The Tea Party Strikes Again.

[muttly]

I never claimed CNN had journalistic integrity, only that they aren't hypocritical. Fox News doesn't have journalistic integrity and they are hypocritical about it. Ragging (deflecting the issue) on CNN or any other news source doesn't magically make Fox News have integrity or not be hypocritical. Fox News still claims to be Fair and Balanced when they are not, and they claim to have journalistic integrity when they don't. Nothing that CNN could possibly do can change that.

I'm not deflecting on CNN. YOU made a comment about them and I responded to it. I think you are grasping and feverishly rationalizing by distinguishing that CNN isn't hypocritical. Most of the slogans News Networks have are synonymous and similar to each other. 'All the news that's FIT to print' is another one.(New York Times) They basically mean the same thing. Integrity, honesty, and objectivity in presenting the news. To say CNN or any other Network with a similar slogan, isn't hypocritical except for Fox News is disingenuous.

 

[cheri1122]

Muttly: since you don't seem to understand the difference between real journalism and tabloids, here's a quick 'cheat' to decide: if the sidebars & slideshows lean strongly towards nubile females in states of undress, it's tabloid 'journalism'.
And the corollary for network news is that if the presenters look like 'eye candy', ditto. [I mean the women, of course, men don't need to look good to be successful.]

 

[muttly]

Muttly: since you don't seem to understand the difference between real journalism and tabloids, here's a quick 'cheat' to decide: if the sidebars & slideshows lean strongly towards nubile females in states of undress, it's tabloid 'journalism'.
And the corollary for network news is that if the presenters look like 'eye candy', ditto. [I mean the women, of course, men don't need to look good to be successful.]

Does magazine covers count?
Attack of the 50-Foot Palin | Mother Jones

 

[RLENT]

Does magazine covers count?
Attack of the 50-Foot Palin | Mother Jones

Ahhh ... does ?

 

[Turtle]

I'm not deflecting on CNN. YOU made a comment about them and I responded to it.

Actually Aristotle made a comment about CNN and I responded to it, mentioning the difference between them and Fox News is that CNN isn't hypocritical. You apparently don't know what "hypocritical" means. I noted that Fox News is hypocritical because they claim to be something that they are not (Fair and Balanced) whereas CNN doesn't make a claim they can be hypocritical about.

Now you think all news slogans mean the same thing, which is ridiculous because they don't. Headline News' slogan from 1983-1999 was "Anytime, All the Time" which has exactly zero to do with "integrity, honesty, and objectivity in presenting the news." It simply means they are there a really, really lot. All the time, any time you want. If they only broadcast 12 hours a day instead of anytime all the time, they would be hypocritical. And I would have called them on it.

Their current slogan is "News and Views" which you claim means ""integrity, honesty, and objectivity in presenting the news," but I'm sorry, it doesn't. It just doesn't mean that at all. It means they present news, and views of that news. Unless they present something other than news and views, like several hours of Tom and Jerry cartoons in the afternoon and then reruns of Barney Miller and Night Court in the evenings, they wouldn't be hypocritical with their slogan.

CNN's currently slogan is "This is CNN," which, to you, clearly means "integrity, honesty, and objectivity in presenting the news."

Hypocrisy is claiming to possess virtues, beliefs or principles which you do not actually possess. "The most trusted name in news" is not a virtue, belief or principle. Claiming to be "Fair and Balanced" is both a virtue and a principle, and when you are neither, as Fox News is, it's hypocritical to say you are.

I think you are grasping and feverishly rationalizing by distinguishing that CNN isn't hypocritical.

It's not grasping nor feverishly rationalizing, it's a stone-cold fact. CNN does not claim to possess virtues, beliefs or principles which they do not possess.

Most of the slogans News Networks have are synonymous and similar to each other. 'All the news that's FIT to print' is another one.(New York Times) They basically mean the same thing. Integrity, honesty, and objectivity in presenting the news.

