-
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
TV News Discussion "The Rado Factor with Bill O'Reilly" on Philadelphia radio
- Thread starter trolleyk
- Start date
Re: TV News Discussion "The Rado Factor with Bill O'Reilly" on Philadelphia radio
You see, here's the thing: studies of media bias in news coverage do not agree with you. To hear UCLA researchers tell it, it is FOX that is the balanced one. Or, closest to it. If you want unfair, you need look no further than NBC, CBS or CNN:
http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664
Perhaps you should actually watch the Fox News Channel before drinking the liberal kool aid! :
Surely you are smart enough to tell the difference between their news programming and their opinion shows, right? And, though many of their talk shows skew right - not all do (Geraldo is a great example of a lefty on Fox).
As for WNTP (back to the discussion), O'Reilly may actually be too moderate for the Salem-owned station. He wouldn't fit in with their present schedule.
trolleyk said:
You see, here's the thing: studies of media bias in news coverage do not agree with you. To hear UCLA researchers tell it, it is FOX that is the balanced one. Or, closest to it. If you want unfair, you need look no further than NBC, CBS or CNN:
http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664
Perhaps you should actually watch the Fox News Channel before drinking the liberal kool aid! :
Surely you are smart enough to tell the difference between their news programming and their opinion shows, right? And, though many of their talk shows skew right - not all do (Geraldo is a great example of a lefty on Fox).
As for WNTP (back to the discussion), O'Reilly may actually be too moderate for the Salem-owned station. He wouldn't fit in with their present schedule.
B
bk1808
Guest
Re: TV News Discussion "The Rado Factor with Bill O'Reilly" on Philadelphia radio
Bill O'Reilly is carried live on 1420, WCOJ.
Bill O'Reilly is carried live on 1420, WCOJ.
R
raydofan
Guest
Re: TV News Discussion "The Rado Factor with Bill O'Reilly" on Philadelphia radio
Your reading comprehension shines through again (all emphasis raydofan):
The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third.
"Our estimates for these outlets, we feel, give particular credibility to our efforts, as three of the four moderators for the 2004 presidential and vice-presidential debates came from these three news outlets — Jim Lehrer, Charlie Gibson and Gwen Ifill," Groseclose said. "If these newscasters weren't centrist, staffers for one of the campaign teams would have objected and insisted on other moderators."
The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet. While this news program proved to be right of center, the study found ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found.
"If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching Fox's 'Special Report' as ABC's 'World News' and NBC's 'Nightly News,' then they would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news," said Milyo, an associate professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Missouri at Columbia.
Oy, that is rather problematic...
Five news outlets — "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," ABC's "Good Morning America," CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown," Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and the Drudge Report — were in a statistical dead heat in the race for the most centrist news outlet. Of the print media, USA Today was the most centrist.
What is says, BRNout, is that one show on one mainly conservative network appears as slightly right as some on other networks appear slighty left. So, out of a 24/7 schedule, the Brit Hume 'outlet' (I know, that's confusing) 'balance' statistically is rather insignificant in the fourth place spot, don't you think?
What percentage of time is spent in the Fox news schedule on the Hume show?
I'll wait while you grab your abacus.
Wondering about your libational habits...
Surely you are as well. And I'm sure the researchers distinguished between 'commentary' and 'news'-and thought Hume was a news reader.
Thanks for your flawed input on this flawed study...
BRNout said:
Your reading comprehension shines through again (all emphasis raydofan):
The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third.
"Our estimates for these outlets, we feel, give particular credibility to our efforts, as three of the four moderators for the 2004 presidential and vice-presidential debates came from these three news outlets — Jim Lehrer, Charlie Gibson and Gwen Ifill," Groseclose said. "If these newscasters weren't centrist, staffers for one of the campaign teams would have objected and insisted on other moderators."
The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet. While this news program proved to be right of center, the study found ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found.
"If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching Fox's 'Special Report' as ABC's 'World News' and NBC's 'Nightly News,' then they would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news," said Milyo, an associate professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Missouri at Columbia.
Oy, that is rather problematic...
