Scott McLellan blows whistle loudest

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

If Fox's relationship with the Whitehouse and the Republican party is voluntary than it is fair and democratic.

Fox has the distinction of being the only network not taking their directions from the Democratic party. That is why the internet is taking over as the preferred news source. It's kind of ironic really. TV has become the avenue for reality shows and unreliable news.

True dat. About the only news I watch on tv is the local evening news. Sometimes even that has to be taken with a grain of salt. I love getting alot of my news from this very site. The varying opinions are great. It puts alot of things in perspective when you hear such different opinions. You just don't get that from media unless you listen to the exact same news on 4 different channels or read multiple newspapers.

[RougeUnderoos]

Ha. A story about the mainstream and hugely popular conservative network getting scripts from the ruling conservative government is really about the LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS.

I can't believe how you guys are trying to sweep this under the rug. In journalism school this kind of thing is taught in the ethics class. Do you think it's "ethical" or "unethical"?

I don't even think the Bush administration did anything wrong. Neither does McClellan, apparently, otherwise he wouldn't be saying it so matter-of-factly. If FOX is going to get their message out and they aren't going to challenge it at all, well, that's FOX's fault, not George's.

If FOX had any credibility before, they sure as hell don't now. Oddly though, I think it will be restored if the Democrats win the election. They'll have to dust off their keyboards and actually come up with what they disagree with, instead of just plain old reading what the government tells them.

[RougeUnderoos]

And just for fun, here's an example. The year is 2003. The Liberals send a message over to CTV news, and the message says "the sponsorship scandal is overblown and limited to two or three low-level people, the Prime Minister had no knowledge". Ol' Loyd Robertson can take that and say either:

A."The sponsorship scandal is overblown. Two or three low-level people were involved and the Prime Minister had no knowledge"

Or

B: "The Liberal party today released a statement claiming the sponsorship scandal is overblown and that Prime Minister Chretien had no involvement. The Opposition party, when contacted by CTV, said this is a load of hogwash. Steven Harper said unequivocally "if he didn't know he's incompetent, if he did he's a crook".

Pretty big difference. What Mclellan is saying is that FOX does A.

[4X4]

I find it amusing that you chose to use CTV instead of CBC.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by 4X4

I find it amusing that you chose to use CTV instead of CBC.

Like FOX, CTV is a privately owned company.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Like FOX, CTV is a privately owned company.

I guess it makes it all the more annoying that CBC would choose A.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by 4X4

I guess it makes it all the more annoying that CBC would choose A.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but if you are that's a pretty serious allegation. Essentially, you're alleging that CBC repeats word-for-word the talking points of the Liberal party. Do you have any evidence of this? If they're doing this, they could well be subject to loss of licensure or some such thing. Perhaps you should alert the authorities.

Or--more likely--CBC has done no such thing. They are a news network that has a bias like most of them do, and that bias bothers you. However, and this is important--this story is not about bias. It's about Fox News becoming the official organ of the Republican party, and using public airwaves to do so. The argument that somehow the other networks have similar relationships with the Democrats is nonsense. No such relationship exists between any political party and any network in the U.S. except for the one between Fox and the GOP. The Democrats have Air America Radio I guess, but that's not really comparable since it's a single radio station mostly broadcast via the internet.

Originally Posted by Rouge

Ha. A story about the mainstream and hugely popular conservative network getting scripts from the ruling conservative government is really about the LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS.

Weird, isn't it? I also was just told in the U.S. elections thread that the true narrative of Obama's trip abroad was what a great candidate John McCain is. Meanwhile, black is white, up is down, wrong is right and Bush is smart. The contortions are pretty unbelievable; I guess anything seems easier than "gee, I guess I might have been wrong about that thing I used to think."

[FlamesAddiction]

My biggest beef with FOX News isn't their bias. It's that they come across as downright snide, snarky, and disrespectful. Say what you want about the supposed biases of CNN and CBC, but at least most of their personalities act like mature adults.

