• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Fair and balanced

B

bayoubob

Guest
I always enjoy this board, but looking over a lot of the posts below, it seems that some talk hosts misinterpret the Fox News line of "Fair and Balanced." That's a big sticking point for people who consider themselves progressives. They seem to believe that the statement itself is hypocritical, which ties into the progressive (left-wing liberal?) notion that they're honest about their insecurities and lifestyles while conservatives (right-wing extremeists?) are just as insecure and bizarre as they are but certainly won't admit it and indeed try to cover it up. Yet when I occasionally watch Fox News (I only have time for Brit Hume's and Shepard Smith's shows) the network really seems to try to include the other side's statements in news stories. Aren't we all supposed to be doing that? Yet I get AP stories (and other news services' stories) every day for the morning drive show that don't bother to include the "fair and balanced" other side of the stories! There are stories I get daily when I wonder if the AP reporters ever took Journalism 101. "Fair and balanced" should be a mantra for all news people, shouldn't it?

By the way, don't you think it's time for progressives to drop the now-seven-year-old notion that it's working to their advantage to try to expose conservatives as being hypocrites? I think progressives should point to the truth: liberals are edgy social and moral risk-takers by definition who want to shake things up all the time, while conservatives by definition are boring because they want to slow down the pace of change or perhaps even stop it. The risk-taker notion will at least excite the college and potential-young-Democrat crowd.
 
If Fox News is really "fair and balanced", why do they have to tell us so?

(Kinda like the ads and spam you get for those cable boxes that let you get all the premium channels for free.

"100% legal" the ads scream.
(If they're legal, why do they have to make such a big deal about it?)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The soapbox is now free for your use...<P ID="signature">______________
"What's That?" "French Horns!"

</P>
 
Here's a good example of Fox's "fair and balanced" approach. On his recent segment about Air America, Bill O'Reilly had two guest "experts": Brian Maloney and Michell Malkin, both of whom are extreme right-wing critics of Air America and whose recent articles about the supposed Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club "scandal" were greeted with great glee by conservatives. O'Reilly joined them in denouncing Air America and predicting its doom. Three to zero against Air America. Fair and balanced? Right.
 
> Here's a good example of Fox's "fair and balanced" approach.
> On his recent segment about Air America, Bill O'Reilly had
> two guest "experts": Brian Maloney and Michell Malkin, both
> of whom are extreme right-wing critics of Air America and
> whose recent articles about the supposed Gloria Wise Boys
> and Girls Club "scandal" were greeted with great glee by
> conservatives. O'Reilly joined them in denouncing Air
> America and predicting its doom. Three to zero against Air
> America. Fair and balanced? Right.

What was unfortunate about that was that Fox apparently didn't even invite anyone from AAR to appear on the show. They would have said so if they had. Norrmally O'Reilly and the other Fox opinion-show hosts do try to get people who advocate both sides of an issue.

I certainly wasn't expecting Al Franken to be a guest (Now that would be interesting. Pistols at ten paces? :-D ) but I did hope that someone from AAR's management would be there to give the network's side of the issue.

Fox and O'Reilly dropped the ball on that one.
 
> > Here's a good example of Fox's "fair and balanced"
> approach.
> > On his recent segment about Air America, Bill O'Reilly
> had
> > two guest "experts": Brian Maloney and Michell Malkin,
> both
> > of whom are extreme right-wing critics of Air America and
> > whose recent articles about the supposed Gloria Wise Boys
> > and Girls Club "scandal" were greeted with great glee by
> > conservatives. O'Reilly joined them in denouncing Air
> > America and predicting its doom. Three to zero against
> Air
> > America. Fair and balanced? Right.
>
> What was unfortunate about that was that Fox apparently
> didn't even invite anyone from AAR to appear on the show.
> They would have said so if they had. Norrmally O'Reilly and
> the other Fox opinion-show hosts do try to get people who
> advocate both sides of an issue.
>
And of course, even if they had invited someone from Air America, that still would have been three AAR opponents vs. one AAR defender. And yes, that is a more "normal" ratio for Fox.
 
> Here's a good example of Fox's "fair and balanced" approach.
> On his recent segment about Air America, Bill O'Reilly had
> two guest "experts": Brian Maloney and Michell Malkin, both
> of whom are extreme right-wing critics of Air America and
> whose recent articles about the supposed Gloria Wise Boys
> and Girls Club "scandal" were greeted with great glee by
> conservatives. O'Reilly joined them in denouncing Air
> America and predicting its doom. Three to zero against Air
> America. Fair and balanced? Right.

