidence that they have not been consistently misinformed with respect to the topics I mentioned, I'd like to see it so I can correct myself.

Not all misinformation is a direct result of ones news intake. specific mindsets play an important roll there as well.

See, now the poll never said people watch O'Reilly or Stewart to be informed, it's a crude correlation.

That isn't what I meant to imply. My point was, that the polls showed that people who watched those two, were found to be reasonably informed. But if we take the poll on face value, as they have been issued, and used, it would seem that if one wishes to be informed, or at the very least. A member of the informed crowed, they should be watching Stewart and O'Reilly.

 

[Just the Facts]

No, that's not just something Jon Stewart said, inform yourself if you want just the facts:

Thanks. Done.

Voters Say Election Full of Misleading and False Information - World Public Opinion
Public Knowledge of Current Affairs Little Changed by News and Information Revolutions | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press
Asia Times -
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/NBC-WSJ_Poll.pdf
Health Care Reform Closely Followed, Much Discussed | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

Voters Say Election Full of Misleading and False Information - World Public Opinion

Didn't see anything there that says Fox news viewers are more misinformed than others. Their milestones are a bit suspect as well, a study like this should be using incontrovertible facts as measuring points.
I'd like to see footnotes for these. They're claiming that people don't know if their own income tax rate went up? Huh? Is it really clear that Obama was born in the U.S.? Some say no. Really not the best choice of questions.

Public Knowledge of Current Affairs Little Changed by News and Information Revolutions | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

Isn't O'Reilly on Fox? Why would they break him out? Didn't like the numbers?

Asia Times -

Same argument as above, how about some object measurements. Below made me laugh....no bias there Everyone knows Bush supporters are so dumb! lol

Among Bush supporters, those who said they follow the news "very closely", were found more likely to hold misperceptions. Those Bush supporters, on the other hand, who say they follow the news "somewhat closely" or "not closely at all" held fewer misperceptions.

Conversely, those Democratic supporters who said they did not follow the news very closely were found to be twice as likely to hold misperceptions as those who said they did, according to PIPA.

I think I'm gonna frame that one.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/NBC-WSJ_Poll.pdf

Not sure what this is supposed to prove.

Health Care Reform Closely Followed, Much Discussed | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

Same with this. So Fox news viewers are more likely to think the press has not been critical enough of Obama, while MSNBC viewers think the press has been too critical? Really? Say it ain't so. They also seem to be getting a kick out of the "death Panel" issue. If I recall correctly that's the one Jon Stewart peed himself over as the "Lie of the Year for 2009" or some such.

Check this out:

Krugman Admits Rationing (Death Panels) From Obamacare » Secondhand Smoke | A First Things Blog

Turns out Fox viewers were right. Again.

You have proven that a lot of Democrats are scared silly of Republicans having a voice.

 

[Tonington]

That could just as easily be manipulated by specifically targeted demographics.

It could, but when there are many polls finding the same thing, from different groups using different surveys, the likelihood of that is much lower.

I find them to be as objective as any other news outlet. Which isn't very.

I notice more opinion in their reporting than I'm used to getting in Canadian newscasts, but it's hard to say.

This is a surprise?

No, if the font were purple I think it would have been clear :lol:

That isn't what I meant to imply. My point was, that the polls showed that people who watched those two, were found to be reasonably informed. But if we take the poll on face value, as they have been issued, and used, it would seem that if one wishes to be informed, or at the very least. A member of the informed crowed, they should be watching Stewart and O'Reilly.

I don't necessarily find that surprising really. They cover a wide range of topics.