Why Haven't Other News Stations followed Fox News.

[Mayor M. Barry]

I don't understand why other news channels haven't followed suit and emulated Fox's "fair and balanced" news. Since its launch in 1996, Fox has been the only channel that consistently covers events without a political bias, and is the only channel that has publicly adopted a standard of reporting the news as opposed to interpreting it (the "We Report, You Decide" motto). Since Fox is now the highest rated cable news network, one would think the other networks would follow its noble lead. Why is it that they haven't?

[jpavenick]

The reason other news stations have not followed Fox News is because other news stations are news stations.

[TomCollins]

In before lock

[bobman0330]

Whining about the biases in the newsmedia is really one of the lowest forms of human activity. Of course news is biased. It is logically impossible to present a useful summary of political events without a political viewpoint. And of course people like listening to things that pander to their biases without admitting it. That's human nature. You can't change it. Move on.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason other news stations have not followed Fox News is because other news stations are news stations.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are no stations that I know of that consistently just report, including Fox. They all have large elements of infotainment (Greta Van Sustern etc), and commentaries (Hannity&Colmes; O'Reilly) etc. Thats why I dont watch much of any of them, I prefer to read newspapers.

From what Ive seen though, I do think Fox does a better job of balancing the infotainment than others. Dem accusations that they are puppets for the GWB administration are silly. The conservatives on Fox consistently blasted Bush on immigration, medicare prescription spending, Dubai ports and others. They present a pretty balanced assessment of Iraq as well. Unfortunately liberals look at any newscaster that doesnt essentially parrot "Bush lied, people died" in one form or another as biased.

[jpavenick]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The reason other news stations have not followed Fox News is because other news stations are news stations.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are no stations that I know of that consistently just report, including Fox. They all have large elements of infotainment (Greta Van Sustern etc), and commentaries (Hannity&Colmes; O'Reilly) etc. Thats why I dont watch much of any of them, I prefer to read newspapers.

From what Ive seen though, I do think Fox does a better job of balancing the infotainment than others. Dem accusations that they are puppets for the GWB administration are silly. The conservatives on Fox consistently blasted Bush on immigration, medicare prescription spending, Dubai ports and others. They present a pretty balanced assessment of Iraq as well. Unfortunately liberals look at any newscaster that doesnt essentially parrot "Bush lied, people died" in one form or another as biased.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately for Fox News the truth seems to have a liberal bias as well.

[Ron Burgundy]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand why other news channels haven't followed suit and emulated Fox's "fair and balanced" news. Since its launch in 1996, Fox has been the only channel that consistently covers events without a political bias, and is the only channel that has publicly adopted a standard of reporting the news as opposed to interpreting it (the "We Report, You Decide" motto). Since Fox is now the highest rated cable news network, one would think the other networks would follow its noble lead. Why is it that they haven't?

[/ QUOTE ]

Awesome gimmick account.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand why other news channels haven't followed suit and emulated Fox's "fair and balanced" news...

[/ QUOTE ]

They have copied Fox.

On Phil Donahue's firing, just 22 days before US invasion of Iraq:

[ QUOTE ]

On the October 28 edition of FOX News Channel's Hannity & Colmes, veteran talk show host Phil Donahue remarked on being fired from MSNBC in February 2003. As The New York Times reported at the time, when Donahue's MSNBC show, Donahue, was cancelled, "he was actually attracting more viewers than any other show on MSNBC."

SEAN HANNITY (co-host): What happened at MSNBC?

DONAHUE: Well, we were the only antiwar voice that had a show, and that, I think, made them very nervous. I mean, from the top down, they were just terrified. We had to have two conservatives on for every liberal. I was counted as two liberals.

...

HANNITY: You felt mistreated? You felt mistreated?

DONAHUE: Well, we were very -- I was isolated, and we were very alone at the end. And then we had nobody supporting us, and our numbers were very decent. We weren't Elvis, but we were often the best number --

HANNITY: You were the highest-rated show on the network.

DONAHUE: Yes. And we were told to leave.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200410290004

(Incidentally, they attempted to replace him with none other than Michael Savage.)

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Phil Donahue recalls that he was told he could not feature war dissenters alone on his MSNBC talk show and always had to have "two conservatives for every liberal." Moyers resurrects a leaked NBC memo about Donahue's firing that claimed he "presents a difficult public face for NBC in a time of war. At the same time our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity."

http://www.reclaimthemedia.org/media...p%3D5151<br />
<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">