- Joined
- Jul 13, 2006
- Messages
- 4,772
- Reaction score
- 1,470
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
In another thread, I made this statement: Only a partisan could say that Fox Opinion Channel qualifies as journalism.
and here is a response I received:
Humorous.
I don't read the Washington Times. But I do read the New York Times. Here is some research I have done. In the following comparison, I compared the NYT and Fox News Channel's news coverage on 1/18/2006. But really, any other day will do. The point was to make a side-by-side comparison.
=====
The New York Times is like anything else. It has its bad moments. But I don’t get it when a factoid is produced, about, say, a picture one day. Or a staff writer a few years ago that got fired for faking stories. I don’t get it why the whole institution is suddenly bunk because of these things. It’s just an easy way to discredit something that inconveniently presents stuff that you disagree with, all the time. It’s a massive double standard.
That’s why it’s instructive to do side by side comparisons. I’d put the New York Times next to any single news source. Anything you can name. Is it flawed? Sure? But I believe it’s better than most. And I believe it’s a decent source for news.
If the New York Times is a “leftist rag” because of it’s op/ed page, well, folks, it’s only 2 pages. What about the rest of it?
And let’s not all forget about Judith Miller. The single worst episode in recent NYT history was when the NYT peddled Bush Administration falsehoods. That’s some “leftist rag.”
I’m chuckling to myself even thinking that anyone would consider Fox News Channel something to watch in order to get informed.
(Don't just take my word for it, read the pipa doc:
World Public Opinion)
Watching Fox News Channel on 1/18/2006, and on many days since, I’ve concluded that you might want to watch Fox if you want to get informed about what your right-wing marching orders ought to be. But that’s about it.
So I took the Fox News Schedule, and I wrote “news analysis” next to the pundit shows, and I wrote “news” next to the news coverage shows.
I created the following chart from the Fox News Channel 1/18 schedule. I didn’t include reruns from the previous day or repeats throughout the day, or the percentage of opinions interspersed into news segments. Damn. It ought to be called the Fox Opinion Channel:
and here is a response I received:
Cold Dirt said:So I guess the New York times, Washington times and all the other liberal rags are not practicing journalism, just big mouths for the libtard masses?
Humorous.
I don't read the Washington Times. But I do read the New York Times. Here is some research I have done. In the following comparison, I compared the NYT and Fox News Channel's news coverage on 1/18/2006. But really, any other day will do. The point was to make a side-by-side comparison.
=====
The New York Times is like anything else. It has its bad moments. But I don’t get it when a factoid is produced, about, say, a picture one day. Or a staff writer a few years ago that got fired for faking stories. I don’t get it why the whole institution is suddenly bunk because of these things. It’s just an easy way to discredit something that inconveniently presents stuff that you disagree with, all the time. It’s a massive double standard.
That’s why it’s instructive to do side by side comparisons. I’d put the New York Times next to any single news source. Anything you can name. Is it flawed? Sure? But I believe it’s better than most. And I believe it’s a decent source for news.
If the New York Times is a “leftist rag” because of it’s op/ed page, well, folks, it’s only 2 pages. What about the rest of it?
And let’s not all forget about Judith Miller. The single worst episode in recent NYT history was when the NYT peddled Bush Administration falsehoods. That’s some “leftist rag.”
I’m chuckling to myself even thinking that anyone would consider Fox News Channel something to watch in order to get informed.
(Don't just take my word for it, read the pipa doc:
World Public Opinion)
Watching Fox News Channel on 1/18/2006, and on many days since, I’ve concluded that you might want to watch Fox if you want to get informed about what your right-wing marching orders ought to be. But that’s about it.
So I took the Fox News Schedule, and I wrote “news analysis” next to the pundit shows, and I wrote “news” next to the news coverage shows.
I created the following chart from the Fox News Channel 1/18 schedule. I didn’t include reruns from the previous day or repeats throughout the day, or the percentage of opinions interspersed into news segments. Damn. It ought to be called the Fox Opinion Channel: