CNN pretty much founded this format with Crossfire didn't they?

Yes.

gotta call bullshit.

I watch Forbes on Fox & The Cost of Freedom on saturdays, and 1/2 the show is dedicated to how the democrats are going to hurt wall street.

A few months ago I saw Dick Durbin actually take a question from a conservative blogger. Durbin was stunned and had no idea how to handle it, so he walked out. Very amusing.


You would be amused then, by the stories I could tell about the bad behavior of talent. They all do it. Believe me when I tell you that what makes them good on air...whatever that charisma/multi-task thing that lets them think coherently, listen to a director, a producer, and follow directions from the floor and still manage to keep some composure is...that's also what makes them unbearable off camera.

I hate that, "The guys behind the camera crap." Makes it sound like it's just the techies. Do you think Bill O'Reilly writes his own script? Anderson Cooper? Sean Hannity? Behind every one of those guys is a team of producers that write their butts off. They may re-work it, but it's largely someone else's.

And don't even get me started on Fox's Morning Memos. Wanna know how the media really works? Go to medialine.com and visit THEIR forum. You get all kinds, liberal conservative...just like the real world. Most of them are working stiffs who got into journalism 'cause the wanted to tell good stories. Now they're stuck doing 1:30 packages that don't explain anything...because Americans have the attention span of gnats.

Of course. No dispute that the on air talent pretty much just reads teleprompters written by others.

You're missing the point, as well as the other side of the story.



The Faux format involves using weak-minded people to 'represent' the other side.



Like the guy on H&C last night, instead of representing his side, he offered some weak arguments, then basically agreed with the right-wingers that Murtha shouldn't have said what he said.



Appearance != reality.

If there really was a liberal media, then there would be a site that might call itself mrc.org , and it would never be short on material to point out how the media slants its stories to fit the utopian vision.

Of course, since there is no liberal media, no such site as mrc.org exists either.

---

"I can endure more pain than anyone you've ever met. That's why I can beat anyone I've ever met." Steve Prefontaine, Without Limits

A) Drag your ass out of bed on a weekday when the news is on, not some shows on a saturday.

B) You look like a total tool using childish names

C) "Weak-minded people?" Like Kennedy, Gore and just about any Democratic political figure?

I call bullshit on everything you have said in this thread because it's obvious you know exactly nothing about what Fox shows.

---

______________________________________________________

Proud Founder of the Jamis Mafia- Daring to be different.

I have even seen Bob Beckel do this in reference to Howard Dean rantings.

Some things just can not be defended.

actually, that 2 hour block of shows is called "The Cost of Freedom" -Forbes is just a 30 minute show within the 2 hour block (the other 3 shows are... bulls and bears, Cavuto, and "cashin in'").

All 4 shows follow the same format, 15 min. of worthless political crap designed to scare retired people in Florida ("LIBERALS are ruining the Economy", "Will a Democratic congress destroy YOUR portfolo?"), followed by 15 min. of stock picks and general market commentary from 4 "guests".

I like watching the last 15 min of each of the shows (Thank You TIVO! - I can watch the 2 hour block in about 20min.) - I hate the shows, but like the individual "guests" (Wayne Rogers, Hoenig, morningstar guy, Tobin, blond woman from SFO, that Dude whose suits are way too tight, etc).

I blame the Fox producers who apparently have absolutely no clue about investments. Recent topic given to the 4 guests/stockpickers on one of the shows: "pick an airline stock that will fly high" - what normal person wants to buy stock in an airline? 3 of the 4 guests declined to pick a stock (never seen that before, since it's their job is to pick stocks),

and why is it called "the Cost of Freedom"? - I've never figured that out either....

http://www.foxnews.com/freedom/index.html

Last week's Cavuto did have one interesting topic... "Protect your money: Drug Test Congress"

Below are the topics for tomorrow:

Bulls & Bears: Bush immigration plan: boost for GOP?
Cavuto on Business: Will Jesus 'save' Hollywood?
Forbes on FOX: Privatize the border patrol?
Cashin' In: Can NSA save lives and market?

Whatever happened to actual journalism? You know, where a reporter who hopefully knows what he is doing goes out in the field and uncovers a story, investigates something, you know ...

Of course, if you do a story on our brave soldiers or do a strory about how illegals are draining the system, well you MUST be conservative ... If you do a story on how our military screwed up or a story that is sympathetic to illegals, well then you are liberal. All of the stories could be accurate ...

I'm just so sick of the news on TV ... The MSM is now made up of f****ing pundits, people who are there to represent a "side" and defend a point of view. Few are reporters, almost all are commentators trying to peddle their ideas, usually to the already convinced. There must be way more pundits on payrolls than actual journalists these days. Its sad.

Is this really journalism? What good is it doing us?

Fox sucks up to and gives more the benefit of the doubt the current administration ... CNN is much more critical and sceptical ... I'm sure if the Dems were more powerful, Fox would do a little more attacking and CNN would coddle them, whatever ... But cable news is all such a bunch of crap, don't you think?

I can't believe anyone would defend any of the networks.

However, I still have seen a few good segments on many of the different networks, its just that its all so few and far between. Like a needle in a haystack.

