Fox News

[David in FL]

When I get a haircut, I ask my barber to change it from Fox News to the Golf Channel or Food Network.  Otherwise he will butcher my hair.  What I have left that it is!  :-P FWIW, I don't what MSNBC (at all) or CNN much unless there is something really important to follow up on.  There is far too much opinion and self promoting newscasters for my taste.  I wish we could have cloned Walter Cronkite.

He's clearly not a barber , but rather some light in the loafers stylist. . ;-)

[meenman]

The only news I get is whatever Anthony Cumia has on that day.

Even though years ago he said *you dont watch CNN for dick jokes, dont listen to us for hard hitting news* (after an obvious joke led to their escape from boston)

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Many of us would argue that its more "newsy" than the aforementioned opinion channels, but yeah, it's certainly not news.  But unlike Fox and MSNBC and CNN, etc., it doesn't claim to be either.

Regardless, I have no doubt that there are millions of people out there who don't find him funny, just can't imagine that there are many that "hate" the show.  Probably only people who are really big fans of Jim Cramer. ;)

I don't like Cramer (too loud and obnoxious) or Stewart (too snarky) but neither matters enough to hate them.  I liked Cronkite or just news without the bias.  I prefer to hear the facts and make my own mind up.

Sadly this doesn't seem to be available anymore, at least on national news.  I am in perfect agreement with you here.

[nevets88]

News w/o bias. Just by picking what to report, which stories take precedence, there is bias. There's no such thing as unbiased news. There's super flagrant bias, and there's trying not to be biased as much as one can while trying to keep reporting standards high. The Newshour on PBS is somewhere between Fox and MSNBC. The most biased part of it is Shields and Brooks on Friday nights. I remember it used to spend almost 20 minutes on each segment, so 3 segments max. That's gone now, in these ADD times, but there's a weekend edition. Washington Week tends to follow DC think, but they're not shouting at each other. The thing about reading "unbiased", hard news is that it is mostly bad news as there is no sugar coating, as your typical news outlets mimic Don Henley's Dirty Laundry lyrics - "got the bubbleheaded bleach blond, comes on at five, she can tell you about the plane crash with a gleam in her eye." It can get pretty depressing if you read it all the time. To sum up, "we all know that crap is king, give us dirty laundry!"

[boogielicious]

News w/o bias. Just by picking what to report, which stories take precedence, there is bias. There's no such thing as unbiased news. There's super flagrant bias, and there's trying not to be biased as much as one can while trying to keep reporting standards high.

The Newshour on PBS is somewhere between Fox and MSNBC. The most biased part of it is Shields and Brooks on Friday nights. I remember it used to spend almost 20 minutes on each segment, so 3 segments max. That's gone now, in these ADD times, but there's a weekend edition.

Washington Week tends to follow DC think, but they're not shouting at each other.

Back in the day, the news reported what happened.  You would often not even see the reporters face during and interview.  Now, the reporter is the focus of the interview or at least gets equal time.  Written news stories also would summarize the story in the first couple of paragraphs.  Now they all feel like they are novelists and you can't even get to the story without going through paragraphs of drivel.

[nevets88]

[QUOTE name="nevets88" url="/t/77633/fox-news/36#post_1066145"] News w/o bias. Just by picking what to report, which stories take precedence, there is bias. There's no such thing as unbiased news. There's super flagrant bias, and there's trying not to be biased as much as one can while trying to keep reporting standards high. The Newshour on PBS is somewhere between Fox and MSNBC. The most biased part of it is Shields and Brooks on Friday nights. I remember it used to spend almost 20 minutes on each segment, so 3 segments max. That's gone now, in these ADD times, but there's a weekend edition. Washington Week tends to follow DC think, but they're not shouting at each other.[/QUOTE] Back in the day, the news reported what happened.  You would often not even see the reporters face during and interview.  Now, the reporter is the focus of the interview or at least gets equal time.  Written news stories also would summarize the story in the first couple of paragraphs.  Now they all feel like they are novelists and you can't even get to the story without going through paragraphs of drivel.

Yeah, I agree. And sports now, some reporters try and inject themselves into the story. I can't stand that.

[davedove]

Hey, I do enjoy The Five sometimes, sometimes I'll watch MSNBC.  I like getting all points of view and trying to understand them.  I also find that each network has its idiots.

I'll be honest though. One of the big reasons I like to watch The Five is seeing Kymberly's legs right after I get off work!

[nevets88]

And Rachel Maddow - yeah, she can be a bit much but did any of you watch her coverage of the reactor meltdowns in Japan? She did some great investigative/research reporting there. You got an education on nuclear reactors and energy. I have to admit to watching bits of John Oliver.

[MS256]

Back in the day, the news reported what happened.  You would often not even see the reporters face during and interview.  Now, the reporter is the focus of the interview or at least gets equal time.  Written news stories also would summarize the story in the first couple of paragraphs.  Now they all feel like they are novelists and you can't even get to the story without going through paragraphs of drivel.

OMG!

Before you anoint Walter Cronkite and other anchors as down the middle, straight shooting saints at least a little balance.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2012/05/22/new-bio-reveals-former-cbs-anchor-walter-cronkite-far-more-biased

The TV News was always biased and we all knew it. Didn't bother me because most of the time I was usually antiestablishment myself and often on their side.

[newtogolf]

Back in the day, the news reported what happened.  You would often not even see the reporters face during and interview.  Now, the reporter is the focus of the interview or at least gets equal time.  Written news stories also would summarize the story in the first couple of paragraphs.  Now they all feel like they are novelists and you can't even get to the story without going through paragraphs of drivel.

