babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » I just watched Fox News for the first time...

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: I just watched Fox News for the first time...
Bam359
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9788

posted 30 November 2005 04:43 AM      Profile for Bam359     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
wow, just WOW. Is it normal to have to pick your jaw up from off the floor after watching Fox news for the first time My eyes watered, my ears bled, I felt ill – I may have Ebola...I will get that looked into later.

Some background:
My cable provider (Small local co-op) just pushed some spam on to my digital cable box about the new channels they are offering, and one of them is the Fox News channel, so having heard nothing but good things about the fair and balanced folks I took a gander. As this was the start of a new hour their was a brief news brake to start it off, much like the CBC's newsworld channel does – the similarities stopped at the format

The anchor started off with:

According to a press release issued by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld

quote:
All is well in Iraq, but more solders are needed, so here are some more carrots for the sticks

only the reporter (can I call her that?), I am sure, simply read the copy of the press release off the prompter! As stock pictures of solders jumped over things, and climbed other things. The message: Join the army, or you hate America (which I do, so I am ok with that).

The second story:

The white house today said:

quote:
What ever the white house wanted her to say.


I honestly did not listen to this, as any news story starting off with “The white house said today” can only be so devoid of content, as to be laughable.

Third story:

quote:
More crap from the pentagon.

Finally:
Bernstein bears creator is dead, with pictures of the authors, and covers of the books – you know an actual report...of the news kinda.

I now know what everyone talks about when they call them Faux News...etc.

Anyway, just though I would share this with y'all...

Oh noes its starting already!


From: Manitoba, Canada | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
champagne socialist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10702

posted 30 November 2005 06:37 PM      Profile for champagne socialist   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I saw it for the first time on a Westjet flight across the country, with the satellite TVs. (There IS something good about going to Toronto!) The whole time, I was like, "HOLY. F'N. CRAP." It is shocking in the way it delivers the news. I could have kissed Peter Mansbridge the next time I saw the National. Dear lord, and we complain about bias here...

Really, the most shocking thing is that it's the highest in the ratings. People watch it to learn about their country and the world. Every day.

That just seems incredibly tragic and fucked up to me. I don't mean to come off as condescending and that I'm better than your average Fox news viewer. But how??? HOW?


From: left coast | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Polly Brandybuck
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7732

posted 30 November 2005 06:40 PM      Profile for Polly Brandybuck     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh but wait. You aint seen nuthin till you seen the o'reilly factor. Happy viewing.
From: To Infinity...and beyond! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
champagne socialist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10702

posted 30 November 2005 06:46 PM      Profile for champagne socialist   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I watched it on the plane. And I wish there was a vomiting emoticon on rabble. That was basically my response. Who knew I'd need to use one of those sick bags someday?
From: left coast | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cartman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7440

posted 30 November 2005 06:52 PM      Profile for Cartman        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I am surprised that Don Cherry has never been asked to be an anchor on Fox. Maybe because he actually realizes that much of what he says is bullshit whereas the Fox anchors do not? It is not really news, it is more like Jerry Springer competition.

Mrs. Cartman is not terribly politically motivated and she finds the channel quite irritating (particularly after work).


From: Bring back Audra!!!!! | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
champagne socialist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10702

posted 30 November 2005 09:05 PM      Profile for champagne socialist   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hahaha, last time I watched HNIC I thought it was classic the way Cherry was ripping apart Dick Pound from WADA...

"PROVE IT! MAKE HIM PROVE IT! HE'S GOTTA PROVE IT!"

And that's what separates Don Cherry from Fox News... he's a loudmouth who wants people to back up what they say, and I think most of the time, what he says is at least remotely justifiable in some way.


From: left coast | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Américain Égalitaire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7911

posted 30 November 2005 11:20 PM      Profile for Américain Égalitaire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by champagne socialist:
Really, the most shocking thing is that it's the highest in the ratings. People watch it to learn about their country and the world. Every day.

That just seems incredibly tragic and fucked up to me. I don't mean to come off as condescending and that I'm better than your average Fox news viewer. But how??? HOW?


They are watched by people who want the "objective truth" to conform to their biases about the USA and life in general. Real "truth" has no meaning other than what can be used to further the cause. If you really make the case to the average Fox viewer that they are watching pro-government, pro-corporate propaganda, many if not most would actually agree and say that's exactly what they want.

