TVSquad

To be fair, this clip was from FoxNews Watch, not some mainstream foxnews show. Fox NewsWatch frequently criticizes it's own network, including Bill O'reilly, as well as ABC, CBS, etc. This is because the show is about the medias coverage of major events, or major news within the news industry. Anyone that watches NewsWatch knows this.

Give me a break! Are you implying that Fox News Watch is in some way objective??! Maybe compared to other shows on the network, but compared to the journalistic integrity people are used to on most shows on MSNBC or PBS, Fox News Watch is a joke.

LOL. Joey. I'm not implying NewWatch is objective. I'm stating that as a fact. Because it reams EVERY news outlet in AMERICA for something at some point throughout the week. Have you ever watched NewsWatch? It's very critical of it's own station and praises ABC, at times, CNN, and NBC's "Meet the Press", among other outlets, quite consistently.

Now then, you made the comment "journalistic integrity people are used to on most shows on MSNBC or PBS"Well now, technically, MSNBC isn't news, and people don't watch it, so lets just disregard that channel. Had you said CNN, ok, maybe, but not MSNBC. PBS, I will accept, in that they show BBC World News and Deustche Welt.

MSNBC has no journalistic integrity. Kieth Olbermann isn't even a real journalist. He spouts his opinions...always Leftist, all the time. At least O'Reilly, you know, the guy that kicks his you know what every night in the ratings, actually supports some Right and some Left views. It's called being a moderate. ;-)

First of all, did you see the news clip above? Please tell me you could see the rampant conservative bias from nearly all the commentators?!? I did say that Fox News Watch probably was more objective than other Fox News programs, but that does not actually make it an objective program in any other sense. Let me guess, that the majority of the time that Fox News Watch is praising other programs, is when those programs are displaying a conservative point of view.

As far as MSNBC not being news, your joking right? Fox News isn't news, and they don't try to be. Fox News is an entertainment channel, and surprise surprise, an entertainment channel does better in the ratings than an actual news channel like MSNBC. CNN is a news channel, but they generally aren't the same quality of MSNBC or PBS.

Uhm, you do know that Olbermann is a journalist while O'Reilly is not. In that Olbermann has journalist credentials, can attend a news event in the press area, etc, while O'Reilly has no press credentials whatsoever, and has to scream from the sidelines with the regular audience. Olbermann definitely has a liberal bias to his news reporting, but at least he reports the news, and doesn't twist it and blatantly lie about it until it fits his world view like O'Reilly.

O'Reilly is not a moderate. How could you possibly say such a ridiculous statement? He is a far right blowhard, and hates everything America stands for.

lol. Ok, I'm not going to get into a flame war, but allow me to respond in kind.

1. "First of all, did you see the news clip above? Please tell me you could see the rampant conservative bias from nearly all the commentators?!?"

Just a grammar note, the Statement that starts "Please tell me" shouldn't end with a "?", but rather a "." To answer your statement, yes, I watched it, and no, I didn't see any bias in it. They stated the truth. How is that bias?

2. " I did say that Fox News Watch probably was more objective than other Fox News programs, but that does not actually make it an objective program in any other sense."

So have you watched NewsWatch as a frequent viewer?

"Let me guess, that the majority of the time that Fox News Watch is praising other programs, is when those programs are displaying a conservative point of view."

No. Actually, they comment on HOW THE NEWS OUTLETS HANDLE THE NEWS...their questions are about IF THE NEWS CHANNELS ARE BIASED. What about that do you not understand?

"Fox News is an entertainment channel, and surprise surprise, an entertainment channel does better in the ratings than an actual news channel like MSNBC. CNN is a news channel, but they generally aren't the same quality of MSNBC"

Fox might have a bunch of Entertainmentish news, but MSNBC is just as bad if not worse. Your point is a matter of opinion, and so is mine, but most newsers are aware that much of FOX is conservative, and MSNBC has taken a decided shift to compete as the leftist version of FOX.

