patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,259,274 comments by 15,028 users - stereotomy, WookieMan online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 40 - 79 of 150 Next » Last » Search these comments
Tenpoundbass
2013 Feb 12, 10:34am
Also I notice the difference in Fox viewers vs CNN viewers.
Fox viewers hate CNN, CNN viewers hate Fox viewers.
And FOX viewers are the bigots?
curious2
2013 Feb 12, 11:09am
FOX News want's to save people, from the people that want to save us from our selves.
I wish that were true. Faux News touts every war from the drug war to the Iraq war. The drug war is at best, according to its supporters about saving us from ourselves. (In reality, it's about more money and power for the politicians and their patronage networks, including especially lobbyists and ALEC members.) I'd love to see Fox or any other commercially sponsored newscast expose the drug war for what it is. Instead, they all just keep beating the drum, and collecting ad revenue from PhRMA, so that you can overpay for fraudulently marketed OxyContin (Rush Limbaugh's little addiction) which is rightly called hillbilly heroin because it's nearly the same thing at a much higher price. (Bob pointed out that OxyContin is a time release version, possibly more convenient and better tolerated than ordinary opium, but it's the same active ingredient and time release versions cost only pennies to make.) Commercial newscasts work for their commercial sponsors and parent companies, anything about saving people is purely incidental.
Tenpoundbass
2013 Feb 12, 10:36pm
Has Obama addressed the "War on Drugs"?
Has he NOT done everything in his power to circumvent the will of the American people to end the War on Drugs?
Isn't Obama the same asshole that kept the truth from coming out about what really happened in the Fast and the Furious?
Did he NOT tell States that Medical MJ was not his concern, only to then turn around and raid most dispensaries a few years back?
FortWayne
2013 Feb 13, 1:24am
"If you don't read news you are uninformed, if you read the news you are misinformed."
Actually, that only applies to FOX "news", and to MSNBC for international issues. Just about every other news outlet is a least a little bit better than no news.
I think it applies to all of them Leo. Every single one, all are motivated by money, every article has to be approved by higher ups who generally answer to the executives who are concerned about bottom line. And when they tell you they are objective they are lying, because we are all humans and have our biases.
Press's #1 job is to rock the boat, which government never approves of as it gets in their way. And we should not fall into the trap put out for us to believe that media that criticizes is bad and media that supports status quo is good. In fact media that supports status quo should be examined a lot more closely by the public for their support of the regime.
Real quality reporting is a rarity, remember Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather or even Ruben Salazar?
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/8/31/slain_latino_journalist_ruben_salazar_killed
FortWayne
2013 Feb 13, 1:25am
Has Obama addressed the "War on Drugs"?
Has he NOT done everything in his power to circumvent the will of the American people to end the War on Drugs?
Isn't Obama the same asshole that kept the truth from coming out about what really happened in the Fast and the Furious?
Did he NOT tell States that Medical MJ was not his concern, only to then turn around and raid most dispensaries a few years back?
At least someone on this site is willing to question this administration and not just bend over on a whim of the president.
leo707
2013 Feb 13, 1:39am
At least someone on this site is willing to question this administration and not just bend over on a whim of the president.
There is quite a lot of criticism of Obama on this site, a lot of people are not happy with his performance. Unfortunately the most vocal criticism is often unfounded, already proven wrong, irrelevant noise, etc. (e.g. Birthers). Dan, for example, has posted extensively on this topic.
leo707
2013 Feb 13, 1:54am
Every single one, all are motivated by money, every article has to be approved by higher ups who generally answer to the executives who are concerned about bottom line.
Yep.
And when they tell you they are objective they are lying, because we are all humans and have our biases.
Yes, all humans have their bias and as organizations created and run by humans news services have bias as well. However, not all bias is not a binary function. Show me 10 news organizations and I will show you 10 different levels of bias (well, if both FOX and the Chinese Government News Service were on the list they would probably show the same level of bias). Even NPR, which when studied, consistently shows the lowest level of news bias does have slight biases. News bias has been discussed extensively on Pnet.
I think [if you read the news you are misinformed] applies to all of them Leo.
