The Newsroom

GB News

A new TV news network chaired by Andrew Neil

JC
JCB
JCB posted:

Amazing how us plebs need to take a psychology and critical thinking course to see the truth (according to elmarko).

I have watched all three networks a lot over the last two months and they are all as bad as each other.


So you keep saying but you can't seem to get specific. What's your "just as bad" equivalent of Fox News' ingrained racism? It's denial of climate science?


So are you agreeing that all of the networks are bad but asserting that Fox is worse?


I'm saying give us an example of what msnbc and cnn do that you consider to be equally as bad as Fox News' "wokeness and diversity are to blame for the Wuhan flu" and "climate change is a hoax invented by China" but you deflected and insisted I was triggered. Ironically in a typically Fox News way.
JO
johnnyboy Founding member Tyne Tees Look North (North East)
JCB posted:
JCB posted:

So you keep saying but you can't seem to get specific. What's your "just as bad" equivalent of Fox News' ingrained racism? It's denial of climate science?


So are you agreeing that all of the networks are bad but asserting that Fox is worse?


I'm saying give us an example of what msnbc and cnn do that you consider to be equally as bad as Fox News' "wokeness and diversity are to blame for the Wuhan flu" and "climate change is a hoax invented by China" but you deflected and insisted I was triggered. Ironically in a typically Fox News way.


Irony indeed.

I still think you need to go out for a walk.

I went for one and it's done me the world of good.
OFCOM's queen bitch
AS
Asa Admin Meridian (South East) South East Today
Go out for a walk, mate 😭

A touch patronising. From what I can tell you were just asked for a specific example?

JCB - you can't force an answer so need to drop it now, otherwise this conversation will go round in circles.
CI
cityprod West Country (West) Spotlight
I agree that the opinion shows are far too loose with facts and are click baiting trash, but this applies as much to Rachel Maddow on MSNBC as Tucker Carlson on Fox


Except it doesn't, not to anywhere near the same degree. In fact, Rachel Maddow tends to be very careful with her use of facts and logic. When she tries to analyse beyond that, sometimes she can go wrong, but nowhere as badly or as often as Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity & Laura Ingraham. In fact in the case of the Fox hosts, it's not whether they are right or wrong, they are so often wrong that it's more notable when they actually get something right. MSNBC's hosts by comparison, will also often be wrong, but again nowhere near as badly, because the analysis will be based on actual facts, rather than propaganda. Chris Hayes is most often guilty of this. Lawrence O'Donnell has significant experience in US politics, so is the most qualified and often ends up being closest in his analysis, he's really good.

Quote:
Interesting cityprod points. Which nicely demonstrate the issues a new launch like GB News will face: any debate on news values ends with someone (correctly) identifying bias on one side but blind to the other, with added shade that one must be happy with right wing bias, or be right, far right, alt right, etc. It's a phenomenon that any news launch has to deal with these days.


Not so much. Right wing bias has become ridiculously easy to spot, simply because since 1994, the right has been moving further and further away from reality, and as such, right wing outlets now tend to be spreading so much disinformation, that anyone who is grounded in the real world can spot it a million miles off. It's ridiculously easy. By contrast, left wing bias is much more grounded in the actual facts of the story, and so generally doesn't tend towards the extremities, like the right wing has gone to. Exceptions exist, such as The Morning Star and Democracy Now, both of which are definitely hard left, and The Morning Star is so extreme in some of their stuff, that I put it in the same camp as old US tabloid publications The National Enquirer and The Weekly World News, they're just too unbelievable to take seriously.

Quote:
More objectivity from sites like https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-ratings helps decode where content sits. It's Web scores rather than broadcast but as most content from TV is reused online it gives an indication of the position


Objectivity. So often it actually isn't truly objective at all. You have two basic definitions of objectivity in the news media, neither of which actually hold water on close inspection. Definition one, is basically countering a pound of official propaganda, with an ounce of counterspin. That's not really being objective. The other definition that often applies is one person says the moon is a planetary body orbiting the Earth, the other person says it's a pie in the sky. One has facts, and the other doesn't, and they're given equal weight and time, that's not objective either. True objectivity, would be one person saying it's sunny, and another saying it's raining, and the media looks out the window and reports what is actually happening. That would be objective.
AN
all new Phil Yorkshire Look North (Yorkshire)
Seem to be reading a lot of what sounds like “x side isn’t biased because it’s the side I agree with” here...
SE
TheSebastian
Let's look at an example of a show constructing a story from a dubious partisan news source (and not AP or a reputable wire) Taking a small fact which may be of limited consequence and building a elaborate catch all story. That's actually bollocks.