UH, PBS is pretty left as well. The exception is the Leherer News Hour when he has both sides on for discussion.

The exception is the Leherer News Hour when he has both sides on for discussion.


That and This Week in Washington is the only thing I watch, in terms of news, on PBS. I think the only reason they are considered "left" is because they are often critical of this administration but I don't think that's being left, it's being honest.

Really, how can you not be critical of the Iraq war and some of the other disasters from this administration. Right, Left, Center, Upside Down, it doesn't matter which way you lean, only a very dishonest person could admit the situation in Iraq is positive.

---

__________________________________________________

You sir, are my new hero! - Trifan 11/13/2008

Casey, you are a wise man - blueraider_mike 11/13/2008

Casey, This is an astute observation. - Slowbern 11/17/2008

True, but nothing in life (especially war) goes according to plan. I find it unreasonable when people expect that and therefore criticize based on that logic. There are always going to be people who will say that war is never an option. The world is still a violent place and human nature being what it is, will continue to be so.

What do you think the discussion would be like if the American Revolution took place today ? I could imagine we would be speaking the king's english and we would still be part of England.

At least in this country we can agree to disagree; elsewhere I'm not so sure :)

Whatever happened to actual journalism?

Journalism went to pot when the idea that you entered journalism "to make the world a better place" became in vogue. Exactly how do you make the world a better place by reporting on stories and events, as opposed to, i don't know, maybe curing cancer, or feeding the hungry?

If you thik journalism is the way to "make the world a better place", then you must have a vision of what that better place is, and plan to use the medium to advance that view. Which is what we have currently.

The worst part about it is that rather than admit their biases, they claim to be straight down the middle. That is what causes the problem. I think people would be much more accepting if he biases were stated upfront. of course, deception is a much easier way to get people to agree with a point of view that may not be mainstream.

---

"I can endure more pain than anyone you've ever met. That's why I can beat anyone I've ever met." Steve Prefontaine, Without Limits

I think we should go back to the days of 'yellow' journalism. Back in the good ol' days of the '90's. 1890's, that is. Really, with the rise of the AP, when do media outlets get a chance to add a bias to the events they report? Not to say that there'll be no bias in reporting, but it's not like we have the outright false stories of the Hearst Era.

Of course there'll always be some kind of bias, but not the purposeful bias that people tend to believe exist in the media. I think it tends to be the views of commentators that too many people accept as facts rather than opinions by people with known biases. Shields and Brooks is a clear example of how to give at least both sides a chance to expound their opinions.

Btw, does anyone else hate the recent changes to the Newshour?

---

Increasing awareness for suffers of DGS (Diminished Gluteal Syndrome).

[reply]I used to watch the Newshour, and I thought they did a decent job. I also thought Lehrer did a good job as moderator in the presidential debates.

Who was the balance to Bill Moyers?[/reply]

If PBS did a piece on the shape of the Earth, you'd whine about them not having a Flat Earth Society member for "balance". There's a difference between "balance" and "facts".

Yep, nothing but the facts from Bill Moyers. From his retirement speech:

"Remember James Watt, President Ronald Reagan's first secretary of the interior? My favorite online environmental journal, the ever-engaging Grist, reminded us recently of how James Watt told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony he said, "after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back."

Beltway elites snickered. The press corps didn't know what he was talking about. But James Watt was serious."

In this story, Moyers has added his own personal description on testimony that never happened. Moyers just relied on his fellow whacko for the quote without bothering to check for accuracy. It is fitting that this was Moyers retirement speech. It represents him perfectly.

"In fact, Watt did not make such a statement to Congress. The quotation is attributed to Watt in the book Setting the Captives Free by Austin Miles, but Miles does not write that it was made before Congress. Grist regrets this reporting error and is aggressively looking into the accuracy of this quotation.]

[Update, 11 Feb 2005: Grist has been unable to substantiate that Watt made this statement. We would like to extend our sincere apologies to Watt and to our readers for this error.]"

Yep, just the facts from Moyers. Tell me again, which side of the flat Earth debate does Moyers represent?

I agree and disagree:

Journalism went to pot when the idea that you entered journalism "to make the world a better place" became in vogue. Exactly how do you make the world a better place by reporting on stories and events, as opposed to, i don't know, maybe curing cancer, or feeding the hungry?


Disagree. For hundreds of years, journalists alwasy hoped to crusade, to some degree, and "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable," whether it was American Revolutionaries (Ben Franklin?) ripping on the British Empire or the muckrakers telling folks that workers were falling into meat grinders at slaughterhouses or the media that reported attrocities like the Holocaust.

Of course, for the most part, journalism is crap and always has been, but I believe its important and necessary and the best journalists have always been crusaders of some sort.

The worst part about it is that rather than admit their biases, they claim to be straight down the middle. That is what causes the problem. I think people would be much more accepting if he biases were stated upfront.

Agree. A hundred years ago, most cities had 10 newspapers with viewpoints ranging from Workers of the World Unite to the church paper to the paper that sucked up to the government to the paper that was a shill for the local industry. Everyone knew the bias of the source ... But they all got gobbled up and merged and when there's only one source of news, well, it will have a bias but it has to pretend to be fair and equal and objective, which is impossible.