Somewhere in hell, Joseph Goebbels is literally green with envy.


From: Chardon, Ohio USA | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 01 December 2005 12:05 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I remember the first time I watched Fox News off a satellite feed. It was only for a few minutes but I had the creepiest feeling, as though someone were breathing down my neck.

That was the first time I really realized how being constantly inundated with belligerent propaganda could make you feel creeped out.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Left Turn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8662

posted 01 December 2005 02:56 AM      Profile for Left Turn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Is there any difference between the news on the Fox News Network, and the news on the regular Fox Network?

[ 01 December 2005: Message edited by: Left Turn ]


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Anarchonostic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4133

posted 01 December 2005 03:50 AM      Profile for Anarchonostic     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, the news on the regular FOX network is all local broadcasts, as FOX doesn't have a network national news program. So the local newscasts, while likely silly and sensationalistic, don't have a unified purpose as FOX News Network does. I think, as in Canada, each individual local market is a micro-market - as a FOX Seattle affiliate might put a different spin on things than a FOX Baltimore affiliate. There's more local control.
From: Vancouver | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 01 December 2005 11:01 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I have dozens of Yanqui stations because of that calisse de Bell Expressview, but I never watch them.

Well...once I watched a program on Fox. I don't remember what the show was ("Home Improvements" maybe?), but I remember the commercials. They were either adverts for schools like the kind advertised on matchbook covers ("start a career in brain surgery , real estate, or drywalling), or else a place that hauls old cars out of your yard.

I always try to figure out who shows are aimed at by the commercials they air. I shudder to think who those adverts were directed at, but not as much as I shudder to think what it was that I could have been watching that day.

[ 01 December 2005: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 01 December 2005 11:44 AM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anarchonostic:
I think, as in Canada, each individual local market is a micro-market - as a FOX Seattle affiliate might put a different spin on things than a FOX Baltimore affiliate. There's more local control.

In Canada all major (and most minor) market stations are directly owned by Bell Globemedia (CTV), Canwest Global or CHUM. The decisions and policies are centralized and there has been lots of cutting and harmonizing. Note that the local news program is no longer "Night Beat" or "Pulse" or "ATV News," it's "CTV News"

While Fox and the other networks don't own all their affiliates, they do own the major markets. 26 cities in all for Fox, serving 44% of the American market.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
cco
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8986

posted 01 December 2005 11:48 AM      Profile for cco     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The only one I can speak for is the FOX affiliate in Knoxville, Tennessee, which borrows the news from the local ABC affiliate -- literally. The ABC crew finish their newscast, change the signs in the studio to read FOX, and do it again.
From: Montréal | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Guêpe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4757

posted 01 December 2005 11:53 AM      Profile for Guêpe   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I have to admit, The O'Reilly Factor is a guilty pleasure. It's so absurd - but it's hard to take your eyes away from it.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
far away eyes
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11170

posted 01 December 2005 12:24 PM      Profile for far away eyes        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Fox is no different than babble; it's a vehicle for like minded people to hear opinions most compatible to their values. I'm sure if a typical Fox viewer surfed babble he would express the same shock and horror towards the blatant anti-Americanism and socialism that pervades this site. And just as babble moderators will chase away those they arbitrarily label as trolls, O'Reilly burns a liberal at the stake each day.

Rupert Murdoch was a genius to recognize the extreme balkanization of public opinion. "Truth is only that which is seen to be widely believed in." Everyone, left or right wants to hear their own version of the truth. If you believe the media has become its own interest group and is no longer the traditional arbiter of fact and seeker of truth then why not develop media outlets that exclusively serve the right or left? I remember a decade ago Murdoch said he wanted to own CNN. Well, today, Fox News almost rivals CNN in US viewership. And it's easy to understand why Fox thrives- the rest of the media is seen to be liberal.


From: vancouver | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 01 December 2005 12:37 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Rupert Murdoch was a genius

Aren't we lucky that he isn't anymore!

quote:
Everyone, left or right wants to hear their own version of the truth.

Or the one Murdoch wants them to hear, e.g. the fabrications about Saddam and WMD.

Echoes of Joseph Goebbels?


