Slash Boxes
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and others are there to keep the flames of hate alive

    I guess you didn't see the Pew study showing Fox News was much more balanced than other news organizations (spreading that balanced hate?) []

    It's frankly getting pretty old when people attack Fox.

    • The analysis you link to makes no such "balance" claim, and instead says:

      On the Fox News Channel, the coverage was both more negative toward Obama and more positive toward both McCain and Palin than we found in the press generally.

      But, leaving that aside, the very idea that the press should be "balanced" between candidates (or parties) in deeply flawed to begin with because it proceeds from the idea that positive and negative coverage should be doled out in equal measure irrespective of what the candidates (or parties) actually do.

      Let's say that you and I are running for the same office. You're a strong candidate at the helm of a disciplined and persuasive campaign, whereas I'm terrible on the stump and staffed by haphazard fools. Should the press ignore my many gaffes in order not to be "too negative"? Should they expend extra effort to find something negative about your otherwise positive campaign in order to keep the coverage "balanced"? Of course not.

      I'd normally leave your comment unremarked but I think the faux-objectivity and false symmetry that reduces journalism to a "balanced" game of "on the one hand/on the other" is precisely what's wrong with the press generally.

      • I don't think it should be 50/50 pos/neg for every candidate, that'd be silly. But, when a news agency is just as negative and just as positive to both sides, I think it shows balanced coverage.

        The quote you say, I think you're mis-reading. It's saying Fox was more negative to Obama compared to the other networks which were MUCH more positive to him. And, they were more positive to McCain compared to the MUCH more negative reporting from the others. It's not saying Fox was more negative to Obama and more

          • Terrorist fist jab
          • Obama's "baby mama"
          • Leading poll questions [] such as "With ACORN fraud, military ballots missing, and people voting more than once, do you believe that Obama would have won this election without all those situations?" (It shouldn't take a journalism major to see what's wrong with this)

          There's gobs, gobs more of this. Plenty of it. Fox News is heavily biased and it takes no work to dig up a multitude of examples of it.

          Note that, as of this writing, that poll question is still on Hannity

          • Again, you're ignoring Colmes and all the centrist/liberal views Fox constantly has on. Why exactly is it you'll say Fox spews hate, but I guess what Olbermann and Maddows says is always loving? You want to say Fox is biased, yet the Pew research shows the other networks have done less than balanced coverage.

            but they choose to continue employing someone whose bias is worn on his sleeve

            So, if Fox should fire Hannity, I guess MSNBC should get rid of Olbermann and Maddow and Mathews, right? You're being

            • Not watching TV and only seeing Youtube clips, I miss out on a lot of stuff. I do see Olbermann and while I liked him at first, I don't any more. He's ridiculous, but I have seem him, Maddow or Matthews spewing hate. (Actually, while Olbermann and Maddow are clearly biased, what little I've seen about Matthews suggests that he's merely a pretty serious about his questions and doesn't allow the person he's interviewing to give him BS). However, I have a particular distaste for Fox for reasons I've stated

              • I thought your original post was very nice, aside the bash on Fox (but, it was there, so I could comment on it). And, I agree with your original post that the GOP shouldn't be defined by "extremists" just as I think the Dems shouldn't be defined by "extremists".

                No need to reply, as I don't take anything personal unless it's prefixed with "You're a...". :-)

          • You may claim that there's more to Fox News than this, but they choose to continue employing someone whose bias is worn on his sleeve.

            I find cable news one of the most disturbing and useless enterprises manking has ever invented, but in this case, good for Fox News!

            I read a news piece from a Southern California newspaper yesterday discussing Governor Palin's positioning for the 2012 election. For some reason (let the careful reader wonder), they printed her verbal answer to a question directly, without e

          • There's gobs, gobs more of this. Plenty of it.

            Yes, there is. ON BOTH SIDES. You apparently don't watch Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann much (the former of which just admitted that his "job" is to help Obama's presidency to succeed, rather than questioning or challenging it).

            The sleezefest of Hannity, O'Reilly and many other Fox News commentators is just disgusting.

            Almost as bad as Olbermann. But not quite.