Replies

This also applies to Fox News. They advertise themselves as "fair and balanced" (and I'm sure that they believe they are), but come on! There's a whole host of conservative presenters with a token liberal here and there. How many times has Alan Colmes made a good argument? Sean slaughters him on most things. I'm not saying that its not a good service - I watch it regularly and enjoy it - but its a conservative news channel, end of story.

This also applies to Fox News. . . . . . .but its a conservative news channel, end of story.

Can you cite one example of a Fox News reporter "biasing" a news story?

Hannity and Colmes are commentators, not reporters.

I repeat: Can you cite one example of a Fox News reporter "biasing" a news story?

"Conservative" compared to WHAT?

FNC goes it alone among the news networks. Every other network, mainstream or cable, is blatantly, unapologetically LIBERAL.

And because Fox hasn't joined the club, that makes them CONSERVATIVE?

Sorry. I don't buy it.

Incidentally, could you please name the "conservative" counterparts on the other networks to these Fox News liberals:

Greta Van Susteren

Juan Williams

Mara Eliasson

ALAN COLMES (now that you mention it)

Geraldo Rivera

Let's see...ABC has George Will.

Shucks. Guess I'll have to get back to you when I can think of some more.

This also applies to Fox News....
...but its a conservative news channel, end of story.

I think we're confusing delivery of actual news with political commentary. Comparing Dan Rather to Sean Hannity, for instance, is comparing apples to oranges. Not to disparage Sean, but he's simply got a different job to do, and I certainly wouldn't want him to be my sole source of information. Unfortunately, many people depend on what their favorite pundit is saying rather than doing their own research. Hell, Rush is always saying something to the effect of "I do the research so you don't have to" or something like that. And this is supposed to be a good thing? It's damned dangerous in my mind. The line seems to have blurred between news and commentary.

As far as actual news and facts, I think you'd be hard pressed to find an objective source anywhere. So those of us who actually give a sh*t are forced to find our own answers and draw our own conclusions.

As far as FOX goes, once you filter out the commentary, I find it to be much too "National Enquirer" for my taste. Right now, it's pretty much the following (on 10 minute rotation):

The latest child kidnapping.
The Robert Blake trial.
The war on terrorism (with Israel and Iraq falling into this heading).

The first two items are what FOX must think our nation of Jerry Springer fans want to see. Admittedly CNN, MSNBC, etc. aren't much better. Sensationalism sells. Of course it's about ratings and ad dollars. In the mean time, because of that blurred line, we've turned into a nation of mostly uninformed parrots.

There is so much going on in the world that is SO much more important than the latest Elizabeth Smart update. I watch BBC news occasionally just to get a break from that. I'm not going to argue about their own bias, it's irrelevant. It's just refreshing to to see some news on the "tele" that isn't strictly ratings-driven.