Former Newscorp president tells Bloomberg Fox just not that into facts:

News Hounds
We watch FOX so you don't have to.

It's Official: Facts Optional On Fox News Opinion Shows

In promotional material for an upcoming special about Rupert Murdoch, Media Matters caught this little gem: a former Fox News president admits that Fox News so-called "opinion shows" are not meant to be factual.

Media Matters obtained promotional material about tomorrow's Game Changers show on Bloomberg. In it, Peter Chernin, former President and COO of News Corporation reportedly says:


"There's news on Fox News, which I happen to believe is very neutral and moderate and presented fairly. And then there's the talk and opinion shows which no one ever pretends are news and factual. And Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity are clearly people on the right side of the spectrum but they are always presented as such."Of course, we've been posting for years about the spin, lies and distortions on Fox News 24/7 but it's still a shock to see the former president of News Corp. dismiss the need for facts or news at any time on what is supposed to be a news network.

And all of the liberal cable shows have liberal opinion commentators and hosts, so what.
Why do you liberals even car so much about Fox News? You can't handle one non liberal program?

Someone please help me find the "liberal media" because I would love to watch. Although truth and reality do have a well known liberal bias

(06-28-2011 06:20 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Former Newscorp president tells Bloomberg Fox just not that into facts:

News Hounds
We watch FOX so you don't have to.

It's Official: Facts Optional On Fox News Opinion Shows

In promotional material for an upcoming special about Rupert Murdoch, Media Matters caught this little gem: a former Fox News president admits that Fox News so-called "opinion shows" are not meant to be factual.

Media Matters obtained promotional material about tomorrow's Game Changers show on Bloomberg. In it, Peter Chernin, former President and COO of News Corporation reportedly says:


"There's news on Fox News, which I happen to believe is very neutral and moderate and presented fairly. And then there's the talk and opinion shows which no one ever pretends are news and factual. And Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity are clearly people on the right side of the spectrum but they are always presented as such."Of course, we've been posting for years about the spin, lies and distortions on Fox News 24/7 but it's still a shock to see the former president of News Corp. dismiss the need for facts or news at any time on what is supposed to be a news network.

I could have sworn he was talking about msnbc and that chick with the adams apple.

And?

How many time do you need to hear that directly from fox and from people here before you quit acting shocked?

News: This is not news.
Opinion: This thread is a waste of space.

(06-28-2011 07:05 AM)Paul M Wrote:  And?

How many time do you need to hear that directly from fox and from people here before you quit acting shocked?

News: This is not news.
Opinion: This thread is a waste of space.

I was derided as a liar when I brought this up in a thread last week.

(06-28-2011 06:20 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  "There's news on Fox News, which I happen to believe is very neutral and moderate and presented fairly. And then there's the talk and opinion shows which no one ever pretends are news and factual. And Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity are clearly people on the right side of the spectrum but they are always presented as such."

Of course, we've been posting for years about the spin, lies and distortions on Fox News 24/7 but it's still a shock to see the former president of News Corp. dismiss the need for facts or news at any time on what is supposed to be a news network.

I don't see the Gotcha! in Chernin's quote. Of course O'Reilly's show isn't supposed to be "just the facts, ma'am" news reporting, and neither is Maddow's or Olbermann's, and I think everyone including these hosts knows this.

But Media Matters appears to be using some heavy spin themselves here and has trouble distinguishing between biased opinion and lies. "Man, the Piston's draft picks were awful" is not fact-based, but it's not a lie. Now, that line between biased opinion and lies can get fuzzy, and if Fox News pundits are accused of crossing it, then we can certainly talk volumes about the likes of Michael Moore.

(06-28-2011 06:43 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Someone please help me find the "liberal media" because I would love to watch. Although truth and reality do have a well known liberal bias

All your heart can stand

Or just turn on MSNBC at any point during the day.

(06-28-2011 06:49 AM)zeebart21 Wrote:  

(06-28-2011 06:20 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Former Newscorp president tells Bloomberg Fox just not that into facts:

News Hounds
We watch FOX so you don't have to.

It's Official: Facts Optional On Fox News Opinion Shows

In promotional material for an upcoming special about Rupert Murdoch, Media Matters caught this little gem: a former Fox News president admits that Fox News so-called "opinion shows" are not meant to be factual.

Media Matters obtained promotional material about tomorrow's Game Changers show on Bloomberg. In it, Peter Chernin, former President and COO of News Corporation reportedly says:


"There's news on Fox News, which I happen to believe is very neutral and moderate and presented fairly. And then there's the talk and opinion shows which no one ever pretends are news and factual. And Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity are clearly people on the right side of the spectrum but they are always presented as such."Of course, we've been posting for years about the spin, lies and distortions on Fox News 24/7 but it's still a shock to see the former president of News Corp. dismiss the need for facts or news at any time on what is supposed to be a news network.

I could have sworn he was talking about msnbc and that chick with the adams apple.

You mean Ann Colter?