Five news outlets — "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," ABC's "Good Morning America," CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown," Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and the Drudge Report — were in a statistical dead heat in the race for the most centrist news outlet. Of the print media, USA Today was the most centrist.
What is says, BRNout, is that one show on one mainly conservative network appears as slightly right as some on other networks appear slighty left. So, out of a 24/7 schedule, the Brit Hume 'outlet' (I know, that's confusing) 'balance' statistically is rather insignificant in the fourth place spot, don't you think?
What percentage of time is spent in the Fox news schedule on the Hume show?
I'll wait while you grab your abacus.
Perhaps you should actually watch the Fox News Channel before drinking the liberal kool aid! :
Wondering about your libational habits...
Surely you are as well. And I'm sure the researchers distinguished between 'commentary' and 'news'-and thought Hume was a news reader.
Thanks for your flawed input on this flawed study...
Re: TV News Discussion "The Rado Factor with Bill O'Reilly" on Philadelphia radio
How is my comment flawed "raydo" fan? The original accusation was that Fox is "unfair and unbalanced," yet the survey says - not really and not so much as other outlets. It is quite apparent that, in your radically left wing mind, tilting (even slightly) to the right is the same thing as being horribly unbalanced. Even though the survey says this:
Five news outlets — "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," ABC's "Good Morning America," CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown," Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and the Drudge Report — were in a statistical dead heat in the race for the most centrist news outlet.
So, who needs to take a reading comprehension course? Certainly not me. The problem with you is that you see everything through a very leftist filter. Fox is "so unfair" for leaning a bit to the right. Yet, ABC and CNN lean equally to the left (a slight lean) and that's cool - apparently. Furthermore, the survey indicates that CBS and NBC are more biased to the left (overall) than FNC is to the right. That was my point. Which clearly sailed right over your head.
Actually, though I didn't post the link to it, a more in-depth look at the survey (beyond individual programs) paints FNC's actual news reporting very favorably in the category of being 'fair and balanced". Quite a bit more so than most other TV news outlets. The myth of "FOX, unfair and unbalanced" is just that, a myth. Independent studies show that FNC's coverage is really no more out of balance than any of the others. The differences are insignificant - only that FNC's bias is a bit to the right while ABC and CNN lean a bit left. NBC, CBS, etc. lean harder to the left - quite a bit more to the left than FNC leans right.
By the way, your quote...""If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching Fox's 'Special Report' as ABC's 'World News' and NBC's 'Nightly News,' then they would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news," said Milyo, an associate professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Missouri at Columbia.Oy, that is rather problematic..."...conveniently missed the rest of the statement: All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found.
In layman's terms, FNC is pretty close to center. But, because they are the only news outlet that lands a little to the right of center - they are different. But, the study indicates that FNC is pretty centrist none the less. AGAIN, THAT IS THE POINT THAT I AM TRYING TO MAKE.
Oh yeah and, when the study doesn't meet the requirements of your leftist, hippie, mind - it is "flawed". I like that. When UCLA researchers come to conclusions that you don't like, they are flawed. I appreciate the insight into the elitist, liberal mind. It represents an interesting combination of arrogance and naïveté. Fascinating.
Overall, your post was a nice try with the misdirection of quotes. But we're on to you. I think that you know better but, if not, read my post and the study again. And again. Until you actually understand what's being said here. Thanks.
raydofan said:Your reading comprehension shines through again (all emphasis raydofan):
The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third.
"Our estimates for these outlets, we feel, give particular credibility to our efforts, as three of the four moderators for the 2004 presidential and vice-presidential debates came from these three news outlets — Jim Lehrer, Charlie Gibson and Gwen Ifill," Groseclose said. "If these newscasters weren't centrist, staffers for one of the campaign teams would have objected and insisted on other moderators."
The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet. While this news program proved to be right of center, the study found ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found.
"If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching Fox's 'Special Report' as ABC's 'World News' and NBC's 'Nightly News,' then they would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news," said Milyo, an associate professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Missouri at Columbia.
Oy, that is rather problematic...
Five news outlets — "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," ABC's "Good Morning America," CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown," Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and the Drudge Report — were in a statistical dead heat in the race for the most centrist news outlet. Of the print media, USA Today was the most centrist.
