This entry was posted on October 21, 2009 at 6:50 am and is filed under Free For All . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
An excellent example of how FNC shades their “fair & balanced” news coverage to the right: A story about Congress working on a plan to reduce the cost of the health-care reform proposal was introduced as “a plan that may change your health care.” That’s a Republican talking point; that Obama’s health care plans will negatively affect people who already have health insurance. Is someone with no health insurance supposed to hear the anchor’s statement as a positive for them? It wasn’t stated that way. FNC regularly introduces health-care reform stories from the POV of the potential problems with it.
Bernard, let me get this straight…… The Dems are trying to pass a $900 billion health care plan, and reporting that it “may change your health care” shows some sort of bias????
It will change everyone’s health care. Isn’t that the whole point??? Good grief.
In other news…. despite new ACORN video, that directly refutes the lies told by Bertha Lewis, Media Matters, the Washington Post, CNN & more about what happened in the Philadelphia office.
‘was introduced as “a plan that may change your health care.” ‘
‘May change your health care’ is an example of bias? ‘May change’. That’s a neutral phrase to me. Change for the good, change for the bad. Heck, Obama ran on ‘change’.
New organizations place tag lines like this – personalizing a story – on many issues.
Fox is definitely biased – sometimes ridiculously so; but sorry this isn’t an example of it.
I disagree, Steve. I don’t know the anchor’s name (John-something), but his tone of voice and choice of wording shaded the story as a threat to the viewer. A neutral introduction to the story would have been to announce that Congress was working on reducing its cost. Period. There’s no need to announce it’s potential negative impact as a lead in, especially because it obviously was weighted to blunt the potential positives of a cost reduction. He intentionally preloaded the story with a statement about “viewers” fears of health-care reform, when the piece was about something else.
Yeah, I’m not quite seeing the bias in that one. Bream said something much more blatant this morning, and it kills me that I can’t remember it. Falling down on the job, I am. I’m pretty sure the word ‘fears’ was in there, somewhere.
That little public back-and-forth between Rahn Emmanuel and SecDef Bob Gates over Afghanistan was pretty revealing.
It seems to me evidence that the President hasn’t decided what to do or even has strongly indicated internally what course he’ll take. Thus the two sides – Pentagon vs. WH – still trying to influence any decision through the press.
I don’t think half measures are going to succeed. Either full in or full out.
Just one more reason that you have to be loopy to be President. It’s just an impossible job.
I think Sec Def Gates used his own bully pulpit to remind Rahm Emmanuel what his job title is. We can rightly criticise President Obama for not speaking with his appointed general for months and for not getting on with making a battle decision, but it’s the Chief of Staff who controls the president’s time and has the duty to get these meetings arranged. It’s Rahm Emmanuel who is playing politics with our military personnel who are taking casualties.
- Dr. Hill –
Surprisingly, I’m not surprised he said that. I haven’t quite figured that guy out.
There’s an old saying that the bias in the press is not that they tell you want to think but that they tell you want to think about.
The bias in Fox News, for me, is as much the stories they cover, the emphasis that they give, the issues that they focus upon as it is too much airtime for a Hannity or Beck.
After all, a news organization can give both sides on an issue but by focusing on that particular topic over others can be just as biased as a organization that gives just one side.
So, Fox will hammer, hammer, hammer stories about ACORN or Rev. Wright or other, yes, legitimate stories that make the Democrats look bad. But repetition is telling viewers what to think about.
That, for me, is how most of their bias comes through.
The White House complains about the “5 p.m. and 9 p.m. shows” but they’re really upset, I think, with the stories that Fox covers and emphasizes more than the opinion programs. Beck and Hannity are just handy sticks to use.
Anchors are hired for presentation, including speaking style. If you think they don’t use tone to color what they’re saying, then you don’t know the difference between a person who honestly says, “I’m fine”, and one who bites your head off with the same phrase. All married people can bow out now, because we’ve been there.
