Fox News is for people who can't deal with reality

Economist Bruce Bartlett, a former adviser to both Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, warned over the weekend that Fox News had damaged the Republican Party by creating a bubble for conservatives to brainwash themselves.

In his paper “How Fox News Changed American Media and Political Dynamics” published earlier this month, Bartlett theorized that watching the network was essentially “self-brainwashing” for viewers, making them believe that the United States was a more conservative nation than it actually was. And so the Republican Party had responded by running radical conservatives that representative Fox News viewers, but not the true state of the electorate.

“Many conservatives live in a bubble where they watch only Fox News on television, they listen only to conservative talk radio — Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, many of the same people,” Bartlett told CNN’s Brian Stelter on Sunday. “When they go onto the Internet, they look at conservative websites like National Review, Newsmax, World Net Daily.”

“And so, they are completely in a universe in which they are hearing the same exact ideas, the same arguments, the same limited amount of data repeated over and over and over again. And that’s brainwashing.”

Bartlett asserted that it was a bigger problem for conservatives than liberals because they did not have their own network for a long time, and then they “drank very heavily from the Fox waters.”



http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/ex-reagan-adviser-fox-news-is-self-brainwashing-republicans-into-a-radical-fringe-party/

Drunk from the Fox waters - does that make them 'barking mad'

korban dallsa wrote:In his paper “How Fox News Changed American Media and Political Dynamics” published earlier this month, Bartlett theorized that watching the network was essentially “self-brainwashing” for viewers, making them believe that the United States was a more conservative nation than it actually was. And so the Republican Party had responded by running radical conservatives that representative Fox News viewers, but not the true state of the electorate.

I think there is more to it than just Fox News.  Sure, those shows have given the typical Republican the nerve to speak up, but it wasn't brainwashing that brought those opinions to them.  It was the Southern Strategy.

Southern racists and redneck crackers were the problem of Democrats up until 1964.  Then the Democratic leadership (Kennedy, a Massachusetts liberal) embraced the liberal civil rights movement.  When Johnson got the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed, Republicans (Lee Atwater) saw an opportunity in the Southern Strategy.  He greedily went after the whole southern block, and the ideology that galvanized them, and tried to bring them on board wholesale.  The entire collectivity of Southerners, racists, and redneck crackers climbed into the Republican Party.

Here's my theory: think of them as ships.  The Democrats (pre-1964) were large enough and diverse enough to check the weight of Southerners.  Democrats had huge pluralist groups like labor and urban dwellers, ethnic groups like blacks and Hispanics, as well whole geographic regions like California, New England, The Metropolitan Corridor (New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington) and the Northwest by which to offset and balance the Southerners.  The Republicans do not have that kind of internal weight.

So, the Republican load shifted with the assuming of the South.  The load on the Democrats wasn't load-shifting, but like a too small boat, the load was too much for Republicans.  The floor now tilts to the right, and all the furniture slides down there.  

Older Republicans are actually blinking and looking around with a dazed look on their faces.  For example, Mitt Romney had no idea what he was getting into, and typically...he didn't know what to say (he didn't talk that language).  Hence, all the misstatements and goofs he made.  I believe we are seeing the demise of the Republican Party.

Your republicans with their fox news are just like our lefties with the BBC, and the guardian and the mirror newspapers...

Tommy Monk wrote:Your republicans with their fox news are just like our lefties with the BBC, and the guardian and the mirror newspapers...

you ever watched fox "news" TM ?
because your comparison is not accurate regardless of the perceived bias of the BBC

The bias of the BBC, The guardian and the mirror is not 'perceived' it is A bloody fact!

Tommy Monk wrote:The bias of the BBC, The guardian and the mirror is not 'perceived' it is A bloody fact!

nothing like fox as was my point

Different sides of the same coin...

Tommy Monk wrote:Different sides of the same coin...

no not really,have you watched fox there is no comparison between the BBC and fox

As far as bias is concerned they are equally so, just leaning towards different sides.

