13 replies to this topic

[Bill]

Washington Times

Just revealed: Osama bin Laden was told by al Qaeda’s U.S.-born media adviser Adam Gadahn about the best broadcast outlets to send an “anniversary video” commemorating the 9/11 terror attacks, according to Washington Post foreign affairs columnist David Ignatius in an analysis published Saturday of recently declassified material taken from bin Laden’s compound after his death last May.“I was given an exclusive look at some of these remarkable documents by a senior administration official,” Mr. Ignatius explained.The aforementioned video, Mr. Gadahn wrote to bin Laden, “should be sent for example to ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN and maybe PBS and VOA. As for Fox News let her die in her anger … From a professional point of view, they are all on one level — except [Fox News] channel, which falls into the abyss as you know, and lacks objectivity, too.”“What an unintended boost for Fox, which can now boast that it is al Qaeda’s least favorite network,” Mr. Ignatius observed.

Go figure. We kinda know that the rest of them are working with Al Qaeda. They certainly aren't working for the American people.

[tony]

It seems Al Queda and American lefties have something in common

[command_prompt]

It seems Al Queda and American lefties have something in common

The only circumstances in which I'd agree to watch Fox News would involve me being heavily sedated, blindfolded and wearing earplugs PLUS noise-canceling earphones, so I guess you're correct about the leftie part.

[Bill]

Some people do not want to hear the truth. The familiar pablum is comforting to them.

[command_prompt]

Some people do not want to hear the truth. The familiar pablum is comforting to them.

No, I'm trying to be selective what can piss me off. Anger and arrogance, if lacking any intellectual curiosity and willingness to debate, are not something I choose to be exposed to.Plus, I got tired waiting for the laugh track to kick in.

[Big Ed]

The only circumstances in which I'd agree to watch Fox News would involve me being heavily sedated, blindfolded and wearing earplugs PLUS noise-canceling earphones, so I guess you're correct about the leftie part.

Watch "Special Report" with Bret Bair at 6:00 PM. You'll find it more fair and balanced than what is on the networks.The rest of the evening - forget it. But Special Report is the best news on TV.

[Jerry]

...but it is still Fox News; therein lies the problem for some folks. If it were anything but Fox News, it may be OK for those folks to watch (or admit to watching). I see and hear people almost every day who claim that Fox News (and its various derogatory nicknames) gets most stories wrong while MS-NBC, Huffington Post, etc. get their news right, when in fact Fox News gets it right, but just not in agreement with those folks. I surmise many who are critical of Fox News have rarely (never?) really watched that news channel, just as many of those who are critical of other media fall into a similar category. Many people (in general) tend to follow a team mentality (i.e., "my team is better than your team"), and apply it to political parties, news media, etc. It is generally the easier thing to do.

I have yet to hear or read of anybody whose illness or death was caused by watching Fox News.

[Bill]

I think that there is a healthy dose of mixing up the political entertainment shows and the news shows. Or a lack of discernment in same.

[command_prompt]

I think that hating something without learning more about it (hating an idea of something) reflects on one's narrow-mindedness. I’d try almost anything before deciding if this is right for me. I watched Fox News several times. Hell, I watched Rush Limbaugh for a year or so and found him extremely charismatic (he also has a skill of making everybody feel like he’s talking directly to them ONLY.) If I could clone myself and spend obscene amount of time perched in front of my TV set I’m sure I’d be able to find something interesting on Fox channel.

>>I have yet to hear or read of anybody whose illness or death was caused by watching Fox News.

Problem is, I don’t want to maneuver between programs, worried that no matter how careful my approach, I will still come across Bill O’Reilly. Because if I do then I end up spending the rest of my day talking myself out of slashing my wrists. That does count as a near-death experience.

Edited by command_prompt, 20 March 2012 - 03:51 PM.

[command_prompt]

Many people (in general) tend to follow a team mentality (i.e., "my team is better than your team"), and apply it to political parties, news media, etc. It is generally the easier thing to do.

