Saw this documentary last night; I believe my eyes rolled out of their sockets along the way somewhere. I honestly can't believe some of the things that were shown, and that's while *knowing* that the documentary is wholly biased.

"But those documentary makers are Michael Moore wannabes - they are only out to lie and distort their way to make Fox look bad!"
Just trust me on this - while some of the stuff shown in this documentary takes the cake, I've seen plenty of clips in the past few years that make Fox look bad, even allowing for the possibility that these are taken out of context. But bar o'Reilly, Hume and Hannity all being part of some hilarious sketch show and basically playing charicatures of rightwing loonies, I don't think there's any reasonable excuse for this partisan filth.

"Yeah, but it isn't just Fox - it's the same with all of the other news channels - and those are all Evil Liberals!"
If that's the case, then I feel sorry for the US on the whole. None of the things Fox pulled along the way is even *remotely* possible in my country (and probably in the rest of Western Europe as well); we simply don't have "news" or even "commentary" this partisan. Until a few years ago, I never realised that freedom of speech meant allowing pricks like o'Reilly or Hannity on the air, who seem hardly capable of respecting opinions that don't match their own, and make it a sport (especially o'Reilly) to interrupt their debating partners from making a point - up to the point of simply cutting off that person's microphone, or politely, but firmly yelling at them to "shut up". Seriously - if there's any sense of justice in this world, there's a large, leatherclad brute with a moustache out there with rubber gloves that've got O'Reilly's name on them.

Either way - I'm not sure if it was meant to be this way, but this documentary seemed more like a hilarious bit of satire to me than an overview of a news broadcast station; I can't even *begin* to imagine the hilarity of being able to see Fox News 24/7. ;)

Mate - I can see Fox News 24/7. Just cos I can do it doesn't mean my brain could stand the strain of sacrificing millions of memory cells to retain what they display. I concur with your comment that most other countries (I can include ours along with your list) wouldn't permit this abomination to exist.

Ahm, yes. Would you rather have only the government reporters on the news. You know the ones, things are fine again today, the economy is strong, but don't try to travel anywhere because you will be shocked at the bank for an exchange rate?

Hannity on the other hand leaves a bad taste even in my realm. If he'd just learn to shut the frik up, and let others talk for 10 seconds, the show would be better. I guess that's why he has fallen to the wayside with his better than thou croonies. Even in the military we have debate, maybe not about politics, but we debate in the war room. And debate is not about FORCING, it's about checking all avenues of approach, and understanding the other's situational awareness. And that is where Hannity and the whole lot fall short! If they could just see through their self imposed FOW!

Funny, one of the points the documentary makes is that Fox is nothing more than a cheerleader squad for the government when compared to other news outlets. Or at least until the next time a Democrat ends up in the White House, of course. ;)

Has anyone noted that Fox puts opposing viewpoints on the same show? You can't rant about Hannity without acknowledging Combs.

Fox is a reaction to the predominantly left leaning media... simple as that. I choose to think that the popularity of the station is indicative of the fact that the general population isn't quite as ignorant as politions would like them to be and therefore choose to balance off all the little helpings of left with a big helping of right.

I didn't realise that other nations would act in such a way, but if it's true, the fact that such an "abomination" would not be allowed in other nations is nothing more than a limit on personal freedom in those nations, sad really.

I personally think they're at least honest... they don't even try to hide their partisanship behind an illusion of neutrality like the rest of the media (US and Abroad).

In order for me to get a balanced view of an event I find I have to read at least 4 sources... foxnews.com is usually one along with cnn.com, bbc.com, and drudge. I no longer have cable (too much of a waste of money for me to bear) so all my news comes online. When I DID have cable the only news source that I'd classify as unbiased was CSpan.

Yup, and they had something to say about that as well. Interviews often happen with one liberal and one conservative just the same, but it was noted (they checked the list of names of guests of a period over a year) how often the conservative is a well known and experienced public speaker with good debating skills, while the liberal is often either too close to the center of the political spectrum to really disagree, or hardly known at all, or simply not a very good public speaker (all of this, of course, is subjective, and was noted by a former producer). And they had some figures as well - apparently 73% of the guests on Fox News current event talk shows are republicans.

Sure, it's easy to manipulate statistics, and I really don't know how this compares to other news channels - but I thought I'd mention it either way.

[ 09-03-2004, 04:53 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

...
Well, that's one way of looking at it... http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...ons/icon18.gif

I don't think it's a limit on personal freedom, though I do believe it has more to do with journalistic integrity - it's just that the only shows even *distantly* resembling Fox News on dutch tv are satirical programs; it really is that absurd. Honestly, we would hardly be able to hold our laughter if we ever get stuck with someone like O'Reilly holding an interview. ;)

I can agree with that, though; fair point. [img]smile.gif[/img]
And from my perspective, I think that Fox News is hilarious, in their own special and unintended way. That their partisanship is blatantly obvious isn't even an issue. I'm glad you don't just stick to Fox News only as your source for news items; however, I have a feeling that too many people seem to stick to Fox News only as their main news outlet (and may not even realise how partisan it actually is), and that's somewhat disconcerting.

[ 09-03-2004, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

Freedom of Speech and Press...Ain't it a bitch?

Besides, partisanship doesn't make them bad, merely biased. As compared to Michael Moore...

[ 09-03-2004, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: Oblivion437 ]

<font color=plum>I have to agree with <font color=orange>Thoran</font> when it comes to Fox's popularity. No matter how biased or partisan they are, they can't fake ratings - and their success is an obvious indicator that they are saying what a large portion of the general public wants to hear.

I also agree that the average citizen is MUCH smarter than politicians give them credit for and realize they have been fed subtle partisanship from the left for a long time.

Yeah, I know everybody rants about the "evil liberal media", but I read an article in a small magazine several months ago that gave a detailed, point-by-point documentation of numerous examples to support that position.

Unfortunately, the magazine was in the Waiting Room of a Dr.'s office - and I can't for the life of me remember what it was called.

It was a religious-based magazine and was published in Philadelphia. It had "Philadelphia" in it's title and may have even referenced the Liberty Bell, but I just can't remember it to save my life.

Well if it's a religious magazine, then it is obviously just as biased in it's presentation.
Yes and no. Yes, the magazine admits up front that it has a biased perspective, but in admitting it, you know exactly where the publishers and editor stand. And the "slant" they put on their story was no more blatant than that of any other major publication (and was nowhere close to the level Fox reaches). Yet, despite it's admitted bias, it presented documented accounts and thorough details to back up those accounts - so it did back up the claims it made with facts, figures and documentation.

Well, I find Fox to be entertaining occasionally. Bill O'Reilly is amusing, but even I have to take him in small doses. For those that don't like Fox at all - the answer is very simple....change the channel. ;) </font>