In my opinion CNN is a farce. Who gets to decide? You or me?
No. Why do we need people telling us how we should think? I’m sure you grew up hearing “two wrongs don’t make a right.”
CNN or MSNBC’s bias doesn’t justify Fox’s bias. No one should need ANY network to tell them what to think.
Their bias isn’t justified because YOU believe that the entire rest of the media is biased the other way.
Believe it or not, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc are all competitors against each other as well as Fox. They’re ALL competing for viewers. But you have one of those networks-Fox-telling you that the rest are biased. And they feed that narrative, fueling their own bias.
Exactly. Which is why we cannot be stuck with only one biased view. Both sides need to be represented. I am fine with the other 5. As long as there is at least one other choice. How about you?
I watched it on CNN, but had to turn it off before the speech was over. I was so done with the bovine excrement coming out of his pie hole. Didn’t even listen to the rebuttal.
I wholeheartedly agree with every word.
I sat in our local ER for 2 hrs. yesterday and both TV’s were on FOX. I went in with chest pains and watching that crap just made it worse. All they talked about was Virginia and Warren. That’s it, in two freaking hours.
It is up to you as a consumer of information to discern and maybe even investigate what’s real and what’s fake news. Our problem as humans, we allow our biases guide us without checking information is accurate or not. Those guys who put out that info know it too and prey upon it. I remember several years back I called into a show who name will not be called and his gatekeepers screened me out despite the fact the information he was putting out was not accurate. I called to correct, not debate. They marginalized my point of view despite the fact that I was there. Scared it would have changed the entire narrative of the discussion.
1 Like
Your premise is completely void of reality.
Unlike the “mainstream media”, Fox news was CREATED TO BE biased and one-sided. Roger Ailes said so himself years ago. There was never any actual pretense of neutrality on Fox, whereas the major network news operations, while sometimes flawed, have always used the tenets of journalism as a guide.
Do you really think back in 1996 they couldn’t find a better counter to Hannity than Alan Colmes? He was a patsy for Sean to shine over. There were plenty of potential hosts who could’ve sliced and diced Sean nightly, but they never would’ve seen the light of day.
Wake up.
1 Like
I am continually surprised how easily some folks will confuse “news” with “reporting”. If it leads with “sources tell us” it is not news. When it comes down to specific news stories I have found that all of the networks (yes I tune into all of them), do a pretty good job at reporting the facts. The difference is the length of time from event to broadcast and the placement in the program and the amount of time given to the story.
For example I have watched Fox News delay and give little attention to breaking news that is not favorable to Trump or the administration. Likewise I have seen the same from CNN and MSNBC.
1 Like
Which TV news network is your favorite for totally unbiased political reporting. Which one has not chosen a side?
No, we don’t “need” “both sides” represented. We need to change the channel when the angry person on the TV or radio starts yelling their opinions to us. That’s what I do.
But nice snip of the rest of the post. You left out some important context, like:
and
and
1 Like
We had an old coot hosting in my area for a few years. Just random local yokel. Every year, he would claim “Obama canceled the national day of prayer.” And every year when he’d have a local pastor on his show to get angry with him about it, I’d call in and cite him Obama’s proclamation straight from the national day of prayer website.
And like clockwork, a year later, he’d make the same claim.
Facts don’t matter any longer. Just believe what the angry opinion person tells you. It’s easier to shut your brain off than it is to critically think.
Which one of the networks that you mentioned simply reports the news without a political spin and has not chosen a side?
So 48% of American voters have no representation of their views in major broadcast networks.
Thank you. That sort of makes the point of the OP on the importance of Fox.
In my opinion, none. It is all a matter of degree and frequency.
1 Like
Not a single one, and that’s why I hold them ALL to the same account when it comes to bias and credibility.
I check them ALL. I don’t believe any of them at first glance. I give them ALL due scrutiny. And if I heard it from a pundit/commentator, I assume it’s not true until verified through other sources.
Fair answer and the degree and frequency is decided by each network. Liberals believe that it is worse on the right, Conservatives believe that it is worse on the left. Who gets to decide which is correct?
Great answer.
1 Like
Everybody makes their down decision about that. An objective study of it would be difficult, but possible in theory, I suppose. Although watching that much 24 hour cable news TV would probably drive any researcher to suicide.
Honestly and truthfully, the only time I tune in live to CNN is during their election coverage. I think John King’s news coverage is about as unbiased, comprehensive, and honest as it gets.
Back during the 2016 primaries, I was traveling cross country and briefly turned on CNN in my hotel room only to hear a gaggle of ninnies just screeching over each other. Geoffrey Lord on one side, Van Jones on the other, and a bunch of others in between whose opinions I just don’t care to hear shouted back and forth. It was really mind-numbing.
I don’t want to hear “both sides” of an issue on what is supposed to be NEWS programming. I don’t want to hear the speculation by the journalist about what happened. I want to hear WWWW, and the why if we know it. I want to hear the facts-and not just the facts that Wolf, or Shep, or Bret, or Chris, or any of the other want me to here.
I read as many sources as I can on a topic and find out as much as there is to know before making a personal judgement about it.
With the breadth of information available at a few taps of a screen, there’s no excuse to give any single “news” source a direct connection to your brain.
I have cable with Fox, CNN and MSNBC and watch neither…almost never. I can’t recall a time that I watched any.
When I talk about Fox, WashPo, CNN I am generally talking about online news articles included in each, not the cable channels.
Oh…and I will also check out Breitbart but rarely mention it here because of the heat…unless I can trace a story there to another source which I will then reference.
Which brings me to another point…how well does an article trace to its sources? Is the story based on something that is documented and/or believable as a source? My unproven suspicions is that this is very lax with some media sources as long as it is an anti Trump article.
Oh…and if there is a significant story it may be best to use a search engine or two to see what others are saying.
1 Like