I outlined how the story could have been presented neutrally. It wasn’t. It was presaged by a warning intended to be picked up by FNC’s conservative viewers, which supports Steve’s thesis that they’re telling you how to think about the story. MSNBC does it all the time, too. It’s shading the news towards their respective audiences, and shouldn’t be done.
A neutral introduction to the story would have been to announce that Congress was working on reducing its cost. Period.
Oh, I disagree Bernard. If they had said that… it would have been CLEAR bias. I mean, if they’re saying Congress has to “work to reduce costs,” that implicitly implies that costs of their current proposal is “too high.”
See… you can find “bias” everywhere. If they really wanted to be un-biased, they’d just shout out nouns and neutral verbs… let the audience sort it all out afterwards: “Congress!” “Healthcare!” “Meeting!” “Discuss!”
Nice sarcasm, Blue Man. The discussion was about reducing the cost. Of course you have to actually report what they were doing. Reminding the viewer that it “may change their health care” is an unnecessary editorial, which presumes the viewer has health care.
Bernie, if the viewer doesn’t have health care, and ObamaCare then forces you get it (which is their plan)….. then the bill CHANGES THEIR HEALTH CARE!!
Going from not having any to then having it IS A CHANGE.
The anchor didn’t even say that, which is a fact. He said it “may change their health care”. That’s not bias.
That’s your preconceived bias picking it up where it doesn’t exist.
October 21, 2009 at 7:39 am
Well, isn’t that special. Perhaps a worst and best person in the world?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/10/21/former-fnc-lib-white-house-attacks-fox-reek-propaganda
October 21, 2009 at 8:18 am
An excellent example of how FNC shades their “fair & balanced” news coverage to the right: A story about Congress working on a plan to reduce the cost of the health-care reform proposal was introduced as “a plan that may change your health care.” That’s a Republican talking point; that Obama’s health care plans will negatively affect people who already have health insurance. Is someone with no health insurance supposed to hear the anchor’s statement as a positive for them? It wasn’t stated that way. FNC regularly introduces health-care reform stories from the POV of the potential problems with it.
October 21, 2009 at 9:06 am
Bernard, let me get this straight…… The Dems are trying to pass a $900 billion health care plan, and reporting that it “may change your health care” shows some sort of bias????
It will change everyone’s health care. Isn’t that the whole point??? Good grief.
In other news…. despite new ACORN video, that directly refutes the lies told by Bertha Lewis, Media Matters, the Washington Post, CNN & more about what happened in the Philadelphia office.
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/21/breaking-new-acorn-video-from-philadelphia/
October 21, 2009 at 9:13 am
‘was introduced as “a plan that may change your health care.” ‘
‘May change your health care’ is an example of bias? ‘May change’. That’s a neutral phrase to me. Change for the good, change for the bad. Heck, Obama ran on ‘change’.
New organizations place tag lines like this – personalizing a story – on many issues.
Fox is definitely biased – sometimes ridiculously so; but sorry this isn’t an example of it.
October 21, 2009 at 9:21 am
I disagree, Steve. I don’t know the anchor’s name (John-something), but his tone of voice and choice of wording shaded the story as a threat to the viewer. A neutral introduction to the story would have been to announce that Congress was working on reducing its cost. Period. There’s no need to announce it’s potential negative impact as a lead in, especially because it obviously was weighted to blunt the potential positives of a cost reduction. He intentionally preloaded the story with a statement about “viewers” fears of health-care reform, when the piece was about something else.
October 21, 2009 at 9:24 am
– a plan that may change your health care.” ‘ –
Yeah, I’m not quite seeing the bias in that one. Bream said something much more blatant this morning, and it kills me that I can’t remember it. Falling down on the job, I am. I’m pretty sure the word ‘fears’ was in there, somewhere.
October 21, 2009 at 9:58 am
That little public back-and-forth between Rahn Emmanuel and SecDef Bob Gates over Afghanistan was pretty revealing.
It seems to me evidence that the President hasn’t decided what to do or even has strongly indicated internally what course he’ll take. Thus the two sides – Pentagon vs. WH – still trying to influence any decision through the press.