What is says, BRNout, is that one show on one mainly conservative network appears as slightly right as some on other networks appear slighty left. So, out of a 24/7 schedule, the Brit Hume 'outlet' (I know, that's confusing) 'balance' statistically is rather insignificant in the fourth place spot, don't you think?
What percentage of time is spent in the Fox news schedule on the Hume show?
I'll wait while you grab your abacus.
Perhaps you should actually watch the Fox News Channel before drinking the liberal kool aid! :
Wondering about your libational habits...
Surely you are as well. And I'm sure the researchers distinguished between 'commentary' and 'news'-and thought Hume was a news reader.
Thanks for your flawed input on this flawed study...
How is my comment flawed "raydo" fan? The original accusation was that Fox is "unfair and unbalanced," yet the survey says - not really and not so much as other outlets. It is quite apparent that, in your radically left wing mind, tilting (even slightly) to the right is the same thing as being horribly unbalanced. Even though the survey says this:
Five news outlets — "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," ABC's "Good Morning America," CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown," Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and the Drudge Report — were in a statistical dead heat in the race for the most centrist news outlet.
So, who needs to take a reading comprehension course? Certainly not me. The problem with you is that you see everything through a very leftist filter. Fox is "so unfair" for leaning a bit to the right. Yet, ABC and CNN lean equally to the left (a slight lean) and that's cool - apparently. Furthermore, the survey indicates that CBS and NBC are more biased to the left (overall) than FNC is to the right. That was my point. Which clearly sailed right over your head.
Actually, though I didn't post the link to it, a more in-depth look at the survey (beyond individual programs) paints FNC's actual news reporting very favorably in the category of being 'fair and balanced". Quite a bit more so than most other TV news outlets. The myth of "FOX, unfair and unbalanced" is just that, a myth. Independent studies show that FNC's coverage is really no more out of balance than any of the others. The differences are insignificant - only that FNC's bias is a bit to the right while ABC and CNN lean a bit left. NBC, CBS, etc. lean harder to the left - quite a bit more to the left than FNC leans right.
By the way, your quote...""If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching Fox's 'Special Report' as ABC's 'World News' and NBC's 'Nightly News,' then they would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news," said Milyo, an associate professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Missouri at Columbia.Oy, that is rather problematic..."...conveniently missed the rest of the statement: All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found.
In layman's terms, FNC is pretty close to center. But, because they are the only news outlet that lands a little to the right of center - they are different. But, the study indicates that FNC is pretty centrist none the less. AGAIN, THAT IS THE POINT THAT I AM TRYING TO MAKE.
Oh yeah and, when the study doesn't meet the requirements of your leftist, hippie, mind - it is "flawed". I like that. When UCLA researchers come to conclusions that you don't like, they are flawed. I appreciate the insight into the elitist, liberal mind. It represents an interesting combination of arrogance and naïveté. Fascinating.
Overall, your post was a nice try with the misdirection of quotes. But we're on to you. I think that you know better but, if not, read my post and the study again. And again. Until you actually understand what's being said here. Thanks.
Re: TV News Discussion "The Rado Factor with Bill O'Reilly" on Philadelphia radio
I've got a question for you all-why, oh WHY is it so thuddingly necessary to inject personal political views in to all this? Isn't this more about RADIO than politics? I hate when this turns into a conservative=good, liberal=bad, and vice versa pissfest...There's always the Take it Outside section for that kind of playground foolishness.
Dave Gardiner
WVCH 740/WNWR 1540
Philadelphia
I've got a question for you all-why, oh WHY is it so thuddingly necessary to inject personal political views in to all this? Isn't this more about RADIO than politics? I hate when this turns into a conservative=good, liberal=bad, and vice versa pissfest...There's always the Take it Outside section for that kind of playground foolishness.
