Fox News Biased against Unbelievers

[Guest SerenityNow]

I'm so sick of FoxNews saying that they are "Fair and Balanced". Last night some idiot was saying that Atheists are the reason the ACLU is so anal against searches done on Arab men.

 

I'm sorry that people here in America have to be searched but the terrorists aren't playing favorites here, they'll blow up their race just as soon as look at em', just like they'll do to us. I might not be a Christian anymore but that shouldn't automatically put me in a category of blame for ease on terrorism. On the contrary, I think we that we should fight it HERE in the US, with everything that we have. That means protecting our borders and yes, searching based on appearance. It isn't Christians, African-Americans, Chinese, Japanese, Russians, etc. who are blowing up MASSES of people at a time on a REGULAR AND RECURRING BASIS, it is sadly people of Arab decent.

 

I wish Fox would quit lumping all unbelievers in a relax and pity the Arabs for being searched category. I'm all for them, AT THE TIME BEING, having to be inconveinced to ensure MY RIGHT TO LIFE and that of my loved ones and people of the United States.

 

****My husband believes this whole bias against atheism :-( I love him but this whole issue and evolution are something we can no longer discuss without blood pressures escalating. I tried to tell him that not all atheists fit the category that was being applied. Sadly, the snow job is lingering, hopefully in time he'll see things another way.

[Vixentrox]

Yeah, I seen that. He came off as a real freak. It looked to like the news casters were trying to hold back a laugh.

[☆ TexasFreethinker ☆]

I'm so sick of FoxNews saying that they are "Fair and Balanced".  Last night some idiot was saying that Atheists are the reason the ACLU is so anal against searches done on Arab men. 

 

I'm sorry that people here in America have to be searched but the terrorists aren't playing favorites here, they'll blow up their race just as soon as look at em', just like they'll do to us.  I might not be a Christian anymore but that shouldn't automatically put me in a category of blame for ease on terrorism.  On the contrary, I think we that we should fight it HERE in the US, with everything that we have.  That means protecting our borders and yes, searching based on appearance.  It isn't Christians, African-Americans, Chinese, Japanese, Russians, etc. who are blowing up MASSES of people at a time on a REGULAR AND RECURRING BASIS, it is sadly people of Arab decent. 

 

I wish Fox would quit lumping all unbelievers in a relax and pity the Arabs for being searched category.  I'm all for them, AT THE TIME BEING, having to be inconveinced to ensure MY RIGHT TO LIFE and that of my loved ones and people of the United States.

 

****My husband believes this whole bias against atheism :-(  I love him but this whole issue and evolution are something we can no longer discuss without blood pressures escalating.  I tried to tell him that not all atheists fit the category that was being applied.  Sadly, the snow job is lingering, hopefully in time he'll see things another way.

Agreed: Fox is the UN network - unfair and unbalanced.

 

*******

 

The reason I'm against race-based profiling is three-fold.

 

1. If you target someone based solely on their race/ethnicity, then you're going to piss off a lot of innocent people. The great majority of Arab men are not terrorists. Many have moved to this country because they whole-heartedly embraced our way of life and our freedoms. They escaped the existence they hated so much in middle east countries. Targeting them because they look Arabic does great harm to the faith they've placed in American justice and freedoms.

 

2. Terrorists are smart. If you start using racial profiling, they'll just switch tactics or use people who don't fit the profile. In other words, I think we'd be giving up our idea of fair justice for no additional security.

 

3. Profiling someone based solely on race gives the signal that it's ok to discriminate against those people. Sadly, many Americans don't need much incentive or validation to be prejudiced. If the government can discriminate based on race, then why shouldn't a restaurant be allowed to hang a "No Arabs" sign to "protect" their non-Arab customers from a potential attack?

 

*******

 

I'm not totally against profiling - I just think it must be more precise than race/ethnicity alone. It must include other factors that are pretty good indicators that a person should be suspected of being a terrorist.

 

Or, we could all just be required to use public transportation systems in the nude.

[Vixentrox]

They do have a point though...why waste money and time on searching 90 year old grandma with a walker? I mean, is it possible a terrorist could eventually use a 90 year old grandma? Sure. But until they do it's almost a waste of effort to search people who statistically are not a risk. Include just enough to make doubt in the terrorist's minds.

 

When I would do gate guard duty, we would have random checks of vehicles. ALL big trucks and tankers would be searched and often sniffed with a dog. Why? Simply becuase they could do the most damage if carrying a load of explosives. Same with vans, they would get searched before a VW Beetle. Why? Again becuase a van could carry more explosives. Does this mean that a VW would never get searched? No.....but the van was much more likely becuase it was a bigger threat.

