Fox News Tries to Bash Atheist and Agnostics

[Underhill]

It's been at least that long for me too.
Nowadays, I only hear him when my assistant switches from NPR (my choice) to Rush or one of his Bible thumping shows.
It's a disturbing insight into a different perspective.
But hey....gotta be aware of contrary views, eh.

I get my share of awareness in much the same way. Where I live, the average person thinks Rush is a hair liberal for their taste. Rural Western NYS. The home of the modern day northeastern okie...

 

[philbo]

Limbaugh's show is also filled with satire.
The problem is that people treat him & Colbert as their news source.

I realize it's comedy/satire, but I'm trying to think of any of the Colbert Report shows I've seen where there are lies, distortion, browbeating of interviewees such that they don't get a chance to get their point across (especially when the interviewer feels he's being bested). If you were to take those parts of Limbaugh's show away, I'm not sure how much there would be left. I say "left", I mean "remaining"

What I mean is, I think it's problematic to think of Colbert as "the Left's Limbaugh"

 

[philbo]

I want a prez who will actively oppose this policy.

Wouldn't that be federal government interfering with things that are state level?

I'd have thought you'd have wanted a president who left state business to the states rather than interfered.

..or is it only that you want smaller government when they're doing something you don't like?

 

[Revoltingest]

Wouldn't that be federal government interfering with things that are state level?

It's fed interference which I oppose.
Locals get their military hardware from the feds.

I'd have thought you'd have wanted a president who left state business to the states rather than interfered.

To re-state it....
The fed gives or heavily discounts military hardware to locals.
Thus, the fed is taking actions which effect militarization of police.
I prefer that they not do this.
Locals are less likely to acquire such things without the fed's involvement.

..or is it only that you want smaller government when they're doing something you don't like?

I see it very differently from you, ie, if the fed stops giving military hardware
to local police, this doesn't mean the fed is interfering with local affairs.
Instead, it would be ending a federal subsidy of militarizing police.

I'm mystified why anyone would see my position as advocating big government.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Every news show may have some inate bias. But there is a marked difference. Some networks like NPR and CNN make an attempt at being non biased. They work very hard to give both sides their say (sometimes to the point of absurdity) and the presenters (outside of a few editorial shows) try not to express an opinion. Occasionally their view leaks through in the way they phrase a question or their facial expressions, but the attempt is made.

Even the most left leaning channel I know offers host who lean left but they have opinions from both sides even if the opinions are weighted towards their view.

I don't watch Fox on a regular basis, but I've seen enough to know that is not how they operate. I watched with awe and trepidation while they literally promoted the tea party rallies with informational hotline numbers and calls to get out there and show your support. I have never seen that on any other "news" network. I've seen them fabricate scandals out of thin air over and over. It is scary that they are the most watched news network by a wide margin.

I'm not sure that CNN and NPR make an attempt at being as non-biased as possible, or at least they don't search out their own prejudices and assumptions enough. They have a clear soft bias, though this sometimes comes out in a few less than soft ways. I saw an NPR article on abortion that could have been a Guardian or Huffington Post editorial, and it said it was written by a reporter, not someone giving opinion. Or when Anderson Cooper used to report on SSM, I lost track of the amount of times he would have panel made up of a SSM advocate and the left-wing, pro-SSM lawyer, Toobin. Soft bias can be more insidious, as it takes more people in and the unalert don't spot it as easily.

I agree Fox is replete with bias. I was only saying that Fox News Sunday and Special Report are not bad. They are biased, but they often have good journalism, and they make a change from the left-liberal bias of much of the rest of the media, British and American.

 

[philbo]

I'm mystified why anyone would see my position as advocating big government.

Because you said:

I want a prez who will actively oppose this policy.

..and that kind of "active opposition" requires a federal government getting involved in small things.

Have to admit, I find the whole militarization of police over there bizarre and full of macho silliness.. but given that you chaps elect police chiefs and the like, why not blame the public for not voting out police chiefs who think some of the military hardware they scoop up is appropriate?