Tommy Monk wrote:As far as bias is concerned they are equally so, just leaning towards different sides.

do you watch fox ? A Gallup poll exposed Fox News for the fraud that it is by finding that instead of being fair and balanced, the cable news leader caters to a viewership that is 94% Republican.

that`s not so much leaning but lying flat

Fox pretended to be a legitimate news operation when they have always been a tool of the Republican Party that was made by Republicans and for Republican viewers.

The numbers don’t lie. There is nothing fair and balanced about Fox News.

Same can be said about the BBC And lefties...

Tommy Monk wrote:Same can be said about the BBC And lefties...

not compared to fox
Yes there is some bias in our tv and press but it pales in comparison to fox

And i will ask again have you watched fox "news"

We don't get fox news over here but I have seen bits of it, but it is A completely privately run news programme and is free to have any political leaning it likes.



However the BBC is A publicly funded broadcaster and has a duty to be independent, as stipulated in its own royal charter, so in many ways, by having any political bias at all is much worse!


"...The Royal Charter is the constitutional basis for the BBC. It sets out the public
purposes of the BBC, guarantees its independence, and outlines the duties..."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/governance/regulatory_framework/charter_agreement.html


And the heavy left wing bias is not imaginary... maybe you should read this...


http://biasedbbc.org/quotes-of-shame/

Tommy Monk wrote:We don't get fox news over here but I have seen bits of it, but it is A completely privately run news programme and is free to have any political leaning it likes.



However the BBC is A publicly funded broadcaster and has a duty to be independent, as stipulated in its own royal charter, so in many ways, by having any political bias at all is much worse!


"...The Royal Charter is the constitutional basis for the BBC. It sets out the public
purposes of the BBC, guarantees its independence, and outlines the duties..."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/governance/regulatory_framework/charter_agreement.html


And the heavy left wing bias is not imaginary... maybe you should read this...


http://biasedbbc.org/quotes-of-shame/

Ah so you have only seen bits of fox that explains it

but if you have only seen bits you can`t really come to a un-biased opinion on how biased fox is compared to the BBC as you lack the required perspective
i am not claiming  the BBC is the bastion of balance and i would agree its more left than centre and as Andrew mar points out the abnormally large proportion of younger people, of people in ethnic minorities and almost certainly of gay people, compared with the population at large”.

All this, he said, “creates an innate liberal bias inside the BBC”.

so how do you correct that ask political persuasion in the application for employment and try to make it 50/50 a impossible task

and unlike fox there is oversight in the editorial decisions

Fox is independent and can have any bias it wants... just like other news programmes in the US can and do have theirs...


However the BBC is commanded to be independent as it is publicly funded.


But is obviously far from it... this is much worse.

Tommy Monk wrote:Fox is independent and can have any bias it wants... just like other news programmes in the US can and do have theirs...


However the BBC is commanded to be independent as it is publicly funded.


But is obviously far from it... this is much worse.

Fox is far from independent its basically the GOP advertising arm  that is a well know fact

A 2005 study by political scientists Tim Groseclose of UCLA and Jeff Milyo of the University of Missouri at Columbia attempted to quantify bias among news outlets using statistical models, and found a liberal bias. The authors wrote that "all of the news outlets we examine, except Fox News' Special Report and the Washington Times, received scores to the left of the average member of Congress." The study concluded that news pages of The Wall Street Journal were more liberal than The New York Times, and the news reporting of PBS was to the right of most mainstream media. The report also stated that the news media showed a fair degree of centrism,

I mean independent as in not funded by a govt levied tax like the BBC is...

Tommy Monk wrote:I mean independent as in not funded by a govt levied tax like the BBC is...

Actually they receive hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer financed subsidies

The Economist newspaper states that in the four years to 30 June last year, Mr Murdoch's News Corporation and its subsidiaries paid only A$325m (£128m) in corporate taxes worldwide. That translates as 6% of the A$5.4bn consolidated pre-tax profits for the same period.

By comparison another multi-national media empire, Disney, paid 31%.

X

korban dallas wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:I mean independent as in not funded by a govt levied tax like the BBC is...

Actually they receive hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer financed subsidies  

Totally different.


And I bet other news companies get much similar subsidies...




The BBC has a royal charter stipulatiog independent news reporting and broadcasting... totally funded by a tax levy through central govt.