"Uhm, you do know that Olbermann is a journalist while O'Reilly is not."(that should end in a question mark) "In that Olbermann has journalist credentials, can attend a news event in the press area, etc, while O'Reilly has no press credentials whatsoever, and has to scream from the sidelines with the regular audience. Olbermann definitely has a liberal bias to his news reporting, but at least he reports the news, and doesn't twist it and blatantly lie about it until it fits his world view like O'Reilly."

O'Reilly has a Master's Degree in Broadcast Journalism and another in Public Administration. Olbermann has a BS in Communications. Are you really going to compare the two? Also, O'Reilly admits he doesn't report the news. He is a COMMENTATOR, and freely acknowledges that. If you want the news, then watch Fox News at 7pm with Shep Smith. He's not biased either.

"O'Reilly is not a moderate. How could you possibly say such a ridiculous statement? He is a far right blowhard, and..."

Compare him with Limbaugh and Culture...according to those two, and Hannity even, O'Reilly is a moderate. He's a registered Independant and will likely vote for McCain if it were McCain v. Obama, but would vote Obama I think if it were Obama v. Huckabee...although the Right to Life issue is pretty important...since we are all entitled to live, and not die.

"hates everything America stands for."

WOW. America is about freedom of religion, expression etc. It's also about democratic ideals, like small gov't. Last I checked, O'Reilly was a patriot on that front. Which is why he hates the ACLU, who wish to take liberties away...how is that hating what America stands for?

First of all, you just look stupid when you critique grammar in a site like this. This is an informal message board, and I frequently see comments without capitalization (or completely capitalized). People aren't spending time checking the MLA handbook.

