Is Fox News a tabloid?
Only in the eyes of those who are politically motivated to discredit them. I am not a fan of Fox News. I don't care for their format, I do think they have an obvious conservative bias, and I generally get my news from CNN/HLN and NPR. However, tabloid journalism is a specific niche, and Fox News meets none of the criteria for this niche. They cover major news stories the major networks, CNN, NPR, and most other news organizations cover. Many may not like the conservative slant they give them, but they still cover actual news. Tabloid journalism does not. Their niche is celebrity expose´. Even though I am not a fan, I will say that the existence of Fox News is the third best news situation the US could have, and one step better than if they did not exist. Here is how I calculate this:Best is no bias. Never gonna happen. Bias will inevitably come out both in what stories a news organization chooses to call news, and how they cover it.Second best is a perfect balance. That is, as close to the same audience size for Liberal-leaning bias and Conservative as possible. This has never been the case in the US.Third best is at least some voice for the media minority. In the US, that minority has been Conservatism at least since the 1960's if not longer. News media with a Liberal bias still has a much larger audience than conservatives.Fourth best is nearly all one-sided bias. That's the situation we had before Fox News. There had been William F. Buckley, Paul Harvey, and a few others, mostly who called themselves "news and commentary," unlike the news organizations who were/are in fact news+commentary yet simply called themselves news.Fifth best is no dissenting voice at all. Thankfully, no one side has ever enjoyed a full monopoly. I contend that a monopoly by either political side would be disastrous, and almost as bad as...Worst is state-run media, as seen in nations where media can only report what the government approves.I am convinced that anyone who is outraged by Fox News' conservative bias is most likely just a ranting partisan rather than concerned about media integrity. Unless they are equally outraged by NPR's and others' Liberal bias.
What's so bad about Fox News?
At Fox News, ideology comes firstHaving a conservative voice among the news channels to question assumed wisdom and counter perceived bias makes sense in theory. But at Fox, winning over conservative viewers has meant lowering news standards.At its worst, this has led the network to promote baseless conspiracy theories, such as since-retracted claims regarding the death of former Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich and bogus accusations that former President Barack Obama was born in Kenya. Perhaps more damaging is the reflexive partisanship, which in recent years has manifested itself in a constant vilification of Obama and uncritical defense of President Trump.It creates an ‘echo chamber’Conservatives have long disagreed with the mainstream media’s liberal tilt. But before the launch of Fox News, they were at least forced to engage with the news seen by a major share of Americans. With many right-leaning viewers now getting their information from Fox News (along with the rise of partisan online media sites), though, they are not exposed to the viewpoints many Americans take for granted. Not only does this stop them from challenging their own perspective; it also limits their ability to persuade and engage others. Trump’s presidency has highlighted this challenge. Having an additional viewpoint is a positive, but creating a bubble (a phenomenon present on both sides of the partisan divide) is not.It is low-quality journalismThe difference between Fox News and other networks is not simply where they fall on the political spectrum. Fox may also be less committed to accuracy and journalistic standards than its competitors. Politifact, a non-partisan fact-checking website, rated more than 150 statements made on Fox News by pundits or their guests. Sixty percent were rated Mostly False, False, or Pants on Fire. This compares to just 27 percent for CNN, and 41 percent for MSNBC, the network’s liberal competitor. Fox News has also never won a Peabody Award (though other Fox affiliates including FX have). There’s a place for punditry, but at other networks, it takes a backseat to journalism. That is not the case at Fox.Source: The Perspective on Fox News
What is good about Fox News?
I am not a fan of Fox News. I don't care for their format, I do think they have an obvious conservative bias, and I generally get my news from CNN/HLN and NPR. However, what is good about them is that the existence of Fox News is the third best news situation the US could have, and one step better than if they did not exist. Here is how I calculate this:Best is no bias. Never gonna happen. Bias will inevitably come out both in what stories a news organization chooses to call news, and how they cover it.Second best is a perfect balance. That is, as close to the same audience size for Liberal-leaning bias and Conservative as possible. This has never been the case in the US.Third best is at least some voice for the media minority. In the US, that minority has been Conservatism at least since the 1960's if not longer. News media with a Liberal bias still has a much larger audience than conservatives.Fourth best is nearly all one-sided bias. That's the situation we had before Fox News. There had been William F. Buckley, Paul Harvey, and a few others, mostly who called themselves "news and commentary," unlike the news organizations who were/are in fact news+commentary yet simply called themselves news.Fifth best is no dissenting voice at all. Thankfully, no one side has ever enjoyed a full monopoly. I contend that a monopoly by either political side would be disastrous, and almost as bad as...Worst is state-run media, as seen in nations where media can only report what the government approves.I am convinced that anyone who is outraged by Fox News' conservative bias is most likely just a ranting partisan rather than concerned about media integrity. Unless they are equally outraged by NPR's and others' Liberal bias.
How would American politics change if FOX News no longer existed?
