This is the very antithesis of a well-rounded, informed, broad based education at the college level.
The proper and ethical nature of a professor is to encourage students to examine a vast variety of sources of information in order to draw their own conclusions, and their own philosophies about life, not ban sources we deem to be offensive.
Fox News actually participates openly in selecting and promoting candidates. That's beyond biased, it's a leg of the party. This is the station that Karl Rove wouldn't let call the election on election night because he just couldn't believe his eyes. You saying that's "fair and balanced"? LMAO!
MSNBC hasn't done that, and won't. They fired a guy for contributing if you remember.
(This post was last modified: 02-15-2013 11:55 AM by DesertBronco.)
DB, when was the last time you sat at watched Fox News?
I regularly watch Fox, CNN, and occasionally others as well. Outside of the opinion shows, Fox almost always has a representative from both sides of a story.
MSNBC ran an ad campaign featuring all of their news anchors talking about "liberal progress"
If you think MSNBC is more objective than Fox you are drunk on Kool-Aid
(02-15-2013 12:18 PM)BCBronco Wrote: The point here is not whether Fox is more biased than MSNBC. I could not care less. The point is about academic censorship.
Exactly.
Quote:I regularly watch Fox, CNN, and occasionally others as well. Outside of the opinion shows, Fox almost always has a representative from both sides of a story.
The fact is CNN, MSNBC and FOX are all awful sources of news and I know that there aren't many professors out there that allow citations from any of these news agencies. Still, if I had to rate them all FOX is the all time low. What scares me is how many people actually watch FOX and all the other news stations. It takes someone a little bit more intelligent to watch these things and be able to weed out all the bullcrap and understand what actually happens. The sad thing is the majority of our population gets brainwashed by the opinions that come with the reports anyway.
(02-15-2013 12:29 PM)realistEagle Wrote: The fact is CNN, MSNBC and FOX are all awful sources of news and I know that there aren't many professors out there that allow citations from any of these news agencies. Still, if I had to rate them all FOX is the all time low. What scares me is how many people actually watch FOX and all the other news stations. It takes someone a little bit more intelligent to watch these things and be able to weed out all the bullcrap and understand what actually happens. The sad thing is the majority of our population gets brainwashed by the opinions that come with the reports anyway.
I actually think they are ALL good sources for news.
Most importantly, I use my own filter to determine what is garbage and unfairly biased.
I find it's best to get the news from as many angles as possible.
People get brainwashed when they watch one of them exclusively IMO.
(02-15-2013 12:29 PM)realistEagle Wrote: The fact is CNN, MSNBC and FOX are all awful sources of news and I know that there aren't many professors out there that allow citations from any of these news agencies. Still, if I had to rate them all FOX is the all time low. What scares me is how many people actually watch FOX and all the other news stations. It takes someone a little bit more intelligent to watch these things and be able to weed out all the bullcrap and understand what actually happens. The sad thing is the majority of our population gets brainwashed by the opinions that come with the reports anyway.
I actually think they are ALL good sources for news.
Most importantly, I use my own filter to determine what is garbage and unfairly biased.
I find it's best to get the news from as many angles as possible.
People get brainwashed when they watch one of them exclusively IMO.
The fact is that in a professional academic setting none of these should be allowed. Why? Because CNN exaggerates stories to gain viewers and readers. I know this because I read their articles all the time and then compare them to BBC's articles to read the same story in a normal format. FOX is terrible because they actually report wrong things. Their statistics are almost always off especially if they do not benefit the Republican party or go in favor of anything associated with liberalism or the Democratic party. MSNBC is also highly biased. Yes, I agree with you that you can watch all three and GET the actual news without the bias but you have to do that for yourself. The issue here is that the professor banned FOX from the academic setting and I believe that was a good decision.
(This post was last modified: 02-15-2013 12:51 PM by realistEagle.)
(02-15-2013 12:29 PM)realistEagle Wrote: The fact is CNN, MSNBC and FOX are all awful sources of news and I know that there aren't many professors out there that allow citations from any of these news agencies. Still, if I had to rate them all FOX is the all time low. What scares me is how many people actually watch FOX and all the other news stations. It takes someone a little bit more intelligent to watch these things and be able to weed out all the bullcrap and understand what actually happens. The sad thing is the majority of our population gets brainwashed by the opinions that come with the reports anyway.
I actually think they are ALL good sources for news.
Most importantly, I use my own filter to determine what is garbage and unfairly biased.
I find it's best to get the news from as many angles as possible.
People get brainwashed when they watch one of them exclusively IMO.
The fact is that in a professional academic setting none of these should be allowed. Why? Because CNN exaggerates stories to gain viewers and readers. I know this because I read their articles all the time and then compare them to BBC's articles to read the same story in a normal format. FOX is terrible because they actually report wrong things. Their statistics are almost always off especially if they do not benefit the Republican party or go in favor of anything associated with liberalism or the Democratic party. MSNBC is also highly biased. Yes, I agree with you that you can watch all three and GET the actual news without the bias but you have to do that for yourself. The issue here is that the professor banned FOX from the academic setting and I believe that was a good decision.
Fact is...in a professional academic setting, promoting censorship should NOT be allowed. Banning one station is in itself promoting a bias. You censor one because of it's biased content, you have to censor all of them.
It's a teacher's job to give a student the tools they need to make and form their own opinions.
(02-15-2013 12:29 PM)realistEagle Wrote: The fact is CNN, MSNBC and FOX are all awful sources of news and I know that there aren't many professors out there that allow citations from any of these news agencies. Still, if I had to rate them all FOX is the all time low. What scares me is how many people actually watch FOX and all the other news stations. It takes someone a little bit more intelligent to watch these things and be able to weed out all the bullcrap and understand what actually happens. The sad thing is the majority of our population gets brainwashed by the opinions that come with the reports anyway.