 

[Revoltingest]

Because you said:
..and that kind of "active opposition" requires a federal government getting involved in small things.

I see now.
The policy I oppose is what the fed was doing.
And Obama being in charge of this aspect of it, should oppose it.

But let's consider local government too.
One of the fed government's responsibilities is to see that the Bill Of Rights isn't violated by the states.
Where militarization of police begins to infringe upon constitutional civil liberties, it's the proper role for the fed to intervene.
Example:
If cops begin serving warrants with military style violence where it's unnecessary or wrongful, this becomes at least a 4th Amendment violation.

Have to admit, I find the whole militarization of police over there bizarre and full of macho silliness.. but given that you chaps elect police chiefs and the like, why not blame the public for not voting out police chiefs who think some of the military hardware they scoop up is appropriate?

I don't think "macho" is the right word, since female cops are also in on the carnage.
I'd call'm "combative" & "abusive".

 

[Baladas]

An entertainment "news" show spouting hateful ignorance and lies?
No way! Especially not Fox. Never Fox!

 

[Underhill]

I'm not sure that CNN and NPR make an attempt at being as non-biased as possible, or at least they don't search out their own prejudices and assumptions enough. They have a clear soft bias, though this sometimes comes out in a few less than soft ways. I saw an NPR article on abortion that could have been a Guardian or Huffington Post editorial, and it said it was written by a reporter, not someone giving opinion. Or when Anderson Cooper used to report on SSM, I lost track of the amount of times he would have panel made up of a SSM advocate and the left-wing, pro-SSM lawyer, Toobin. Soft bias can be more insidious, as it takes more people in and the unalert don't spot it as easily.

Politically NPR and CNN do very well at being non biased. In a study released last year, they found that NPR actually had more republicans on the channel than democrat by a hair. But with things like abortion it is harder to find that balance. Like it or not, abortion is the law of the land. And there is a difference between reporting the sides (which you would do in a political story), and reporting the facts. For example, I don't know if it was the same story, but the last story I saw on NPR was discussing the released videos of the director selling tissue to the medical lab. It was not an opinion piece but they were discussing the reality and the myths surrounding the 'undercover' videos. I could see how someone could take it as biased as much of the show talked about the misconceptions most people have. But at the same time they were reporting the facts. It is the same when they talk about things like climate change. Someone who doesn't believe in it might want them to talk about it as theory, when most of the civilized world, including NPR, have accepted it as fact. I don't consider that bias.

But obviously many disagree.

I agree Fox is replete with bias. I was only saying that Fox News Sunday and Special Report are not bad. They are biased, but they often have good journalism, and they make a change from the left-liberal bias of much of the rest of the media, British and American.

I bet on the world stage NPR would be considered moderate or even slightly conservative. I've spent a fair amount of time having these discussions with British friends, and they have commented many times that what we see as liberal in this country, is closer to moderate conservative in theirs. And I wouldn't consider the UK to be among the most liberal states in Europe.

 

[Revoltingest]

Politically NPR and CNN do very well at being non biased. In a study released last year, they found that NPR actually had more republicans on the channel than democrat by a hair.

What does "on the channel" mean......guests, hosts, or audience?
As an avid NPR listener, I'd wager that the hosts are majority Democrat.
I see bias in what they cover & don't cover, by partisan disparate use of language, & by advocacy.
(NPR didn't cover the Paula Jones scandal until after Clinton was re-elected, even though that cat was out of the bag at the time.
But their own reporter sought out the Anita Hill story & made it prominent. So they will investigate or not, depending upon who benefits.)
Moreover, they (Diane Rheem) aren't so respectful towards atheists, often giving us the prefix "so-called".

Some perspective....
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...re-are-overwhelmingly-liberal-were-not-biased
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR#Allegations_of_ideological_bias
In this last link, the claim that NPR relies upon "conservative think tanks" appears to include libertarians ones as "conservative" (eg, Cato Institute, Institute For Justice).