I don’t think half measures are going to succeed. Either full in or full out.
Just one more reason that you have to be loopy to be President. It’s just an impossible job.
October 21, 2009 at 10:51 am
The tone of the anchor’s voice was some sort of signal? Good freaking grief.
Of course a huge government takeover of healthcare will change everyone’s health care. Whether it’s a change for good or for bad is another story.
October 21, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Bernard, if that’s the best you can do, then I don’t think Media Matters will be calling you anytime soon to join their research department.
Weak.
October 21, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Eh, it’s about as good as anything Media Matters ever comes up with. Bernie’s got potential.
October 21, 2009 at 12:54 pm
I think Sec Def Gates used his own bully pulpit to remind Rahm Emmanuel what his job title is. We can rightly criticise President Obama for not speaking with his appointed general for months and for not getting on with making a battle decision, but it’s the Chief of Staff who controls the president’s time and has the duty to get these meetings arranged. It’s Rahm Emmanuel who is playing politics with our military personnel who are taking casualties.
- Dr. Hill –
Surprisingly, I’m not surprised he said that. I haven’t quite figured that guy out.
October 21, 2009 at 1:00 pm
There’s an old saying that the bias in the press is not that they tell you want to think but that they tell you want to think about.
The bias in Fox News, for me, is as much the stories they cover, the emphasis that they give, the issues that they focus upon as it is too much airtime for a Hannity or Beck.
After all, a news organization can give both sides on an issue but by focusing on that particular topic over others can be just as biased as a organization that gives just one side.
So, Fox will hammer, hammer, hammer stories about ACORN or Rev. Wright or other, yes, legitimate stories that make the Democrats look bad. But repetition is telling viewers what to think about.
That, for me, is how most of their bias comes through.
The White House complains about the “5 p.m. and 9 p.m. shows” but they’re really upset, I think, with the stories that Fox covers and emphasizes more than the opinion programs. Beck and Hannity are just handy sticks to use.
October 21, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Anchors are hired for presentation, including speaking style. If you think they don’t use tone to color what they’re saying, then you don’t know the difference between a person who honestly says, “I’m fine”, and one who bites your head off with the same phrase. All married people can bow out now, because we’ve been there.
I outlined how the story could have been presented neutrally. It wasn’t. It was presaged by a warning intended to be picked up by FNC’s conservative viewers, which supports Steve’s thesis that they’re telling you how to think about the story. MSNBC does it all the time, too. It’s shading the news towards their respective audiences, and shouldn’t be done.
October 21, 2009 at 1:43 pm
A neutral introduction to the story would have been to announce that Congress was working on reducing its cost. Period.
Oh, I disagree Bernard. If they had said that… it would have been CLEAR bias. I mean, if they’re saying Congress has to “work to reduce costs,” that implicitly implies that costs of their current proposal is “too high.”
See… you can find “bias” everywhere. If they really wanted to be un-biased, they’d just shout out nouns and neutral verbs… let the audience sort it all out afterwards: “Congress!” “Healthcare!” “Meeting!” “Discuss!”
October 21, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Nice sarcasm, Blue Man. The discussion was about reducing the cost. Of course you have to actually report what they were doing. Reminding the viewer that it “may change their health care” is an unnecessary editorial, which presumes the viewer has health care.
October 21, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Bernie, if the viewer doesn’t have health care, and ObamaCare then forces you get it (which is their plan)….. then the bill CHANGES THEIR HEALTH CARE!!
Going from not having any to then having it IS A CHANGE.
The anchor didn’t even say that, which is a fact. He said it “may change their health care”. That’s not bias.
That’s your preconceived bias picking it up where it doesn’t exist.
October 21, 2009 at 8:07 pm
It “may change” your heathcare.
Yes… and the sun “may” come out tomorrow.
Didn’t say “may change it for the worse” or “may make it better,” just “change it.” Isn’t that what congress is TRYING to do? CHANGE the system?
You’ve read WAY too much into this… time to move on.