Dave Gardiner
WVCH 740/WNWR 1540
Philadelphia
R
raydofan
Guest
Re: TV News Discussion "The Rado Factor with Bill O'Reilly" on Philadelphia radio
There you go again with 'clearly'. What the paragraph says-again-is that this one show they mention from the accused right-wing network is centrist. Further, there are no qualitative notions to make either 'left' or 'right' other than what think tanks are used or cited, and what political leaders they are on par with. I have to read this study more closely to determine whether what language used or the perception of the audience and its mean intelligence or educational level has a quantitative (statistically in agreement) or qualitative effect-like the notion of connecting Iraq with 9-11. Which, by the way should have been studied at all media levels and outlets.
I'm sure you read all of it, too. Care to cite chaper and verse?
How about accuracy? Did they measure the information for factual basis? What part of the study includes this fact?
I believe I emphasized that, and they are also statistically in a dead heat. Presuming that people may look for both outlets is problematic. Do they provide such information vis a vis the audience?
In this case, 'outlet' = 'show', not organization. The Brite Hume show is called an outlet. 2nd time.
And you provide no indication from the actual study that demonstrates Fox as 'center' or 'fair' or 'balanced'.
You quoted the same article without going to the source. Please cite the original study.
Funny, the Cons I always meet in this venue are always of the same stripe: Same output of 'Liberal-Hippie' blah-blah, and a half-grasp of the language and facts, even the onnes that they say support their notions. Fascinating, and very expected that the Con's head is firmly planted in their cloaca.
It is flawed on a qualitative basis. Facts have no bias. Why don't we measure the use of the misleading statement and juxtaposition of words? Misdirection of facts? Once we have this 'bias conclusion', then the statements made by organizations can take different weight. 'ABC says this, Fox says that, but since Fox is actually centrist (read: fair) I will be inclined to re-examine my 'opinion on the facts'. I will have to fully read the study to determine what outside of measuring up against politicains and think tanks were used to get to the conclusions.
I don't trust any 'news' outlet. Grain of salt-sometimes the shaker-in view of what meta-mechanism is at work.
What is that link, by the way?
Dick Cheney says: '143'.
BRNout said:
There you go again with 'clearly'. What the paragraph says-again-is that this one show they mention from the accused right-wing network is centrist. Further, there are no qualitative notions to make either 'left' or 'right' other than what think tanks are used or cited, and what political leaders they are on par with. I have to read this study more closely to determine whether what language used or the perception of the audience and its mean intelligence or educational level has a quantitative (statistically in agreement) or qualitative effect-like the notion of connecting Iraq with 9-11. Which, by the way should have been studied at all media levels and outlets.
I'm sure you read all of it, too. Care to cite chaper and verse?
How about accuracy? Did they measure the information for factual basis? What part of the study includes this fact?
I believe I emphasized that, and they are also statistically in a dead heat. Presuming that people may look for both outlets is problematic. Do they provide such information vis a vis the audience?
In this case, 'outlet' = 'show', not organization. The Brite Hume show is called an outlet. 2nd time.
And you provide no indication from the actual study that demonstrates Fox as 'center' or 'fair' or 'balanced'.
You quoted the same article without going to the source. Please cite the original study.
Funny, the Cons I always meet in this venue are always of the same stripe: Same output of 'Liberal-Hippie' blah-blah, and a half-grasp of the language and facts, even the onnes that they say support their notions. Fascinating, and very expected that the Con's head is firmly planted in their cloaca.
It is flawed on a qualitative basis. Facts have no bias. Why don't we measure the use of the misleading statement and juxtaposition of words? Misdirection of facts? Once we have this 'bias conclusion', then the statements made by organizations can take different weight. 'ABC says this, Fox says that, but since Fox is actually centrist (read: fair) I will be inclined to re-examine my 'opinion on the facts'. I will have to fully read the study to determine what outside of measuring up against politicains and think tanks were used to get to the conclusions.
I don't trust any 'news' outlet. Grain of salt-sometimes the shaker-in view of what meta-mechanism is at work.
You read the study. I will-thoroughly. Will you?
What is that link, by the way?
Dick Cheney says: '143'.
Re: TV News Discussion "The Rado Factor with Bill O'Reilly" on Philadelphia radio
Let me put it this way:
If you are to visit Brent Bozell's Media Research Center, you'll media is strictly of a left-wing bias.