I also find it funny that FOX seems to have frequent news bloopers, which most of the time have some sort of sexual innuendo. I suspect that they stage and script them as part of their "news entertainment" platform that appeals to the lowest common denominator (who are also probably the most impressionable).

http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...r&search_type=

I don't see how anyone can take them seriously from a news point of view (although some of those ARE pretty funny).

[4X4]

Alright, I'll concede defeat in this debate if the question is whether anybody has ever admitted that CBC actually regurgitates word-for-word from the Liberal horse's mouth.

I guess the point I'm arguing is that just because somebody comes along and says that Fox News does this, it really doesn't change the world. We already knew this type of thing occurs with many news outlets. I'm questioning the 'hang-up' by making comparisons to the CBC because it is well known in Canada that CBC is not just 'biased', but slanted vertically.
If your argument is that my comparison is null because nobody has ever come out and said that CBC does the exact same thing, then I guess you're right.

And lest you think that I'm 'defending' Fox News, I want to clarify that my only purpose in this thread is to dismiss this as non-news. Cynical, I know, but this is a message board and opinions are welcome. My opinion is that there are plenty of media outlets that simply regurgitate current policy from current political parties. The fact that somebody admitted it is like a former car salesman admitting that the undercoating is a scam. Thanks for the update.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Alright, I'll concede defeat in this debate if the question is whether anybody has ever admitted that CBC actually regurgitates word-for-word from the Liberal horse's mouth.

I guess the point I'm arguing is that just because somebody comes along and says that Fox News does this, it really doesn't change the world. We already knew this type of thing occurs with many news outlets. I'm questioning the 'hang-up' by making comparisons to the CBC because it is well known in Canada that CBC is not just 'biased', but slanted vertically.
If your argument is that my comparison is null because nobody has ever come out and said that CBC does the exact same thing, then I guess you're right.

And lest you think that I'm 'defending' Fox News, I want to clarify that my only purpose in this thread is to dismiss this as non-news. Cynical, I know, but this is a message board and opinions are welcome. My opinion is that there are plenty of media outlets that simply regurgitate current policy from current political parties. The fact that somebody admitted it is like a former car salesman admitting that the undercoating is a scam. Thanks for the update.

That's fair. And FWIW I don't get much of a chance to see CBC down here, but my opinion is that a public network should be held to an even higher standard of neutrality than a network like Fox. If they're failing in that, then they're failing at the basic rationale for their existence, which is an even-handed and neutral news and cultural source for Canadians. I happen to think it's an important mission, but I do sometimes wonder if a funding model like NPR's in the U.S. would work better for the CBC. Just thinking out loud.

[Azure]

Oh they're failing. CBC has always been biased. Even if their news is top-notch.

[onetwo_threefour]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Ha. A story about the mainstream and hugely popular conservative network getting scripts from the ruling conservative government is really about the LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS.

I can't believe how you guys are trying to sweep this under the rug. In journalism school this kind of thing is taught in the ethics class. Do you think it's "ethical" or "unethical"?

I don't even think the Bush administration did anything wrong. Neither does McClellan, apparently, otherwise he wouldn't be saying it so matter-of-factly. If FOX is going to get their message out and they aren't going to challenge it at all, well, that's FOX's fault, not George's.

If FOX had any credibility before, they sure as hell don't now. Oddly though, I think it will be restored if the Democrats win the election. They'll have to dust off their keyboards and actually come up with what they disagree with, instead of just plain old reading what the government tells them.

Good post, although I think media bias is more corporatist than liberal. I also think that 'liberal bias' is a product of the individuals rather than some overarching policy directive (unlike what we're talking about here).