[trashy]

I'm so sick of FoxNews saying that they are "Fair and Balanced".  Last night some idiot was saying that Atheists are the reason the ACLU is so anal against searches done on Arab men. 

So Fox should not have allowed this person on the air? Did any of the people actually being paid by Fox News contradict this person's view? Did they have any other guests on the show to contradict this person?

[trashy]

I didn't say that trashy.  Fox is ALWAYS condemning other news outlets for giving more air time to the liberal media.  IMO, FOX does the same with conservatives.  Like other news outlets they have someone to "balance" it out, however, it seems where the liberal media cuts in and out of the conservative view....Fox does so with the liberal view.  KWIM?  I don't think that they are any more "fair and balanced" than other news organizations. 

 

But no, they didn't have ANYONE at all defending his blanket statements about unbelievers ALWAYS siding with the ACLU on anti-terrorist efforts. Notice over there under gods that I'm a deist, not atheist.  It's like, unless you're a Christian, you're not for anti-terror steps.  That is what set me off.

I thought they had an ACLU person on, or were supposed to.

 

I have not heard any one else making such claims, though. It really doesn't make sense.

 

As far as Fox goes, I really don't get why people are so upset. Watch ABC or CBS or NBC or CNN. Who the heck cares if Fox leans the other way? They're just one of many news outlets. Or sue them over their tag line. Whatever.

[☆ TexasFreethinker ☆]

I thought they had an ACLU person on, or were supposed to.

 

I have not heard any one else making such claims, though.  It really doesn't make sense.

 

As far as Fox goes, I really don't get why people are so upset.  Watch ABC or CBS or NBC or CNN.  Who the heck cares if Fox leans the other way?  They're just one of many news outlets.  Or sue them over their tag line.  Whatever.

My problem with Fox is not that they're biased - it's that they claim to be unbiased when they clearly are on purpose.

 

The other major news networks at least seem to make an honest attempt to show both sides of a story. Fox doesn't.

 

I recommend seeing "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism" for example after example of Fox's anti-journalism. One great segment shows time after time how the White House's talking points become the talking points for each of Fox New's shows during the day. Another segment shows how all their shows went from being presidential prosecutors during the Clinton administration to presidential pardoners and cheerleaders for Bush.

 

I don't think conservative viewpoints shouldn't be shown on TV. I do think it's morally wrong to continually broadcast political propoganda disguised as objective news. But, it's a free country and people are free to watch what they want.

[trashy]

My problem with Fox is not that they're biased - it's that they claim to be unbiased when they clearly are on purpose.

Which is precisely the problem that conservatives have had with ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN for the last 30 years or so. You probably don't see that they are biased. So don't be surprised if conservatives don't see FOX as biased. Eye of the beholder, and all.

 

Trust me, for every problem you or the people who filmed 'Outfoxed' see over at Fox news there are decades of examples that can be documented of equally or perhaps MORE biased journalism at the other news outlets. So now conservatives have a news outlet that they can watch without jumping up and screaming at their TV every 5 minutes - so what? Why should any one give a rat's ass? Just go watch one of the other bajillion news shows. I still don't get all the outrage....

[trashy]

  That's true and that is precisely why I rarely watch any news at all.  My hubby loves em' and he loves Michael Savage. 

I got SO burned out on politics and news in general after the last election that I almost never check on it. We still listen to a local news/talk station in the morning while we get ready for work but if I can ever talk my wife into it I would switch to a podcast in a heartbeat. If I could rid myself of news completely I don't think I'd miss it. That's the problem with being neo-libertarian - conservatives AND liberals piss you off on a regular basis!

[trashy]

I think that they're all biased, but I'm not outraged.  The difference is that the other networks aren't claiming to be not-biased.  Regardless, I was just venting a little, this is the rants section ya know.

Actually, that's not true! ALL news outlets claim to be unbiased! They always have. They have been defending themselves against charges of bias from conservatives for a long time now, especially while Clinton was in office. Why do you think Fox chose that tag line to begin with? And why do you think they have become so popular?

[trashy]

FoxNews though does almost always uses Christianity in it's views.  Conservative doesn't always equal Christian and Liberalism doesn't always equal atheism.  But Fox does present those things as absolutes, forgetting that something like over 70% of this country claims to be Christian.

Most Christians would agree. That's why they're all watching Fox!

[Guest Son of Belial]

I think that they're all biased, but I'm not outraged.  The difference is that the other networks aren't claiming to be not-biased.  Regardless, I was just venting a little, this is the rants section ya know.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think they all claim to be unbiased, although it isn't in their "tagline" like Fox's. One of the whole purposes of a news media is to present just the facts and let the reader/viewer make the decision.

