PhotonicLaceration
Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2005
- Messages
- 72
- Reaction score
- 0
- Location
- Nevada
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Fox News always takes a big hit from the Dems as being biased but I think there is something that is being missed. I think that main reason that they can usually get away with saying how biased it is all of the time, is because Fox News itself says that it is biased conservatively... In my opinion this is a PLUS. News organizations SHOULD declare their bias, so that the reader knows what to expect. Some of the more popular news media (CNN for example, and even my local newspaper which I get and read) have in my opinion just as much bias as those on the left claim Fox News has.. What's the difference? They don't admit their bias, and are unwilling to admit their bias.
An example of what I mean- They've had sessions on many of what I would consider liberal news networks, including some, and more than half of the most popular in distribution, talking about the "VAST" numbers of children under the age of five killed by accidental gun fire. Okay, well there isn't a bias in just telling that something happens right? Well, it is VERY selective. There are enough children under the age of five killed by gun accidents every year to report one every 12 days. Okay, well, now that you hear that from the news about how dangerous firearms are to children, maybe you better look up how dangerous buckets of water are, because MORE children under the age of five die in buckets of water than by accidental gun injuries. Can you imagine if they reported it every time someone drowned in a bucket of water? With a number of almost 900 people of all ages dying from accidental gun wounds, then you can also look at the more than three times as many people of all ages die from choking on foods and other foreign objects, and almost four times as many from drowning in pools, bath tubs, and other recreational ways. Now, can you imagine how ludicrous the news would be if it reported that?
(http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/injury_facts_nsc.htm) [National Safety Council numbers on accidental deaths for 1998] {doesn't include buckets of water, but you can find that information elsewhere readily available on the internet}
All news is biased, to say that there is no bias in the news is blind... but if you refuse to listen to what one side of an issue says, no matter what the issue is, you are receiving essentially propoganda that backs the intents of the news organization or opinion piece. In general, when I want to know "generally" about world events, I'll read my local newspaper or MSN.com. (And I view especially the former to have a liberal slant, but both to have one) I'll take everything I read with a brick (no grain) of salt. It can give me a general feel for what is going on. If a rocket blows up on reentry, or a war is started against country X, you can generally get simple information like that from any news source. Sure, it is true that people are in for the money, and anything worth reporting will be reported, but who do you think is going to benefit the most fiscally from an extremely liberal or conservative article? Do you think that papers that are written, owned, and bought primarily by a specific bias will generate the same money from unkosher opinions? If I really want to know more about the event, the best way to do it is to read the article from both sides. From papers or news sources of both slants. Better yet, is to instead look to find official data recorded, such as police reports and other sets of information which are not intended for public distribution. Most of which are usually readily available to the public.
An example of what I mean- They've had sessions on many of what I would consider liberal news networks, including some, and more than half of the most popular in distribution, talking about the "VAST" numbers of children under the age of five killed by accidental gun fire. Okay, well there isn't a bias in just telling that something happens right? Well, it is VERY selective. There are enough children under the age of five killed by gun accidents every year to report one every 12 days. Okay, well, now that you hear that from the news about how dangerous firearms are to children, maybe you better look up how dangerous buckets of water are, because MORE children under the age of five die in buckets of water than by accidental gun injuries. Can you imagine if they reported it every time someone drowned in a bucket of water? With a number of almost 900 people of all ages dying from accidental gun wounds, then you can also look at the more than three times as many people of all ages die from choking on foods and other foreign objects, and almost four times as many from drowning in pools, bath tubs, and other recreational ways. Now, can you imagine how ludicrous the news would be if it reported that?
(http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/injury_facts_nsc.htm) [National Safety Council numbers on accidental deaths for 1998] {doesn't include buckets of water, but you can find that information elsewhere readily available on the internet}
All news is biased, to say that there is no bias in the news is blind... but if you refuse to listen to what one side of an issue says, no matter what the issue is, you are receiving essentially propoganda that backs the intents of the news organization or opinion piece. In general, when I want to know "generally" about world events, I'll read my local newspaper or MSN.com. (And I view especially the former to have a liberal slant, but both to have one) I'll take everything I read with a brick (no grain) of salt. It can give me a general feel for what is going on. If a rocket blows up on reentry, or a war is started against country X, you can generally get simple information like that from any news source. Sure, it is true that people are in for the money, and anything worth reporting will be reported, but who do you think is going to benefit the most fiscally from an extremely liberal or conservative article? Do you think that papers that are written, owned, and bought primarily by a specific bias will generate the same money from unkosher opinions? If I really want to know more about the event, the best way to do it is to read the article from both sides. From papers or news sources of both slants. Better yet, is to instead look to find official data recorded, such as police reports and other sets of information which are not intended for public distribution. Most of which are usually readily available to the public.