I agree that you have to consider what things would look like under a different regime, assuming one is electable. Of course you do remember that during the Clinton presidency, when the Conservative talkers took over the airwaves in the US, many people suggested that these same hosts were bring coordinated by the GOP behind the scenes. FOX is really a 'party' propaganda tool rather than a 'government' propaganda tool. I guess the comparison to PRAVDA is a little overblown, since there are other outlets, but the way the White House treats the rest of the media is laughable. It's how Junior High operates, not adults.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

That's fair. And FWIW I don't get much of a chance to see CBC down here, but my opinion is that a public network should be held to an even higher standard of neutrality than a network like Fox. If they're failing in that, then they're failing at the basic rationale for their existence, which is an even-handed and neutral news and cultural source for Canadians. I happen to think it's an important mission, but I do sometimes wonder if a funding model like NPR's in the U.S. would work better for the CBC. Just thinking out loud.

Here's the thing...

Even a neutral positioned media can seem biased when the perspective it is being judged from is from far to one side.

Most people like to think that they are balanced and neutral to a degree, but what "neutral" means changes in different populations. In Alberta, where there is a cultural tendency towards conservatism, a "neutral" position isn't likely to be accepted without some resistance. Vice versa for a liberal province like Quebec.

As a whole, the country tends to be more liberal than Alberta and more conservative than Quebec, which is probably why CBCs middle position always seems to irritate the majority in both those provinces.

I guess the point is that it's all about perspective. Neutrality is defined by the range of opinions in a population. That means that in a Canada, the middle ground might be different than in the States.

One thing about CBC though is that they know where they get their funding. Since Harper has been PM, they have been a lot more friendly to both sides. If the Conservatives win a majority, then I suspect the swing will be even more obvious.

[onetwo_threefour]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Here's the thing...

Even a neutral positioned media can seem biased when the perspective it is being judged from is from far to one side.

Most people like to think that they are balanced and neutral to a degree, but what "neutral" means changes in different populations. In Alberta, where there is a cultural tendency towards conservatism, a "neutral" position isn't likely to be accepted without some resistance. Vice versa for a liberal province like Quebec.

As a whole, the country tends to be more liberal than Alberta and more conservative than Quebec, which is probably why CBCs middle position always seems to irritate the majority in both those provinces.

I guess the point is that it's all about perspective. Neutrality is defined by the range of opinions in a population. That means that in a Canada, the middle ground might be different than in the States.

One thing about CBC though is that they know where they get their funding. Since Harper has been PM, they have been a lot more friendly to both sides. If the Conservatives win a majority, then I suspect the swing will be even more obvious.

I'm a liberal, but I think the media does have at least a socially liberal bias. The thing is, I think it's a reflective bias, that is, it reflects the bias of the majority of the population and the people who actuially write the news. FOX news seems to have a directive bias, in that they are directed what to say regardless of what the larger population looks like.

Economically, the media seems centrist or even rightist. Tax cuts seem to get just as much play as social spending, and tax hikes are vilified even when they're necessary and justified.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Alright, I'll concede defeat in this debate if the question is whether anybody has ever admitted that CBC actually regurgitates word-for-word from the Liberal horse's mouth.

I guess the point I'm arguing is that just because somebody comes along and says that Fox News does this, it really doesn't change the world. We already knew this type of thing occurs with many news outlets. I'm questioning the 'hang-up' by making comparisons to the CBC because it is well known in Canada that CBC is not just 'biased', but slanted vertically.
If your argument is that my comparison is null because nobody has ever come out and said that CBC does the exact same thing, then I guess you're right.

And lest you think that I'm 'defending' Fox News, I want to clarify that my only purpose in this thread is to dismiss this as non-news. Cynical, I know, but this is a message board and opinions are welcome. My opinion is that there are plenty of media outlets that simply regurgitate current policy from current political parties. The fact that somebody admitted it is like a former car salesman admitting that the undercoating is a scam. Thanks for the update.

I think it is news. I can understand what you are saying -- that some outlets do promote the ideas of certain parties, but this FOX business is just plain old propaganda. It is different than the day to day left/right biases that all outlets have. Nobody else does this.