Exactly, you could watch the news on just about any major network and you'd get the facts of what happened on an event they chose to cover.  Others are right in that story selection is also a method if bias used by news shows today, but back then I believe even that was minimal.

News shows and newspapers had editorials where the producers of the show could give their "spin" on events or a story but it was clearly identified as an editorial.   Today the entire news show or news paper is basically an editorial because in almost every news event the reporter / writer inserts their own opinions or additional facts that slant the event into a "story" they want to tell.  The best news reporters slant the story without you even knowing it and that's where the real bias and division of the country occurs.  FOX News is known to be conservative, MSNBC, CNN are liberal.  People watch those channels because they want the news events presented to them with the bias they prefer.

The real problem imo are the major networks news shows because they should be unbiased.   People tune in to them thinking they will get "just the news" but instead get biased news in both how it's reported and what is covered.  The news agencies control what we see, hear and know about the world around us.  We might have freedom of speech and be free from most censorship but unless you make a real effort to get unbiased news you're a victim of news propaganda from both sides.

[nevets88]

Quote:

Originally Posted by boogielicious

Back in the day, the news reported what happened.  You would often not even see the reporters face during and interview.  Now, the reporter is the focus of the interview or at least gets equal time.  Written news stories also would summarize the story in the first couple of paragraphs.  Now they all feel like they are novelists and you can't even get to the story without going through paragraphs of drivel.

OMG!

Before you anoint Walter Cronkite and other anchors as down the middle, straight shooting saints at least a little balance.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2012/05/22/new-bio-reveals-former-cbs-anchor-walter-cronkite-far-more-biased

The TV News was always biased and we all knew it. Didn't bother me because most of the time I was usually antiestablishment myself and often on their side.

I agree that the news has always been biased, but there was a period in which it was less than it was today. Maybe not by much, but it was notcieable. During the anti-establishment period of the US around the 60s maybe? But in the 19th century, broadsheets were just as bad, worse than FOX and MSNBC.

Hey, I do enjoy The Five sometimes, sometimes I'll watch MSNBC.  I like getting all points of view and trying to understand them.  I also find that each network has its idiots.

I'll be honest though. One of the big reasons I like to watch The Five is seeing Kymberly's legs right after I get off work!

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/nhw1i8/news-i-d-like-to-f--k

[Mr. Desmond]

And Rachel Maddow - yeah, she can be a bit much but did any of you watch her coverage of the reactor meltdowns in Japan? She did some great investigative/research reporting there. You got an education on nuclear reactors and energy.

I have to admit to watching bits of John Oliver.

John Oliver is great ... and on point...

[Mr. Desmond]

OMG!

Before you anoint Walter Cronkite and other anchors as down the middle, straight shooting saints at least a little balance.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2012/05/22/new-bio-reveals-former-cbs-anchor-walter-cronkite-far-more-biased

The TV News was always biased and we all knew it. Didn't bother me because most of the time I was usually antiestablishment myself and often on their side.

We all knew the news media was center left at the time. People complained.

At the same time, professional journalists are people. They have personal views. And what one does with a personal view and how they present the news are two different issues. I recognize that human nature does not allow one to build a complete "Chinese wall" between personal views and professional performance, but Cronkite was acknowledged as more impartial while Huntley-Brinkley were the so-called liberals. And ABC? They might have been moderate. I mean, after all, it was Peter Jennings...

[phan52]

Exactly, you could watch the news on just about any major network and you'd get the facts of what happened on an event they chose to cover.  Others are right in that story selection is also a method if bias used by news shows today, but back then I believe even that was minimal.

News shows and newspapers had editorials where the producers of the show could give their "spin" on events or a story but it was clearly identified as an editorial.   Today the entire news show or news paper is basically an editorial because in almost every news event the reporter / writer inserts their own opinions or additional facts that slant the event into a "story" they want to tell.  The best news reporters slant the story without you even knowing it and that's where the real bias and division of the country occurs.  FOX News is known to be conservative, MSNBC, CNN are liberal.  People watch those channels because they want the news events presented to them with the bias they prefer.

The real problem imo are the major networks news shows because they should be unbiased.   People tune in to them thinking they will get "just the news" but instead get biased news in both how it's reported and what is covered.  The news agencies control what we see, hear and know about the world around us.  We might have freedom of speech and be free from most censorship but unless you make a real effort to get unbiased news you're a victim of news propaganda from both sides.

The bolded is not true. Fox News is disingenuous and biased on the right, MSNBC is just as disingenuous and biased on the left, while CNN is just confused and incompetent.

I have subscriptions to three newspapers: the NYT, the WSJ and my local paper, the Philadelphia Inquirer. I like the NYT and the WSJ because they actually have their own investigative journalists on staff to get to the bottom of stories instead of relying on other news sources. I get the local paper primarily for the local flavor and the local sports and, unfortunately, I expect nothing more than that. It Is sad because the Inquirer used to be one of the best informed publications in America in it's day.

Investigative journalism is almost dead and it is very disappointing to see what is considered "news" these days. The 24/7 aspect of it leads to too much speculation instead of fact finding.

[Golfingdad]

... while CNN is just confused and incompetent.

LOL!!  That sounds about right.

[Dave2512]

Investigative journalism is almost dead and it is very disappointing to see what is considered "news" these days. The 24/7 aspect of it leads to too much speculation instead of fact finding.

Pretty much and obvious most of the "news" shows are just scripted programming.

[BallMarker]

Daily Show/Colbert are news shows?

[saevel25]

Daily Show/Colbert are [U] news [/U] shows?

It is news with a lower case n, as my English prof from college would coin it in his thesis on regular News versus the Daily show news.;-)