Are you suffering from Fox-o-phobia?

[BT]

Re: Chris Wallace

The progressive media watchdog organization, Media Matters for America[5] criticized Wallace for an interview that he conducted with former President Bill Clinton that aired on September 24, 2006 on Fox News Sunday. Clinton and Fox News had agreed in advance that half the time would be devoted to the Clinton Global Initiative and half to any other subjects that Wallace wanted to raise.[6]

While framing a question, Wallace told Clinton that most viewer email wanted to know, "Why didn't you do more to put Osama and Al Qaeda out of business when you were president?" Clinton responded by detailing what he called his administration's "comprehensive anti-terror operation". He then accused Wallace and Fox News of bias:

    CLINTON: So you did Fox's bidding on this show. You did your nice little conservative hit job on me.... It was a perfectly legitimate question, but I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked this question of. I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked, "Why didn't you do anything about the (bombing of the USS) Cole?"...I want to know how many you asked, "Why did you fire (Counter-terrorism expert) Dick Clarke?"
    ...
    WALLACE: We ask plenty of questions of ...
    CLINTON: You didn't ask that, did you? Tell the truth, Chris.
    WALLACE: About the USS Cole?
    CLINTON: Tell the truth, Chris.
    WALLACE: With Iraq and Afghanistan, there's plenty of stuff to ask.

Media Matters for America claimed they had reviewed "dozens of interviews ... with senior Bush aides." In addition to finding no interviews in which Wallace or his predecessor, Tony Snow, had challenged a Bush official about firing Clarke or the USS Cole,[7] Wallace had pressed only one Bush administration official, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, about the war on terror's failure to pursue the threat of Al Qaeda. He challenged, "Mr. Secretary, it sure sounds like fighting terrorism was not a top priority."[original research?][8] Brit Hume of Fox News cited the same 2004 interview as evidence of Wallace's independent reporting.[9]
 Registered Democrat

On October 11, 2006, The Washington Post revealed that Wallace had been a registered Democrat for more than two decades. Wallace explained his party affiliation in terms of pragmatism, insisting that being a Democrat is the only feasible means of participating in the political process in heavily Democratic Washington, D.C. He maintained he had voted for candidates from both major parties in the past.[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Wallace_%28journalist%29#Media_Matters_for_America_Criticism

[sirs]

While sirs also claims having "reviewed dozens of news shows"

next

[BT]

Says Sirs:

MY endgame would be education of the electorate...especially on the points that echo O'Reilly's concerns, regarding the MSM and what it has mutated into

and again from Sirs:

Chris Wallace is about as fair and balanced a news host can get.

Next

[sirs]

Next is that Media Matters DOES frequently spot and expose some bias, largely localized to 1 news organization.  MRC DOES frequently spot and expose bias, thru-out the vast majority of the rest of news organizations/MSM

Next

[BT]

Seems to me if one rails against media bias it should be against all media bias instead of just picking and choosing which bias to complain about. Then to use a clearly biased source as back up for your claims seems counterproductive at best, and hypocritical at worst.

And the fact remains that most people in this forum are intelligent enough to know the difference between straight news and opinion. And though the noble sacrifice of time and energy you expend making sure that
those unnamed few you deem not smart enough to know the difference are kept informed, I'm sure is appreciated, I am not convinced it is necessary.

[sirs]

Seems to me if one rails against media bias it should be against all media bias instead of just picking and choosing which bias to complain about.

No, it should rail agains bias that is becoming detrimental to what "the press" is supposed to be.  For instance, I wouldn't support a predominant RW bias either.  Problem is, there isn't one.  Does Fox News lean right?  Yea, a little.  and........WSJ perhaps........and..........?  It becomes a laundry list when we look at those agencies of "the press" and MSM that lean left

Then to use a clearly biased source as back up for your claims seems counterproductive at best, and hypocritical at worst.

That's your OPINION, based on a flawed premice to begin with that MRC is a "clearly biased source".  They are no more "clearly biased" than Government watch dog groups.