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
chester the prairie shark
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6993

posted 01 December 2005 12:40 PM      Profile for chester the prairie shark     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
from Calvin and Hobbes:

calvin: doesn't it seem that people just shout at each other nowadays? I think its because conflict is drama, drama is entertaining and entertainment is marketable. finding consenus and common ground is dull! nobody wants to watch a civilized discussion that acknowledges ambiguity and complexity. we want to see fireworks! we want the sense of solidarity and identity that comes from having our interests narrowed and exploited by like-minded zealots! talk show hosts, political candidates, special interest groups...they all become successful by reducing debates to the level of shouted rage. nothing gets solved but we're entertained.

hobbes: hmm, you may be right.

calvin: what a boring day this turned out to be.


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
far away eyes
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11170

posted 01 December 2005 12:51 PM      Profile for far away eyes        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Why isn't Murdoch a genius anymore Vanluke? Or at least he's the 35th richest man in the world and an influential force in media. Murdoch isn't Goebels. His political agenda only extends as far as its potential profit. And he has shown it's very profitable to serve up right wing news. And as Americans will tell you if you don't like it then form your own network and tell your side. Feigning indignancy only shows you are failing to get your message across. It's also profitable to serve up liberal news.

It's no different than the approach to truth on this site. So step up to the battle and form the Noam Chomsky channel.


From: vancouver | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
knuckles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8176

posted 01 December 2005 12:54 PM      Profile for knuckles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by far away eyes:
Fox is no different than babble; it's a vehicle for like minded people to hear opinions most compatible to their values. I'm sure if a typical Fox viewer surfed babble he would express the same shock and horror towards the blatant anti-Americanism and socialism that pervades this site. And just as babble moderators will chase away those they arbitrarily label as trolls, O'Reilly burns a liberal at the stake each day.

Rabble's a website, not a news channel that reaches millions. Nor does it pretend it's "far and balanced."


From: US | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024

posted 01 December 2005 12:55 PM      Profile for Crippled_Newsie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cco:
The only one I can speak for is the FOX affiliate in Knoxville, Tennessee, which borrows the news from the local ABC affiliate -- literally. The ABC crew finish their newscast, change the signs in the studio to read FOX, and do it again.

That's not all that uncommon, actually, FOX or no FOX. I once worked at a two-station CBS/UPN set-up (known in the trade as an LMA) where we did a late UPN newscast, then half and hour later did the late local news for the CBS affiliate.

Same anchors and reporters; different graphics packs. Though we did at least have separate producers for the two shows, so they were quite different in content.

The goofy part was at 1 am, when tapes of both shows were re-broadcast simultaneously on their respective stations.


From: It's all about the thumpa thumpa. | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
far away eyes
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11170

posted 01 December 2005 01:21 PM      Profile for far away eyes        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Knuckles, FOX pretends to be "fair and balanced" no more than the other media outlets. That's why it's so popular- no US viewers believe they are receiving "fair and balanced" news from the other outlets which they label as liberal, whether that's true or not. In fact, the problem with media today is either you are too biased or not biased enough. To talk about being "fair and balanced" is as elusive as chasing and defining the truth. Viewers want to see their version of the truth.
From: vancouver | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 01 December 2005 01:37 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by far away eyes:
Fox is no different than babble; it's a vehicle for like minded people to hear opinions most compatible to their values. I'm sure if a typical Fox viewer surfed babble he would express the same shock and horror towards the blatant anti-Americanism and socialism that pervades this site. And just as babble moderators will chase away those they arbitrarily label as trolls, O'Reilly burns a liberal at the stake each day.


Total bullshit ... Foz presents itself as "Fair and Balanced", babble presents itself as "rabble.ca is a public, progressive news and information source."

If an average viewer goes to Fox looking for a "fair and balanced" view, they are being misled ... if an average surfer goes to rabble looking for a "fair and balanced" view, they just didn't bother to take the time to read the policy statment.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
far away eyes
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11170

posted 01 December 2005 01:56 PM      Profile for far away eyes        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Okay, No Yards, if you want to take it in that direction..Fox is misleading viewers with the "fair and balanced" moniker than CNN is when Peter Arnett broadcasted the "Tailwind" story which ultimately ruined his career. Really, unless you are living in a parallel universe, no media outlet is "fair and balanced" because it is run by humans which are inherently opinionated. But, Fox is fair and balanced- from it's own viewpoint. Truth is a relative concept especially in today's fast moving satellite and internet based markets.
From: vancouver | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 01 December 2005 02:10 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And that applies to babble exactly how?

babble and rabble do not make "fair and balanced" claims ... they only make a claim that the news and discussion comes from the progressive left. There is no big secret in recognizing your political leaning and being honest about it.