That's why when Rupert Murdock looks at you he sees dollar signs, because you actually believe that, and when Fox News tells you anything, like they are fair and balanced, you believe it, and not only that, you believe they have integrity, honesty and objectivity in presenting a partisan take on the news. The NYT slogan says nothing about integrity, honesty or objectivity. All it says is the NYT will print something if it's news. If it's not news they won't print it.

To say CNN or any other Network with a similar slogan, isn't hypocritical except for Fox News is disingenuous.

Now you're doing what Fox News does, you're saying "You can't make this stuff up" while you're making it up, in the hopes that people will believe you aren't making it up because you told them you aren't making it up.

Why don't you just come out with it, say what you mean... "Don't be hatin' on my beloved Fox News! I heart my Fox News. They're great! They gots integerdy! They tell it like it is, man!"

 

[muttly]

I was responding to your comment about CNN, which began with Aristotle and you accused me of deflecting because I mentioned CNN. You can't make this stuff up. I also said MOST slogans, not all. I'm sure most news organizations who want to stay in business desire to have credibility with their viewers/readers. I'm sure most don't want slogans like: Here is our news, take or leave it. Regarding the NYT's. The key word is FIT (to print). Meaning, that the news story must be credible and done with honest and integrity to be in our paper. It is an obvious inference.It must have a level of 'fit'ness and meet our rigorous standards. Not any news whether it's true or not, just because it's news.
From article:
In 1897, Adolph S. Ochs, the owner of The New York Times, created the famous slogan "All the News That's Fit to Print," which still appears on the masthead of the newspaper today. He wrote the slogan as a declaration of the newspaper's intention to report the news IMPARTIALLY .

 

[Turtle]

I was responding to your comment about CNN, which began with Aristotle and you accused me of deflecting because I mentioned CNN. You can't make this stuff up.

No, you can't make it up. In Post 113 you attempted to change the topic to that of CNN. I tried to bring it back in context in 116, but you went with 118 to deflect integrity away from Fox News and at CNN. As a way of not confronting the issues of Fox, you want to talk about CNN and their slogans and integrity. That's a deflection.

I also said MOST slogans, not all.

I know what you said, and you're wrong. You stated MOST news networks have slogans that are synonymous and similar to each other, and then used a newspaper slogan, not a news network, as an example. But MOST news networks don't have similar slogans that mean the same thing.

Slogans are advertising tools, nothing more. The ones what use superlatives are the ones which are the least meaningful. And the more preposterous the advertising slogan, the greater the number of repetitions required to mallet the message into the audience's consciousness. For example, Fair and Balanced. You can't go 7 minutes without seeing or hearing that one. Another great example is when CNN was geared up for elections, and during the primaries they couldn't announce enough that they had "The best political team on television." Which means nothing (and it certainly doesn't mean "integrity, honesty or objectivity"). It means as much as "nothing works harder than Tylenol." Which means nothing.

CNN doesn't even use the most trust name slogan any more, they now use Go There, which means almost as much as much about "integrity, honesty or objectivity" as it does Tylenol, which is nothing.

CNN - Go There
(CNN International - Go Beyond Borders)

HLN - We're Not the News Network, You Are.

Fox News - Real Journalism.

Fair and Balanced.
​

MSBNC - Lean Forward

The Place For Politics
​

Al Jazeera America - There's More To It

Your Global News Leader
Change The Way You Look At News
Where News Is The Star
​

One America News Network - Your Nation - Your News

The Blaze - The Network YOU Are Building

The Truth Has No Agenda
​

I'm sure most news organizations who want to stay in business desire to have credibility with their viewers/readers. I'm sure most don't want slogans like: Here is our news, take or leave it.

Well, lets take a look at the network news slogans above.