Others don't... regardless of subsidies that they will all be equally entitled to.

So the evidence from the research is clear. The BBC tends to reproduce a Conservative, Eurosceptic, pro-business version of the world, not a left-wing, anti-business agenda.

http://www.newstatesman.com/broadcast/2013/08/hard-evidence-how-biased-bbc


Fox News is joke channel for people of little brain, you'd love it Tommy.

Fox News is the only cable news channel or purportedly objective major news outlet that was founded to address a political perception (and an incorrect one, to boot) -- that the other media outlets have some sort of liberal bias. When the other outlets are not biased and you try to be the right of them, you're biased towards conservatives.

"...a Conservative, Eurosceptic, pro-business version of the world, not a left-wing, anti-business agenda..."


Don't make me laugh... the BBC is as pro EU as all the other labour and lib dem lefties are!!!


The EU is a state controlling dictatorial leftie wank fest!!!

Don't talk rubbish, it's RW bias during the election was blatant, and the Head of BBC News is George Osborne's best mate.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Fox News is the only cable news channel or purportedly objective major news outlet that was founded to address a political perception (and an incorrect one, to boot) -- that the other media outlets have some sort of liberal bias. When the other outlets are not biased and you try to be the right of them, you're biased towards conservatives.

Fox News is merely the manifestation or result of a political dynamic set in motion by conservatism.  In Why Elephants Lie ©, I point out that liberals represent general interests, while conservatives represent special interests, inevitably wealth.  The massive contradiction of conservatism is that our political system (UK as well as the US) goes by votes, not by currency.  Conservatives do all they can to buy elections, but they can only buy leverage, not votes.  There are not enough millionaires in their interest group for them to be elected, given their ideology of special interest.

What do conservatives do?  They lie!  They misrepresent who and what they stand for.  They also misrepresent facts in the world, in order to distort the voter's view, and twist his vote their way.  WMDs in Iraq.  Obama is a Muslim.  Death panels in Obamacare.  Hilary screwed up on Benghazi.  All of those lies work--some more directly than others--to turn the voter's head away from the real truth: conservatives are working against the welfare of the people.  The lie is the veil covering that fact!

Fox News is the ingenious manifestation of that theory.  It is a machine that turns out lies.  It cleanses lies for conservatives, legitimizes them and mass produces them for public consumption.  The most inspired part is that it masks the fact that what it says are lies.  It dresses up the wolf in sheep's clothing.  

In the final analysis, I go on to point out how that cleansing process feeds into a conservative's best argument: they all do it.  The argument of bilateralism, of which I have spoken before, drags mendacity into legitimacy, not the other way around.  In other words, it doesn't clean anything, but dirties everything else in order to appear clean relative to truth.  Bilateralism, the argument, is not really cleansing, but dirtying politics.

Don't talk rubbish RS... we all saw the loaded left wing biased audiences during leaders debates.


You think the BBC becoming more independent equals right wing bias because you Are so used to (and love)The regular left wing bias.

Tommy Monk wrote:Don't talk rubbish RS... we all saw the loaded left wing biased audiences during leaders debates.

You think the BBC becoming more independent equals right wing bias because you Are so used to (and love)The regular left wing bias.

You see? That's bilateralism at work. 'It's all right to lie, because everyone does it.'

But ask yourself: who has the motive to lie? The person working for the common interest; or the person working for the special interests?

The BBC has a duty to be honest and independent.

Tommy Monk wrote:The BBC has a duty to be honest and independent.

So don't we all, tommy.

Now, let's talk reality:

Wiki wrote:The BBC is established under a Royal Charter and operates under its Agreement with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. Its work is funded principally by an annual television licence fee which is charged to all British households, companies, and organisations using any type of equipment to receive or record live television broadcasts. The fee is set by the British Government, agreed by Parliament,

So, the question is, who is running Parliament?

The Torys and lib Dems were for the last 5 years but BBC still has heavy left wing bias because it is full of lefties.


And It shouldn't matter who is in govt, the BBC still has a duty to not have any political bias.

Tommy Monk wrote:The Torys and lib Dems were for the last 5 years but BBC still has heavy left wing bias because it is full of lefties.