As far as the clip above, they start out bringing up Olbermann's comment about Petreaus, which was a little over the line, but it is clearly not the same thing, merely because when you use that particular phrase in reference to a woman, it has a completely different connotation than with a man (Yes, if Petraeus were female, then Olbermann's comment would have been in similar bad taste to Shuster's, but still not as bad, as Petraeus ware being used to directly confirm the viewpoint of the Bush administration, and as a military general, it was highly inappropriate to begin with)
They continue to talk about the Olbermann comment, and then the National Review guy (yea, he is not conservatively biased) flat out says that the Clinton campaign wants it's reporters to be saying "offensively" left-wing things. If he had any proof of this, I'd like to see it.
Then he flat out says that what Shuster said was A-OK, because you knew what he meant. Sure I do, Shuster's words were wrong, what he meant was wrong (there is absolutely nothing wrong with Chelsea Clinton out there campaigning for her mother.) Of course he doesn't substantiate this statement.
Then Cal Thomas goes on about the injustice of all the things that Bush has been called over the years, and implies (without a shred of evidence) that these comments are some masterful plot by the network. First of all, if you look at the dictionary definition of those two terms (warmonger and fascist), Bush's actions and stated beliefs pretty closely fit. Second of all, does he really equate those terms with implying that someone is being used in a manner similar to a prostitute. Third of all, Democrats have been called terrorists, socialists, and worse on all manners of Fox News programs (even the supposedly "straight" news programs). Talk about a double standard. There isn't even a show on Fox News to show a consistent, differing viewpoint (No, the weak, barely heard liberal Colmes, and the couple of NPR commentators that are shouted down by the conservative majority, don't count). Tucker, on the other hand, on MSNBC, provides a loud and consistent voice for conservatism on MSNBC. As does Glenn Beck on CNN. Where is the balance, Fox?
And then he says Clinton wants it "both ways". So for her to be a strong woman leader, she has to ignore or tolerate those who challenger her honor or the honor of those she cares about. Wait, how does that work?
At least the National Review brings up the main point of the Clinton campaign's objection to MSNBC, the consistent bias against Hillary seen across the network. But then Cal makes a nice little derogatory statement about MSNBC, and they all laugh with glee! That silly National Review guy, bringing a moment of sanity to an otherwise fun-filled rightwing Clinton hating bash fest. What was he thinking?
And then Jane brings some more sanity into the discussion, although again, Fox has a habit of not bringing in very substantial liberal commentators. What is the mix of the panel. How about a moderator who is clearly conservative biased, and National Review guy which is conservative biased, and conservative talk-show host, who is a raving right-wing blowhard, and fairly evenhanded commentator who nevertheless toes the party line in condemning MSNBC, and a lone voice defending the Clintons. Really even handed, huh?
And then the host starts lying. Bold-faced, outright lying. Shuster has always been far more left-leaning than either Olbermann or Matthews, yet they imply that he would have normally been a straight down the line political reporter if MSNBC hadn't placed him in that position. Of course, they never explained how, pray tell, Shuster was forced or encouraged by MSNBC to say outrageous things. Because he was asked to host Tucker instead of his own show? He says similar things (although usually not blatantly as provocative) on his own show literally all the time. They have no point. But the "even-handed" commentator, of course, agrees with the nonsense spouted by the moderator. She implies again that Matthews tries to be provocative and say as much as he can without being called on his words (I assume that is what she means by saying he tries to hit the "line"), but Matthews is generally a very balanced reporter, at least compared to anybody on Fox News, and similar to most people on CNN. Shuster has never been a straight-news reporter! And get ready for some out-right lying, because the commentator says MSNBC put Shuster on Matthews program, when in fact, he was guest-hosting on Tucker. Fox doesn't let little things like facts get in the way of their opinion. She then defends Chelsea, which was nice, but doesn't change the fact that she lied two seconds before that.
Cal goes on and implies that the Clinton campaign, alone, gives questions to reporters and demands that they ask those questions. It is funny how those Clinton interviewers always seem to throw in a couple uncomfortable and stinging questions when they interview Hillary, isn't it? And to the extent that the Clinton campaign does this, all campaigns do it. And no network bends to the will of a politician to the degree that Fox does when they interview Bush frequently. It is beyond sickening, but it fulfills Fox's mission to be an entertainment network. And then the moderator brings up Barbara Walters, completely out of the blue, I guess implying that the reach of the Clintons extends that far. Absolutely, positively, no proof. Is it not massively more likely that Barbara is simply toeing to the party line of all her fellow reporters? Cal ends his insightful comments by agreeing with the travesty that a "straight news" reporter like Shuster was being manipulated by MSNBC. Again, absolutely no evidence, and flies in the face of common sense, IMO.
And then some thankful common sense from the professor, talking about all the absolutely insane things that get said all across the Fox News stable every day (of course she is careful not to mention Fox News as the perpetrator in that case, as that would not fulfill her position as the weak liberal).
The National Review guy of course, says that all the things liberals say are given more tolerance than all the things conservatives say. But the fact of the matter is that none of Fox's anchors have been suspends for all the insane and hate-filled comments they make, every day, and Shuster was. So I guess that proves that the left is at least somewhat accountable, while the right is not ever.

If that show is what "balanced" means to Fox News, than I'd like to see what "right wing" means. I guess I can find out if I turn on Fox News at any other hour of the day, huh?

What I mean by Fox News being an entertainment channel is just that, it is designed to entertain and titillate, not inform. MSNBC is a left-leaning news network, and CNN is a slightly right-leaning network (yes, it is. Most of the commentators are unbiased, but Blitzer is tougher on Democrats than Republicans, and as that Reliable Sources clip shows, other commentators and pundits that CNN regularly employs give the right-leaning answer more often than not. It is not blatant, but it is consistent). Fox News is entertainment.

While O'Reilly might have more prestigious degrees on his wall than Olbermann, the fact is that Olbermann has press credentials, (he has a press pass), and O'Reilly does not.

Let me guess, you think Shepherd Smith is not biased in the same way that Fox News Watch is not biased. Yea, sure.

