Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Should FOX News/MSNBC Be Forced To Drop "news"?  
User currently offlineCometII From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 302 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3258 times:

From their description and or title name?

Most people have understood for years that Fox News started as a response to what conservatives view is a liberal bias in the news coverage. MSNBC, after trying a million different formats, decided to "outfox" Fox News, but on the left instead of the right (which actually they tried! Remember Michael Savage?)

Until a couple of years ago, both networks claimed that it was only their "prime time" line-up was not news but "editorials", thus they were not guilty of bias and could still be called news organizations, because during daytime they reported news.

There was some truth to that. Both networks covered a lot of live events in the daytime, just as they happened and while there may have been pieces that were biased, it wasn't overarching in the programming.

That's not the case today. Not only has their primetime become more extreme right-wing or left-wing (notice how Greta Van Susteren has become nothing more than a political hack in her show, and I used to like her), and Lawrence O'Donnell (ditto, he says the most outrageous things about conservatives). Of course we knew already about Hannity and Schulz.

But their daytime has also become an editorial news piece. Two key reasons:

1. They now pick and choose which news to cover, and then spin it like they did not in the past (witness shows like Megan Kelly or Jansing and Co, they used to cover stories but now it is all political spin and hit pieces on one candidate or the other, maybe it is only for the election season but still). So now you see totally different "news stories" in both, when in the daytime it used to be more unified. That is clear evidence of no longer covering news.

2. They in fact try to MAKE news. That is a dangerous departure from the past. Now they themselves try to determine what is "big, breaking news" (btw, if a gust of wind hits Manhattan, it is "breaking news" on Fox... Cavuto is the worst offender, if he farts they put the breaking banner).

The only somewhat "objective" people in those networks are Sheppard Smith and Andrea Mitchell.

I think most smart people know all this already, but for symbolic purposes shoudn't they be forced to admit they are no longer news organizations but spin cycles of the POLITICAL apparatus, both republican and democrat?

57 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21691 posts, RR: 55
Reply 1, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3232 times:

Should they? Yes, for all the reasons you described.

Should they be forced to? Unfortunately, no. The government shouldn't be telling companies what they can call themselves. The case could be make that the whole "fair and balanced" thing constitutes false advertising (I'm not sure it really does, but I can see the case), but that's a separate issue from what the name of the network is.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8866 posts, RR: 24
Reply 2, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3223 times:

Quoting CometII (Thread starter):
I think most smart people know all this already, but for symbolic purposes shoudn't they be forced to admit they are no longer news organizations but spin cycles of the POLITICAL apparatus, both republican and democrat?

Who would force them to do so? The government? Do you want the government to certify certain organizations as "news"? When the Dems are in charge, MediaMatters and DailyKos would become news organizations, and when the GOP is in charge, they get dumped in favor of EIB (Rush Limbaugh's company) and Glenn Beck?

I haven't seen it in a while, but I recall a supermarket tabloid called "Weekly News" or something like that, that regularly reported stuff like "Elvis' alien love child born on Mars" etc. You want to pull their title? Who cares? Can't people make up their own mind?



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11431 posts, RR: 52
Reply 3, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3198 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 1):
The government shouldn't be telling companies what they can call themselves.

While I don't think this rises to the level of deception required for intervention, it absolutely is the government's job to tell companies what they are not allowed to call themselves due to deception. The government has a strong role in consumer protection. You can't call yourself, for instance, "USDA Grade A Beef Co." if you sell anything other than Grade A beef. That would be deceptive, and the government can, will, and should, step in and stop you.


My advice is rather to just turn them all off.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11720 posts, RR: 15
Reply 4, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3169 times:

To be fair, MSNBC does not use the word "News" in their title.

I believe FOX should stop saying they are "news" because they are not. If they want to keep lying to people, that is how big business and multi-national corporations work to make a buck, I guess.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21691 posts, RR: 55
Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3169 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 3):
You can't call yourself, for instance, "USDA Grade A Beef Co." if you sell anything other than Grade A beef. That would be deceptive, and the government can, will, and should, step in and stop you.

