Fox News vs Other Media outlet bias

[unbound]

Good morning everybody!

I like to stay as educated as possible when it comes to politics, and the bias certain news outlets have on how people view political figures.

I was genuinely curious if anyone could provide a recent example (post George Floyd/Protests) that show the polarizing difference in how two news stations tell the same story in a different way.

Well, in US media, you generally have:

[----1-----X-2-----3-4]

Where X is the mid point, 1 is Mother Jones, 2 is most major outlets (CNN, MSNBC, NYT, Washington Post), 3 is Fox News, and 4 is OAN / Breitbart / InfoWars.

Because 3 and 4 are so very far to the right, 2 appears to be liberal most of the time because people don't pay attention to what center really is.

If you want to find the truth about something, dig around and find the information that explains the most while containing all the context. You will regularly have to read a lot of information and verify even the sources you trust most of the time, but you can get to it.

When one news outlet says its sunny outside and the other says its raining, it isn't both sides...one is lying to you, and you should figure out which one that is.

[Themius]

Well, in US media, you generally have:

[----1-----X-2-----3-4]

Where X is the mid point, 1 is Mother Jones, 2 is most major outlets (CNN, MSNBC, NYT, Washington Post), 3 is Fox News, and 4 is OAN / Breitbart / InfoWars.

Because 3 and 4 are so very far to the right, 2 appears to be liberal most of the time because people don't pay attention to what center really is.

If you want to find the truth about something, dig around and find the information that explains the most while containing all the context. You will regularly have to read a lot of information and verify even the sources you trust most of the time, but you can get to it.

When one news outlet says its sunny outside and the other says its raining, it isn't both sides...one is lying to you, and you should figure out which one that is.

Mother Jones typically does well researched pieces complete with factual sources for just about every claim. Much that I see about them doesn't put them super far left.

[NineSpine]

So Fox news is a good source since Obama tried to get them banned.

That never happened.

Like when CNN's Anderson Cooper injected white into a statement made by Trump to make it appear racist. You are correct, it's just fox news.

That never happened.

[Cizr]

I'll give you the benefit of doubt and ask you to please show any other video of Trump holding his hands in the manner he did when mocking that reporter. If you have that you may have a point, people are talking about his gestures.

Sure, here you go.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsaB3ynIZH4

[Jastall]

wtf... that sounds like propaganda agency... state-owned news outlets...

Radio Canada is state-funded and although it has some biased pundits at times (this being humankind, it is inevitable) as well as some explicitly opinionated shows, it's less biased than private outlets, and a fuckton less than private American outlets.

[Darththeo]

Sure, here you go.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsaB3ynIZH4

Yeah, look closer, look how he holds his hands. There is a clear difference there if you are paying attention.

[Zan15]

Lol! Not as long as they are the number one cable news network watched by far. The sponsors love shows which exposes their products to more potential customers.

Then again, all of us and all of the things on this earth have a limited number of days left.

LOL 1 conservative network vs 4 liberal ones....but they have the best ratings.

Well hell they have no competition for 40% of the countries population while the other four have to fight over their 60%.

Besides if you are going to talk about sponsors then you have to start looking at demographics and time slots which FOX does not win outright.

https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/category/ratings/




https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoy.../#6bc1f4f260f6

While Fox News led overall with a total audience of 3.978 million viewers in prime time, CNN edged ahead of Fox among viewers 25-54, the demographic group prized by advertisers, with an average audience of 880,000 to FNC’s 792,000



Its been back and forth the last bunch of weeks and months

[Fatbeaverlol]

Oh have they? Have a source that isn't breitbart or oann on that?

- - - Updated - - -




There's a difference between.

Taking something out of context a person on the left did not say. Saying they said it and then hating on the fantasy they created.

And then hating on Trump because he is a walking constitutional crisis.

I dont see a reason to show a source. With things like this its going to be called out as fake anyway.
I rather waste my time by responding to this.

[Felya]

I dont see a reason to show a source. With things like this its going to be called out as fake anyway.
I rather waste my time by responding to this.

You are asserting something, that you don’t see a reason to source? Can’t just say where you read it? That doesn’t make any sense...

- - - Updated - - -

LOL 1 conservative network vs 4 liberal ones....but they have the best ratings.

With Trump pushing OAN? Will see how long that lasts... I am willing to bet, if Trump loses the election, he will outright buy OAN.

[Machismo]

I dont see a reason to show a source. With things like this its going to be called out as fake anyway.
I rather waste my time by responding to this.

What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

[silveth]

I agree with the statement all media is bias and I will add all media checking groups are bias. From the big 3 you have fox biased to the right, cnn and msnbc biased to the left.

I think a persons best bet is to check both sides and realize that the answer most of the time is somewhere in the middle.

The issue with this is sometimes one side or the other is correct totally and you have to break your own bias to realize when this happened. Case in point, the trump/russia collusion with turned out to be a conspiracy theory. In the end it has been proven that fox was right about it. There was no evidence found to support it, the people that cnn/msnbc had on pushing it were lying, when their statements were compared to what they said under oath,. Some democratic leaders were lying straight to the media and people about it while knowing the truth.

I don't hold cnn or msnbc accountable for following down a rabbit hole while people and "sources" kept lying to them about it. Even though yes, their bias opened them up to it.

