15 Years of Achievement.

**coracle** · October-09-11, 07:23 AM

Congratulations to FOX News on it's 15 year anniversary. It's beat out all the other Cable News Networks for maximum viewers for several years now. The recipe of presenting the truth in a Fair and Balanced manner illustrates they've got a winning formula to build the future on.

**Bigb23** · October-09-11, 07:43 AM

The recipe of presenting the truth in a Fair and Balanced manner illustrates
they've got a winning formula to build the future on.

Huh ? What did I miss?

**firstandten** · October-09-11, 10:17 AM

Fair and Balanced baby ! thats the key !

**oladub** · October-09-11, 12:12 PM

One of yesterday's Fox lies:

The 'Value Voters' Summit' held a poll. Ron Paul received 37% of the vote. Herman Cain received 23%. How did Fox choose to report this 37%-23% result?

screenshot "Paul and Cain Win Values Voter Straw Poll"

Fox News lies. 37-23 anything is not a tie.

**Crumbled_pavement** · October-09-11, 01:24 PM

Good one Oladub. I've found that almost all media is biased. Normally the viewer doesn't care as long as the media is biased in their favor. If the media is biased in favor of their opposition [[or an opinion the viewer doesn't agree with) then all of a sudden it's a federal crime. What people really mean is, feed me only what I want to hear. Apparently Fox must feed more people what they want to hear than their competition. Either that, or they're the only ones feeding a certain segment of the population and other segments of the population have more choices. Hmmmm....

**vetalalumni** · October-09-11, 06:11 PM

Originally Posted by Crumbled_pavement

Good one Oladub. I've found that almost all media is biased. Normally the viewer doesn't care as long as the media is biased in their favor. If the media is biased in favor of their opposition [[or an opinion the viewer doesn't agree with) then all of a sudden it's a federal crime. What people really mean is, feed me only what I want to hear. Apparently Fox must feed more people what they want to hear than their competition. Either that, or they're the only ones feeding a certain segment of the population and other segments of the population have more choices. Hmmmm....

Each and every media outlet is at any given moment biased by definition. Media are people, just like corporations

. Bias is preference or tendency.

Feed is an applicable metaphor in the case of TV. The listening audience is disposed to "eat" from whatever is provided among the available channels.

Even C-Span is biased in their selection of who, what, and when they broadcast.
Let us be like the chef.

**Gistok** · October-09-11, 09:22 PM

Originally Posted by coracle

Congratulations to FOX News on it's 15 year anniversary. It's beat out all the other Cable News Networks for maximum viewers for several years now. The recipe of presenting the truth in a Fair and Balanced manner illustrates they've got a winning formula to build the future on.

Dude.. what planet did you just drop in from??

Fair and Balanced??? [[Gotta agree with Oladub! Lies...lies and more lies...) Anyone with half a brain... can see that Fox News is Fair and Balanced... only in the way they don't bother to "fact check" their sources....

My favorite Fox News LIE.... the 2 billion dollar trip to Asia....
http://www.hannity.com/show/2010/11/03

Gotta love it....

And the truth of the matter...
http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...ie.html?cat=75

**firstandten** · October-09-11, 10:45 PM

Originally Posted by vetalalumni

Each and every media outlet is at any given moment biased by definition. Media are people, just like corporations

. Bias is preference or tendency.

Feed is an applicable metaphor in the case of TV. The listening audience is disposed to "eat" from whatever is provided among the available channels.

Even C-Span is biased in their selection of who, what, and when they broadcast.
Let us be like the chef.

I would agree by definition news sources are biased. What masked that truth in my mind was the fairness doctrine. which made media give a variety of views on important subjects. Once the fairness doctrine was dismantled during the Reagan administration the result was predictable

**Jimaz** · October-09-11, 10:58 PM

The misplaced period on the title of this thread says it all: stick a fork into it.

**Gistok** · October-09-11, 10:59 PM

Originally Posted by firstandten

I would agree by definition news sources are biased. What masked that truth in my mind was the fairness doctrine. which made media give a variety of views on important subjects. Once the fairness doctrine was dismantled during the Reagan administration the result was predictable

I have to agree... there's plenty of bias on all sides to go around. Generally I like to listen to the BBC World News... although for long insights into some stories the PBS Newshour is pretty good.

**coracle** · October-10-11, 07:10 AM

The only thing I don't like on the FOX News program are the representatives they have to present the Left's point of view. I think they are far too biased.

