and glean tidbits of value from what is being said, or do you automatically chalk it all up to spin?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Thanks for posting. I'd say that's a pretty helpful graphic.and glean tidbits of value from what is being said, or do you automatically chalk it all up to spin?
Good distinction.Thanks for posting. I'd say that's a pretty helpful graphic.
Although, if I'm nit-picking, I think there would be room for two more sections - where there is a consistent, if not overwhelming, editorial slant, but that the hard news coverage is consistently valuable. I think somewhere like MSNBC and The Guardian would fit the bill on the left and The Weekly Standard and Commentary magazine could be comparable on the right, as just two examples.
Think that's pretty fair. Guys like Shep Smith and Chris Wallace do good reporting - in addition to the myriad of beat reporters on their digital side. But the vast majority of their content is anything but news.Good distinction.
I'd give Fox News higher marks for journalistic chops than for editorial integrity, too.
Because like it said, MSM leans slightly left, and in response, conservatives have overreacted.Why is the "too conservative" section substantially larger than the "too liberal"?
That's a problem. I won't belabor it or expand on that, but it is a problem, and the nature of it is such that you can claim you wouldn't be turned off to a different perspective, but that's exactly what an exclusively Fox News diet will train you for.I never watch the news. If I’m being honest, I do always go to Fox News website to get my up to date information. That being said, I wouldn’t be turned off from an article from another site as long as it was factual and not biased. Facts are facts regardless of where they come from.
I never watch the news. If I’m being honest, I do always go to Fox News website to get my up to date information. That being said, I wouldn’t be turned off from an article from another site as long as it was factual and not biased. Facts are facts regardless of where they come from.
I just said I don’t have a problem accepting information from other places.That's a problem. I won't belabor it or expand on that, but it is a problem, and the nature of it is such that you can claim you wouldn't be turned off to a different perspective, but that's exactly what an exclusively Fox News diet will train you for.
If information is correct and factual, then how can anyone argue against it? Read what I just typed to Dat. I don’t take everything fox says as gods word or anything, and I’m willing to read other news.If you're going to Fox News' website and reading headlines and some synopses just to see what's going on in the world, that's cool. If you're going exclusively to Fox News and reading the articles, you're getting biased information that is probably then considered the standard to which you measure all other news. If Fox News becomes your standard for factual and unbiased news, then practically all other news that you read or watch is going to seem like it has a strong liberal bias. For instance, USA Today is in the middle but, relative to Fox News, it's Lefty garbage.
People read and watch what they agree with and enjoy. We all get that and that's totally fine. But if I had to make a suggestion to anybody looking for a good mix of actual news and entertainment, I'd suggest making one of the outlets in the middle (AP, Reuters, etc.) the first stop for news and then going to your outlet of choice that tends to agree with your opinions. At least then you can see where opinion is deviating from fact. This applies to both sides of the political spectrum.
If information is correct and factual, then how can anyone argue against it? Read what I just typed to Dat. I don’t take everything fox says as gods word or anything, and I’m willing to read other news.
Yea, I’m usually good at being able to figure out what is slanted and what is not. Believe it or not, I do read articles posted by the lefties on here when they are making a point. And as long as I can tell there isn’t a bias towards the information, I have no reason to to not believe what I’m reading. I also don’t post articles from fox in order to back up an argument of mine, I usually try and search for a more neutral source that more people can relate to and take seriously.Outlets like Fox News and MSNBC are experts at distorting facts to match their agendas. If you are able to parse out their BS and figure out where the real facts are in what they publish, then you do you, Jimbo. I have no beef.
Speaking from my experiences with my mother-in-law and her mother, not all people are able to do that. When I first met my mother-in-law 7 years ago, she told me she was a moderate. That was either a bold faced lie, an example of terrible self-awareness, or something happened to move her super far to the right of the political spectrum in those 7 years. I don't know exactly which it was but I do know that I saw her viewership of Fox News increase drastically. When she watches Fox News, and when her mother watches, they are convinced that Fox is looking out for them and making sure they get the real 'fair and balance' truth of what is going on in the world. When I bring up counter-points, they toss back 'liberal media' and 'fake news' barbs to dismiss anything that doesn't jive with what Fox News told them that week. I'm not going to claim that either my mother-in-law or her mother are among the sharper tools in the shed, but they're not dumb. And that's a little scary.
How is that not essentially the same thing? If you're adverse to a liberal slant, you're cutting that angle from your consideration.Fox is just easier to read for me, not so much becuase of the right slant, but lack of a left slant. I figure most republicans are the same way as well as democrats with CNN and such.
Okay, fair enough. lol@Dattier , my above comment was in jest. We need an emote that suggests sarcasm.
Also, didn't someone on here recently dismiss an article from the Economist because it was an "extremely conservative" source? I cant remember who it was though.
You’re making this out to be a bigger deal than it is, which is kind of your thing sometimes. All good, any time you post an article that is from a left wing site I still read it.How is that not essentially the same thing? If you're adverse to a liberal slant, you're cutting that angle from your consideration.
And it's a pretty strong stance to argue just how little from center CNN is compared to Fox News.
Okay, fair enough. lol
I don't remember. Was it me? The Economist doesn't stand out to me as conservative beyond standard deplorable, I mean, deviation.