Given that Fox has the largest viewership of any news network, by a wide margin, I would say that if it did not exist somebody would have to invent it:http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com...Fox News is only one part of a larger space of conservative news, which includes newspapers like the Wall Street Journal (also owned by Rupert Murdoch), conservative talk radio (independently owned), and a vast array of web sites.I can't imagine what premises in the question would cause Fox News to evaporate, but it's not some creation independent of the rest of the conservative movement. That's not the way the causation goes. Fox News doesn't create conservatism; conservatism creates Fox News.The News Corp that runs Fox News also runs liberally oriented shows like The Simpsons, which even runs anti-Fox News jokes:It's there to take your money; or rather, to take the money of advertisers in exchange for your eyeballs, which you provide because you like the content. As long as there are conservatives, there will be a Fox News, even if it's not Fox News.That's not to say that Fox News doesn't end up having a say in where conservatism goes, and whatever conservative network sprang up in its place would end up doing things differently. Who knows which conservative commentators it would choose to promote? But the voices would say largely the same things, even if the style was totally different.A different network runner might choose a different strategy, and it might be more or less effective, but it's essentially like adding a new team to a professional sports league. There are only so many strategies to go around, and things don't usually get radically different just because a new coach appears.
What would we not have if Thomas Edison never existed?
realistically -- nothing, because one man is never the only one working on any particular idea in any particular direction. That's why it would be incorrect to say that "without Newton we wouldn't have calculus" -- because Leibnitz was also working on the calculus as well, and so Newton-Liebnitz appears more and more frequently. Another good example is Marconi and the radio. The movie "The Bucket List" introduces the notion that Tesla actually held the patent for radio broadcasts, but Marconi was credited as the inventor of the radio for decades. [need to fact check this one since a movie is the source of this particular insight.] so it is not unreasonable to expect that those things that edison was working on decades/centuries ago would have been successfully invented by someone else; albeit sooner or later and using a different source of funding. However, the point of this poorly worded homework question seems to be "list all the things that edison is credited with inventing." that will yield to a wikipedia search on "thomas edison"
Jay Rockefeller- "Internet should have never existed".?
I have a real hard time believing that the government can't defend itself from "internet attack". What a load!
Why is the world so biased?
Yeah. Cos of the existence of rednecks americans who were arrogant their whole lives. They were blinded n they do not realize that. They felt that to withdraw their stupid troops means to waste the war effort and they want the troops to be worthy being in a desert, the worhtiest effort is to get killed and do some honour rather than whining everyday that war sucks and they wanna go hom. (which in fact what the soldiers are doing now) The war was planned all along to destory saddams regime. Sold him some chemical weapons, then get him hanged and take over the oil. Its hidden political gains and a win win situation, while those blinded americans believed that going there for war was to save the people from hardships and to give them freedom. In actual fact, they were better off and happier before the troops arrived. Just like bombing japan, killing the innocents, in order to save the world. It was also meant as a test-run for never-before-seen A-bomb, in other words, to show off their military power and to gain some extra cash for rebuilding japan during the aftermath. If there was no political/financial gains, why on earth would someone chronically play the role of an angel to save the world by being a friendly innocous tooth-fairy? And the citizens were continuously mind-fuked without them knowing it, believing in those fairy tales CNN broadcasts. Thats the price to pay for eating too much Burgers. It kills your brains cells and made you take the media at face-value, because your sense of deliberating and self-control would be destroyed by the stupid freedom-fries they consumed.
Do you think CNN is fake news?
The 2016 Milwaukee RiotsIn August 2016 Sylville Smith was the victim of an officer’s bullet, and Milwaukee quickly became ground zero in a series of riots. CNN was on the scene to keep their viewers up to date. They were able to capture footage of smith’s sister begging her community to end their violence . However, instead of showing viewers the real footage, they showed an edited version of her plea. They completely forgot to add the part on the end when she tells the rioters to bring the violence to the suburbs.Hands up, don’t shoot!In August 2014, Michael Brown was killed by a police officer. The details surrounding the case were unclear at the time, but that didn’t stop CNN from promoting their narrative. Some anchors at CNN went on the air and put their hands up as a symbol against police brutality. The only problem is, “hands up, don’t shoot” never happened.WikileaksIn March 2016, Wikileaks released thousands of emails that were sent and received through Hillary Clinton’s private server. (For those who don’t know, Wikileaks is an organization that publishes secret information, in an attempt to make the public more aware of corruption.) Anyway, when Chris Cuomo went on the air to share the information that he obtained from Wikileaks, Cuomo told viewers it is illegal for anyone outside of the media to see those emails. Cuomo lied to the public.Those are a few of my favorite examples of CNN being dishonest and misleading.So, is CNN Fake News? No.Does CNN have a massive bias? Absolutely.Does CNN rush to conclusions without facts? Of course.Do some news stories end up false? Yes.Are they really “The most trusted name in news”? Hell no.