OAN, the tiny right wing channel uses a freelance political reporter, and PAID HIM to report in Washington for them. Being a low end freelance, he also does stuff for sputnik - the Russian government news agency, who naturally PAID HIM for the work. All work done by the reporter was paid at pretty usual freelance rates to the reporter. Crap jobs, but many starter reporters work for less credible news outlets the world over.

Rachel Maddow at MSNBC , after OAN made a complaint to its parent Comcast over its non carriage, did a piece on her show that took those facts and made a whole conspiracy out of it. TRUMP! RUSSIANS! CASH!

This from NBC San diago (OAN are based there)
Quote:
Maddow opened her MSNBC show by referring to a report in the Daily Beast that said an OAN employee also worked for Sputnik News, which is linked to the Russian government.

"In this case, the most obsequiously pro-Trump right-wing news outlet in America really literally is paid Russian propaganda," Maddow said on "The Rachel Maddow Show."

"Their on-air U.S. politics reporter is paid by the Russian government to produce propaganda for that government," Maddow said.


See what she did? Created a link between the Russian outlet and OAN, where it looks like she's saying Russians pay OAN for favourable trump coverage. They don't, and proved as much.

However read the whole thing again. The first part is opinion (and constitutionally protected in US law). The second part introduces the fact, but does so omitting the fact that there is no direct relationship between the two parties and only the reporter received payment, and this was at usual pay rates.

Court cases fly, but of course 1st amendment rights win. Its not defamatory in US Law. Quickly looking at the judgement, and I'd say that if that was the UK, OAN would likely have won.

So that's how a partisan hit piece is constructed; both sides do them and the suggestion that MSNBC isn't equivalent to Fox is laughable - in tactics and target audience appeal. Personal bias on validity of topic or opinion aside.

I choose the OAN tale as its the least political example I can find, it's also relevant as the is TVF. It also brings up another point as to why you don't have to worry about opinion driven TV "damaging" society: we've pretty strong laws on defamation in the UK, so many of the Fox/MSNBC tactics can't be deployed here. We've more protections that just Ofcom codes.
London Lite and LondonViewer gave kudos
JK
JKDerry UTV Newsline
I wonder how many hours per day GB News will have live programming? I guess they will air repeats from say 1.00am to 6.00am, I wonder if they will have a Fox News Channel 17-18 hour a day live programming?
CI
cityprod West Country (West) Spotlight
See what she did? Created a link between the Russian outlet and OAN, where it looks like she's saying Russians pay OAN for favourable trump coverage. They don't, and proved as much.


Okay, that's about the worst example there has been on MSNBC of them embellishing a story. However, they didn't actually create a link between OAN and Sputnik. That link existed, it was the reporter, they just embellished what that meant. On a scale of 0-10, where a 0 is totally accurate, and a 10 is a pants on fire lie, that's a 3. It's taking something that exists and embellishing it. Most of what Fox airs, starts at a 7 on that scale, and goes all the way to the full 10. Again, I would say that, as egregious as that was, it still doesn't compare to what Fox does, or even what OAN themselves do. In a way, MSNBC gave them a small taste of their own medicine, and they didn't care for it.

Quote:
So that's how a partisan hit piece is constructed; both sides do them and the suggestion that MSNBC isn't equivalent to Fox is laughable - in tactics and target audience appeal. Personal bias on validity of topic or opinion aside.


Well, no, it isn't equivalent. MSNBC don't make up stuff out of thin air. There's always some kind of factual basis for what they say, even if it is embellished. Fox News on the other hand, not only make up stuff out of thin air, they have done so numerous times over the years. The Media Bias/Fact Check website lists 5 actual Pants On Fire ratings given to Fox News hosts, as well as one False, all from Politifact. By contrast MSNBC's Pants On Fire ratings have come from political pundits guesting on the network, rather than the actual hosts themselves. It's a big disparity between what MSNBC does, and what Fox News and others of their ilk do. It's a false equivalency to say that both are as bad as each other, because the hard evidence plainly shows that is not the case.