 

[Underhill]

What does "on the channel" mean......guests, hosts, or audience?
As an avid NPR listener, I'd wager that the hosts are majority Democrat.
I see bias in what they cover & don't cover, by partisan disparate use of language, & by advocacy.
(NPR didn't cover the Paula Jones scandal until after Clinton was re-elected, even though that cat was out of the bag at the time.
But their own reporter sought out the Anita Hill story & made it prominent. So they will investigate or not, depending upon who benefits.)
Moreover, they (Diane Rheem) aren't so respectful towards atheists, often giving us the prefix "so-called".

Some perspective....
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...re-are-overwhelmingly-liberal-were-not-biased
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR#Allegations_of_ideological_bias
In this last link, the claim that NPR relies upon "conservative think tanks" appears to include libertarians ones as "conservative" (eg, Cato Institute, Institute For Justice).

In fairness though, libertarians are a hell of a lot closer to conservatives in most cases. Both you list have always seemed more anti democrat than pro anything else.

I don't really care about the politics of the host. If Fox were to take the same approach as NPR, but with conservative host, you wouldn't here me complain about them. The problem is not the subtle stuff. Sure that may have some small impact in reinforcing the views of some. But Fox is actively pushing an agenda... in affect making the news or trying to. Driving hatred.

None of that is even remotely true of NPR or any other network for that matter.

 

[Revoltingest]

In fairness though, libertarians are a hell of a lot closer to conservatives in most cases. Both you list have always seemed more anti democrat than pro anything else.

That all depends upon how you compare us.
Both Pubs & Dems have been way too pro-war for our taste.
Economically, we were closer to Reagan & Goldwater, but not to either Bush.
When the Big Two were both anti-gay marriage, we were pro.
Pubs have seemed a little more favorable towards legalizing drugs.
(These last 2 items show some movement in our progressive direction.)
Pubs have been stronger on civil liberties (shocker to Dems, I know),
but the how of it & what kind of civil rights complicates the issue.
We tend to be constitutional originalists, & without an over arching religious influence.
I find it offensive for lefties to simplistically lump us in with conservatives.

I don't really care about the politics of the host.

It isn't about caring.
It's about how their orientation affects news coverage.

If Fox were to take the same approach as NPR, but with conservative host, you wouldn't here me complain about them.

Fox has a different style, ie, more overt.
Nonetheless, they both have their agendas.
NPR is subtler.....which makes it easier for me to take.

The problem is not the subtle stuff. Sure that may have some small impact in reinforcing the views of some. But Fox is actively pushing an agenda... in affect making the news or trying to. Driving hatred.

NPR does the same.
I find them fostering hatred every bit as much.
Pushing hatred tends to not be noticed so much when one dislikes the object of such coverage.
Since I both identify & hate'm all, I believe I see a clearer picture than would a Pub or a Dem.
But who know, eh?

None of that is even remotely true of NPR or any other network for that matter.

It varies with the network, but it's everywhere, eg, the very left leaning MSNBC.

Note:
What you label as "hatred", I see as something else, ie, more of competitive
spirit which can get abusive, & can blind one to merit on the other side.

 

[Underhill]

That all depends upon how you compare us.
Both Pubs & Dems have been way too pro-war for our taste.
Economically, we were closer to Reagan & Goldwater, but not to either Bush.
When the Big Two were both anti-gay marriage, we were pro.
Pubs have seemed a little more favorable towards legalizing drugs.
(These last 2 items show some movement in our progressive direction.)
Pubs have been stronger on civil liberties (shocker to Dems, I know),
but the how of it & what kind of civil rights complicates the issue.
We tend to be constitutional originalists, & without an over arching religious influence.
I find it offensive for lefties to simplistically lump us in with conservatives.

It isn't about caring.
It's about how their orientation affects news coverage.

