The official "Fox News Channel Needs to be Destroyed" thread

So viel Interessantes gibt's da nun auch wieder nicht...

 

You do realize that every news channel broadcasting in the US cares about ratings, right? They're all in the business to make money. CNN cares just as much about ratings as FOX does.

I watch FOX News, but it's certainly not my only source for news. I mean, would you only read one newspaper and consider yourself "informed"?

Back to the thread title: isn't one of the great things about America the fact that we have so many outlets for news? And with all the choices available to you, why would you choose to eliminate one? A person who only gets their news from CNN is no better than the person who is a slave to "Fair & Balanced" reporting on FOX. One of the great tragedies of the last 20 years is the demise of the 2 newspaper town. So many newspapers have folded that in many communities you only have one source for local news on a daily basis. I'm conservative, and the Dallas Morning News is a conservative paper, but I truly miss the Dallas Times Herald for the opposing viewpoint it often had. What cities still have more than 1 daily newspaper anymore? New York, Chicago, LA, and Boston are the ones that spring to mind (I'm sure there are others), but many large cities have lost that opposing viewpoint (Dallas and Atlanta are 2 off the top of my head). Of the largest 10 cities in the US, only 5 have competing daily newspapers.

 

Genau - bloß besser als Ami Fernsehen zu sein ist ja wohl kaum in sich selber eine Leistung. Deutsche Sender lassen auch viel von sich Wünschen.

 

Naja, ich guck auf jeden Fall lieber Tasgesthemen als Fox News (oder RTL II news ^^)
Und es ging ja um Nachrichtensender/sendungen, nicht fernsehen an sich (seid es Jamba gibt kann man TV eh vergessen )

 

At least they brought us that Turkish girl whose name I keep forgetting. That justifies their existence.

Nazan Eckes ?

 

that's great and everything, but fox"news" does not deserve their FCC license... i really can't think of another way to say it

 

Uli Wickert ist die Definition von "cool". Das musste einfach einmal gesagt werden. Was einem aber zu denken geben sollte ist, dass das, vom öffentlich-rechtlichen Fernsehen abgesehen, einzig Gute im deutschen Fernsehen amerikanische Serien sind (jede gute deutsche, auf einem Privatsender laufende Sendung die möglicherweise existiert wird hiermit schon im Vorraus als Ausnahme deklariert).

No, it doesn't. The name sounds familiar though, could be her. Now they have a Austrian chick doing the "news" anyway I think.

 

Not really, no.

 

perhaps, but there is a major difference. that is, moore and his group of untermenchen filth despise america, western culture, white people, capitalism, chrsitianity, judaism and the military as a matter of principle. whil;e bill o'reily may be a bit of an over the top clown, he loves his country. that is the difference between the far left and the far right as i see it.

 

Interesting quote about the replacement of Sandra Day O'Connor

"I think it will be a person of the highest caliber who will command respect across the board unless vilified by the left, and our job is to try to help to make sure that doesn't happen."

Fair enough, a regular partizan comment from a partizan activist. Now who said it? Well...............Fox News "Supreme Court Analyst" C. Boyden Gray. Yep, that's "We report, you decide" alright. No bias there, no even a little bit.

 

On what basis do you believe that FOX News deserves to have it's license revoked? If it is simply because you don't happen to agree with whatever editorial slant they happen to put on their coverage then why would CBS News not also have their license revoked? CBS actually fabricated a story while FOX merely tailors their coverage of any given issue towards the Right.

Not agreeing with the way in which the news is presented or the editorial content is simply a matter of taste.

I think that when most people such as yourself make statements that FOX should be taken off the air it is because you don't agree with the way their coverage is slanted, not because of any actual violation. Just because you don't happen to agree with their viewpoint does not mean that they are violating any FCC regulations.

Wanting to "shut down" FOX makes you no better than any right winger who rails against "biased" coverage from CNN, the New York Times, or any other news outfit the Right has determined to be a "Liberal Propaganda Machine". Freedom of the press is guaranteed by the Constitution. Since you obviously don't like FOX, my suggestion is to change the channel. If enough people don't watch FOX then it will simply go away as the ad dollars dry up.