[Guest Son of Belial]

****My husband believes this whole bias against atheism :-(  I love him but this whole issue and evolution are something we can no longer discuss without blood pressures escalating.  I tried to tell him that not all atheists fit the category that was being applied.  Sadly, the snow job is lingering, hopefully in time he'll see things another way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If your husband knows you're an athiest, and knows you don't think this way, can't he put 2 and 2 together and see not "all athiests" are like this?

[☆ TexasFreethinker ☆]

Trust me, for every problem you or the people who filmed 'Outfoxed' see over at Fox news there are decades of examples that can be documented of equally or perhaps MORE biased journalism at the other news outlets. 

 

I still don't get all the outrage....

I'm not outraged. However, I do think all journalism should be as fair and unbiased as possible and I think any offenders should be called on it. I was upset with CBS News and Dan Rather for their discredited 60 Minutes report during the election.

 

As for the supposed liberal media bias from all the other major news outlets - I think that's convential wisdom that makes a good campaign slogan, but which has been shown in multiple studies to be false. The most famous of the studies taking a look at that can be found here.

 

As I said earlier - it's fine with me for conservative viewpoints to be shown. I have no problem with that and I think a balance is needed. However, it's not fine with me when a network intentionally twists the truth to support a specific political viewpoint on either side of the spectrum. Is that ok with you? Why should either of us watch that network to get our news?

[trashy]

As I said earlier - it's fine with me for conservative viewpoints to be shown.  I have no problem with that and I think a balance is needed.  However, it's not fine with me when a network intentionally twists the truth to support a specific political viewpoint on either side of the spectrum.  Is that ok with you?  Why should either of us watch that network to get our news?

I think that FAIR.org has less room to that claim than Fox does.....

 

Fair.org's Wikipedia entry

 

So you've quit watching CBS after the multiple Rather fiascos involving intentionally twisting the truth? No, that's not OK with me.

[☆ TexasFreethinker ☆]

I think that FAIR.org has less room to that claim than Fox does.....

 

Fair.org's Wikipedia entry

 

So you've quit watching CBS after the multiple Rather fiascos involving intentionally twisting the truth?    No, that's not OK with me.

I'm not sure why you'd say that about FAIR - is your judgment really based on what Wikipedia says about them?

 

Take a look at FAIR's section on Dan Rather - the supposed liberal media icon.

 

********

 

I guess my main problem is not so much with Fox News. It's with the people who make excuses for their journalistic failures. When any network plays loose and fast with the truth I am upset with them and want them to correct the mistake and avoid doing it again.

 

With many Fox News supporters, however, you don't hear that. Instead you hear excuses such as "well the other networks are doing it too." Is that really what we need - excuses for any network to give us less than unbiased reporting? Shouldn't we all be demanding that all the networks give unbiased reporting?

 

*******

 

And yes, I no longer watch CBS News - I felt that Dan Rather's style was too dramatic and that he was too eager to get the exclusive or be the first to report something. The election report was the last straw.

[trashy]

I'm not sure why you'd say that about FAIR - is your judgment really based on what Wikipedia says about them?

No - Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia. I was referring to the majority of their funding coming from organizations which label themselves as 'progressive' - like if Fox was funded by the Heritage Foundation .....

I guess my main problem is not so much with Fox News.  It's with the people who make excuses for their journalistic failures.  When any network plays loose and fast with the truth I am upset with them and want them to correct the mistake and avoid doing it again.

First, you would have to prove to me that Fox is guilty of journalistic failures then prove to me that they fail more consistently than the other networks. At that point I would gladly give up defending them. I simply disagree that they fail significantly.

 

From what I can see online the people behind Outfoxed are part of the liberal/progressive/whatever group that has one unifying characteristic: hatred of Bush. Jim Gilliam, Robert Greenwald, News Hounds - It takes less than five minutes at each site to find seething hatred for Bush. So a bunch of the anti-Bush crowd think that Fox is evil.....why should I find their take on Fox credible?

 

And my apologies for taking this thread a bit off-road.....

[☆ TexasFreethinker ☆]

No - Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia.  I was referring to the majority of their funding coming from organizations which label themselves as 'progressive' - like if Fox was funded by the Heritage Foundation .....

First, you would have to prove to me that Fox is guilty of journalistic failures then prove to me that they fail more consistently than the other networks.  At that point I would gladly give up defending them.  I simply disagree that they fail significantly.

 

From what I can see online the people behind Outfoxed are part of the liberal/progressive/whatever group that has one unifying characteristic:  hatred of Bush.    Jim Gilliam, Robert Greenwald, News Hounds - It takes less than five minutes at each site to find seething hatred for Bush.  So a bunch of the anti-Bush crowd think that Fox is evil.....why should I find their take on Fox credible?