I actually think they are ALL good sources for news.
Most importantly, I use my own filter to determine what is garbage and unfairly biased.
I find it's best to get the news from as many angles as possible.
People get brainwashed when they watch one of them exclusively IMO.
Exactly. Then they take an attack on "their source" to be an indictment of their direct competition.
But again, only one of these "news sources" has openly sought after a candidate to run for office. The immediately disqualifies them as unbiased, forever.
If she banned all TV Cable news I don't think there would have been an issue. She singled out Fox though. You can argue until you are blue in the face about the merits or biases of Fox or any other news station, but that all comes down to opinion. They are still a legitimate news station therefore if you are going to ban one, you have to ban all of them.
Only one of these "news sources" openly participates in the election process Fly, you can argue that until you're blue in the face and be wrong all that you want.
(02-15-2013 12:29 PM)realistEagle Wrote: The fact is CNN, MSNBC and FOX are all awful sources of news and I know that there aren't many professors out there that allow citations from any of these news agencies. Still, if I had to rate them all FOX is the all time low. What scares me is how many people actually watch FOX and all the other news stations. It takes someone a little bit more intelligent to watch these things and be able to weed out all the bullcrap and understand what actually happens. The sad thing is the majority of our population gets brainwashed by the opinions that come with the reports anyway.
I actually think they are ALL good sources for news.
Most importantly, I use my own filter to determine what is garbage and unfairly biased.
I find it's best to get the news from as many angles as possible.
People get brainwashed when they watch one of them exclusively IMO.
Exactly. Then they take an attack on "their source" to be an indictment of their direct competition.
But again, only one of these "news sources" has openly sought after a candidate to run for office. The immediately disqualifies them as unbiased, forever.
Which one?
I don't find the value in debating on which one is MORE biased because they endorsed a candidate.
One outlet might be more open about it's biased, more daring, more controversial, etc...it doesn't matter...still biased in my mind.
When you recognize what these outlets are trying to convey, it's easier to filter the news.
I've seen all those ads. Whether they have a slant or not isn't the discussion. The professor used the wrongs words, she should have said not to use any direct links to parties, that right there would have DQ'd Fox News right away, because they're actively involved in the election process.
I'm actually laughing at your sophomoric attempts to make this about MSNBC vs FOX.
(02-15-2013 12:29 PM)realistEagle Wrote: The fact is CNN, MSNBC and FOX are all awful sources of news and I know that there aren't many professors out there that allow citations from any of these news agencies. Still, if I had to rate them all FOX is the all time low. What scares me is how many people actually watch FOX and all the other news stations. It takes someone a little bit more intelligent to watch these things and be able to weed out all the bullcrap and understand what actually happens. The sad thing is the majority of our population gets brainwashed by the opinions that come with the reports anyway.
I actually think they are ALL good sources for news.
Most importantly, I use my own filter to determine what is garbage and unfairly biased.
I find it's best to get the news from as many angles as possible.
People get brainwashed when they watch one of them exclusively IMO.
Exactly. Then they take an attack on "their source" to be an indictment of their direct competition.
But again, only one of these "news sources" has openly sought after a candidate to run for office. The immediately disqualifies them as unbiased, forever.
Which one?
I don't find the value in debating on which one is MORE biased because they endorsed a candidate.
One outlet might be more open about it's biased, more daring, more controversial, etc...it doesn't matter...still biased in my mind.
When you recognize what these outlets are trying to convey, it's easier to filter the news.
Biased is out once they openly participate in the process EA3. They're no longer media. They're a leg of the party. Their choice, they knew when they did it, right?
(02-15-2013 12:29 PM)realistEagle Wrote: The fact is CNN, MSNBC and FOX are all awful sources of news and I know that there aren't many professors out there that allow citations from any of these news agencies. Still, if I had to rate them all FOX is the all time low. What scares me is how many people actually watch FOX and all the other news stations. It takes someone a little bit more intelligent to watch these things and be able to weed out all the bullcrap and understand what actually happens. The sad thing is the majority of our population gets brainwashed by the opinions that come with the reports anyway.
I actually think they are ALL good sources for news.
Most importantly, I use my own filter to determine what is garbage and unfairly biased.
I find it's best to get the news from as many angles as possible.
People get brainwashed when they watch one of them exclusively IMO.
The fact is that in a professional academic setting none of these should be allowed. Why? Because CNN exaggerates stories to gain viewers and readers. I know this because I read their articles all the time and then compare them to BBC's articles to read the same story in a normal format. FOX is terrible because they actually report wrong things. Their statistics are almost always off especially if they do not benefit the Republican party or go in favor of anything associated with liberalism or the Democratic party. MSNBC is also highly biased. Yes, I agree with you that you can watch all three and GET the actual news without the bias but you have to do that for yourself. The issue here is that the professor banned FOX from the academic setting and I believe that was a good decision.
Fact is...in a professional academic setting, promoting censorship should NOT be allowed. Banning one station is in itself promoting a bias. You censor one because of it's biased content, you have to censor all of them.
It's a teacher's job to give a student the tools they need to make and form their own opinions.
Where the heck are you getting censorship from ? No one is censoring anything do you even know what that means ? In short terms, the professor said "do not use FOX news citations in my papers because it is not a reliable news source." Not an act of censorship at all. Her students still can go home and watch whatever the hell they please just don't use it in the papers. I think writing a college level paper should go beyond using FOX news, CNN or any other news agency. You should use scholarly sources and journals, at least that's what I had to do.