It's amusing to read this criticism as this is something that every news outlet does. I guess it's only wrong when one's demon of choice does it, though.
 
I think you make a valid point. However, Fox carries some responsibility for the criticism. They are mostly a talk format, with some news, but they call themselves a news channel. They don't make a clear distinction between what is talk and what is news. Bill O'Reilly is talk but critics he try to hold him to the standards of news.

As far as hypocrisy, there's plenty to go around - all across the political spectrum. For some, politics is a sport and they are fans (who root, root, root for the home team). For some, it is a crusade and they are true believers or zealots (again, across the political spectrum). For most however, politics is something to which they react with indifference or disgust.

Fair and balanced should be the mantra for news services like the AP. But I think there is a place for advocacy journalism. Back when major cities had multiple newspapers, none claimed to be fair and balanced and each operated from its own political position. As with talk radio, people picked the paper reflecting their views - and, of course, for entertainment value. Journalism after all is the most pretentious branch of show business. But those papers made it clear what their respective positions were. I do think Fox and the others should practice truth in labelling

> I always enjoy this board, but looking over a lot of the
> posts below, it seems that some talk hosts misinterpret the
> Fox News line of "Fair and Balanced." That's a big sticking
> point for people who consider themselves progressives. They
> seem to believe that the statement itself is hypocritical,
> which ties into the progressive (left-wing liberal?) notion
> that they're honest about their insecurities and lifestyles
> while conservatives (right-wing extremeists?) are just as
> insecure and bizarre as they are but certainly won't admit
> it and indeed try to cover it up. Yet when I occasionally
> watch Fox News (I only have time for Brit Hume's and Shepard
> Smith's shows) the network really seems to try to include
> the other side's statements in news stories. Aren't we all
> supposed to be doing that? Yet I get AP stories (and other
> news services' stories) every day for the morning drive show
> that don't bother to include the "fair and balanced" other
> side of the stories! There are stories I get daily when I
> wonder if the AP reporters ever took Journalism 101. "Fair
> and balanced" should be a mantra for all news people,
> shouldn't it?
>
> By the way, don't you think it's time for progressives to
> drop the now-seven-year-old notion that it's working to
> their advantage to try to expose conservatives as being
> hypocrites? I think progressives should point to the truth:
> liberals are edgy social and moral risk-takers by definition
> who want to shake things up all the time, while
> conservatives by definition are boring because they want to
> slow down the pace of change or perhaps even stop it. The
> risk-taker notion will at least excite the college and
> potential-young-Democrat crowd.
>
 
FAUX News IS Right Wing Propaganda

The worst news on TV. It's the taling points of the RNC. Nothing more. The most Unfair & Unbalanced news there is. We Opine, You Recline.

http://www.outfoxed.org/clips_trailer_wm.php<P ID="signature">______________
FOX News does NOT speak for me. Here's where I speak for myself http://pages.sbcglobal.net/rgold770/JewsandIsrael.html</P>
 
When FOX News Channel became available on cable in my area (circa 1997), I thought it would be great to have another news channel but I was soon disappointed when it did not live up to its slogan <a target="_blank" href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News#Controversies_and_allegations_of_bias>"Fair and Balanced"</a>. I recently figured out how to make it so FOX News Channel no longer shows up on the program guides (even the all channels list) of my mini-dish satellite TV receivers. I wish I could get out of paying for that channel, too.

If they simply changed the name of the channel to the "CON (Conservative Only News) Channel" or another name that reflects their true agenda, I would have no problem because they would then be honest about what they really are.

> I always enjoy this board, but looking over a lot of the
> posts below, it seems that some talk hosts misinterpret the
> Fox News line of "Fair and Balanced." That's a big sticking
> point for people who consider themselves progressives. They
> seem to believe that the statement itself is hypocritical,
> which ties into the progressive (left-wing liberal?) notion
> that they're honest about their insecurities and lifestyles
> while conservatives (right-wing extremeists?) are just as
> insecure and bizarre as they are but certainly won't admit
> it and indeed try to cover it up. Yet when I occasionally
> watch Fox News (I only have time for Brit Hume's and Shepard
> Smith's shows) the network really seems to try to include
> the other side's statements in news stories. Aren't we all
> supposed to be doing that? Yet I get AP stories (and other
> news services' stories) every day for the morning drive show
> that don't bother to include the "fair and balanced" other
> side of the stories! There are stories I get daily when I
> wonder if the AP reporters ever took Journalism 101. "Fair
> and balanced" should be a mantra for all news people,
> shouldn't it?
>
> By the way, don't you think it's time for progressives to
> drop the now-seven-year-old notion that it's working to
> their advantage to try to expose conservatives as being
> hypocrites? I think progressives should point to the truth:
> liberals are edgy social and moral risk-takers by definition
> who want to shake things up all the time, while
> conservatives by definition are boring because they want to
> slow down the pace of change or perhaps even stop it. The
> risk-taker notion will at least excite the college and
> potential-young-Democrat crowd.
 