 

And my apologies for taking this thread a bit off-road.....

If you're unwilling to consider evidence of Fox's extreme bias from anyone but a Bush supporter, obviously that's your decision to make.

 

I don't understand why you would feel the need to defend Fox, tho. I seems like anyone who's concerned about the importance of a free and unbiased press to our political system would want to urge all news outlets (especially the one they prefer to watch) to be unbiased and truthful.

 

The judgement of any news organization should be how truthful and unbiased they are as compared to the ideals of no bias and fully truthful. It seems useless to set the standard at "no worse then the rest".

[Vixentrox]

I watch two...CNN and Fox. Every once in a while I'll watch MSNBC to round it out.

[☆ TexasFreethinker ☆]

I watch two...CNN and Fox.  Every once in a while I'll watch MSNBC to round it out.

That's my approach too.

 

I read the Dallas Morning News (considered a conservative newspaper), watch ABC News, CNN, PBS, and monitor Reuters and BBC primarily on the internet. When I'm traveling for work I read USA Today and the Wall Street Journal. I even watch Fox once in a while just to see what they're saying on a topic that interests me.

 

I find I get the most candid news from The Daily Show on Comedy Central, tho!

[I Broke Free]

I find I get the most candid news from The Daily Show on Comedy Central, tho! 

 

 

I also find the Daily Show to be an interesting source of news. Yes, it is biased in favor of idiots because they make the most entertaining news clips, but you can’t blame them that most of the idiotic news is currently made by Republicans.

 

My major sources of news in order of how much time I spend reading or watching:

 

1) PBS News Hour

2) ABC News

3) Local Newscast

4) Yahoo News

5) Mediamatters.org

6) Fox News (for entertainment purposes only)

 

I have to admit that I am also a weather junkie. I can watch Mike Bettes for hours on the Weather Channel. Most of that time is spent fantasizing about a sexual encounter though.

[trashy]

If you're unwilling to consider evidence of Fox's extreme bias from anyone but a Bush supporter, obviously that's your decision to make. 

 

I don't understand why you would feel the need to defend Fox, tho.  I seems like anyone who's concerned about the importance of a free and unbiased press to our political system would want to urge all news outlets (especially the one they prefer to watch) to be unbiased and truthful.

No, my only requirement would be that the source we be at least open to the possibility that Bush isn't a Fascist dictator. Whether they 'support' Bush or not is of no concern to me. But I've logged quite a few hours watching Fox News myself and I have seen no evidence of this supposed bias. Again, eye of the beholder and all.

 

But who said I 'prefer' to watch Fox? I certainly made no such claim. And I don't feel a 'need' to defend Fox either. I'm just disagreeing with some of the observations made in this thread, that's all.

 

But this whole area of discussion is just one aspect of something I have observed on a much wider scale over the last several years. During Clinton's presidency conservatives were up in arms and in fear of an impending declaration of martial law. You name it, conservatives had a conspiracy theory about it, including the 'obvious' media bias and the infamous Clinton 'death list.' They absolutely could NOT understand why anyone would vote for him. But now that both Congress and the Executive Branch have gone Republican I see the reverse. All the good conspiracy theories belong to the liberals, the media is biased, and Bush is one step away from martial law. Further evidence of the extreme polarization in America, IMHO.

[☆ TexasFreethinker ☆]

And I don't feel a 'need' to defend Fox either.  I'm just disagreeing with some of the observations made in this thread, that's all.

Sorry - I based the defending remark based on what you said earlier...

 

At that point I would gladly give up defending them

 

My point is that every organization that puts itself out there as a bona fide news outlet should be held to equally high standards. No matter whether they have a liberal or libertarian or conservative point of view they could still turn out good, honest and fair news content and their viewers/readers/listeners should demand that they do.

[Cynical Realist]

I used to work as an audio tech for Fox news back in the 90s when it just started up and haven't been able to watch it without feeling like shooting the TV like Elvis for quite some time now. It's best for your blood pressure if you just don't watch it.

[Vigile]

They do have a point though...why waste money and time on searching 90 year old grandma with a walker?  I mean, is it possible a terrorist could eventually use a 90 year old grandma?  Sure.  But until they do it's almost a waste of effort to search people who statistically are not a risk.  Include just enough to make doubt in the terrorist's minds.

 

 

Ok, excuse my ignorance here, but if they stopped searching the 90 yo grandmas wouldn't they start using them to stash their goods or whatever? Have you seen the movie Blow?

 

Just playing devils advocate. I know a 90 yo is far fetched, but you get the point.