I do hold them accountable for not just coming out and saying that they were wrong and apologizing for it. Stating they would do better in the future to not be fooled again. Because without them just showing some honor about it they widen the divide. One side will still believe the falsehoods true and the other will just give up on listening them at all calling them fake.

At some point people have to start getting to the facts from multiple sides and then base your opinion on them. Not what x or y say they mean or you should think about them.

[Endus]

Case in point, the trump/russia collusion with turned out to be a conspiracy theory.

This is a lie.

There've been not just convictions, but guilty pleas, in the investigation into that matter, of a host of illicit connections.

The idea that Trump himself was the kingpin is a straw man invented entirely by right-wing propaganda artists. And moreover, the Mueller investigation explicitly does no exonerate the President. They took pains to state exactly that.

You've been misled by propaganda.

[anyaka21]

What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

what like Van Jones literally crying on TV when Hilary lost? "what am I going to tell my kids?" Like he wasn't partisan? Their whole coverage was pro-Hillary and the shock are sheer over-the-top bias it was laughable.

Look, I'm not a Fox, but to deny that CNN isn't biased and that it's trustworthy is just as laughable

[Attackrabbit]

I think a persons best bet is to check both sides and realize that the answer most of the time is somewhere in the middle

Ah, this old chesnut again
I think you should give me all your money. You probably think you should give me none of your money. Lets consider both sides and agree that you'll give me half of your money.
You can contact me by PM for bank details

[Draco-Onis]

People forget how CNN and MSNBC bent themselves backwards supporting the invasion of Iraq during the Bush administration.

More recently people forget that CNN in 2016 was the Trump news network, they aired his rallies non stop and he frequently called on air. It is rather baffling why he turned on them but it has done good for their ratings, CNN was never liberal their only dedication has always been the blind pursuit of ratings. Until Trump went off on them they were the butt of jokes for liberals.

[Queen of Hamsters]

More recently people forget that CNN in 2016 was the Trump news network, they aired his rallies non stop and he frequently called on air. It is rather baffling why he turned on them but it has done good for their ratings, CNN was never liberal their only dedication has always been the blind pursuit of ratings. Until Trump went off on them they were the butt of jokes for liberals.

That's my memory as well, had no idea that he'd "turned" on them though, simply thought they went with popular opinion, which I suppose commercial channels will inevitably be doing in chase of ratings...

[Machismo]

what like Van Jones literally crying on TV when Hilary lost? "what am I going to tell my kids?" Like he wasn't partisan? Their whole coverage was pro-Hillary and the shock are sheer over-the-top bias it was laughable.

Look, I'm not a Fox, but to deny that CNN isn't biased and that it's trustworthy is just as laughable

He is partisan, nobody said he isn't.

That's not the claim that was made.

CNN has been caught alot of times spreading fake stories of news. Cant really all that decently trustworthy.
I find tucker hilarious but i dont think Fox News is that trustworthy either. The media gets paid to spread certain topics of news in a bad way. Left and right.
I do think ''I try to get my news from non-US sources when possible'' is a good thing because then you can also easily make your own conclusion about certain news topics.

[Zan15]

You are asserting something, that you don’t see a reason to source? Can’t just say where you read it? That doesn’t make any sense...

- - - Updated - - -



With Trump pushing OAN? Will see how long that lasts... I am willing to bet, if Trump loses the election, he will outright buy OAN.

LOL he has no money to buy anything....

They will most likely offer him the kind of branding deals he always gets....and make money by doing nothing but smacking his name on OAN.
Maybe this involves partial ownership so he can say he owns the trash

- - - Updated - - -

Lol! Not as long as they are the number one cable news network watched by far. The sponsors love shows which exposes their products to more potential customers.

Then again, all of us and all of the things on this earth have a limited number of days left.

BTW I love that posters like Ghostpanther always have to have a qualifier on statements like these.
"cable" news network.

I always hated this "bucketing" of the news to cable vs non cable.


While the liberal main news networks crush fox every night.
Almost all fox networks don't even have main national news programs.


Most liberals also get their news from the major networks before prime time. The ratings crush fox's 3.5 million viewers.

ABC’s “World News Tonight” led the evening newscasts with an average of 9.4-10 million viewers in may

All three so called liberal news cast crush fox
ABC’s “World News Tonight” led among the evening newscasts, averaging 9.6 million viewers last week. NBC’s “Nightly News” had 8.5 million and the “CBS Evening News” had 5.8 million.

Then you got 60 minutes crushing Fox's programing regularly if you want to talk about liberal news programing in prime time
“60 Minutes,” CBS, 9.53 million

[arandomuser]

The opinion people on fox news are absolute garbage
tucker carlson is a full nazbol, laura ingaham fascist
BUT
the actual journalist people which are on for 2 hours a day are pretty good
chris wallace and bret baier
The bias there is in what they choose to cover, for example CNN will choose to cover police brutality/peaceful protests, whereas fox news will cover the rioters,police injured by rioters, so the coverage they choose to give reinforces a certain viewpoint without directly expressing said viewpoint. But for the most part the actual journalist part is largely factual which is whats important

[TexasRules]

People forget how CNN and MSNBC bent themselves backwards supporting the invasion of Iraq during the Bush administration.

They don't forget. They just don't care.