Opinion of FOX News

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

We don't have stuffs like that in France and i don't have Fox news either, but, according to the few I've seen from it, if I could i think i would watch it, surely in a kind of way to "feel the thrill"...

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Pure propaganda -nothing more.  I wish it were possible to ask the cable companies to take out specific channels, for this would definitely come front and center. 

There has been rumors of a future with a la carte channels for a long time now, don't know if it will ever come to pass.  We can dream.

It seems that a French DSL company, Free, has just launch an offer for it, saw an ad yesterday on TV.

Just curious, would someone have an enough precise idea of their audience in term of figures or rank in the US?

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

NBC Evening News had 8.3 million viewers last night.  cite
Fox News peaked at 2.9 million on Wed during prime time (last day numbers are available) cite

Yeah, Fox News is killing it...wait, what?

unfair to place cable and network on the same raw playing field and then pretend to derive anything from it.

At least we can say that Fox News became over the top on the cable. And can make the the 1/4 of the normal network, just according to figures dead0 posted.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Can't wait to see the usual assortment of hacks defend it as a legitimate news source and balanced network.

I'm not going to say that Fox News isn't bias... and horribly so, but I fail to see how that makes it any different from any other media outlet.  This bizarre notion that media outlets are supposed to be unbiased is an almost uniquely American one, and only in the last 50 or so years.  If you go almost anywhere else in the world, you will see that almost all journalism is tabloid journalism.  The British papers are about as reputable as the Weekly World News.  And to read the American papers that were around when the Founders proposed the first amendment would be like getting your news from the Daily Show... so the Founders were not basing their belief in freedom of the press on the notion that only "reputable" news sources should be allowed to cover the government.

There is no such thing as "unbiased".  People's opinions that one organization is more balanced than the others is based purely off of predetermined opinions.

Journalistic ethics are a farce.  There are no ethics in journalism.  Never have been, never will be.

I don't put my faith in any one opinion, or news organization.  I read the papers that I feel are the least bad, and use my judgment to filter out the crap.

That's how this works.  Not by declaring that one organization shouldn't be granted access because you don't like their stand on something.  If Bush did this to any news organization, can you imagine the anger that would cause with the people who are now giggling over Obama's exclusion of Fox News?

To declare a media outlet to not be a "real" news organization, and to use that as a basis for throwing them out of the loop... as a government...  If the National Enquirer wants to cover the Oval Office, the White House should credential them... they have a duty to do so.

According to what I've seen of them i wouldn't reproach them their biases. I totally agree unbiased things are just a myth. We can just congratulate those who try to be as unbiased as possible, that's all. And personally, I've nothing against clearly biased media, I find it rather pretty interesting that there are clearly biased media.

I wouldn't reproach them their bias yes, i would reproach them their totally trash methods of "journalism", on several levels, still according to the few i've seen of them.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Can't wait to see the usual assortment of hacks defend it as a legitimate news source and balanced network.

I'm not going to say that Fox News isn't bias... and horribly so, but I fail to see how that makes it any different from any other media outlet.  This bizarre notion that media outlets are supposed to be unbiased is an almost uniquely American one, and only in the last 50 or so years.  If you go almost anywhere else in the world, you will see that almost all journalism is tabloid journalism.  The British papers are about as reputable as the Weekly World News.  And to read the American papers that were around when the Founders proposed the first amendment would be like getting your news from the Daily Show... so the Founders were not basing their belief in freedom of the press on the notion that only "reputable" news sources should be allowed to cover the government.

There is no such thing as "unbiased".  People's opinions that one organization is more balanced than the others is based purely off of predetermined opinions.

Journalistic ethics are a farce.  There are no ethics in journalism.  Never have been, never will be.

I don't put my faith in any one opinion, or news organization.  I read the papers that I feel are the least bad, and use my judgment to filter out the crap.

That's how this works.  Not by declaring that one organization shouldn't be granted access because you don't like their stand on something.  If Bush did this to any news organization, can you imagine the anger that would cause with the people who are now giggling over Obama's exclusion of Fox News?

To declare a media outlet to not be a "real" news organization, and to use that as a basis for throwing them out of the loop... as a government...  If the National Enquirer wants to cover the Oval Office, the White House should credential them... they have a duty to do so.

According to what I've seen of them i wouldn't reproach them their biases. I totally agree unbiased things are just a myth. We can just congratulate those who try to be as unbiased as possible, that's all. And personally, I've nothing against clearly biased media, I find it rather pretty interesting that there are clearly biased media.

I wouldn't reproach them their bias yes, i would reproach them their totally trash methods of "journalism", on several levels, still according to the few i've seen of them.

But my point is that that doesn't even matter.  The debate shouldn't be about whether Fox is biased or not.  The debate is about whether that should matter.

The Founding Fathers used to pay newspapers to attack and print lies about their opponents.  Clearly they didn't think that the presses freedom to cover government affairs was contingent on how fair news outlets were.

This notion that new outlets should be fair is not only ridiculous, but it draws this debate into dangerous territory.

Oh personally, i wouldn't come with some legal measures about that, that's how it would come on a dangerous ground.

I just allow myself to criticize their methods from my point of view. Because, yep, me too, I'm not unbiased.