> If they simply changed the name of the channel to the "CON
> (Conservative Only News) Channel" or another name that
> reflects their true agenda, I would have no problem because
> they would then be honest about what they really are.

Presumably you would want all the other networks to do this as well, or is this advice for Fox News only?
 
> > If they simply changed the name of the channel to the "CON
>
> > (Conservative Only News) Channel" or another name that
> > reflects their true agenda, I would have no problem
> because
> > they would then be honest about what they really are.
>
> Presumably you would want all the other networks to do this
> as well, or is this advice for Fox News only?

Sir (or is it Madam?), you can presume anything you want. :)
 
> I always enjoy this board, but looking over a lot of the
> posts below, it seems that some talk hosts misinterpret the
> Fox News line of "Fair and Balanced." That's a big sticking
> point for people who consider themselves progressives. They
> seem to believe that the statement itself is hypocritical,
> which ties into the progressive (left-wing liberal?) notion
> that they're honest about their insecurities and lifestyles
> while conservatives (right-wing extremeists?) are just as
> insecure and bizarre as they are but certainly won't admit
> it and indeed try to cover it up. Yet when I occasionally
> watch Fox News (I only have time for Brit Hume's and Shepard
> Smith's shows) the network really seems to try to include
> the other side's statements in news stories. Aren't we all
> supposed to be doing that? Yet I get AP stories (and other
> news services' stories) every day for the morning drive show
> that don't bother to include the "fair and balanced" other
> side of the stories! There are stories I get daily when I
> wonder if the AP reporters ever took Journalism 101. "Fair
> and balanced" should be a mantra for all news people,
> shouldn't it?
>
> By the way, don't you think it's time for progressives to
> drop the now-seven-year-old notion that it's working to
> their advantage to try to expose conservatives as being
> hypocrites? I think progressives should point to the truth:
> liberals are edgy social and moral risk-takers by definition
> who want to shake things up all the time, while
> conservatives by definition are boring because they want to
> slow down the pace of change or perhaps even stop it. The
> risk-taker notion will at least excite the college and
> potential-young-Democrat crowd.

Okay here's few examples. All of the opinion shows feature right of center commentators. Bill O'Reilly, John Gibson, Neil Cavuto, John Kasich, Mort Kondracke, Fred Barnes, and Oliver North. (Just to name a few.) The only show that offers a liberal point of view is Hannity and Colmes. An analysis of this show reveals that Sean Hannity gets more time than Alan Colmes and Colmes is generally thought to be lightweight who seems to enjoy his role as the token liberal.

Now, how about a few examples of how the AP is biased to liberal side.
 
>
> Okay here's few examples. All of the opinion shows feature
> right of center commentators.

Those aren't examples of bias in news reporting. In theory, one could have an ideologically neutral news broadcast on the same channel as an opinion show. The fact that most of the commentators on Fox News have a certain slant doesn't tell one anything about their bias in their reporting. The same goes for CNN and MSNBC.

If you want to actually have this discussion, you'll need to find examples in their reporting. That won't be difficult, but it's not difficult with CNN, CBS, or the AP, either.
 
How fair and balanced?

> Okay here's few examples. All of the opinion shows feature
> right of center commentators. Bill O'Reilly, John Gibson,

There's your answer: they are COMMENTATORS.

The FNC news broadcasts, however are generally more balanced
than the rest of the "mainstream" media.

Until you get to the religious right issues. Then they're as
extremist as The Daily Worker or Al Franken.

Example: Promo for a story about public religious
displays, a few holiday seasons ago... "Are They
Crucifying Christmas?" Good way to stir up hate
among their installed base.

Bigoted Azzholes.

But they're still more f&b than public radio, IMHO.

> Neil Cavuto, John Kasich, Mort Kondracke, Fred Barnes, and
> Oliver North. (Just to name a few.) The only show that
> offers a liberal point of view is Hannity and Colmes.

