What station is worse CNN or Fox?

See, part of my me agrees with this, but I don't necessarily agree that Fox News is generally accepted as propaganda. I mean, it seems to me that in large part they are what stopped the Healthcare bills from gaining public support. (As much as I hate to give them credit for something good..)

 

Do you know any news outlets that don't use those methods?

 

All news media outlets are slanted, to whichever way their advertising base leans... that's fact...

As for specific stations... fox out right lies about issues, and ignores stories that go against their line... cnn will usually give as many different perspectives as possible, they just belittle the ones they don't agree with.... but they still do them.

If you watch any of them exclusively as a source of information from the world, you are fucked from the start, but if you ignore the spin and take the info from the stories and find out whats going on independently, then cnn is definitely a better starting place then fox.

 

What about BBC news?

 

cnn. I actually watch fox sometimes for some reason. Oh yeah American Dad is the shit!

 

I don't know what to say about them... I've watched and read news on bbc, but can't remember anything specific... At a guess I'd say that means they aren't very memorable... lol

 

comparing cnn and fox is sorta wacked though... because cnn is just a news channel... thats all they do... fox is a whole network that includes a 'news' channel... A lot of people will defend fox on the basis of the simpsons alone...

 

Hey this is a shameless link to one of my other posts regarding tv news and biorythm Manipulation:
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?goto=lastpost&t=391409

 

.... CNN is a division of Turner Entertainment

 

Yes, but it has it's own identity... when you say CNN, people have no doubt you are talking about the news organization/channel.... whereas when you say Fox, people say things like;

 

Ah, would we agree that the thread would be more clear if it specified Fox News?

 

The thread does already state that it's about the 'news channels', it doesn't matter, because it isn't about what the thread says... its about the associations in people's minds...

People associate Fox with other things then news, whereas CNN is just news.

In terms of the way they each cover the news though, as I said earlier, that is totally based on where their money comes from, their advertisers.

 

Hmm... I really don't see how association should matter too much in this case, but the simplicity of some people can never stop surprising me, so I can't really argue there either =P

 

It's only the biggest and oldest news organisations in the world.
It generates each day about 120 hours of radio and television, as well as online news coverage.
The service maintains 44 foreign news bureau's and has correspondents in almost all the world's 240 countries.

Perhaps with the bombastic nature of Fox and the many movie references or allusions to CNN, the BBC doesn't have the same impact...
Heck, it's only British after all.

Btw, it doesn't have any advertisers.

 

I didn't quote the first part of your reply as I see zero relevance in spouting off their resume...

As for no advertisers... they still have people who pay their bills.

And no, it is not tax payers or public funds... although they may be the source for the money. There are people between bbc and the money whom they have to listen to or risk loosing their funding.

Bottom line is that they are still a news agency, who's first priority is staying in existence and if the choice comes down between pissing off the people who control their money by publishing a controversial story, or towing the line and keeping the funding, they willl choose to keep their funding...

 

The BBC is funded through a "licence fee".
The current fee – from 1 April 2009 – is £142.50 for a colour licence and £48.00 for a black-and-white licence.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/keyfacts/stories/licencefee.shtml
Introduced: November 1922.
Total levies from the licence fee were £3.49 Billion in 2008-09.
The licence is mandatory for any person within the UK wishing to view live television transmissions
So yes, they have people to pay their bills: UK tax payers.
Their continued funding is guaranteed for, well, forever (well, atleast as long as the BBC is operating).

It might be a good idea to find out about the BBC first...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC#News

 

Doesn't it just suck when you send people the proof you are wrong?

 

Where do you think they get their news from?
We have access to BBC worldwide here and it isn't any different to the normal BBC news output.
(Between 01:00 and 06:00 UK Time (UKT) the channel simulcasts with its sister channel, BBC World News)
(all that alters is they say thing like: "British Prime minister Gordon Brown.")

Yes, I appreciate the BBC has a commercial wing to it's operation.

But still: "Bottom line is that they are still a news agency, who's first priority is staying in existence and if the choice comes down between pissing off the people who control their money by publishing a controversial story, or towing the line and keeping the funding, they willl choose to keep their funding..."

None of that is true.
If it is, prove THAT is true.

 

Show me how any commercial enterprise exists without keeping an eye on funding?

But beyond that, your link also led me to this;

Confessions of a Reformed BBC Producer

You have a long time producer of BBC quite clearly talking about a bias in BBC and the media, although his line is that they were biased against the establishment, regardless of what the establishment was... to quote him;

In reading through the article, I get the impression that even with that slant going on, there was a time that they did try to remain impartial at BBC. I also get the impression that he feels they do not today.

After doing some other digging, I have to tell you, there is little you can say that will make me think the BBC is any different then any other news media in that they tell the stories that keep the money flowing, both from the people who watch (either through taxes, fees, donations or commercial bills) and from those who are in charge of the purse strings of the organization.

There are accusations against BBC from every side, just as there are against cnn and fox, and every other news organization. Some say they are left leaning, some say they are right leaning.

On another totally unrelated issue to the thread.... people should go read that article, it is quite interesting.

 

If the BBC commercial concerns fail, they will fail.
It's news content isn't swayed by commercial concerns as it is just basically BBC news.
You are talking about something you have not compared and contrasted.
So you are basically winging it.

He's talking about the so-called "media liberal consensus" which has nothing to do with commercial pressures.

http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/
The BBC's bias is an internal issue not a commercial issue...as it will affect both BBC News and BBC world News (basically the same thing, though.)

Most news stations tell the same stories.
The commercial stations will tailor their bias towards commercial and audience concerns, true.
It just isn't the case with the BBC.
I know you are argumentative and don't really like to be wrong.
But you are this time, sorry.

UK taxpayers have no choice about the licence fee.
It isn't going anywhere any time soon.
It's only concern is it's overall value for money.

With out showing glaring differences between BBC News and BBC News worldwide...you aren't making your case very well.

I didn't say the BBC was with out bias.
It just isn't because of commercial pressures.
It's commercial activities pay for it to broadcast in other countries, broadcast TV shows in other countries, and just basically operate in other countries.
Take a look how much BBC News earnt BBC worldwide over the last few years.