Because you're using the USDA in your name. That's a trademark, and is assumed to mean a certain thing, and thus the government can protect it. But if you just called yourself "Grade A Beef Co.", you could sell whatever grade you wanted.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8866 posts, RR: 24
Reply 6, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3171 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 3):
While I don't think this rises to the level of deception required for intervention, it absolutely is the government's job to tell companies what they are not allowed to call themselves due to deception.

From Collins English Dictionary

news (njuːz)

— n
1. current events; important or interesting recent happenings
2. information about such events, as in the mass media
3. a. the news a presentation, such as a radio broadcast, of information of this type: the news is at six
b. ( in combination  a newscaster
4. interesting or important information not previously known or realized: it's news to me
5. a person, fashion, etc, widely reported in the mass media: she is no longer news in the film world

In what sense does Fox or MSNBC not satisfy these definitions? There is no obligation for news to be free of some sort of opinion. You can write stories in a relatively bias-free manner, but editorial bias is virtually impossible to eliminate - it will always be there - how you select what news stories to air, and how much airtime you give it. Every news service in the world has been guilty of editorial bias.

I think you simply have a low tolerance for differing opinions. Just deal with it.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4673 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3136 times:

Quoting CometII (Thread starter):
I think most smart people know all this already, but for symbolic purposes shoudn't they be forced to admit they are no longer news organizations but spin cycles of the POLITICAL apparatus, both republican and democrat?

Changing the names won't help.
Both of these organizations are like the WWE, lots of bang and flash, but at the end of it all, fake.

At some point folks will figure it out.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8866 posts, RR: 24
Reply 8, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3127 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 4):
I believe FOX should stop saying they are "news" because they are not. If they want to keep lying to people, that is how big business and multi-national corporations work to make a buck, I guess.

That's a serious charge. Evidence?



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 9, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3121 times:

Quoting CometII (Thread starter):

Simply put, it ain't ever gonna happen under the First Amendment.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 10, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3109 times:

Frankly I see very little 'news' on any television or cable channel and hear very little on the radio in the US.

From the editorially slanted coverage at Fox to the entertainment focused morning shows of the three traditional networks.

If you want to qualify which organizations can call their shows news - that term will likely disappear from the media.

I don't like Fox. I don't like their BS that they are 'Fair and Balanced'. I see them go to great lengths to twist stories to fit their agenda. I see their news presenters expressing personal opinions as fact on almost every show.

But I also don't think anyone can define news to an extent that your proposal would be possible.

And even the very attempt to make such a definition would be against the free speech principles written into our constitution.

Fox exists because spreading fear is much easier than spreading the truth.

If you make them go away, something else, likely worse, will take their place.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3086 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):
Who would force them to do so? The government?

Who else would be able to do it? Industry self governing isn't an area with many successful examples.

That said, I think news is encompassing enough to cover what both organisations do.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8329 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3065 times:

I haven't bothered with FOX for years - well, maybe if there is an interesting football game on.

MSNBC can be interesting when something is going on.

I watched CNN immediately after the debate, then went to MSNBC. On the MSNBC panel discussing was Steve Schmidt. You might remember him as one of the top political consultants for McCain in the 08 election. Michael Steel has also been on a lot. Amazingly the "liberals" on MSNBC have always had very congenial relations with the conservatives and there have been interesting discussions. MSNBC doesn't have as strong a balance of right and left as CNN, but it led to an interesting night. MSNBC was also as clear as CNN on the fact that Obama got whipped on the first debate.


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11431 posts, RR: 52
Reply 13, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3031 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 5):
But if you just called yourself "Grade A Beef Co.", you could sell whatever grade you wanted.

I doubt it. That wording is probably also going to get the government on you.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 6):
In what sense does Fox or MSNBC not satisfy these definitions? There is no obligation for news to be free of some sort of opinion. You can write stories in a relatively bias-free manner, but editorial bias is virtually impossible to eliminate - it will always be there - how you select what news stories to air, and how much airtime you give it. Every news service in the world has been guilty of editorial bias.