Fox has a different style, ie, more overt.
Nonetheless, they both have their agendas.
NPR is subtler.....which makes it easier for me to take.

NPR does the same.
I find them fostering hatred every bit as much.
Pushing hatred tends to not be noticed so much when one dislikes the object of such coverage.
Since I both identify & hate'm all, I believe I see a clearer picture than would a Pub or a Dem.
But who know, eh?

It varies with the network, but it's everywhere, eg, the very left leaning MSNBC.

Note:
What you label as "hatred", I see as something else, ie, more of competitive
spirit which can get abusive, & can blind one to merit on the other side.

When I see certain Fox News anchors (Megan Kelly comes to mind) talk about liberals or Obama, there is a sneer in her voice. It's the same with Bill Orielly and several others. I've never seen that or heard it on the likes of NPR or CNN. When they talk about taking back America, or liberals destroying America, that is not just competitive spirit. It is a combative and somewhat dangerous game they are playing.

I have always looked at politics in the same way the old school politicians I most love did. The opposition is not the enemy. They have a different set of ideas and methods. The goal of any republic is compromise and by doing this the end result, the goal, should be to take the best from all sides and come to a worthwhile conclusion. This combative spirit destroys any hope of that. This is how we get bad legislation like Obama care. One side, in a moment of control, squeezes legislation through with minimal scrutiny. It won't get fixed because that plan becomes not just flawed, but an evil cancer that must be removed. But that is what politics have become because those working the other side of the aisle are now your enemy.

Bias I can live with. But drumming up hatred and combativeness, not so much. It is crippling our democracy. It's not just Fox News, but they have led the charge.

 

[Revoltingest]

When I see certain Fox News anchors (Megan Kelly comes to mind) talk about liberals or Obama, there is a sneer in her voice. It's the same with Bill Orielly and several others. I've never seen that or heard it on the likes of NPR or CNN. When they talk about taking back America, or liberals destroying America, that is not just competitive spirit. It is a combative and somewhat dangerous game they are playing.

I've not heard those Fox folk, but I've heard Diane Rheem sneer at Republicans & business people.
Note: You'll hear put the "arch" & other dismissive prefixes in front of "conservative", but there's no such dis'n of Dems.

I have always looked at politics in the same way the old school politicians I most love did. The opposition is not the enemy. They have a different set of ideas and methods. The goal of any republic is compromise and by doing this the end result, the goal, should be to take the best from all sides and come to a worthwhile conclusion. This combative spirit destroys any hope of that. This is how we get bad legislation like Obama care. One side, in a moment of control, squeezes legislation through with minimal scrutiny. It won't get fixed because that plan becomes not just flawed, but an evil cancer that must be removed. But that is what politics have become because those working the other side of the aisle are now your enemy.
Bias I can live with. But drumming up hatred and combativeness, not so much. It is crippling our democracy. It's not just Fox News, but they have led the charge.

You can pick your side.
I'll bash both for their misleading agenda laden coverage.

Note:
Fox is so hated by so many on RF, that I needn't wade in to criticize them.
This anti-atheist thread is one of the few times where I felt needed.
The left are so typically blind to sneaky tactics used by their own side that
this commands more of my focus.

 

[Baladas]

You can pick your side.
I'll bash both for their misleading agenda laden coverage.

Agreed. Both parties have far too much bias in the media.
I try to listen to both sides to form a more accurate picture of the issues they discuss, but sometimes it gets to the point of
unbearable listening to it all and I take a break.

 

[philbo]

When I see certain Fox News anchors (Megan Kelly comes to mind) talk about liberals or Obama, there is a sneer in her voice. It's the same with Bill Orielly and several others. I've never seen that or heard it on the likes of NPR or CNN. When they talk about taking back America, or liberals destroying America, that is not just competitive spirit. It is a combative and somewhat dangerous game they are playing.