Actually, it does not. FOX "news" viewers are indeed the worst informed of the news viewers even worse than had they watched no news. MSNBC is not far behind FOX. It was discussed extensively in this thread:
http://patrick.net/?p=1219028
Y
2013 Feb 13, 2:04am
You were doing well, until you just could not help yourself and suddenly lost credibility...
leo707 says
Show me 10 news organizations and I will show you 10 different levels of bias (well, if both FOX and the Chinese Government News Service were on the list they would probably show the same level of bias).
Y
2013 Feb 13, 2:05am
Fox routinely covers stories that MSNBC ignores, and vice versa, both pandering to their base.
"informed" is in the eye of the beholder....
FOX "news" viewers are indeed the worst informed of the news viewers even worse than had they watched no news
leo707
2013 Feb 13, 3:29am
Fox routinely covers stories that MSNBC ignores, and vice versa, both pandering to their base.
"informed" is in the eye of the beholder....
FOX "news" viewers are indeed the worst informed of the news viewers even worse than had they watched no news
Yes, great examples. FOX along with MSNBC are both the worst news channels one can watch if one wants to be informed by facts other than misinformation.
Sure, right...FOX covers "news" that others ignore, just ask them. Like when FOX said that NBC was not reporting anything on the drone strikes memo. Remember that? The only problem was that FOX (in its usual fashion) was full of shit and NBC actually broke the story.
"informed" is in the eye of the beholder....
No, actually a misinformed audience can be quantified pretty well, and categorically FOX "news" does a pretty good job at misinforming their loyal watchers.
leo707
2013 Feb 13, 3:40am
While MSNBC viewers are very well informed.
I don't think I would call MSNBC viewers "well informed." Christ, the Joke news on the Daily Show keeps people better informed than almost every major "serious" news outlet. NPR consumers are among the best informed.
Here is a link to the study:
http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2012/confirmed/
CL
2013 Feb 13, 4:06am
MSNBC went into great detail slamming GE for avoiding paying corporate taxes. Has Fox, FoxBusiness, or any other Murdoch enterprise done the same to him?
GE did what businesses can legally do in America, scummy though it is. Murdoch is the head of a criminal enterprise, here and abroad.
He surrounds himself with greasy Hannity-job sycophants, whereas MSNBC is filled with PHDs, Rhodes Scholars (Maddow), and the politically experienced LOD and Matthews.
There are no bleach-blond talking heads on MSNBC. False equivalence.
Y
2013 Feb 13, 5:09am
Your just providing an example of what I declared below.
Now go find an MSNBC example....
Thanks for doing the legwork.....
Fox routinely covers stories that MSNBC ignores, and vice versa, both pandering to their base.
"informed" is in the eye of the beholder....
FOX "news" viewers are indeed the worst informed of the news viewers even worse than had they watched no news
Yes, great examples. FOX along with MSNBC are both the worst news channels one can watch if one wants to be informed by facts other than misinformation.
Sure, right...FOX covers "news" that others ignore, just ask them. Like when FOX said that NBC was not reporting anything on the drone strikes memo. Remember that? The only problem was that FOX (in its usual fashion) was full of shit and NBC actually broke the story.
Y
2013 Feb 13, 5:11am
Yes. O'Reilly was slamming him nightly during the race....
The reason you are ignorant of this fact is because you don't watch.
MSNBC went into great detail slamming GE for avoiding paying corporate taxes. Has Fox, FoxBusiness, or any other Murdoch enterprise done the same to him?
Y
2013 Feb 13, 5:17am
I think we need to separate "news" shows from "opinion" shows.
O'reilly, maddow, o'donnell, MrEd are opinion shows.
That is what I based my comments on.
I don't watch any major broadcast stations's 'News' show.
For news, I go to cnn (mostly unbiased) and AP Online app (raw news)....
No, actually a misinformed audience can be quantified pretty well, and categorically FOX "news" does a pretty good job at misinforming their loyal watchers.
Tenpoundbass
2013 Feb 13, 5:20am
I go to cnn (mostly unbiased)
Har!
If you can call CNN news they used to be.
Now they only serve to reinforce what ever popular agenda is the flavor of the day. There is no news reporting going on at that station. That's not to say, that I think FOX is reporting the news. CNN is FOX inverted.
Y
2013 Feb 13, 5:26am
I watch o'reilly and o'donnell regularly for comedy/entertainment/cleavage shots
rarely.. maddow when i want to see a speed freak in action....
rarely MrEd when....when.....well, probably never...