CNN's in borderline meaningless, although it's supposed to induce thoughts of them taking you places with and for the news. It's awe and wonder, and has feel-good written all over it. CNN International is a variation on a theme (CNN International, incidentally, is the world's most watched news network, by a wide margin). It doesn't make claims about "integrity, honesty or objectivity".

HLN's slogan means they want to be the news network of the Social Media Generation. They might as well use, "We're not giving you the news, you're giving it to us and then we're giving it right back to you." Time Warner wants that puppy to make some money, so they're ripping their headlines right from Twitter and Facebook.

Fox News' slogan is a direct and implicit claim of journalistic "integrity, honesty and objectivity".

MSNBC doesn't address "integrity, honesty or objectivity" at all, they are progressing, moving forward, not leaning back and remaining static. And it's all about politics. They own their agenda.

Al Jazeera America makes the claim, straight up, that you're not getting the full story elsewhere, and that they're all about the news rather than about what's seen under the glass tables. It goes directly to journalistic integrity in telling the full story. (They're the only network news channel that comes close to living up to their own hype, BTW. They're surprisingly good and shockingly unbiased.)

One America News Network is back to the meaningless "nothing works harder" territory with this is your nation and we have your news, and those other news places don't have your news, so watch us pretty please! Their slogan has nothing to do with "integrity, honesty or objectivity".

TheBlaze's slogans appeal directly to its subscribers who pay $5 a month to receive it. Without you we wouldn't be here, so see how important you are? Oh, and we only tell the truth, and we have no agenda, so we have integrity, too. They appeal directly to "integrity, honesty or objectivity".

So no, MOST news networks do not, in fact, have slogans that are synonymous and similar to each other. One of them makes the claim of integrity mostly backs it up. Two make the claim hypocritically. Three just say watch me, please. And one says we have an agenda and here it is.

 

[muttly]

You'll have to add ABC News and CBS News to the hypocrisy list:
ABC launched a slogan in early 2012, which says 'See The Whole Picture.' Meaning the whole story done with integrity and objectivity.
Do they always do that? No . I can cut and paste countless stories from the MRC that point out their bias, or one can check it out for themselves.
CBS News uses the slogan 'Original Reporting'. A slogan referring to the golden days of journalism. Do they live up to that standard? Go ask Sheryl Attkisson.
Hypocrisy from these two Networks. Check and check.
Sharyl Attkisson

 

[Turtle]

Oh, hypocrisy abounds, but your premise was limited to news networks, not news programs or divisions. I could have a field day with local news.

 

[RLENT]

Does magazine covers count?
Attack of the 50-Foot Palin | Mother Jones

While you're about hittin' that old dictionary and bonin' up on the actual meanings of words (Yes Virginia ... words do have actual meanings ... and proper usages) you may wish to check out "nubile" ...

(And while you're there, scope out the proper usage of "does" vs. "do" ... and "parody" and "satire" too ... )

 

[Pilgrim]

That's rich. Sometimes I wonder if you even know how to craft an argument without basing it on a logical fallacy. One of the most egregious and unoriginally dogmatic logical fallacies is the argumentum ad populum, otherwise known as the appeal to the majority, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, the bandwagon fallacy, and as argumentum ad numerum.

Nice try, but that's not the argument and it's off subject. My response was to the unfounded assertion that more accurate news could be found on a comedy show than on Fox News. I singled out Special Report because it's a news show, not commentary. It dominates the ratings because the cable-viewing public has determined it's the best show in its time slot. By using your irrelevant argument basis, it would appear there's a disproportionate number of conservatives in the viewing public and the subject matter in Special Report is tailored to them. This of course is not the case. We're talking about a business here, and consumers naturally gravitate to the best product. This includes all those moderates in the center of the Bell Curve, not just those on the far right.

Fox News has never won an award for journalism excellence, and until they start being a news organization instead of a comedy channel, they aren't likely to.

Fox News... Real Journalism. Fair and Balanced.

Now that's funny.