Claiming that Fox and babble are equivalent but from opposite political poles, is at best avoidable ignorance, and at worst a straight out lie.

If Fox were honest about their political leanings, then you'd have a case ... but it isn't and you don't.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024

posted 01 December 2005 02:12 PM      Profile for Crippled_Newsie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by far away eyes:
Really, unless you are living in a parallel universe, no media outlet is "fair and balanced" because it is run by humans which are inherently opinionated.

You've obviously never watched a left-leaning Producer duke it out with a right-leaning Managing Editor to come to a compromise on a story... that ultimately garners howls of outrage from viewers on both sides of the ideological aisle.

When everybody's pissed, you've generally done your job.


From: It's all about the thumpa thumpa. | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Dex
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6764

posted 01 December 2005 02:26 PM      Profile for Dex     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by far away eyes:
Okay, No Yards, if you want to take it in that direction..Fox is misleading viewers with the "fair and balanced" moniker than CNN is when Peter Arnett broadcasted the "Tailwind" story which ultimately ruined his career. Really, unless you are living in a parallel universe, no media outlet is "fair and balanced" because it is run by humans which are inherently opinionated. But, Fox is fair and balanced- from it's own viewpoint. Truth is a relative concept especially in today's fast moving satellite and internet based markets.
I can't figure out if you're being purposefully obtuse of if you just haven't watched the network or talked to a loyal viewer of the network. If you're in Canada, that's entirely possible. In the US, you're pretty much inundated with it every day (at least in the red states).

Fox loyalists are utterly convinced that Fox News is the ultimate arbiter of truth. It is THE standard bearer of unbiasedness (is that a word?). O'Reilly's show is one of perhaps two or three truly flagship shows on the network and the entire premise of the show, which is repeated in ads, promos, by the host itself OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN is that the show is completely free of bias or spin. Other networks claim to be the source for news, to break the big stories first, to do all sorts of things, but Fox is the only network that claims to be free of bias. Of the big news networks, there is little doubt but that it is the furthest away from center (meaning that the others may be left-biased, but are light years closer to the center than Fox is). And it does the worst job of reporting the news as well. An academic study of people's news gathering habits showed that BY FAR the worst-informed viewers as it relates to Iraq, the war on terror, and 9/11 were those people who watched Fox News.


From: ON then AB then IN now KS. Oh, how I long for a more lefterly location. | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 01 December 2005 02:56 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by far away eyes:
Truth is a relative concept especially in today's fast moving satellite and internet based markets.

Just as a side note--truth is not a relative concept, and what kind of concept truth is has nothing to do with markets.
It is true that any news source, pretty much any information source even, contains biases. My eyes are biased towards a small piece of the electromagnetic spectrum, my mental visual-processing software is biased towards facial features and movement. Now, there's degrees of bias. If I want to see infrared, I need to use a different source than my unassisted eyes. If I want to see the texture of a leaf rather than facial features or movement, that isn't a problem, I just adjust what I'm paying attention to to compensate; it's a far less serious bias.

But there's a difference between even massive bias and untruth. I may not see the infrared signature of a leaf, but generally if I see it as green it's because it's green. Fox has a distinct tendency to go beyond merely presenting only one side of an issue or even selecting out stories that disagree with its media frame. Fox often broadcasts flat-out lies, even flat-out lies which have been thoroughly debunked, as true. Rupert Murdoch I'm sure has no scruples about his media flat-out lying if he can get away with it. Now, some degree of bias is unavoidable and defensible, although if your job is simply to provide news and you don't have an announced ideological frame it's appropriate to try to minimize it--to at least use multiple views/frames/lenses so as to get a fairly broad picture. Something that I would say rabble.ca does way better than Fox even though rabble *does* have an announced ideological bias.