And It shouldn't matter who is in govt, the BBC still has a duty to not have any political bias.

Ahh...you have a lot to learn, tommy. 'Shouldn't' as nothing to do with it when it comes to dipping your hand into the public trough. So Tories were in charge, eh? Figures.

Tory and lib Dems for last 5 years, BBC blatant pro EU and left wing bias throughout.


Tory in now, BBC still the same.


Now the point I'm making is that any commercial news programme or newspaper can have any political leaning it likes, if You don't like it, don't watch it or buy it... there are plenty of others out there that will suit you and your political leaning as they will be leaning the same way.


Whereas the BBC is funded through a tax on every household for the privilege of owning a television...


You can watch anything else you like and avoid watching the BBC as much as you like, but while everyone still has to pay for it, it is A fundamental requirement that it remains neutral and caters for all.


But it remains very left wing regardless of who is in govt.


And it is filled with multiple layers of expensive and unnecessary bureaucracy and The leftie 'progressive' pc agenda.

Tommy Monk wrote:Now the point I'm making is that any commercial news programme or newspaper can have any political leaning it likes, if You don't like it, don't watch it or buy it... there are plenty of others out there that will suit you and your political leaning as they will be leaning the same way.

I don't think Free-Market arguments work in a subsidized market.  Parliament supports the BBC.

Oh, and um...which party was your PM?  Lib-Dems didn't have any influence on the BBC, did they?

Any business can be entitled to some tax breaks, commercial news papers and tv news programmes are no different in that respect, add all are free to have whatever political bias they want.


However the BBC is totally funded through a direct tax on everyone and is duty bound to be independent of any political bias or leaning.


But it always has a left wing bias regardless of which party is in govt.

korban dallas wrote:
Economist Bruce Bartlett, a former adviser to both Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, warned over the weekend that Fox News had damaged the Republican Party by creating a bubble for conservatives to brainwash themselves.

In his paper “How Fox News Changed American Media and Political Dynamics” published earlier this month, Bartlett theorized that watching the network was essentially “self-brainwashing” for viewers, making them believe that the United States was a more conservative nation than it actually was..........

YEP  !!!

ALWAYS has been..  Always will be.

Talk about "stating the obvious"  !   Well done, Mr. Bartlett..

Lone Wolf wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
Economist Bruce Bartlett, a former adviser to both Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, warned over the weekend that Fox News had damaged the Republican Party by creating a bubble for conservatives to brainwash themselves.

In his paper “How Fox News Changed American Media and Political Dynamics” published earlier this month, Bartlett theorized that watching the network was essentially “self-brainwashing” for viewers, making them believe that the United States was a more conservative nation than it actually was..........

YEP  !!!

ALWAYS has been..  Always will be.

Talk about "stating the obvious"  !    Well done, Mr. Bartlett..

what would know about anything EH thicko...

you are barely able to grunt

here piggy piggy piggy

Tommy Monk wrote:Any business can be entitled to some tax breaks, commercial news papers and tv news programmes are no different in that respect, add all are free to have whatever political bias they want.


However the BBC is totally funded through a direct tax on everyone and is duty bound to be independent of any political bias or leaning.


But it always has a left wing bias regardless of which party is in govt.

It`s only bias when people who claim there is bias don`t agree with the view, and they never complain when the bias is in there favour personally i could`t give a crap because most people don`t really complain about bias they  complain because  is in opposition to there view and because some people just want to complain about something
The BBC should be funded by the government as a public service i have no problem with that

but i guess its summed up in the famous  John Lydgate quote

You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”

The bbc could fund it self by advertising but i believe that`s not allowed by law  and quite frankly the lack of advertising every 15 mins is a bonus for me when i do watch it

70% of the time my TV sits on sky news with the sound muted
most of the TV i do actually watch is when its transmitted in the USA
I see all the programs i want to watch before they are out in this country via the internet

i have always paid my Tv licence am happy to do so simply because its better than the alternative we do have control over it unlike many American stations but the BBC more accountable than most

Look at some of the complaints made about Kay burly on sky was she sanctioned or martin brunt for outing Sweepyface or what ever her name was

Jeremy clarkson because of complaints by the public was hounded over every little stupid thing he did and it blown out of all proportions and he was eventually "fired " because of pressure from the public

is they bias Probably but perfect objectivity is an unrealistic goal All of us show bias when it comes to what information we take in. We typically focus on anything that agrees with the outcome we want.

darknessss wrote:

Lone Wolf wrote:


YEP  !!!