Exactly. We gravitate towards familiarity. We are more inclined to listen to something/someone we agree with, especially in scenarios when we cannot engage in (possible) confrontation with that someone. If we are on the same wavelength then we are less likely to turn off the TV (and stop watching commercials). Works for me and the news channel of my choice same as it works for someone who loves Fox.
It'd be great to have a media network that would do nothing but to report the news, without ANY form of political analysis. But that wouldn't work. Most of us aren't comfortable with not being told what to think. We'd be lost without our guest correspondents etc. Still, such idea is very tantalizing. At least to me. YMMV.

[Jerry]

Exactly. We gravitate towards familiarity. We are more inclined to listen to something/someone we agree with, especially in scenarios when we cannot engage in (possible) confrontation with that someone. If we are on the same wavelength then we are less likely to turn off the TV (and stop watching commercials). Works for me and the news channel of my choice same as it works for someone who loves Fox.
It'd be great to have a media network that would do nothing but to report the news, without ANY form of political analysis. But that wouldn't work. Most of us aren't comfortable with not being told what to think. We'd be lost without our guest correspondents etc. Still, such idea is very tantalizing. At least to me. YMMV.

What you describe as an ideal news network is what actually existed in the US a few decades ago. If a newscaster interjected or presented anything that was not part of the actual news (i.e., opinion) that was a grave malfeasance, he or she could be fired. The deal was that news reporters observe and ask questions, then write and/or present it on the air. This was explained to me (in the early 1970's) as, "you are entering the viewer's (or listener's) living room as that person or family's guest. By choosing and tuning in your newscast, they have invited you as their guest into their home or car, and a guest should be neither confrontational nor rude. The listeners and viewers want you to tell them a true story of who was involved, what happened, where it happened, when it happened, and do so within the bounds of decency and protocol. In other words, they choose you, and they can just as easily reject you and the station which you represent."

During my time in the news "business", I never forgot what I have paraphrased (italicized above). That was about forty years ago, and a great deal has changed in broadcasting. Heck, our radio station was not even allowed to play, "Give a Damn" (Spanky & Our Gang) from 1968, which was the theme song for the New York (City) Urban Coalition. WABC (Musicradio 77) played it and nobody complained, but we were a smaller market station and it was thought by management to be offensive.

[tony]

I don't watch any news on TV. I can hit numerous news sources and many articles in the same half hour wasted with seeing just a few stories which interrupt the commercials.

I was going to respond to command_prompt saying that it is a shame she doesn't actively seek out numerous viewpoints, then I realized she already does as an active member here!

[command_prompt]

I don't watch any news on TV. I can hit numerous news sources and many articles in the same half hour wasted with seeing just a few stories which interrupt the commercials.

I was going to respond to command_prompt saying that it is a shame she doesn't actively seek out numerous viewpoints, then I realized she already does as an active member here!

My spectrum of interests is quite broad. There is a lot of things I don't like, but what I do like, I love with passion. I read/listen to/watch pretty much everything because I want to develop my own opinion, not to rely on someone else's. I watched Fox piqued at first but then, as I noticed that I was forcing myself into participating in an ethically uncomfortable situation, I decided that my dosage was enough to formulate my point of view and decided to say sayonara to that channel. I learned my lesson. I realized that I cannot be kind to passerbys/animals/household appliances if I continue to indulge. That itself was enough. You may say that I sacrificed watching Fox for the benefit of the mankind.
I don't watch TV either; I do ROKU. And read... mostly.

[Big Ed]

I think that there is a healthy dose of mixing up the political entertainment shows and the news shows. Or a lack of discernment in same.

That is indeed the problem. They blur the line most of the rest of the day in their various programs - O'Reilley, Hannity, et al. The morning show as well - though they all do that. But that six-o'clock news is right on the money, and have more intelligent discussion with the Fox News All-Stars than anywhere else on TV.