And the fact remains that most people in this forum are intelligent enough to know the difference between straight news and opinion.

Oh, I know that.  Apparently some here were confusing subjective opinions with objective unrefuted factual reporting, when they were trying to imply that I wasn't aware of the difference.  If the erroneous implication happens again, I may indeed need to go that extra step for clarity

[BT]

That's your OPINION, based on a flawed premice to begin with that MRC is a "clearly biased source". 

I have asked you repeatedly to show me one instance where they took a reporter to task for a conservative bias.

You haven't.

[sirs]

Probably because it's not an issue, nor has been.   You also answer your own question when you referenced in your earlier post of what their reporting is focused on....that of a predominant liberal bias. 

One perceives a problem (excessive government spending/overt liberal bias in the MSM).....one reports on it with facts.  There isn't an overt conservative bias in the MSM, thus no need to report on it as some major problem/issue

sheeesh

[BT]

Probably because it's not an issue, nor has been.

Sure it is. Media bias is in the eye of the beholder. It is subjective. If you look for liberal bias, you will find it. If you look for conservative bias you will find it. It is the nature of the beast. But to hold up the MRC as some beacon of objective truth is really a stretch.

It's like asking Fred Phelps to make the case for allowing gays into the military.

If a news reporter misreports the facts, like saying 1 billion US soldiers have been killed in Iraq, that is one thing. Saying far two many have been killed because WMD's were not found in the quantities expected is quite another. One states an objective fact that can be disproven. The other is a subjective statement that can only be agreed or disagreed with.

[sirs]

Probably because it's not an issue, nor has been.

Sure it is. Media bias is in the eye of the beholder. It is subjective.

Media bias is either present or its not.  If it is, is it neutral/even or is it not.  If it's not, to what extent is it predominant.  By every count imaginable, it is not only present, not only predominantly left, but blatantly transparent.  Is there SOME RW bias, yes, though not an issue, since it's a mere fraction of the bias that currently makes up the MSM

If you wish to ignore that, as well as the OBJECTIVE facts presented that reinforce such, that's your call


 

[BT]

This is the debate in a nutshell.

1. Is media bias present?

2. Is media bias a bad thing?

3. If it is a bad thing, does it matter in which direction the bias leans?

4. Does the average member of this forum possess the intellect to filter such bias?

For the record my answers are 1,2 and 4 yes with 3 being no.

[sirs]

Actually this issue, in a nutshell, is the one just above yours.  And Media Bias is a bad thing when a) it's not even supposed to exist in "the press", and b) it leans so far in 1 direction, regardless of if that direction were right or left.  In this case however it's most demonstrably left

[BT]

It doesn't matter what direction it leans. Bias is bias. It is either good or bad. Only a biased person would believe one type of bias is better than another.

[sirs]

It doesn't matter what direction it leans. Bias is bias.

Yes....and?

It is either good or bad. Only a biased person would believe one type of bias is better than another.

I must have missed the part where I was claiming that 1 bias is better than the other.  I guess you also completely forgot to which the topic was pertaining to......hint, MSM.  Bias in the press would be bad enough, if it were equal in its being perpetuated.  Overtly and egregious wasting of tax payer dollars...ooops, wrong watchdog group again, 1 sided bias is exponentually far worse.  This is the Press were talking about.  That entity that has been provided the greatest of all constitutional protections, #1 on the Bill of Rights.  And you think the grotesque mutation of the MSM into largely a Democratic talking points machine, is no real biggie?  Pretty sad commentary

[Christians4LessGvt]

Here's another half-wit - anti-democratic - anti-free speech Fox News hater.

Yeah Bozo take away the one conservative leaning and then one liberal leaning
and leave the other ten liberal leaning...yeah dats whats we call fair!  
You dumbass Rockyfeller elitist...let the people decide with their remote controls!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/11/17/sen_rockefeller_fcc_should_take_fox_news_msnbc_off_airwaves.html