I won't claim to be a pro on the suubject, but I think that where the frustration forms is how the news program presents certain information. It leaves it very easy for misinterpretation and often omits important information to the statistics. As a news station it entitles the responsibility to accurately portray news to the general public. When these news stories and statistics are skewed, no matter the bias, it is not fulfilling that responsibility. So while yes, people who like the program will be considered its demographic, it is still advertised as a general news station and needs to fulfill its responsibilities as such in a proper manor. As we all know, with great power comes great responsibility. Fox news does not follow uncle Ben's words of wisdom.
Dutch news informs me about things happening in the Netherlands and foreign affairs and is pretty decent but often has a favourable view on the Dutch, Al jazeera has pretty good coverage but I wouldn't trust them on topics concerning unfair contracts and treatment of workers *cough* slaves *cough* in Saudi Arabia or anything concerning the Al Saud royal family. ( I intend to make it geressian arabia one day) american news, laughable, its all show and glamour and no content. I recommend Charlie Brooker's Newswipe for some informative yet amusing commentary on the way news handles things, for example;
I guess the best way to do that is to mislabel, use improper axis, and basically fake the data set, while claiming reporting one number and actually reporting another. And someone doing anything else is considered "massaging the graphics?" You make zero sense.
@Geressen is that a pic of an assassin with zero class, or an assassin of class, or class act assassin with zero kills?
you still haven't fit that line. I recommend you don't because when you compare the two lines side by side and show what their slopes are you might start feeling just a tiny bit foolish.
You do realize how ridiculous you are being, right? The chart is wrong. No amount of "fitting" will make it right. I already showed the real data behind the chart and it bears almost no resemblance to Fox News' version. I thought you were a rational, educated individual. This reaction from you is baffling.
I know we do but I'm trying to figure out if you are some sort of runaway figment of my immagination.
you seem to like saying "this is my opinion, that is your opinion, let's both go have our opinions away from each other" an awful lot at what point is an opinion founded upon so many false premises that it itself becomes false, or not worthwhile? i do agree, though, that the news shows are pretty much unilaterally more about entertainment and pandering than actual reporting. i don't follow the news much (beyond colbert, stewart, these forums, and my facebook newsfeed. which is mostly angry white people these days), but when i'm interested in a story i look it up and try to figure out what actually happened and who misquoted who (is there a whom in there?). the hangup for me is the notion that they were once different is still so prevalent, to the point where many would say that they *are* still different. i dunno. if they are as you say they are, maybe they should come with the same disclaimers that episodes of law and order come with. so that idiots don't get quite as hung up on their own idiocy also sok, ragic got you good.
One thing openly biased media have over "neutral" ones is that you at least know where the bias is which makes it rather easy to identify in what way stories, numbers etc. are being tampered with. Media labeling themselves as neutral tend to be blissfully unaware of their own confirmation bias. Why so much rage about misreprenting factual data when they could just as well be representing unfactual data. Your local news outlet is free to make up anything they want and bring it to the people.