<P ID="signature">______________
<center>Media Bias Web Site</center></P>
 
NBC red channel and NBC blue channel

> > If they simply changed the name of the channel to the "CON
>
> > (Conservative Only News) Channel" or another name that
> > reflects their true agenda, I would have no problem
> because
> > they would then be honest about what they really are.
>
> Presumably you would want all the other networks to do this
> as well, or is this advice for Fox News only?

Good idea!

ABC and NBC originally were the NBC red channel and NBC blue
channel. (Before my time, so I'm not sure which.)

ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC could be the LIB green, LIB purple,
LIB black, LIB polka dot, and LIB pink channels. (I don't think
they'd choose red, white, or blue.)

Speaking of mislabeling names, how 'bout when a Christian
channel was called The Famnily Channel ... before it was
sold to Fox.

I sure wouldn't want a misnamed channel to lure a kid
into watching Pat Robertson!<P ID="signature">______________
<center>South Florida Radio Pages</center></P>
 
Please don't read this, Robert!

Please don't read this, Robert!

> The worst news on TV. It's the taling points of the RNC.
> Nothing more. The most Unfair & Unbalanced news there is.
> We Opine, You Recline.

You libs LOVE to use the term talking points.

How about NPR and AAR, which get their scripts
express-mailed from DNC and CPUSA?

;-)

I don't expect a response from you, Robert. You've
been very insulting lately, so I don't want one.

But I won't insult you.

You'll just have to imagine what I'm thinking
-- and how people perceive your nasty remarks.<P ID="signature">______________
<center>South Florida Radio Pages</center></P>
 
How would you define news channel?

> I think you make a valid point. However, Fox carries some
> responsibility for the criticism. They are mostly a talk
> format, with some news, but they call themselves a news
> channel.

They have news every 30 minutes, and at least two news hours
that I can think of. Who else has this?

How would you define news channel?
<P ID="signature">______________
<center>South Florida Radio Pages</center></P>
 
Keep Cool

> > Here's a good example of Fox's "fair and balanced"
> approach.
> > On his recent segment about Air America, Bill O'Reilly
> had
> > two guest "experts": Brian Maloney and Michell Malkin,
> both
> > of whom are extreme right-wing critics of Air America and
> > whose recent articles about the supposed Gloria Wise Boys
> > and Girls Club "scandal" were greeted with great glee by
> > conservatives. O'Reilly joined them in denouncing Air
> > America and predicting its doom. Three to zero against
> Air
> > America. Fair and balanced? Right.
>
> It's amusing to read this criticism as this is something
> that every news outlet does. I guess it's only wrong when
> one's demon of choice does it, though.

Good answer. Good reason to Keep Cool With Coolidge!

(That was a 1924 Republican campaign slogan.)<P ID="signature">______________
<center>South Florida Radio Pages</center></P>
 
Not the same

>
> ABC and NBC originally were the NBC red channel and NBC blue
> channel. (Before my time, so I'm not sure which.)
>

This was in network radio, prior to 1941, when the Justic Department ordered RCA to divest one of its two networks. The terms Red Network and Blue Network were not used publicly before the divestiture when Edward J. Noble, owner of LifeSavers, started calling the network he acquired the Blue Network (later ABC). The terms were used by network and AT&T engineers - on the system maps, the network RCA acquired in 1926 from AT&T and fed by WEAF (now WFAN) was colored red and the network fed by Westinhouse's WJZ (now WABC) over Western Union lines was colored Blue. The terms were also used on rate cards prepared for advertisers. NBC offered two "basic" line-ups of stations plus supplementary stations which took programs from either or both networks and which advertisers could add to either set of basic stations. Red and Blue did not have same political meanings (Red indicated Communists, not Republicans) and neither line-up was politically oriented. The Blue network had the weaker line-up of stations. NBC used it to test new shows which could be moved to the stronger Blue Network, for shows produced by advertisers with less money to spend and for less popular cultural and public affairs programming. This included broadcasts by various news "commentators," each of whom presented his own take on the news from his own particular viewpoint (the only one of this type still left is Paul Harvey).
 
> If Fox News is really "fair and balanced", why do they have
> to tell us so?

its a positioning statement that brands the product. marketing 101. it was determined by research that found a large segment of the population was being underserved by the existing cable news products(and other news media), and the primary reason was a PERCEPTION by that underserved market that the existing cable news products (and other media) were not fair and balanced. so fox is doing what any company does... finds a hole in the market, tell the people what they are giving to them and then give it to them. whether fox is fair and balanced is a perception, and THAT becomes the network's reality. all fox cares about is attracting the largest market share, and it appears they are doing that.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom