Fox News vs CNN
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-10-2017, 10:11 PM
RE: Fox News vs CNN
(29-09-2017 07:47 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(12-04-2017 08:18 PM)yakherder Wrote:  My view is that anyone who relies on either Fox or CNN to tell them what's going on in the world probably has no Censored'ing idea what's going on in the world.

As crazy as it sounds, I was very impressed with Al Jazeera on several of the stories I have seen them do. I watched them when I was in South Africa for a week earlier this year. They were reporting on stuff from around the world. I know that they wouldn't do something that would make the Saudis look bad or anything, but in terms of what they were reporting, it was pretty diverse from what I saw.

I live in the Near East and discovered Al Jazeera back around the time of the Gaza problems. Initially, I thought it provided good cover of news generally in an unbiased way and I was upset at the imprisonment of its journalists in Egypt.

After watching it regularly through both the Palestinian uprising and the initial stages of the Syrian conflict, I realised it had a very distinct bias. In its Syrian coverage they did a piece called "Notes from Aleppo" in which they interviewed anti-Assad fighters who were using six year old boys to fight saying they would keep sending them out to die, they would go to Allah etc. In the Gaza coverage, the reported from inside Gaza and in one report the reporter was standing outside an improvised court where they had summarily tried half a dozen "traitors" and then taken them outside and shot them. The reporter reported it as though this was "ok" because they had received some sort of judicial treatment. All the coverage was aimed at making the whole thing look and feel one sided against Israel. It was through this coverage that I realised what the concerns about Al Jazeera are, that it gives support for terrorism through its biased cover.

As for Fox and CNN, I think the problem for CNN is that if they were just like the traditional BBC, with stiff, staid news presenters, they would be accused by the right wing in the USA of being biased against the right because the right, these days, can't seem to deal with the truth. They call it "fake news", so it's better to have a range of panelists. After all, they rely on advertising so they are in a dilemma. It's easier for them to allow people who aren't formally attached to them as employees to put out the different views and let them slug it out. At least you get a flavor of the views on a subject. I actually think it works quite well and you get a well rounded idea of what the stories are about.

Fox is just one of the strangest viewing experiences I have ever had. I can't watch it for long because it makes me feel ill. Every piece they run has to have a slant, that everything that's happening now is an illegitimate conspiracy against Donald J Trump and that he is a good guy who deserves a chance to implement these wonderful policies he has. I can't stand Hannity or the other guy, name eludes me, bow tie preppy. Why on earth do they have to tie themselves to Trump. It's like tying yourself to the mast of a sinking ship. Then there are Fox and Friends which is a joke and some other program where they have four or five women with short skirts, long legs and high heals on a sofa with, usually, some middle aged guy in the middle. These ladies are really fierec They seem to film this from knee level like it's some sort of soft porn meets news show. It's put me right off legs,to be honest.

Speaking as a non-American, I think it's hard for people outside the US to fathom who and what the audience for Fox is, because the views are so biased and stupid.

H L Mencken wrote about this and it still applies today:

In his usual dry way, Mencken also poked fun at the idea that most people wanted the content of newspapers to be more substantive and intellectual than what tabloids typically offered.

He opined that when a tabloid became successful the owner often tried to make it more respectable and “reach out for customers of a higher sophistication.”

Mencken said that was a mistake and, near the end of column, summed up why by writing the words that were later turned into the shorter famous “quote” about underestimating the intelligence of the American public.

His actual words were:

“No one in this world, so far as I know — and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me — has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.”

Over time, this longer quote came to be paraphrased and misquoted, most commonly in the form “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.”

In the column, Mencken continued his thoughts about the public’s choices in reading matter and politicians by adding:

“The mistake that is made always runs the other way. Because the plain people are able to speak and understand, and even, in many cases, to read and write, it is assumed that they have ideas in their heads, and an appetite for more. This assumption is a folly.”

Looking around at the media and political landscape today, Mencken’s opinion might be deemed more prescient than ever. Ref. This day in Quotes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Deltabravo's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: