Be careful what you wish for.

[kyzr]

You know exactly what I mean.
So you're lying. No shock.

See post #42 and then reply.

 

[kyzr]

Important distinction. From your link
The broadcast portion of the study accounts for reporting on CNN’s The Situation Room, CBS Evening News, Fox’s Special Report, and NBC Nightly News, but does not represent talk show coverage.
Who was getting the Jan 6th tapes again.
People don't form their opinion listening to Fox's special report. They form it by watching Carlson or Hannity. I wish it were different but it's simply true.

The study reported on NEWS shows. OPINION shows can say whatever they want, but NEWS is supposed to be the UNBIASED TRUTH.

We disagree on where/how people "form their opinions". Most voters don't watch Carlson or Hannity. Many watch "The View".
Many watch CNN and MSDNC who NEVER have Republicans presenting a "fair and balanced" debate like on FNC.
So when the Harvard study says which shows are BIASED. IMHO its because only FNC shows a true debate presenting BOTH SIDES.

 

[Care4all]

Exactly. Yet IMHO they knew that the press would be biased, but hopefully thought that the MSM would have several differing viewpoints instead of the DNC propaganda outlets we now have. Journalism is dead. Today you "toe the party line" or find a new line of work.

Going to the Fairness Doctrine originally in place for Broadcast news, to Cable News would solve the problem imho....

Where the News, has to present both sides of the public and political argument.... the news media can still have their bias and commentary, but they have to cover in the news, both sides of the disagreeing issue!

I personally think, that would be good all around, for our Nation and citizens within.

 

[kyzr]

Is there a legal requirement for media outlets to provide unbiased news or even to be truthful?
Seems the consumer is the rightful place to hold them accountable, but in all honesty they are just giving people what they want.

The Harvard study reported on NEWS shows. OPINION shows can say whatever they want, but NEWS is supposed to be the UNBIASED TRUTH.

We disagree on where/how people "form their opinions". Most voters don't watch Carlson or Hannity. Many watch "The View".
Many watch CNN and MSDNC who NEVER have Republicans presenting a "fair and balanced" debate like on FNC.
So when the Harvard study says which shows are BIASED. IMHO its because only FNC shows a true debate presenting BOTH SIDES.

There used to be a show named "Crossfire" 1982-2005 with Pat Buchanon debating Tom Braden & Michael Kinsley. Hosts changed over the years.

Crossfire (American TV program) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'd love to see a debate between networks challenging each other's NEWS programming to weed out the lies, bias, and fake news.
The loser of the debate would get punished by a tax or fine for violating NEWS standards.

FNC always shows videos from MSDNC and CNN proving their bias and outright lies.

 

[kyzr]

Morally I agree with you. Legally not so much.
Who gets to decide what is biased and what is not?
Is that really something you want the Fed Govt doing?

See post #64.
I'd love to see Networks debate and challenge each other's lies, bias, and fake news reports.
With the Feds being the referee ready to impose fines for "lies and biased news".
The object would be to see what the real unbiased news is.

 

[kyzr]

Going to the Fairness Doctrine originally in place for Broadcast news, to Cable News would solve the problem imho....
Where the News, has to present both sides of the public and political argument.... the news media can still have their bias and commentary, but they have to cover in the news, both sides of the disagreeing issue!
I personally think, that would be good all around, for our Nation and citizens within.

That would be one way to solve the issue. Give democrats and republicans a chance to comment on the news reports to point out bias.

I like my "Crossfire" debate format where every network's news shows can be challenged by other networks as to whether their news is factual, biased, or fake, with heavy fines ready to be levied for any fake or biased news.

 

[forkup]

The study reported on NEWS shows. OPINION shows can say whatever they want, but NEWS is supposed to be the UNBIASED TRUTH.

We disagree on where/how people "form their opinions". Most voters don't watch Carlson or Hannity. Many watch "The View".
Many watch CNN and MSDNC who NEVER have Republicans presenting a "fair and balanced" debate like on FNC.
So when the Harvard study says which shows are BIASED. IMHO its because only FNC shows a true debate presenting BOTH SIDES.

Fox special report averages around 1,5 million viewers. Carlson goes for about 3 million. You can disagree however much you want. You still end up in the same place.

And fair and balanced news networks don't have things like this https://int.nyt.com/data/documentto...inion-fox-news-case/dca5e3880422426f/full.pdf

 

[kyzr]

Fox special report averages around 1,5 million. Carlson goes for about 3 million. You can disagree however much you want. You still end up in the same place.
And fair and balanced news network doesn't have things like this https://int.nyt.com/data/documentto...inion-fox-news-case/dca5e3880422426f/full.pdf

1. Suing and winning are two different things, huh? We'll see who wins.
2. Point being "whose shows are less biased"? IMHO CNN & MSDNC are the most biased because they don't allow any Republican opinions.

Cable News Ratings Wednesday February 8: Fox News Scores 4 Shows With Over 3 Million Viewers

Tucker Carlson led the ratings with 3.72 million total viewers, beating out The Five -- which regularly lands atop the charts.

www.mediaite.com

Fox News led cable news on Wednesday night with 4 shows raking in more than 3 million total viewers, while
CNN never came close to cracking the million viewer mark.
Tucker Carlson led the ratings with 3.72 million total viewers, beating out
The Five — which regularly lands atop the charts.
Jesse Watters came in third place with 3.16 million total viewers, while
Sean Hannity came in fourth with 3.08 million total viewers.
MSNBC’s top-rated show was All in with Chris Hayes which brought in 1.66 million total viewers.

 

[jc456]

Great point, because this goes much deeper than the press. The propagandists and semi-propagandists on both ends are simply filling demand.

I've been saying all along that my interest in this rolling disaster isn't political, it's sociological. We're not going to solve it politically. We have to examine a society that that freely exists in a symbiotic relationship with dishonest brokers. What does that say about us?

People who can’t agree the sky is blue is the problem

 

[jc456]

That's what the MAGAs always say when their crimes are exposed.

Exposed?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The Harvard study reported on NEWS shows. OPINION shows can say whatever they want, but NEWS is supposed to be the UNBIASED TRUTH.

We disagree on where/how people "form their opinions". Most voters don't watch Carlson or Hannity. Many watch "The View".
Many watch CNN and MSDNC who NEVER have Republicans presenting a "fair and balanced" debate like on FNC.
So when the Harvard study says which shows are BIASED. IMHO its because only FNC shows a true debate presenting BOTH SIDES.

There used to be a show named "Crossfire" 1982-2005 with Pat Buchanon debating Tom Braden & Michael Kinsley. Hosts changed over the years.

Crossfire (American TV program) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'd love to see a debate between networks challenging each other's NEWS programming to weed out the lies, bias, and fake news.
The loser of the debate would get punished by a tax or fine for violating NEWS standards.

FNC always shows videos from MSDNC and CNN proving their bias and outright lies.

I am not really a fan of "supposed to be".

The news in our country is a business just like everything else, they exist to make money.

They give the people what the want.

People do not want fair and unbiased, they want their views supported and strengthened. That is why viewership in places like OANN and NewMax has risen while FoxNews has dropped.

 

[j-mac]

It is always cute how you all pretend that Talk Radio is not 90% far right leaning.

Talk radio? You think the majority of America is listening to talk radio?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Going to the Fairness Doctrine originally in place for Broadcast news, to Cable News would solve the problem imho....

Where the News, has to present both sides of the public and political argument.... the news media can still have their bias and commentary, but they have to cover in the news, both sides of the disagreeing issue!

I personally think, that would be good all around, for our Nation and citizens within.

It would be a terrible idea because then government would be dictating how news organizations be allowed to operate. It's not what DeSantis is promoting here.

Its not about making mistakes either. It's about intentionally lying to the public to promote the party or candidates you support. Trump is not and never was a Russian agent. Hunter's laptop was always real and not Russian disinformation. The Republicans are not trying to end Social Security and Medicare. The MSM knows or knew all this when they made the claims.

Most of the time when the NYT reports a story against Republicans, they claim anonymous sources. Seems like that's all they have at the NYT are anonymous sources. The problem with an anonymous source is there doesn't have to be proof such source exists. They can make it up out of thin air.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Is there a legal requirement for media outlets to provide unbiased news or even to be truthful?

Seems the consumer is the rightful place to hold them accountable, but in all honesty they are just giving people what they want.

If they are making up claims about people, yes, they should be required to be truthful. If the reporter has an opinion, or his or her employer leans one way or another, that I have no problem with as long as it's made clear it is indeed a personal opinion and not news.

 

[kyzr]

I am not really a fan of "supposed to be".

The news in our country is a business just like everything else, they exist to make money.

They give the people what the want.

People do not want fair and unbiased, they want their views supported and strengthened. That is why viewership in places like OANN and NewMax has risen while FoxNews has dropped.

We disagree. <again>
I used to love to watch "Crossfire" with Buchanan and Kinsley.
Their debates got to the distilled crux of the topics of the day.

If "news" programs are biased, then we need a debate program like Crossfire to see both sides of the argument.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It is always cute how you all pretend that Talk Radio is not 90% far right leaning.

Just like all major social media outlets were 90% left leaning until Musk bought Twitter.

The left tried talk radio. They failed. Not many on the left listen to politics during the day. Right-wing radio has a large audience because we on the right do listen to talk radio. In fact it's often been said Rush Limbaugh saved AM radio as they were considering ending the frequency years ago.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

DeSantis wants to roll back press freedoms — with an eye toward overturning Supreme Court ruling

Florida Republicans are seeking to weaken laws protecting journalists.

www.politico.com

So this is a new stunt by Desantis. Drinking liberal tears being a good way to rile up your base. Having said that, I doubt that any of his supporters have really thought it true. Or actually care beyond the tears I was talking about. So I thought it would be interesting to do so.

First, let me say it's probably unconstitutional. The reason the actual malice standard exists is because without it, the press wouldn't be able to do their job. If any mistake in reporting even inadvertent onces, would make the press liable, reporting anything that you are not absolutely certain about is an unacceptable risk. In theory this is fine I have my doubts it wouldn't kill all reporting in practice though.

Practically speaking though it would be hilarious. I won't claim that the dreaded MSM wouldn't be affected.They sometimes make mistakes. But for those on the right the effects would be nothing less than devestating. Fox, OAN, Breitbart, Gateway Pundit, all will have a choice. Fact check or be sued into oblivion.

So my inner demons would say bring it on Desantis. Let's see who's the "fake news" when giving fake news has actual consequences.

We on the right want honest news no matter where it comes from. The more honest, the better.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We disagree. <again>
I used to love to watch "Crossfire" with Buchanan and Kinsley.
Their debates got to the distilled crux of the topics of the day.

If "news" programs are biased, then we need a debate program like Crossfire to see both sides of the argument.

I'm not for "equal" reporting. Fox can lean right all night long and CNN can lean left. But IMO, the best show Fox had next to O'Reilly was Hannity and Combs. It was a hell of a lot better than the Hannity show.

 

[kyzr]

I'm not for "equal" reporting. Fox can lean right all night long and CNN can lean left. But IMO, the best show Fox had next to O'Reilly was Hannity and Combs. It was a hell of a lot better than the Hannity show.

Exactly. Its always better to have a live debate between two opposing sides than a partisan monologue.
Hannity and Ingraham generally put up a video of democrats lying their partisan asses off, and then skewer them in absentia.
Or, they skewer some topic of the day.
"The View" is always easy pickings, like when Joy Behar said that "East Palestine got what they deserved" in the train wreck for voting for Trump.
CNN, Don Lemon's comment that Nikki Haley is "past her prime" got him skewered too.

So that may be the new paradigm, the commie networks can lie and their viewers love it, and FNC can skewer them and win the ratings war.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Talk radio? You think the majority of America is listening to talk radio?

I do not think the majority of America listens/watches any one thing.