I have always looked at politics in the same way the old school politicians I most love did. The opposition is not the enemy. They have a different set of ideas and methods. The goal of any republic is compromise and by doing this the end result, the goal, should be to take the best from all sides and come to a worthwhile conclusion. This combative spirit destroys any hope of that. This is how we get bad legislation like Obama care. One side, in a moment of control, squeezes legislation through with minimal scrutiny. It won't get fixed because that plan becomes not just flawed, but an evil cancer that must be removed. But that is what politics have become because those working the other side of the aisle are now your enemy.

Bias I can live with. But drumming up hatred and combativeness, not so much. It is crippling our democracy. It's not just Fox News, but they have led the charge.

..whereas over here, we have to make do with the occasional (Freudian?) spoonerism for Jeremy Hunt the Culture Secretary (or an unfortunate slip of the tongue when suggesting to Farage that UKIP is a personality cult). It's frightfully genteel in comparison

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Politically NPR and CNN do very well at being non biased. In a study released last year, they found that NPR actually had more republicans on the channel than democrat by a hair. But with things like abortion it is harder to find that balance. Like it or not, abortion is the law of the land. And there is a difference between reporting the sides (which you would do in a political story), and reporting the facts. For example, I don't know if it was the same story, but the last story I saw on NPR was discussing the released videos of the director selling tissue to the medical lab. It was not an opinion piece but they were discussing the reality and the myths surrounding the 'undercover' videos. I could see how someone could take it as biased as much of the show talked about the misconceptions most people have. But at the same time they were reporting the facts. It is the same when they talk about things like climate change. Someone who doesn't believe in it might want them to talk about it as theory, when most of the civilized world, including NPR, have accepted it as fact. I don't consider that bias.

But obviously many disagree.

I am not an American. I have only limited access to NPR, though I have not been especially impressed at their lack of bias. With CNN, I simply disagree. They have a soft bias, and, to me, it shines through. They often, through omission, through how they report, their words, give a subtle but important slant to left-liberal views. It differs on different issues. In economics, for example, they do better than cultural issues. They are also obsessed by identity politics, as left-liberals often are. There often are no struggles and heroes for them but those bound up with identity politics, except perhaps a few poor people.

I have noticed, though, the American domestic shows are less biased than the international shows. We get a blend and you can notice more left-liberal bias on the international shows.

I bet on the world stage NPR would be considered moderate or even slightly conservative. I've spent a fair amount of time having these discussions with British friends, and they have commented many times that what we see as liberal in this country, is closer to moderate conservative in theirs. And I wouldn't consider the UK to be among the most liberal states in Europe.

They are probably left-wing. I can't say I've especially noticed this. On CNN's American shows you get more voices that wouldn't get a look in at the likes of the BBC. You will get gun rights advocates, for example. But they aren't that different to the BBC, in my opinion. In fact, interestingly, the BBC, CNN, the Guardian, the Australian ABC, all have very similar viewpoints and bias.

 

[dust1n]

They are also obsessed by identity politics, as left-liberals often are. There often are no struggles and heroes for them but those bound up with identity politics, except perhaps a few poor people.

Huh? I don't care about identity politics.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

I doubt that is true, but anyway, I did include the adverb often in there.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

With CNN, I simply disagree. They have a soft bias, and, to me, it shines through. They often, through omission, through how they report, their words, give a subtle but important slant to left-liberal views.

CNN is probably one of the least biased major news sources in America, although they have been trying to do the "ratings" thing and have changed some stuff up to emulate Fox News, which is one of the more biased sources of news in America.

They are also obsessed by identity politics, as left-liberals often are.

The right is far more concerned with this. As illogical as it is, they have even adopted the term RINO (Republican In Name Only) because they are obsessed with identity (I saw a campaign add in Tennessee once where the candidate had people, even some celebrities, stressing the candidate is conservative).

I have noticed, though, the American domestic shows are less biased than the international shows.

The BBC is a source - that only covers actual news and even whats going on in America better than most American sources - that is considerably less biased than just about any news source, especially the ones you are likely to hear of not living in America.