Like I said, it's actually great that we are afforded differing viewpoints by the various media outlets. We should celebrate that America is a country in which both FOX News and CNN exist.

 

The key words in the quote are "I think". It's an editorial comment, not news. There is a world of difference between "news" and "editorial commentary" and it is up to the viewer to know which is which. If you can't tell the difference (and by "you" I mean Joe Q. Public, not you, personally) then your problems are far worse than your choice of news channel.

 

They're a cable only channel, so I don't think they have or need a license. If they do, I wanna know how the hell IFC hasn't had theirs revoked, what with all the nudity, sex, graphic violence, and bad language they have.

 

This should be interesting...I may have to take him off ignore to check it out.

 

The problem isn't that Fox News reports everything with a right-wing slant, they have a right to do that. However there's a problem if significant portions of the public aren't able to see the slant and believes the "fair and balanced" bit. The same thing goes for media sources with a definite left-wing slant.

The thing is that it's just so much easier to put your brain in neutral and accept everything your chosen news source tells you, than actually using several sources and trying to be critical and think about who's telling you what.

KJ

 

Key phrase: "his country." The far right tends to have a more restrictive definition of whose country it is.

 

i never said they deserved to be taken off the air or anything remotely like that - i meant a news license and what that entails - news stations have requirements, and this one does not even bother to act like they wish to meet them - they can stay on the air forever as an entertainment station, for all i care

as for CBS, they did not fabricate a story - they got a whack lead and can be accused of lazy journalism... fox"news" actually has fabricated many stories, we've discussed enough of them here in this forum

 

While I believe nearly every media organization has significant biases (including the BBC), Fox is beyond the pale. You should be able to both agree with their political perspective and understand how incredibly biased they are.

I'm more concerned about the drivel part. I'm equaly disgusted by right-wing, left-wing, and independent-centrist drivel. I would be willing to watch a right-wing news channel if it appealed to the intellect.

 

Yes, I agree. Rum really is best when mixed with coke.

 

True. The problem with Fox News is that it's journalism is simply abysmal, with the end result that it is little more than a mouthpiece for the right wing. That does not constitute a news organization, in my book, any more than a similar left-wing news channel would. I do watch Fox News sometimes, but for the pure comedy value as opposed to the news.

 

What requirements are you refering to? I am unaware of any "requirements" that the FCC has other than a weekly quota of educational programming for over-the-air local stations (Also, station ownership requirements, but that's obviously not what is in question here). In fact, outside of standards concerning decency (foul language and gratuitous nudity), wouldn't any "requirement" (concerning content) be an infringement on freedom of the press? Could you give me a link to any document on FCC requirements for news stations?

Now, which stories are you talking about that were fabricated by FOX and reported as news and not editorial content? I'm certainly not defending everything FOX does and it is obvious that the slant of their presentation is catering to the Right, but many times people confuse a news story with an opinion provided by an "expert" (and many of them on ALL stations should have quotes around their expert status).

CBS was guilty of lazy journalism, but was there another agenda that caused them to go public with what turned out to be a bad story? Sadly, the only person who could really answer that question is Dan Rather himself and that answer will not be forthcoming for quite some time.

Again, let me reiterate that I'm not defending everything that FOX does and very often I can't watch it simply because it is so conservative (especially the panel shows. The fact that Alan Colmes is the token "liberal" is a joke. It's like watching an Abbott & Costello routine the way he sets up Hannity, whom I really can't stand 5 days out of 7), but bashing FOX as being a mouthpiece of the Right simply smacks of hypocrisy since one of the major arguments I've seen on this board time and time again is the validity of certain news sources where the "Rightys" line up to bash CNN and The Times and the "lefty-moonbats" (a popular term for some) completely disregard FOX and various other conservative outlets. "My news is right because it agrees with me" is a very poor argument for both sides and discrediting a story solely based upon its' source is closed minded, at best, and willfully ignorant, otherwise. Anyone truly interested in getting the full story should draw from as many sources as possible regardless of their apparent "spin".

Don't take any of this as an attack on you, personally, or the more liberal minded posters on this board as a whole. I've seen instances where both sides of the BS poltical spectrum are guilty of exactly what they accuse their opposition of doing.