ALWAYS has been..  Always will be.

Talk about "stating the obvious"  !    Well done, Mr. Bartlett..

what would know about anything EH thicko...

you are barely able to grunt

here piggy piggy piggy

Well, that lowered the level.

Original Quill wrote:

darknessss wrote:

Lone Wolf wrote:


YEP  !!!

ALWAYS has been..  Always will be.

Talk about "stating the obvious"  !    Well done, Mr. Bartlett..

what would know about anything EH thicko...

you are barely able to grunt

here piggy piggy piggy

Well, that lowered the level.

No shit.

It still stands that a tried and true Republican diehard is saying that Fox News is bad -- not for the world, not for liberals, but for CONSERVATIVES.

This is coming from a guy who also wrote a book about how George W. Bush was a bad guy ... because (in Bartlett's view) Bush betrayed the legacy of Ronald Reagan.

This is the guy conservatives around the world should be listening to. But they won't, because he's saying something they don't want to hear, and has thus betrayed himself as a liberal at heart.

Because the only "real" conservative is the person who agrees with other conservatives at all times, slaps them on the ass and tells them they're the good guys -- always.

Anybody else might as well be (and indeed truly is) a liberal.

veya_victaous wrote:

I had to laugh that is was 'sassthathoopy' lol

korban dallas wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Any business can be entitled to some tax breaks, commercial news papers and tv news programmes are no different in that respect, add all are free to have whatever political bias they want.


However the BBC is totally funded through a direct tax on everyone and is duty bound to be independent of any political bias or leaning.


But it always has a left wing bias regardless of which party is in govt.

It`s only bias when people who claim there is bias don`t agree with the view, and they never complain when the bias is in there favour personally i could`t give a crap because most people don`t really complain about bias they  complain because  is in opposition to there view and because some people just want to complain about something
The BBC should be funded by the government as a public service i have no problem with that

but i guess its summed up in the famous  John Lydgate quote

You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”

The bbc could fund it self by advertising but i believe that`s not allowed by law  and quite frankly the lack of advertising every 15 mins is a bonus for me when i do watch it

70% of the time my TV sits on sky news with the sound muted
most of the TV i do actually watch is when its transmitted in the USA
I see all the programs i want to watch before they are out in this country via the internet

i have always paid my Tv licence am happy to do so simply because its better than the alternative we do have control over it unlike many American stations but the BBC more accountable than most

Look at some of the complaints made about Kay burly on sky was she sanctioned or martin brunt for outing Sweepyface or what ever her name was

Jeremy clarkson because of complaints by the public was hounded over every little stupid thing he did and it blown out of all proportions and he was eventually "fired " because of pressure from the public

is they bias Probably but perfect objectivity is an unrealistic goal All of us show bias when it comes to what information we take in. We typically focus on anything that agrees with the outcome we want.

You are still missing the major point of the BBC's duty to be not only completely independent of any political bias, but that it is also required to broadcast as wide a range of programmes necessary as to cater equally for All those who pay for it, and so as to provide something for everyone.


Comparisons to sky are completely irrelevant for the reasons I have previously given and therefore superfluous.


While your point about 'Clarkson' and 'Top Gear' actually prove my point about bias and agenda... as although 'Clarkson/top gear' has huge popularity and support among a large sub section of The people paying for the BBC... and therefore justifies its own existence and continuation etc... you admit that there was an influence of others who didn't like 'Clarkson/topgear' that contributed to the removal of it...


What gives those who don't like 'Clarkson/topgear' the right to prevent the millions of others the choice to enjoy it?


There are plenty of things on the BBC that typical top gear fans don't like and would like to see removed...

Would any of these things be under so much pressure to remove...!?


Why not...!?


Equality anyone...!?

Tommy, you should found the Asshole Rights Movement. You could call it ARM.