I don't blame Fox. The only way to make conservatism sound appealing and have people vote against their own self interest is to skew the truth

(06-28-2011 06:43 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Someone please help me find the "liberal media" because I would love to watch. Although truth and reality do have a well known liberal bias

I'd say the weeks following the Gabrielle Giffords shooting is a very good recent example: The common theme was that Loughner was highly influenced by right-wing talk shows and Palin's "target" map.

(06-28-2011 07:16 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  I don't blame Fox. The only way to make conservatism sound appealing and have people vote against their own self interest is to skew the truth

I don't watch Fox. But I will say that those demanding our public representatives be held accountable for a $14 trillion dollar debt and to be more frugal in spending certainly isn't "voting against one's own self interest."

(06-28-2011 07:25 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(06-28-2011 07:16 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  I don't blame Fox. The only way to make conservatism sound appealing and have people vote against their own self interest is to skew the truth

I don't watch Fox. But I will say that those demanding our public representatives be held accountable for a $14 trillion dollar debt and to be more frugal in spending certainly isn't "voting against one's own self interest."

Where were they when Bush doubled the national debt? For that matter where were conservatives when Reagan and Bush 1 tripled the national debt?

(06-28-2011 06:43 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Someone please help me find the "liberal media" because I would love to watch. Although truth and reality do have a well known liberal bias

MSNBC
NBC
ABC
CBS
NY Times
Atlanta Journal Constitution
Clarion Ledger
Chicago Tribune
Washington Post
San Francisco Chronicle
Al Gore's new, but bound to fail, network

Take your pick.

(06-28-2011 07:28 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(06-28-2011 07:25 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(06-28-2011 07:16 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  I don't blame Fox. The only way to make conservatism sound appealing and have people vote against their own self interest is to skew the truth

I don't watch Fox. But I will say that those demanding our public representatives be held accountable for a $14 trillion dollar debt and to be more frugal in spending certainly isn't "voting against one's own self interest."

Where were they when Bush doubled the national debt? For that matter where were conservatives when Reagan and Bush 1 tripled the national debt?

Shown to be wrong. Bring up something before FNC existed.

Gotcha.

(06-28-2011 07:28 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(06-28-2011 07:25 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(06-28-2011 07:16 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  I don't blame Fox. The only way to make conservatism sound appealing and have people vote against their own self interest is to skew the truth

I don't watch Fox. But I will say that those demanding our public representatives be held accountable for a $14 trillion dollar debt and to be more frugal in spending certainly isn't "voting against one's own self interest."

Where were they when Bush doubled the national debt? For that matter where were conservatives when Reagan and Bush 1 tripled the national debt?

The libertarian-leaning wing of conservatism was bellowing, though I totally agree many conservatives were "party line" silent during W's drunken sailor spending.

As far as Reagan and Bush Sr... they may have tripled the debt at the time, but it was tripling molehills in comparison to the recent several years. If you view a debt line chart, it looks a lot like that global warming "hockey stick" graph we're always seeing.

(06-28-2011 07:11 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(06-28-2011 07:05 AM)Paul M Wrote:  And?

How many time do you need to hear that directly from fox and from people here before you quit acting shocked?

News: This is not news.
Opinion: This thread is a waste of space.

I was derided as a liar when I brought this up in a thread last week.

No you weren't. But you're lying now.

I guess a good media litmus test would be on a hypothetical day such as this:

1. Somewhere, several Tea Party goons are caught vandalizing a prominent Democrat's house
2. Somewhere, several teachers union goons are caught vandalizing a prominent Republican's house

The question becomes, would both events be covered equally, with equal newspaper ink, equal commentary, equal point-counterpoint quotes, and equal television treatment?

Now it's obvious what O'Reilly would entirely focus on and what Maddow would entirely focus on. But I'm talking about regular news coverage.

Every news outlet has 2 types of shows: Hard hitting news that is meant to answer the "5 W's" (+ one H) and "News Analysis" shows where the host tries to provide his/her opinion on how the factual info relates to every day life. This is not unique to Fox News. Fox News has O'Reilly and Hannity, MSNBC has Shultz, Matthews and Maddoff, CNN has Parker/Spitzer, Blitzer, etc. etc. The NY Times has hard news sections (World, National, Local and Sports sections) and "other news" sections like editorial, home/garden, culture...Two types of information. The only difference between the NY Times, Fox News, CNN and MSNBC is that the cable news networks throw out the sports, home/garden and culture sections to focus exclusively on hard news and editorial.

As I said to you earlier, Mr. Peanut...you are better than this. Use the critical thinking component of your brain so that when people see your posts, they aren't assuming that you picked your forum name to broadcast the size of your brain.

(06-28-2011 06:43 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Someone please help me find the "liberal media" because I would love to watch. Although truth and reality do have a well known liberal bias

When your only sources have a strong liberal bias, the "truth and reality" they report are indeed biased toward the left.

The truth does not have a bias. I seldom see where Fox or anyone else reports as true things that are not true. You can pretty much get "the truth and nothing but the truth" from any news source. But no one source gives you "the whole truth." To be well informed you must go to Fox as well as the left-leaning media, get the truth that each of them offers, and apply critical thinking to assemble "the whole truth." Unfortunately, there's no one source that does that for you.