As to where I dropped in from Gistok; I'm from one of the 57 States; same as you.

**oladub** · October-10-11, 07:48 AM

Originally Posted by firstandten

I would agree by definition news sources are biased. What masked that truth in my mind was the fairness doctrine. which made media give a variety of views on important subjects. Once the fairness doctrine was dismantled during the Reagan administration the result was predictable

Fairness doctrine = censorship as determined by those in power.

As distorted as Fox is, one has the option of changing the channel to MSNBC which is just as distorted in the other direction or nearly so. It wasn't very many years before Reagan when we only had three channels [[four in Detroit). Now we have scores of channels and internet news.

Going back eighty years or so, Newspapers sometimes had the names of political parties in their names. Bias is nothing new. I can't imagine, though, that some Bureau of Media Fairness is going to start making sure that libertarian views are given equal status with the big government views of Republicans and Democrats. After Perot went on stage in a political debate, Democrats and Republicans set up some sort of presidential debate commission to make sure that a outside perspective was never again heard in a televised presidential debate. If you want luke warm status quo news, the fairness doctrine is the ticket. Otherwise, change channels.

**firstandten** · October-10-11, 01:59 PM

From Wikipedia:

"The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission [[FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced. The FCC decided to eliminate the Doctrine in 1987, and in August 2011 the FCC formally removed the language that implemented the Doctrine.[1]
The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.[2]
The main agenda for the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints. In 1969 the United States Supreme Court upheld the FCC's general right to enforce the Fairness Doctrine where channels were limited. But the courts did not rule that the FCC was obliged to do so.[3]. The courts reasoned that the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum, which limited the opportunity for access to the airwaves, created a need for the Doctrine. However, the proliferation of cable television, multiple channels within cable, public-access channels, and the Internet have eroded this argument, since there are plenty of places for ordinary individuals to make public comments on controversial issues at low or no cost.
The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with the Equal Time rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the Equal Time rule deals only with political candidates."

I believe that for the times that we were in and the limited access to the airwaves, the Fairness Doctrine was a good faith effort by the gov't to present different viewpoints. Now you could get around that by sticking a boob to give the opposing viewpoint but I think the intent was good.

Now with all the cable channels out there the need for the Fairness Doctrine isn't there.

But here's a problem one might run into. Lets say Oladub, you just created the LNN [[Libertarian News Network). However you may not be funded like Fox News or MSNBC and can't get on the major cable systems for whatever reason. Wouldn't that be a form of censorship ?

**Jimaz** · October-10-11, 02:45 PM

Geraldo Rivera sweating bullets:

Attachment 10885
Fox News LIARS Visit Occupy Wall Street 10/09/11

The 99% tell the "serious" people of Fox News to SHOVE IT. Don't lecture us about "personal responsibility," you phone bugging pissants and Wall Street apologists! Watch your back the next time you show your ugly face at a political gathering. Solutions: impose a tax on all stock trades [[known as the financial transactions tax), break-up the banks and the media oligopoly, End the Fed, outlaw usury, bring all troops home from the wars of profit and terror and impose tariffs on imported products from developing nations [[i.e. stop exporting America's jobs to the developing world). This is the short list. Feel free to add to the list in the comments section.

Occupiers chant "Fox News lies!" and "Hey hey! Ho ho! Fox News has got to go!"

"You guys are not going to spin this against us."

At about 9:30 Fox News' Geraldo Rivera gives up and exits the scene.

**firstandten** · October-10-11, 03:22 PM

Originally Posted by coracle

As to where I dropped in from Gistok; I'm from one of the 57 States; same as you.

Don't tell me you're one of those secret Muslims like our president.

**oladub** · October-11-11, 12:33 AM

Originally Posted by firstandten

But here's a problem one might run into. Lets say Oladub, you just created the LNN [[Libertarian News Network). However you may not be funded like Fox News or MSNBC and can't get on the major cable systems for whatever reason. Wouldn't that be a form of censorship ?

Libertarians don't believe in entitlements. But, let's imagine, that libertarians received equal time or were handed huge sums of money like mainstream Democrats and Republicans.Then what about every other ism under the sun? Why should libertarians be given a place on the stage when other groups are not? It would get crazy. Of course this isn't going to happen because it gets messy when someone like Perot starts embarrassing both parties.