I think you simply have a low tolerance for differing opinions. Just deal with it.

Did you read any of what I wrote? Your response makes utterly no sense.

Quoting D L X (Reply 3):
While I don't think this rises to the level of deception required for intervention



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently onlineBraniff747SP From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 2997 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3018 times:

It doesn't matter--its just a name. People who want unbiased (or as close as one can get) news will turn elsewhere.


The 747 will always be the TRUE queen of the skies!
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 15, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2965 times:

Oh brother. I don't watch TV news, and sure FOX may have a bad rep for (insert reason here) but they do tell the news most of the time and I'm sure the vast majority of stuff they say is right. I don't know, I don't care, and what, are we going to get the federal government involved saying "well this station only has news on for X hours, and they have X incorrect facts per day, let's force them to drop 'news' from their title."

Don't like FOX? Don't watch them and leave them alone. All you're doing is walking up to a hornets nest and kicking it for no reason. You'll piss off a huge amount of people, make them say there's a big conspiracy going on (which, well, they'd be right) and they'd just be FOX "Channel" doing the same stuff. You still wouldn't watch it, others would, except you completely needlessly started a pissing match that would just polarize the nation even more.

What would be the point?



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineCompensateMe From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1250 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 2961 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 6):
I think you simply have a low tolerance for differing opinions. Just deal with it.

I completely agree that the definition of 'news' is ambiguous; after-all, to many, gossiping about what Honey Boo Boo did last night is news more-so than what's going on in Syria. But I do have a problem with Fox News marketing itself as "fair and balanced" when it is neither nor. Many companies have received large fines and/or cease and desist notices for using more accurate slogans. Fox sometimes attempts to get around its slogan by iterating that "fair and balanced" refers to a right voice in a left media, yet often displays stories of supposed media bias while declaring 'that's why you get only the fair and balanced story from us' -- which is total BS, as Fox often won't promote stories that go against its ideology.

Up until the year or so, Fox use to have -- without a single doubt in my opinion -- the best newscasts anywhere, and kept the ideology stuff to entertainment hours. Not true anymore. I enjoy reading multiple viewpoints to educate & develop my own, but "BREAKING NEWS: Obama Named Worst President Ever" should be kept on the entertainment side.

(And for the record, I'm no Obama supporter.)



Gordo:like this streaming video,Sky magazine,meals for sale at mealtime-make customer satisfaction rank so high at UA
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 17, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 2957 times:

Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 17):
But I do have a problem with Fox News marketing itself as "fair and balanced" when it is neither nor.

And there are many that think it is (I don't watch them so please don't drag me down that road.) I'm sure you don't think CNN is communist left-wing biased trash but others do. Should we shut them down? See how silly this argument is? And for what, to fight a battle you'll probably lose that will just enrage and polarize people more and will change nothing except "FOX News" to "FOX Channel" or whatever?



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineCompensateMe From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1250 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 2941 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 18):
And there are many that think it is (I don't watch them so please don't drag me down that road.) I'm sure you don't think CNN is communist left-wing biased trash but others do.

People believe this because Fox has convinced them it's true.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 18):
Should we shut them down? See how silly this argument is? And for what, to fight a battle you'll probably lose that will just enrage and polarize people more and will change nothing except "FOX News" to "FOX Channel" or whatever?

I don't believe Fox should be shut down or have to change its name from Fox News Channel (as I mentioned earlier, the concept of news is ambiguous). But I do believe Fox should refrain from calling itself "fair and balanced," when it's blatantly false. Nor do I believe any regulation should force Fox from dropping the tagline, although I do believe the network should make the initiative on its own.



Gordo:like this streaming video,Sky magazine,meals for sale at mealtime-make customer satisfaction rank so high at UA
User currently offlineCometII From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 302 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2916 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 13):
I watched CNN immediately after the debate

So did I, by far the best coverage and i didn't have to flip around to get a liberal and conservative view on the debate.

I knew some of you would say the government should not step in. I tend to agree. I should have clarified that "we, the consumers", should force them to stop treating us like fools.