If you are to visit F.A.I.R and listen to Counterspin you'll learn media is strictly of a right-wing bias.
To date, I have found no such organization that looks for biases of both nature, which means the studies then biased themselves, becasue the researchers can't get over their biased selves to actually attempt a non-biased study.
Let me put it this way:
If you are to visit Brent Bozell's Media Research Center, you'll media is strictly of a left-wing bias.
If you are to visit F.A.I.R and listen to Counterspin you'll learn media is strictly of a right-wing bias.
To date, I have found no such organization that looks for biases of both nature, which means the studies then biased themselves, becasue the researchers can't get over their biased selves to actually attempt a non-biased study.
Re: TV News Discussion "The Rado Factor with Bill O'Reilly" on Philadelphia radi
This is ridiculous. We could take this case to the most learned minds on Earth or try it in the Supreme Court and you'd sit there and argue semantics with me. Anything to avoid facing the reality of the situation. This is like trying to reason with a pile of bricks - frustrating and fruitless.
My original statement was in answer to a poster who implied that Fox is unfair - moreso than others. I simply provided an independent study to bolster my argument that his opinion was not based in fact. It was more likely based on an opinion - successfully hatched by liberals - that FNC is so biased...even when compared with others. It's just a case of certain people being upset that every single media outlet isn't dominated by their school of thought.
Your little blog dance does not change reality; it's all spin.
One last thing: there are many posters here who clearly cannot write their way out of a paper bag. And, I am not criticizing them - they just want to vent their opinions too. And they have a right to. However, I am not one of those people - so don't question my grasp of the English language. I know it pretty well.
raydofan said:
This is ridiculous. We could take this case to the most learned minds on Earth or try it in the Supreme Court and you'd sit there and argue semantics with me. Anything to avoid facing the reality of the situation. This is like trying to reason with a pile of bricks - frustrating and fruitless.
My original statement was in answer to a poster who implied that Fox is unfair - moreso than others. I simply provided an independent study to bolster my argument that his opinion was not based in fact. It was more likely based on an opinion - successfully hatched by liberals - that FNC is so biased...even when compared with others. It's just a case of certain people being upset that every single media outlet isn't dominated by their school of thought.
Your little blog dance does not change reality; it's all spin.
One last thing: there are many posters here who clearly cannot write their way out of a paper bag. And, I am not criticizing them - they just want to vent their opinions too. And they have a right to. However, I am not one of those people - so don't question my grasp of the English language. I know it pretty well.
R
raydofan
Guest
Re: TV News Discussion "The Rado Factor with Bill O'Reilly" on Philadelphia radi
You provide no proof for your arguments, and now you retreat behind your 'reason' as if you had any power thereto. Reason requires analysis. You don't analyze. You regurgitate. Big difference.
What interpretation of 'reality' are you laboring under?
I don't like to think of it as a 'right-wing' bias as much as a 'lack of critical thinking skills' bias. Which, by the way, does not describe F_x alone. There are degrees of it. F_x happens to offer a particular noxious brand of this rhetoric.
The study (which you still have balked on and refuse to quote) is certainly flawed. It does not measure anything but an obtuse collection of happenstance. But you didn't read it because it is-perhaps-a bit too dense for your comprehension skills. Prove me wrong.
If that's the case, then you're an anancephalic dervish.
That's right. You put the ___ in diction.
BRNout said:
You provide no proof for your arguments, and now you retreat behind your 'reason' as if you had any power thereto. Reason requires analysis. You don't analyze. You regurgitate. Big difference.
What interpretation of 'reality' are you laboring under?
I don't like to think of it as a 'right-wing' bias as much as a 'lack of critical thinking skills' bias. Which, by the way, does not describe F_x alone. There are degrees of it. F_x happens to offer a particular noxious brand of this rhetoric.
The study (which you still have balked on and refuse to quote) is certainly flawed. It does not measure anything but an obtuse collection of happenstance. But you didn't read it because it is-perhaps-a bit too dense for your comprehension skills. Prove me wrong.
If that's the case, then you're an anancephalic dervish.
That's right. You put the ___ in diction.
- Status