What are the sources of these awards? Maybe organizations like Columbia University? Google has a list that's easily found but too long to copy here. Reminds me of Obama winning the Pulitzer Prize before he'd hardly issued his first executive order.

That's the problem, they DON'T have some excellent news reporting in their news reports. It's far from excellent. It's mediocre at its best, and at its worst it's political commentary interspersed with or disguised as news. And that's not a bias, it's a fact.

Granted, they have quite a few commentary programs, as does CNN, MSNBC, and the other cable channels. Fox consistently dominates the viewership and ratings, and in doing so generates more profits. I'll emphasize again, they conduct a successful business that attracts more customers (viewers).

No, they don't have any excellent reporting. The news they report, and I mean the actual Five Ws, not the news interspersed with opinion and bias, is not excellent at all. They offer nothing whatsoever that you don't get anywhere else. There is no investigative journalism, no independent sources or independent confirmations, it's the same mediocre news you get at the other news outlets. You can call that a bias if you like, but it's nevertheless a fact.

Man, you are really heavily invested, aren't you? You actually believe that Fox News is "Real Journalism" and that they're "Fair and Balanced." And you think the entire lib world is out to get 'em. You are so invested that you think not only is everyone on that list a lib, but they're on the list because they are liberal. I'm sure you think Bob Schieffer is a member of the mainstream media with a default liberal agenda, therefore ergo thus he is a liberal, a flaming one, a certified wacko leftist neo communist. And you'll dismiss that he graduated from Texas Christian University and is close friends with the Bush family, compared Harry Reid to Joseph McCarthy and often critizes Obama and his campaign. He works for CBS and that's all that matters, right? Schieffer is actually an old school journalist who's goals in his reporting are impartiality, not at all like the current crop journalist-activists weaned on Fox News and MSNBC.

Like I said, if you want to say that you like Fox News because they agree with you, that's fine, but please don't try and convince people that Fox News provides anything remotely akin to journalistic excellence, because they don't.

Not really. First, most news media isn't even left-of-center and the stories don't come from a left-of-center ideology. Most news media makes the attempt at objective reporting of the facts, so they are mostly centrist in their reporting. Granted, sure, yeah, their reporting isn't conservative, so that makes them leftist liberals in the eyes of conservatives (it's the whole "if you're not with us you are against us" mentality). Generally speaking, the liberal media tends to let the facts guide the story while conservative media, generally speaking, lets the agenda drive the facts. Allowing the agenda to dictate the facts is fundamentally flawed if you want to get the story right and objectively relay the story. There are certainly examples of leftist media allowing their agenda to drive the facts, but they aren't the mainstream media, despite the claims of conservatives. Conservatives make that assertion simply because the mainstream media isn't conservative, so thus the MSM is leftist with an agenda in their coverage. But when you allow the agenda to drive the facts of reporting, you will inexorably set yourself up to get the story wrong more often than not, which is what Fox News does on a regular basis. They do it every time they report opinion as fact as a means of influencing its viewers, and reporting opinion as fact is the bread and butter of Fox News. So to state Fox News gets it wrong no more or no less than other news channels is simply not accurate. Agenda-driven reporting will always be less accurate than fact-driven reporting.

Fox News gets singled out, because they are, as some people like to cherish, the most watched news source, and the most trusted source for news, and because they are both fair and balanced. The facts, however, show Fox News to be none of the above. 0-4

After all your quotes trashing Fox News, here's one to tie a ribbon around the package, from a thread titled Leftist Censorship, your post #107 dated 2/22/2013 (bold emphasis mine):

Originally posted by Turtle:
My disagreement is that not all of the mistakes they claim are mistakes are actually mistakes, that some of them are intentional. The "mischievous speculation" is just the tip of that iceberg. There is no question that Fox News makes some truly honest mistakes, but again, how many of their random, honest mistakes are mistakes slanted in favor of the left? None. All of their mistakes are slanted in favor of the right, rather than being randomly slanted in either direction as would be the case with truly honest mistakes. It's certainly possible, but not very probable that each and every mistakes puts the left in a bad light. Human nature and human error being what it is makes it a virtual statistical impossibility.

