Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

Joe Scarborough was actually a GOP House Rep from 1995 to 2001 from FL's 1st district.

Originally Posted by smurf

Yes, and for years Fox had the Hannity and Colmes show.

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

There is always the issue of bias, even if it's unintended.

For example, I've always been very critical of the US media for being so domestically focused in its reporting. I think that is very hurtful in getting Americans informed properly about the world around them and that hurts in how they understand its issues and how they interrelate with the US and everywhere else. That's not just on national security but also economics and plenty other important issues.

I'll find ideological bias across the spectrum depending on what I see. For example, I believe MSNBC is certainly biased to the left. But FOX is just as biased to the right. Those two stations IMO are the worst on cable insofar as bias. In fact, I consider them flak outfits and spindoctors for those sides moreso than new agencies. They target those that lean left or right for their ratings and try to bring more to their side for personal financial and political purposes given so much of their coverage is really politically biased talk shows--Olberman v. O'Reilly, Maddow v. Hannity, etc. Even the supposed other 'lighter' shows are biased, like those on FOX such as Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld, FOX and Friends, etc versus those other stations that may lean left. It's talk radio brought to cable--literally speaking given that is what these hosts also do. Between shows, they do report news of course, and that portion is often neutral. But even then, the topic choices and comments can load the issues towards one ideology's favour. So, what they may report may be a fact, but it is one side of facts.

Insofar as newspapers, they can be of any stripe. For example, each day I pick up several papers to read over lunch and dinner. Most of my local regional papers are conservative and so is the WSJ, New York Post, and others. The NYT is liberal. The Philadelphia Inquirer is moderate and intentionally carries an equal amount of both in the OP-EDs.

But here's a few things.

1) People too often judge a paper by the OP-EDs. That is where the bias comes in. But they do not advertise as being news--they are opinion pieces. So, that is to be expected. I find that most articles in papers do what they are supposed to do--report news. So, I get the details on the nation, state, local, business, sports, etc.

2) The media is a vast place and actually quite competitive. It's a business enterprise. Nothing shows that more than today with newspapers getting into bankruptcy danger because of the Internet and people basically skipping buying papers and instead downloading them for free or scanning for the same news elsewhere cruising. Heck, I can get the big stuff just on Yahoo!, Google, etc on my toolbar or when I log in. That's going to be a problem because if they really start going belly-up, the free ride on the Net is going to change big time, and at a real loss for getting information. Cable TV is also diversifying into segments that target certain ideologies and also providing attractive junk (missing hot chick or baby of the week cases, etc). Just being a news outfit won't cut it anymore for being competitive. It's too dry toast for too many people.

3) Just because you don't like a fact or the source of the news, it doesn't automatically mean whatever is said is not true. As John Adams once said at the Boston Massacre trials whilst defending the accused British soldiers against a city and courtroom packed with those biased against them: "Facts are stubborn things."

IMO, people need to read and watch the news. They also have to turn on their brains. If something is a fact, then it is a fact. If it is opinion, then it is opinion. If people are disputing what is a fact, then there is a dispute on a fact. People should judge facts and opinions accordingly for what they are.

But one thing people shouldn't do is assume that what Limbaugh says--that all the media is a liberal conspiracy and he is the truth teller. That's as false and false can get, and it's looking to turn those gullible and foolish enough to accept that into slavish drones, 'dittoheads.' IMO, it's hazardous to the general welfare of the nation whenever anyone succeeds in getting people to believe such manipulative and sinister nonsense.

Originally Posted by BillyWitchDr.

I don't have cable so maybe I am not up to date but doesn't MSNBC have commentators from different political stripes? Isn't Tucker a paleo-conservative? EVERY commentator on Fox News is a neo-con.

Originally Posted by jviehe

FOX has quite a few liberal commentators. Juan Williams comes to mind, so much so I cant stand to listen to him anymore. Mara Liason is another.

Originally Posted by jviehe

Those are the two I see most regulary. Im trying to think of who the liberal is who sits on Beltway Boys. Mort Kondrake - liberal, frequent commentator. But as I said, almost every single segment I see on all shows on FOX contains a self identified liberal. It seems to be a policy on FOX that they always have equal numbers of both sides. Makes it more entertaining.

Originally Posted by jviehe

Those are the two I see most regulary. Im trying to think of who the liberal is who sits on Beltway Boys. Mort Kondrake - liberal, frequent commentator. But as I said, almost every single segment I see on all shows on FOX contains a self identified liberal. It seems to be a policy on FOX that they always have equal numbers of both sides. Makes it more entertaining.

Originally Posted by MrTia

i believe that's both of them, actually.

Originally Posted by MrTia

if you're trying to argue fox is somehow "fair" i think you'll find you've got a real uphill slog.

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

Joe has had his own shows and free reigns. He is also photogenic. Colmes never ran the shows but was a sidekick. Hannity ran the dialogue, choice of topics, witnesses, etc. Hannity is photogenic whilst Colmes was a tad more attractive than Al Franken. All that was intentional to make an unfair fight look fair. In that sense FOX loads the dice more.

That said, it doesn't change my opinion of MSNBC being very beholden to liberal bias as its target market for reasons stated in my earlier posts.

IMO, it must be kept in mind that cable tv is a for profit business and each station has a target market. FOX wants the conservatives and MSNBC wants the liberals. Adding opposing perspectives is only in manners designed to make them look weaker (picking ugly, Kool Aid and/or or lightning rod guests and loading the topics, questions, formats, etc, against them) or just to make it a bit more interesting. They have sporting value for the target theme and audience, that's all.

Originally Posted by smurf

I never watch MSNBC, so I am at a loss for personal experiences regarding Joe Scarborough. I do find your comment that he has "free reign" as a conservative on an extremely liberal network to be hard to swallow, however. That said, your point about Alan Colmes is spot on, at least about his appearance. I rarely watched the show, so again, I am at a loss to personally verify or refute your observations as to content and control. I believe you, though, because that would be consistent with Fox being a right leaning network.

Again, we seem to be in full agreement as to MSNBC and Fox, and even as to NBC. I would still like to know if you view ABC and CBS as unbiased in their reporting?