They aren't even practicing journalism, but they are advertising themselves as doing journalism. If any of them are actual reporters, they have been taught not to do this. They've completely and utterly failed to do what they are trusted to do. That is news.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

I'm a liberal, but I think the media does have at least a socially liberal bias. The thing is, I think it's a reflective bias, that is, it reflects the bias of the majority of the population and the people who actuially write the news. FOX news seems to have a directive bias, in that they are directed what to say regardless of what the larger population looks like.

Economically, the media seems centrist or even rightist. Tax cuts seem to get just as much play as social spending, and tax hikes are vilified even when they're necessary and justified.

I think that is sort of what I was trying to get at. I like the term "reflective bias".

Honestly, that is the best thing you can really hope for. I don't think "neutrality" is really even possible, except in theory. The only way to have absolute neutrality would be to have nothing at all as opinions form the messages of any media. Ideally, it is better that public opinion is forming the messages instead of private interests - even if public opinion gives the message a slant.

Even if a network purposely geared itself to an absolutely neutral standard, that could still be construed as an unfair bias in either direction.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I think it is news. I can understand what you are saying -- that some outlets do promote the ideas of certain parties, but this FOX business is just plain old propaganda. It is different than the day to day left/right biases that all outlets have. Nobody else does this.

They aren't even practicing journalism, but they are advertising themselves as doing journalism. If any of them are actual reporters, they have been taught not to do this. They've completely and utterly failed to do what they are trusted to do. That is news.

Well put.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

I'm a liberal, but I think the media does have at least a socially liberal bias. The thing is, I think it's a reflective bias, that is, it reflects the bias of the majority of the population and the people who actuially write the news. FOX news seems to have a directive bias, in that they are directed what to say regardless of what the larger population looks like.

Economically, the media seems centrist or even rightist. Tax cuts seem to get just as much play as social spending, and tax hikes are vilified even when they're necessary and justified.

Judging by the ratings Fox news is reflecting the majority of the population.

Remember these talking point were allegedly given to the commentators not the news anchors. Hannity and Comes and the Spin Zone are not and never have presented themselves as the 6 o'clock news.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Alright, I'll concede defeat in this debate if the question is whether anybody has ever admitted that CBC actually regurgitates word-for-word from the Liberal horse's mouth.

I guess the point I'm arguing is that just because somebody comes along and says that Fox News does this, it really doesn't change the world. We already knew this type of thing occurs with many news outlets. I'm questioning the 'hang-up' by making comparisons to the CBC because it is well known in Canada that CBC is not just 'biased', but slanted vertically.
If your argument is that my comparison is null because nobody has ever come out and said that CBC does the exact same thing, then I guess you're right.

And lest you think that I'm 'defending' Fox News, I want to clarify that my only purpose in this thread is to dismiss this as non-news. Cynical, I know, but this is a message board and opinions are welcome. My opinion is that there are plenty of media outlets that simply regurgitate current policy from current political parties. The fact that somebody admitted it is like a former car salesman admitting that the undercoating is a scam. Thanks for the update.

Let's see if this analogy brings it home.

If I wanted to write a paper on evolution I could:

(a) collect the writings of some researchers and authors whose views I agreed with and write my own report based on them in my own words, using my own narative, opinions and ideas, put my name on that and hand it in; or

(b) find one writing I like, copy it out word for word, put my name on it and hand it in.

Both have me forwarding the same ideas, but (b) is intellectually dishonest, and it is a big deal if I'm caught doing (b).

It's not a perfect analogy, but it gets the point across, IMO.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Judging by the ratings Fox news is reflecting the majority of the population.

Or it's reflecting that all of the right wing audience goes to FOX, while the left wing audience is splintered

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Remember these talking point were allegedly given to the commentators not the news anchors. Hannity and Comes and the Spin Zone are not and never have presented themselves as the 6 o'clock news.

But they did present themselves as independent.