But claiming to provide news and then lying is not defensible. There are no relativistic arguments to be made. Not everybody does it, it is not unavoidable. Do it and you deserve what vilification you get.

Claiming to provide news and then providing government press releases verbatim without fact-checking them is nearly as bad, as anyone in the media business surely knows that government press releases tend to be riddled with falsehoods. It becomes more culpable as any given administration acquires a public record of falsehood (as Georgie boy's now has--we knew from day one his people lied all the time, but now everybody knows, so there's no excuse for treating his administration as a reliable source of information).


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Makwa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10724

posted 01 December 2005 02:57 PM      Profile for Makwa   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tape_342:
When everybody's pissed, you've generally done your job.
In that case, babble should issue me an honorarium. Tee hee.

From: Here at the glass - all the usual problems, the habitual farce | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 01 December 2005 03:02 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by far away eyes:
[QB]Why isn't Murdoch a genius anymore Vanluke?


I don't know but *you* said so.


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 01 December 2005 11:30 PM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
More than anything, it's a populist news source, plain and simple, and shouldn't really be called "conservative" or "right". It is profit motivated and naturally seeks out popular positions rather than a particular ideology. But no, it's still not a particularily good news source, as its populism requires an even lower common denominator than television news already seeks out. Not great, but also not the vanguard of some conservative media conspiracy.

The ironic thing is that while some people accuse Fox of having a strong conservative bias, plenty of conservatives have always condemned the network for the rest of its programming. It takes a stretch of the imagination to say that Murdoch's "Who Wants to Marry a Multimilionaire" network is hand-in-hand with the American Christian right.

[ 01 December 2005: Message edited by: Andrew_Jay ]


From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
tallyho
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10917

posted 01 December 2005 11:45 PM      Profile for tallyho        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
On every website and news commentary in the USA for the last 'x' years all I hear is how right wing and conservative Foxnews is. It's a travesty of news..blah...blah. It's no secret. Americans aren't bamboozled by Fox. Fox represents a view of the world I don't subscribe to but so be it.

Worse are the so-called 'real' news sources that criticize Fox but then spend have of their time on celebrity interviews, shlock, etc. Who is Larry King interviewing tonight? Jerry Lewis or Jordan's celebrity queen or Michael Jackson's attorney?

I get decent news off of the BBC website, PBS, and then handpick after that. CBC (TV) used to be up there but there seems to be a lot of forced or canned stories lately. CTV has improved and is now my first choice of TV news in Canada while CBC radio is my first choice on radio.


From: The NDP sells out Alberta workers | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bam359
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9788

posted 02 December 2005 09:15 AM      Profile for Bam359     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by tallyho:
CBC (TV) used to be up there but there seems to be a lot of forced or canned stories lately. CTV has improved and is now my first choice of TV news in Canada while CBC radio is my first choice on radio.

I think that the nature of a 24 Hour news channel requires the use of forced or canned stories some times, especially on slow news days. They all do it from time to time.

But I agree with the CTV comment. I first started watching a lot of CTV during CBC's strike, and gotta say I was impressed and I still watch it, I split my time between the two of them.

For radio, all the radio's I listen to are always set to CBC.

In fact this morning I woke up to news that the Frasier institute is criticizing the Tory tax plan.

Good morning everyone!


From: Manitoba, Canada | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 02 December 2005 01:25 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
More than anything, it's a populist news source, plain and simple

Nonsense. They don't take a poll and support whatever the majority does. They have a predetermined political stance which they have endeavoured to make the majority view--with some success, but note that when their stances cease to be the majority view despite all their efforts, they continue to plug them. The tone with which they sell that stance is "populist", I suppose.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
tallyho
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10917

posted 02 December 2005 01:41 PM      Profile for tallyho        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
A couple months ago CNN ratings continued falling through the floor and Fox continued to rise. What's scary was it was largely in proportion to how much coverage they gave to the 'Missing White Teen in Aruba'. Both channels has full half hour reports and interviews every night. fox was over 90 hours of coverage!!


It was quite bizarre for the news to start off with a bunch of fluff and then end with the little tidbit 'two marines were kiled in Iraq today when...' The missing teen only got knocked off the most coverage by hurricane Katrina.


From: The NDP sells out Alberta workers | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca