Artful Dodger:

> apples to apples FNC kicks butt ALL DAY LONG

Sounds like a great ad! Do you work for FNC, or hold stock in the company? That kidn of love comes only from somebody with a vested interest in FNC.

Well, of course, ratings is no indication of quality. Lots of people love MacDonald's. It does not mean that MacDonald's is good food, or nutritious food.

How should news be measured? Quality? Quantity? Popularity?

I find that if I want better news with more balanced reporting, then I have to see several channels to get a more complete picture. I never watch CNN or Fox. Simply because their view of the world is given through the narrow looking glass of American centrist and right-wing politics. It does not mean that they are bad networks. I just don't find their way of reporting appealing to me.

Likewise, I am sure the reporting in other channels leave a lot to be desired to other people. It is all colored by people's personal opinions.

I watch BBC News but I find a distinct pro-weswtern slant in their reporting. They are not left-leaning (as some people might want to believe). I find that they do chime of the neo-liberal ideology of modern western politics.

I watch RT (Russian television) news which has a less Eurocentric and Western-centric view. I find that they report much better in things that the western media tries to hide. A good example is their reporting of the rising sectarian violence in Lybia, something that western news media are playing down. While the western media gives a pro-western view of the situation in Syria, RT is giving what I feel is a more balanced view.

Sometimes I watch CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) news. I find them entirely western-centric and neo-liberal in their views, but they are far from left-leaning as some people might claim.

I rarely see Al Jazeera. I find them a souped up (or down?) version of BBC news.

Well, Fox might have high ratings, but I do not necessarily agree with their right-wing slant. That is just me, because I am a left winger. Those who agree with Fox will naturally defend their reporting.

Übergeek 바둑이: Interesting isn't it that FNC is the most popular cable news outlet but it, as you say, slants left. That ought to speak volumes to you leftys but you ignore the obvious. Could it possibly be that Fox presents a fair and balanced view of issues. Even Hannity has regular liberal contributors. O'Reilly has them on every day and they rarely agree with him. You don't get the diversity of opinion on the other broadcasts. People watch Fox because they trust it. Sad for you that you have to resort to a dishonest appraisal of Fox so that your ideology can be pampered.

Artful Dodger: PBS is more trusted.

"As of January 2011, the Democratic Party-affiliated Public Policy Polling reports that Fox News Channel is the second-most trusted television news network in the country, with 42% of respondents reporting they trust the network, compared to other major news channels (behind PBS which stands at 50%, and ahead of NBC at 41%, CNN at 40%, CBS at 36%, and ABC at 35%). Simultaneously, Fox News Channel is also ranked the most distrusted news channel in the country, with 46% of respondents reporting they distrust the network (behind PBS at 30%, NBC at 41%, and CNN, CBS, and ABC each at 43%)."

"A leaked memo from Fox News vice president Bill Sammon to the News staff during the height of the debate over Health care reform in the United States has been cited as an example of the pro-Republican party bias of Fox News. His memo asked the staff to "use the term ‘government-run health insurance,’ or, when brevity is a concern, ‘government option,’ whenever possible." This memo was sent shortly after Republican pollster Frank Luntz advised Sean Hannity on his Fox show that: "If you call it a public option, the American people are split," he explained. "If you call it the government option, the public is overwhelmingly against it."[54]"

(V): Facts are stubborn things. But if you like straws please, continue to grasp.

Artful Dodger:

> Sad for you that you have to resort to a dishonest appraisal of Fox so that your ideology can be pampered.

Like I said, Fox is not a bad network. I just don't find their style of reporting appealing to me.

Well, I find that no news channel is balanced. I said that I find it better to see several channels rather than limit myself to one.

As for my ideology, for it to be pampered I would revamp every channel. I would kill all advertising to begin with. Then I would set reporters to truly ionvestigate what politicians are doing and uncover the veil of secrecy that politicians use as a way to "protect the public and national security". I doubt that politicians want transparency or honesty. They want to carry on as always, favoring the wealthy and powerful and using the masses as mere tools to secure their power. No channel would ever report like that.

Übergeek 바둑이: We've got 13 news channels available, plus a few specialist (business/parliament) ...

Good to have a range.

The reporting on Fox is based upon brash headline style graphics and slogans. The same he used to help influence peoples opinions in the UK to get them to support whoever sucked upto him the most come election time.

(V): Such as? Oh yeah that's right, you don't provide evidence for your claims. You just say it as if it's really true.

Artful Dodger: The evidence is clear.. just watch some Fox. Just like Fox paying networks to take up the broadcasting of their show is clear.. the accounts tell the story, being that they have to be published.


"Facts are stubborn things. But if you like straws please, continue to grasp. "

That Fox is the most distrusted channel... along with the surveys that show Fox news causes people to become more ignorant about the world.

.. or is that just religious led conservatism?

(V): The problem is, you have your "facts" wrong. And rantings are not evidence. Most people know the difference.

(V): I knew you couldn't provide examples. You have none.

Artful Dodger:

From the beginning, FNC has placed heavy emphasis on visual presentation. Graphics were designed to be colorful and attention grabbing and to allow people to get the main points of what was being said even if they could not hear the host, through the use of on-screen text summarizing the position of the interviewer or speaker and "bullet points" when a host was giving commentary.

Fox News also created the "Fox News Alert," which interrupted regular programming when a breaking news story occurred.

To accelerate its adoption by cable companies, Fox News paid systems up to $11 per subscriber to distribute the channel.[16] This contrasted with the normal practice, in which cable operators paid stations carriage fees for the programming of channels.


...and again just watch the channel.

(V): so what???

Artful Dodger: It's old school tabloid.

(V): Wrong. I see none of that. It's all new school. You just make this stuff up as you go. You're like the losing team who stays on the field even though the game is long over.

Artful Dodger: Nope. If you look back at the history of the now sacrificial lamb "News of The World" you'll find that much the same dating back 160 years.

Such like "the Sun", "the Daily Mail" have been doing similar for decades.

The info is from wikipedia.. duhhhhh

(V): Truth is Jules all networks do much of the same. It's a competition remember? As for dating back 160 years, it couldn't have started with Murdock now could it? ABC, NBC, CBS, and ALL THE OTHERS do much the same as the presentation is the thing.

As I said, you grasp at straws.

In truth, people ought to get their news from a variety of sources and a variety of perspectives. I always watch the network world news in addition to other sources. But I know that unless I did deeply, I'll never hear the full story on any news program. They only have a few minutes to present the top highlights of any newsworthy item. No cable/tv program can do a story justice. And no one source can provide one with every ounce of truth there is to be had. There's always the Paul Harvey element to any story.

But with Fox one does get a more balanced view. Liberal views are presented alongside more conservative views. That approach sells. One-sided sloppy journalism such as MSNBC does not.

The Geek likes Russian TV. Well, he gets what he pays for then. They are hardly advocates of truth. They too present a slanted view as does PBS and BBC. There's always a slant. Question is, to which direction does the slant lean? Not speaking of left or right here. Fox leans on the side of what's factually true. The others not so much. CNN comes close. PBS covers issues well but they too have a left lean. It says so in their memos. It's up to the viewers/readers to sort things out.

Like so many, you simply dismiss Fox outright. That's a red flag. And you're only proof for anything is your babble. You speak a lot, but say nothing. If I wasn't already bald, I'd get a bald spot from scratching my head.

(V): BTW, where did you get that info as you didn't use quotes and didn't reference a source. Are you trying to claim those are your own words?