Y
2013 Feb 13, 5:28am
well, not nearly as good as AP Online...direct news feed....
but cnn usually at least has close to an equal amount of certified repubs/demos
and the set colors are vibrant!
I go to cnn (mostly unbiased)
Har!
If you can call CNN news they used to be.
Now they only serve to reinforce what ever popular agenda is the flavor of the day. There is no news reporting going on at that station. That's not to say, that I think FOX is reporting the news. CNN is FOX inverted.
Y
2013 Feb 13, 5:30am
I should clarify .....
I mean www.cnn.com
not TV cnn......
I go to cnn (mostly unbiased)
Har!
If you can call CNN news they used to be.
Now they only serve to reinforce what ever popular agenda is the flavor of the day. There is no news reporting going on at that station. That's not to say, that I think FOX is reporting the news. CNN is FOX inverted.
CL
2013 Feb 13, 5:41am
Yes. O'Reilly was slamming him nightly during the race....
The reason you are ignorant of this fact is because you don't watch.
Define "Slam". I am all ears.
Y
2013 Feb 13, 5:50am
if your looking for a quick, dumbed-down version of the day's events...it does the job.. quantity versus quality..
Even WORSE!
Y
2013 Feb 13, 5:55am
Yes. O'Reilly was slamming him nightly during the race....
The reason you are ignorant of this fact is because you don't watch.
Define "Slam". I am all ears.
CL
2013 Feb 13, 8:15am
slam =
Yes. O'Reilly was slamming him nightly during the race....
The reason you are ignorant of this fact is because you don't watch.
Define "Slam". I am all ears.
This is about GE, MSNBC's parent company.
I was asking if the intrepid "reporters" at Faux news have ever done an expose on Murdoch, their evil father.
Or Ailes, their wicked step-father.
GE is widely assumed to be a liberal company by the right. Therefore, it's not surprising that they would take a potshot at their "opponent".
Much was made about the Ground Zero "mosque". Did Fox elaborate on Murdoch's ties to the Imam?
No, because it doesn't fit the narrative they want to shove in your piehole.
Y
2013 Feb 13, 11:52am
Precisely.
And O'reilly SLAMMED GE.
You lose.
Case Closed.
slam =
Yes. O'Reilly was slamming him nightly during the race....
The reason you are ignorant of this fact is because you don't watch.
Define "Slam". I am all ears.
This is about GE, MSNBC's parent company.
CL
2013 Feb 14, 4:00am
Precisely.
And O'reilly SLAMMED GE.
You lose.
Case Closed.
Re-read it, please. Fox has NEVER found fault with its parent company. That's because it is a horseshit organization. Unless you find Bill Ohreally criticizing Murdoch, the case is very much open.
Dan8267
2013 Feb 14, 5:44am
The only real news outlets are:
Daily Show
Colbert Report
NPR
RT News
and The Newsroom (US)
and three of them don't even call themselves real news.
Tenpoundbass
2013 Feb 14, 5:48am
The only real news outlets are:
Daily Show
Colbert Report
But people say they are comedians, when you call them out on their failings as honest journalists.
Dan8267
2013 Feb 14, 5:53am
But people say they are comedians, when you call them out on their failings as honest journalists.
Feel free to provide specific examples of when either show stated something false or deliberately misled the public. We live in the information age, this should be trivially easy to do if you are correct. Case in point, people show exactly these kinds of examples regarding Fox News.
Tenpoundbass
2013 Feb 14, 5:57am
I made a comment a few weeks ago, about something Cobert said, when Fox was catching shit for the same thing. I was told that Cobert is a comedian, and that there's a difference.
How ever Cobert and Stewart both have gone out of their way to effect the impression that they are ethical journalists.
leo707
2013 Feb 14, 6:47am
I made a comment a few weeks ago, about something Cobert said, when Fox was catching shit for the same thing. I was told that Cobert is a comedian, and that there's a difference.
Thank you for the very specific example, and link to the conversation you were having.
Yes, Colbert often says the same things that FOX is saying. That is because he is a comedian and performs his comedy through satire often repeating FOX in a way that underscores the absurdity of the "news" on FOX.
Regardless of your personal feelings about John Stewart people who watch his show come away much more informed on world and national events than FOX (or most other major news for that matter). It says volumes to me, on the matter of ethics, that one news organization viewers would be better informed they had instead chosen to stair at a blank wall, while another organization leaves its viewers very well informed.