Quote:
I choose the OAN tale as its the least political example I can find, it's also relevant as the is TVF. It also brings up another point as to why you don't have to worry about opinion driven TV "damaging" society: we've pretty strong laws on defamation in the UK, so many of the Fox/MSNBC tactics can't be deployed here. We've more protections that just Ofcom codes.


I don't have your confidence on that count. All I need to do there is point to how often the Daily Mail and the Sun have published wildly inaccurate stories, and comparitively how little they've been taken to court. For every court appearance, there's at least 1000 stories on both sites equally as wrong and equally as egregious as the ones they've been taken to court for. Yet they still contrinue to print wildly inaccurate and false stories. It's as though the court cases never happened.
MO
Mouseboy33
This just aired a minutes ago FNC.



Fox News has been and will always be a complete unprofessional mess IMO. They started the whole MSM thing, attacking other news organizations and other media groups. Demonizing them so that they can gain eyeballs and viewers to distrust everyone else. It clearly worked. Because for +20 years if you keep saying, screaming and shouting that you are being lied to by every other news organization ON EARTH, the precious BBC included, unfortunately the low hanging fruit tends to believe you.

But!..... when the same lens is turned at them they get angry. I squarely blame Faux for almost everything that has happened to tone in modern news business. Everything you are seeing from CNN and MSNBC, is as a reaction to FNC's meteoric rise in ratings and this channel masquerading as a legitimate news channel, which it is not. Had FNC not been as popular, I firmly believe that MSNBC and CNN would not have these news/talk formats and squarely politics focused. FNC is not news, it was created with the sole purpose of righting or correcting perceived liberal/leftist wrongs and has retreated further and further into the bowels of insanity. It is simply an echo-chamber for those that want to hear their feelings/ideals regurgitated to them with a veneer of respectability (and i use that word loosely).

Now that their primetime audiences are massive and the hosts, NOT JOURNALISTS, run the show, the channel bosses have lost all control of the asylum. It's a mess. They just recently fired a white nationalist head writer on the most popular programme on the network. No one bats an eyelid. Its insane.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/10/media/tucker-carlson-writer-blake-neff/index.html

They even attack their OWN JOURNALISTS, if it doesnt fit their skewed narrative. Laura Ingrahm, a person who should be nowhere within 50 miles of a broadcast facility, tweeted this about one FNC's few respected journalists.
https://www.ftvlive.com/sqsp-test/2020/10/1/fox-news-talent-attack-chris-wallace
*

I wouldnt have a problem with FNC existing if it didnt carry the "label" NEWS. Because its not. I feel the same way about GB News. Fine if people need/want to hear or stand in their own echo chamber, but it shouldnt be labeled as news. My 2 pence. [Burns soapbox and throws the ashes in the river]
Last edited by Mouseboy33 on 2 October 2020 3:19am - 4 times in total
I'm here to give you something to talk about! You're Welcome.
https://youtu.be/1g18oiI2WIU
tightrope78, BBI45 and Ghost gave kudos
JO
Jon Central (West) Midlands Today
I wouldn’t be surprised if in some ways Fox want Trump to lose. Surely they have more to rally against if the Dems are in charge?
Last edited by Jon on 1 October 2020 5:55pm
LL
London Lite Founding member London London
Fox News is basically a tv version of the conservative talk radio format, which has been commercially successful for decades. It may go down well with 50+ male viewers, but it loses credibility when they construct untruths to pad out their output.

I'd agree with Jon that Fox would get their mojo back if Trump loses the election and goes back to bashing Biden instead of being centered around their cultish dictoricial 'Republican' President.
JK
JKDerry UTV Newsline
Jon posted:
I wouldn’t be surprised if in some ways Fox want Trump to lose. Surely they have more to rally against if the Dems are in charge?

Didn't Fox News have a very frosty relationship with Trump during the 2016 election? The infamous Megyn Kelly feud with Trump which started at the 2015 Republic Presidential Debate caused the frosty feel, and it was not a certainty that Fox News would always side with Trump during the 2016 election.

Newer posts