Don't you all feel patronized being told that "we are telling you the facts tonight, on Hannity!" or "this is the real truth, and only Ed Schulz will reveal it to you." Why can't they just say, look this is how I see it. I just don't like the shameless dishonesty about their purposes.

Perhaps it has not reached that level, but as someone said, if something becomes trully egregious then a government has the right to set some standards (even if those who like non-intrusive govermment feel it is dangerous).

The argument could be made these two networks with their completely skewed bias are in fact stoking polarization in the country. Of course it probably still rises nowhere near the grounds to jeopardize their 1st amendment.

But I do fear that one day either Fox or MSNBC will go too far in trying to demonize the other side and some lunatic will act and such act be directly linked to their programming.


User currently offlinezippyjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 5488 posts, RR: 13
Reply 20, posted (2 years 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2900 times:

When they both go off the chains in their respective views leanings it makes great comic relief and Fox has some bodacious babes with extreme sexy legs.


I'm Zippyjet & I approve of this message!
User currently offlinemah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33052 posts, RR: 71
Reply 21, posted (2 years 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2875 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 10):

Quoting CometII (Thread starter):

Simply put, it ain't ever gonna happen under the First Amendment.


Ummm, no. The first amendment absolutely does not protect against false advertising. Advertising is unprotected speech if it's false or misleading, and as such a court could absoutely find that MSNBC, but not Fox News, must stop advertising itself as a news channel.



a.
User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (2 years 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2846 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 6):
I think you simply have a low tolerance for differing opinions. Just deal with it.

Well said!...Other than BBC, London, Al Jazeera, Fox news delivers enough of what I look for...as for the others...I'm not interested. I tune them out just like those that shun Fox!...Don't like Fox?...then tune out,...problem solved...


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 23, posted (2 years 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2822 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 6):
I think you simply have a low tolerance for differing opinions. Just deal with it.

I personally have a high demand for differing opinions.

I just dislike the lies from news presenters on Fox that their opinions are fact.

My personal opinion is that FoxNews ranks a bit below Wikipedia as a source of factual information.

[Edited 2012-10-05 06:03:20]

User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8866 posts, RR: 24
Reply 24, posted (2 years 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2814 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 24):
I just dislike the lies from news presenters on Fox that their opinions are fact.

Like what? I hear a lot of spin from the morning show people, and from guys like Hannity, but lies? When have they said "X happened" and it did not?