Dan8267
2013 Feb 14, 11:08am
Thank you for the very specific example, and link to the conversation you were having.
Thanks, now I don't have to say that.
It's amazing how people can so derisively dismiss sources and then when pressed for specifics they evade.
Tenpoundbass
2013 Feb 14, 10:19pm
Nevertheless, i'm much happier to have a president leading in the right direction, despite the slowness or errors in leadership, than the GOP which is dead wrong on nearly every issue. Better to go slowly in the right direction ,then floor the car backwards and off a cliff!
Boehner said to inform you, that the Country isn't going any Goddamn where unless he says so.
coriacci1
2013 Feb 15, 4:12am
I'm deeply disappointed with Obama in several areas:
1. no prosecution of any banksters... Many deserved jail.
2. order the justice department to leave marijuana alone period. Not another federal cent on anything to do with it.
3. Push for a real plan to balance the budget. take this issue away from the repukes and their, "balance it on the backs of the poor and the middle class, while giving even more money to the rich" philosophy.
4. out of the wars quicker. ["it will be a disaster if we leave now..." really? and it will be a picnic party in 1 year? 5 years? 10 years? 100 years? it will always be a disaster. deal with it n
up to here i’m with ya.
CL
2013 Feb 15, 8:00am
I'm deeply disappointed with Obama in several areas:
1. no prosecution of any banksters... Many deserved jail.
2. order the justice department to leave marijuana alone period. Not another federal cent on anything to do with it.
3. Push for a real plan to balance the budget. take this issue away from the repukes and their, "balance it on the backs of the poor and the middle class, while giving even more money to the rich" philosophy.
4. out of the wars quicker. ["it will be a disaster if we leave now..." really? and it will be a picnic party in 1 year? 5 years? 10 years? 100 years? it will always be a disaster. deal with it n
up to here i’m with ya.
But the last part is the best part!
robertoaribas says
Nevertheless, i'm much happier to have a president leading in the right direction, despite the slowness or errors in leadership, than the GOP which is dead wrong on nearly every issue. Better to go slowly in the right direction ,then floor the car backwards and off a cliff!
The only real news outlets are:
Daily Show
Colbert Report
NPR
RT News
and The Newsroom (US)
and three of them don't even call themselves real news.
Isn't is pretty sad when nearly all your sources of information come from the entertainment industry (no liberal or corporation bias there!) or government subsidized NPR?
Dan8267
2013 Feb 19, 3:19am
Isn't is pretty sad when nearly all your sources of information come from the entertainment industry (no liberal or corporation bias there!) or government subsidized NPR?
1. It is pretty sad that "serious" news outlets suck so bad in America.
2. It is interesting that you imply that humor has a liberal bias. Are you saying that conservatives have no sense of humor? Can't say I disagree.
3. PBS receives some of its funding from government, and unlike FOX News, is actually the gold standard in fair and balanced reporting. This proves that public funds do not necessitate bias.
4. I have found that NPR east coast is quite objective and rational.
5. Fair and balanced does not mean giving equal creditability to two sides of an argument when one side is complete and utter bullshit. For example, astronomy vs astrology, evolution vs creationism / intelligent design, climate change science vs climate change deniers, holocaust historians vs holocaust deniers. Sometimes, one side is just a pack of lies, and it's not fair and balance to take a mountain of evidence from multiple sources and some crackpot, easily disproved lies and call it a wash.
« First « Previous Comments 40 - 79 of 150 Next » Last » Search these comments
It seems to me like both sides and by that I mean both sides that are far from center like to act victimized by the "media." Conservatives like to complain of "liberal media" bias. Liberals have been known to complain of slanted coverage by "corporate media" on the other hand. It seems to me like both groups are missing the point. Conservatives don't understand the common decency decorum and manners. Many media companies (with the exception of fox news) don't like to alienate and hence lose large demographics of viewers. At the same time these media companies are not likely to rock the status quo too much and alienate the advertisers who obviously rely on capitalist system to stay in business. The end result is obvious. The far right will have to stick with their talk shows on the radio and take whatever advertiser support they can get while the liberals will have to rely on listener sponsored support if they really want to present the far left point of view (such as KPFA 94.1 here in bay area). However for either side to cry "bias" is the height of arrogance and common sense and refusal to see forest for the trees.
#politics