I don't think there is any question that the left-leaning MSM networks lie all the time, and do so intentionally. CNN leans so far left you practically have to lie on the floor to watch them. By the same token, so does Fox, because they are the flip-side of that same coin token.

So, we're left with two possible scenarios with Fox News. One, they are so inept and so incompetent as to make mistake after mistake, all favoring the right, that they constantly have to apologize for, or two, they are not incompetent and inept at all and most of their "mistakes" aren't mistakes. It's my opinion that in either case they are neither reliable nor credible, and cannot be trusted.

Fox News does present opposing viewpoints more often than the left MSM media, no question. They're not even as far-right conservative as people think they are (they're actually quite centrist and even liberal on many issues, and they're particularly weak at criticizing the gay agenda and abortion issues. They found Sarah Palin to be too conservative, which is why they didn't renew her contract). But there's a meaning to everything Fox News does, and it's not just to be "Fair and Balanced," rest assured. The notion of "fair and balanced" is pure marketing, pure propaganda. Watch Fox News for any random hour and see how often you read or hear that phrase. If you repeat something enough times, people will believe it. Recognize it when you see it. It's a safe bet that if you're told something, anything, over and over and over again, it's something that should be doubted. Because, for some reason they really, really want you to believe it, and more than likely you believing it is more in their interest than your own.

As Roger Ailes, the President of Fox News, so aptly noted about the left MSM networks, "if those networks actually did fair and balanced, we'd be out of business."

Ironically, by Faux News (there's a reason they're known by that name) using "fair and balanced" as a propaganda slogan when they're not really and truly fair and balanced, it actually allows liberal propaganda, lies, deceit, and half-truths to gain an audience of hard core believers who reject the conservative propaganda, lies, deceit, and half-truths.

Still, to be fair if not balanced, all is not lost for Fox, as among all the major broadcast and cable news networks, they have the one, single, unique straightforward news show that is truly fair and balanced with a centrist, non-biased slant, that news show being Special Report with Brit Hume. It stands alone above the crap on all of the networks.

All things considered, maybe they're not so bad after all.

 

[muttly]

After seeing all these contradictory quotes I'm thoroughly confused.

 

[muttly]

Since we have established that CBS News have their own issues with bias as evident by my link about Sheryl Attkison, it should also be noted that it exists with the lead news anchor Scott Pelley as well. First off, I think he has some excellent journalistic qualities. His Wikipedia page has compliments even from conservatives. My issue with him is that sometimes he has bias in his news,but he is held to a different standard than a conservative journalist. A few years ago he omitted any guests on his show which had an opposing view to global warming. A purely agenda driven move based on his own bias toward Global Warming. Did this blatant bias hurt him in receiving awards from various left leaning organizations? No. Check out this quote from this 'prestigious' organization : In 2012 Columbia Journalism Review wrote, "In Pelley, CBS has probably the most well-qualified and proven television journalist ever to ascend to the anchor job. Hmmm. No mention of the global warming flap. They must have agreed with him.
I think there is a double standard.
CBS 'Global Warming Special' Host Likened Warming Skeptics to Holocaust Deniers | NewsBusters

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Pelley

 

[Turtle]

After seeing all these contradictory quotes I'm thoroughly confused.

The reason you're confused is they aren't contradictory at all.

Since we have established that CBS News has their own issues with bias as evident by my link about Sheryl Attkison, it should also be noted that it exists with the lead news anchor Scott Pelley as well.

So, we're talking about CBS News now? Like I said earlier, deflecting the issue away from Fox News doesn't magically make Fox News a new organization with "integrity, honesty or objectivity" or that Fox News delivers excellence in Journalism, which is your assertion.

