re: "Outfoxed"

Fox News is HARDLY biased either left or right. In fact they really live up to their "fair and balanced" credo most of the time.From what I have read about it recently, "Outfoxed" is just another piece of election year nonsense(much like Mr. Moore's 9/11 film)in the attempt to discredit Bush, pure and simple. End of story.

just out of curiosity, when you say they are fair and balanced and "hardly biased", were you referring to the inspired rationalism of bill o'reilly?
"Coming next, drug addicted pregnant women no longer have anything to fear from the authorities thanks to the Supreme Court. Both sides on this in a moment." (3/23/01)
or perhaps the cold objectivism of tony snow, host of fox news sunday--former chief speechwriter for the first Bush administration?
or maybe you meant the obviously neutral fox anchorman john gibson?
"I think what's going on is the Democratic lawyers have flooded Florida. They are afraid of George W. Bush becoming president and instituting tort reform and their gravy train will be over. This is the trial association's full court press to make sure Bush does not win." (12/9/00)
or maybe you meant the network as a whole, not individual pundits.
"Who would be the most likely to cheat at cards-- Bill Clinton or Al Gore?" Fox News poll from 5/00

come to think of it, there isn't one example i can think of that shows any bias. guess you got a point there, genius.

your comrade,
dan

Fox News is Fox News--honestly, I don't understand why liberals get so worked up about FNC. The whole "fair and balanced" moniker was designed as a reaction to the Right's idea of a "liberal media," but most agree that Fox is coming from the Right. They're partisan, they're watched by partisans, and that's that. Greenwald's documentary, which I haven't seen, seems rather pointless to me. An expose of Fox News' right-wing bias? SHOCKING!

I want to see a documentary on CNN's bias, which many people around the world consider to be a somewhat balanced and neutral news source. Same for the New York Times. These outlets have more moderate credentials than Fox News, and are usually taken more seriously. However, both have displayed a disturbing trend towards conservatism and reactionary coverage in the past decade. CNN features conservative spy-outer Robert Novak prominently, as well as right-wing patsy Lou Dobbs, and is remarkably jingoistic in its coverage of the Iraq War. The Times seems hell-bent to destroy any popular Democrats seeking any kind of office, and they've also got that Elizabeth Bumiller-Ahmad Chalabi-false intelligence-war boosting problem that they still haven't fully owned up to. Where's the documentary on these issues?

i don't get "worked up" by the fnc. personally, i watch it more than most news channels because it's funny. i like a little laughter w/ my jingoism in the morning. and i agree that a documentary on their obvious partisan leanings seems ridiculous. but to say, as per matt's post, that fox (or any news organization, incidentally) is "Fair and Unbiased" is a statement so childlike and naive, it borders on psychotic fantasy.
I also have a hard time w/ the constant references by conservatives to the "liberal media conspiracy", when most of television news, every major newspaper (maybe save for the los angeles times), and nearly all talk radio is geared toward conservative viewpoints. furthermore, it could be said that these right-wing media outlets had a great deal to do w/ misinforming the public on the onset of the iraq war--a costly mistake, both in terms of money and human lives.
and as to a documentary on the other issues mentioned? i think you know the answer to that.

more spin than a centrifuge,
dan

in a non-political note, i have just test-driven the new helmet album, size matters (scheduled for release september 14th). sadly, the album sounds 10 years old and it hasn't been released yet. booooring as hell, only page hamilton tries to "sing" now. nothing interesting--just a lot of generic metal riffs and mid-tempo sludge.

new metal milquetoast,
dan

my name is niki lovejoy and i'm a literature abuser.
i know who thomas chatterton is and how he died.
i work at barnes and noble.
my favorite poem is "ryme of the ancient mariner"
i need help.

I thought I was clear that I meant the network as a whole, not individuals pundits like O'Reilly or Sean Hannity or whomever, when I said "Fox News". It goes without saying that no news media source is perfectly unbiased and I implied that when I said "most of the time"...However, you guys seem to be confusing the difference between anchormen who REPORT the news and "opinion guys" who COMMENT on the news. Hannity & Colmes, O'Reilly, Tony Snow, etc are NOT reporting the news. They're opinion guys, and by the way you've got to appreciate the entertainment value in opinion guys alot of times and not take every single word they say with a ton of gravity. So you can't really validly say that a media outlet is horribly biased just because you don't agree with some of the opinion guys they have on staff.

Just a footnote to my point in my first post about "Outfoxed".

BTW, that penultimate journalist's reference tome called the New York Times is, uh, like really slanted to the left, and that is certainly NOT a psychotic fantasy.......all you need to do to prove that I am not in fact psychotic is open to the Op-Ed most any given day. In fact, try Maureen Dowd's piece from today 7.15.......I swear my cat didn't tell me to type this too.

i'm sure you're aware of whom roger ailes is--you know, the head of fox news who made a name for himself as one of the most ardent conservatives in washington as a big player in bush sr.'s campaign? the same man who told a washington post reporter that "the reason you may believe it tips to the right is you're stunned at seeing so many conservatives" when questioned about fox's obvious bias (2/5/01). the man who hires political moderates like Colmes and Mara Liasson as counterpoints and portrays them as "liberals", when at least one is a registered republican who just seems liberal compared to the normal yelling jackasses on the channel. so saying that "you can't really validly say that a media outlet is horribly biased just because you don't agree with some of the opinion guys they have on staff" is in itself a bizarre observation, since nearly everyone--from the top down--on the network shares the same opinion. and the guys reporting the news don't? i agree w/ some of the things both on fox news and cnn (albeit very little), and i still think they're biased. i don't mind bias at all, in fact--but a little honesty about it would be refreshing.
and you are correct about the new york times, and especially that moron dowd. however, a couple of liberal columnists--like dowd and robert scheer--do not a liberal media conspiracy make.
i'm not saying that no one should watch fox news. as i stated before, i do enjoy the sheer absurdity of their programming (in the literal sense), and look at it as comic theater. and i'm not saying they are alone in their bias by any means. i'm just calling it what it is, and as a devoted fox viewer and semmingly rational person, you should too.

ted--just admit it,
dan

and for the record, as a registered libertarian and avid fan of chivas regal, i meant "seemingly".

yours in the unspeakable,
dan