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
25 CompensateMe : And who would rule that besides a highly conservative court? The fact is, both MSNBC and Fox News have ditched (mostly, but not completely) tradition
26 D L X : When they said Obama was schooled in a Madrassa in Indonesia, for one. That's just off the top of my head. But as I noted before, I do not think the
27 Post contains links casinterest : Hmmm from this week. Secret Video Tape: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...c-11e2-bb5e-492c0d30bff6_blog.html
28 Dreadnought : Hannity is op-ed, like a number of people on MSNBC and elsewhere. Hannity never has presented himself to be a newscaster or reporter. Do you have any
29 Post contains images casinterest : Even a better reason to drop news from the tittle of the station The issue here is where Fox News presents anything as lies, and Hannity is presentin
30 D L X : He's still bears a "Fox News" banner on his show, does he not? If the argument that he is under the brand of News holds, and he is not presenting new
31 rfields5421 : This morning Fox News said several times the employment numbers were 'cooked' by the administration. They might have been, but they have not proof. S
32 AirframeAS : Uhmm, no. The last time I checked, this isn't Russia. FOX and MSNBC can call themselves whatever they'd like. It's a business. And the the First Amen
33 mah4546 : Um, no. Please read a first amendment casebook before claiming these things. You are wrong. Commercial speech is allowed to be regulated. Not only ca
34 cws818 : Your recitation of the law is accurate, however your conclusion requires a great deal of explanation.
35 kiwiinoz : I get what you are saying. But I find even some of my most hard core Republican American friends refer to Fox as "news" with their tongue firmly plant
36 CONTACREW : IMHO Fox News & MSNBC should just go off the air.
37 Post contains images D L X : Careful. Talk like that will make you a pariah on this site.
38 par13del : Some time ago a politician aspiring for the higest office made mention that the news media was powerful and was influencing the minds of the American
39 Geezer : This whole thread points out one thing; there a LOT more people on this forum who DON"T like Fox News, than there are people who DO like Fox News; kee
40 kiwiinoz : Actually, I think the question from the thread starter is phrased correctly and asks something different. Whether or not people like it is not in que
41 soon7x7 : Bingo!...And now Obama himself didn't have anything good to say when he had to perform in a Presidential debate...I suppose that too is the fault of
42 casinterest : Posted above. Please reread the thread for some fair and balanced critixism of Hannity. He is nothing of a news reporter. he is highly biased and cut
43 D L X : Well that's easy... they make money off the people that DO like Fox News. A lot more people hate the Yankees than love them, but it should come as no
44 CometII : Let's see... Wednesday night MSNBC was "reporting" and their commentators were analyzing that Romney was the winner of the debate. The very next day,
45 rfields5421 : No. Because Fox News constantly cites opinion of their op-ed folks as fact. Because news anchors frequently express personal opinions about the 'news
46 seb146 : Kinda like how MSNBC has gone off the air? Oh, wait... ??? Those are bogus numbers. FOX is simply "on" in a lot of places. Does not mean people actua
47 Dreadnought : The main attraction of Hannity is that he does invite liberal guests on his show and argues/debates with them. He lets them have their say. His show
48 casinterest : He invites no one with which he can not just cut off when he has no recourse. He pounds on facts that are incorrect or baseless, without any repercus
49 Post contains links Dreadnought : Here is his guest list. Do you mean to tell me that nobody on there will shout right back at him? I've seen some pretty animated matches on his show.
50 casinterest : I don't disagree, but that is why I do not watch MSNBC or Fox News. I consider them both networks biased and pandering.
51 Geezer : With all due respect, I'm afraid you have no concept of how commercial television "works"; I watch Fox News all the time, yet they have never "made"
52 casinterest : Oh , is that the "truth" again? Hah.
53 seb146 : I have tried to have a logical and reasonable conversation with people who get all their information from only FOX and the reaction is the same: I am
54 Dreadnought : I think you are a ..... Let's put it more gently to stop deletions. I do not believe you are being entirely truthful. I know an awful lot of conserva
55 DeltaMD90 : You know that does go both ways, right? I mean, someone can be so left that even when someone says something neutral the partisan person turns it int
56 D L X : Actually I'm pretty sure you just showed how I am the one that knows how commercial television works. Fox makes money giving advertisers a shot at ta
57 Geezer : [quote=casinterest,reply=42]No one challenged the popularity of it. This is where you are mixed up on your interpretation. It just doesn't qualify as
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Should Cyclists Be Forced To Use Bike Paths? posted Sat Aug 2 2008 06:07:58 by Allrite
Should Those W/ Bad Genetics Be Allowed To Breed? posted Tue Sep 14 2004 19:26:24 by ConcordeBoy
Fox News To Be Banned From The United Kingdom? posted Tue Jun 3 2003 19:34:49 by Eg777er
Should Wall Street Be Allowed To Do This? posted Fri Jul 24 2009 05:15:21 by Max550
Should UK Hacker Be Extradited To US? posted Sun Dec 7 2008 07:40:07 by RussianJet
"Should I Be Scared [to Fly]" I Chewed Her Out posted Sat Oct 25 2008 05:37:10 by KLM672
Should Micheal Vick Be Allowed To Keep Bonus Money posted Sat Dec 1 2007 07:51:40 by Stratosphere
Should Churches Be Allowed To Handle Money? posted Wed Jan 4 2006 18:56:03 by ConcordeBoy
Should She Be Able To Sue? posted Sat Dec 3 2005 08:21:22 by SHUPirate1
Should Aid Be Stopped To 3rd World Countries? posted Mon Sep 12 2005 23:24:51 by Ibhayi