 

[muttly]

The reason you're confused is they aren't contradictory at all.

So, we're talking about CBS News now? Like I said earlier, deflecting the issue away from Fox News doesn't magically make Fox News a new organization with "integrity, honesty or objectivity" or that Fox News delivers excellence in Journalism, which is your assertion.

We have two separate threads going that have morphed into a similar topic. My argument isn't really about Fox News, it's about the hypocrisy on the left when choosing journalism awards. I have given you an example like the Cronkite award given overwhelmingly to people on the left . I also gave you an example of how a news anchor showed his blatant bias regarding global warming.but still rakes in the journalism awards. The reason why is because there is a double standard. A conservative network journalist hasn't won any. You mean they never have exhibited a journalistic piece worthy of an award for 18 years? Seriously, it's comical if you believe that. Whatever you feel about Fox News and their credibility, it's incredulous to think they haven't produced AN AWARD WINNING PIECE.

 

[Turtle]

I'll respond in more detail when I get a chance, but for now, it appears you don't fully grasp what hypocrisy means. It also appears you really don't understand what journalism is and therefor what goes into it to make it excellent. That's evident by your example of the global warming bias. Also, if you want conservative journalists to win awards, then you should start handing them out. Create an award and then name your winners. Every organization that hands out awards does so using whatever criteria they choose. If you are so outraged that Fox News hasn't won an award for journalistic excellence, you should voice your displeasure with those giving out the awards, being prepared to give examples of excellent journalism and the reasons you think they are award worthy. Reasons should not include statements such as, "It's got a beat and you can dance to it. I give it an 89, Dick."

 

[muttly]

The hypocrisy is when the left has contempt for conservatives in the media, whatever bias that might be, and is so apoplectic about it they refuse to acknowledge the excellent journalism they also provide, At the same time they wholeheartedly accept the leftist bias and shower them with awards. HYPOCRISY.

 

[cheri1122]

I think what Barkley means is "Liberals rule. [Conservatives Drool.]
I'll admit, however, that after reading the stunning statement "consumers naturally gravitate to the best product", [so, that means Subway really makes the best sandwiches, and McDonald's the best burger?!] it feels like my brainpan sprung a leak. Or this is the Twilight Zone....

 

[aristotle]

More thoughts on Fox News and CNN. Each news channel appeals to a certain audience. From my point of view after watching CNN since its inception by Ted Turner, CNN reflects more of an international flavor than does Fox. CNN projects a "no borders/ we are the world" mentality. CNN is likely to be more popular in Blue states where liberal thinking prevails.

Fox News is going to be more well received in fly-over country. Attentive FNC viewers will notice several Fox reporters and anchors wear small US flag emblems and/or necklaces bearing the Christian cross. This display is going to strike a chord with the traditional American masses. In rural areas and small towns all across this nation, traditional values still reign. This implicit message being an acknowledgement and embrace of those values. In other words, FNC comes across as pro-American, whereas CNN might as well be headquartered out of the United Nations building in New York.

In short, CNN projects an internationalist flavor, while Fox News plays to the traditional home crowd. Each network does an excellent job appealing to their targeted audience. The American people are well served by having these two strong choices. There is an appetite for both. To each his own.

 

[Jamin_Joe]

In my opinion, government at all levels lost their fundimental role, they are representitives of the people and not arrogent experts on how people should live. Since I casted my first vote, the major important issues have not been corrected. The number one concern of people I know is. Will I be able to keep up with my living expenses and be able to afford my childs education. Law makers keep drifting from the main issues and political BS keeps major concerns from being successfully dealt with. The old money, power and prestege motives have poluted our political systems. I believe that there is a need for some government regulation, keeping toxins out of the air with in reason for example, BUT they go too far most of the time. The Contitution is supposed to keep the Government from over-reaching their authority and is not a "Living breathing document" that can be minipulated for political gain. PERIOD Im stating to think term limits may be a good idea.