How is O'Reilly better than Coulter, Limbaugh, or Hannity? Because you say so? He might be slightly better than Coulter, but he is in the exact same vein as Limbaugh and Hannity. Yes, I have heard that he is a registered Independent, but all his actions and words are to the contrary of that designation. Everything. As far as Right to Life, that is far too thorny of an issue to go into here, but I care far more about the rights of the born, than any 95% of the commentators on Fox News, and I think those rights matter more than the right for someone to take the freedom away from a woman to make a painstaking choice for herself. (And any self-respecting Pro-Lifer would have to be ardently in favor of Sex Ed and birth control, if their goal is to actually dramatically lower the number of abortions) As far as your assertion that O'Reilly isn't absolutely in love with every single thing Huckabee stands for, and hates everything Obama stands for, I'd like a single link to the contrary.

You are absolutely right that America is about freedom of religion and freedom of expression. If Republicans had their way, these would be so curtailed that Fascist Russia would look like a paradise. As far as small government, sure, I'm all for it, but far more important is the government's responsibility to the people, who would be abandoned and left to fend for themselves if O'Reilly had his way. You do know that the ACLU stands for the American Civil Liberties Organization, and everything they do is designed to guarantee those liberties, not take them away. Unbelievable that you would state something to the contrary like it is a fucking fact.

She isn't expected to do anything. You can argue that she should answer questions if she is out there actively campaigning for her mother, and I'd probably agree with you. But she is under no responsibility to talk to anyone.

Wow....just, wow.

Biased, blind and stupid. You've hit the moron trifecta!

Is it a lot of work being that out of touch with reality or do you use chemical assistance?

"The Clinton campaign has done nothing at all to deserve the ridiculous treatment they have received across the media landscape, and this is just the most obvious example."

You have got to be kidding me. The Clinton's have done NOTHING AT ALL to deserve this treatment???? Give me a break . . . that is the biggest fairy tale I have ever heard.

Wow, Franklin, maybe you could point out an instance where I am wrong, and I could respond.

MacGuffin, yes, the Clinton's have done absolutely nothing to deserve this treatment. Running a rough campaign and trying hard to knock down your opponent a peg or two does not deserve recrimination by the media (The only charge that the Clinton campaign made that was truly unfair was comparing Obama's campaign to Jesse Jackson, and Obama's campaign addressed the unfairness of this themselves. No need for the media to rise to their defense)

"I'm sorry, but you can't put Countdown in the same sentence as Hannity and Colmes, O'Reilly Factor, etc. He most definitely has a liberal bias, but he is first and foremost a accomplished and serious reporter, unlike the hate-filled children that preside at Fox News."

You've got to be kidding me? Olbermann isn't hate filled? Isn't he the same guy who said that Fox News is "worse than Al Queda" among other dopey things? I'm sorry but the man can't be taken any more seriously than O'Reilly or Hannity, IMO. They're all a bunch hysterical crackpots. We'll all be better off when this hyper partisan atmosphere goes away and these mornonic hacks who fed into it are out of a job.

No, he never said that. I bet you also think Al Gore said he invented the internet. The truth is, while Olbermann gets a little heated on his show about the injustices of the Bush Administration, he doesn't lie, cheat, or twist the truth, like the ridiculous hatemongers on Fox News.

I've responded to your reply to me. It's above. And then I read further and I realized that you're just really biased.

Personally, I watch BBC World News and BBC World News America. I frequent CNN, FOX, and even dabble in a little MSNBC. I DO watch NewsWatch, because I think it's unbiased...and MSNBC is VERY biased. I do not watch CBS or NBC(except for Meet the Press), but I do watch ABC News on occasion. So go ahead now and call me biased, and blind. It should also be noted that I read haartz, the guadrian, Pravda, BBC and SkyNews, the Daily Telegraph, and some select blogs as well in my Daily News cycle, but NO American newspaper. Wonder why? Because most are horrible.

Nearly all the commentators in the above clip were conservatively biased. That is abundantly clear! At least they made a faint attempt to hide their bias and explore the issue from the other side, unlike nearly every other clip of Fox News I have seen, but the bias still shown through quite clearly.

CNN is fine, but generally, they are simply not generally up to the same caliber as MSNBC. That is mainly because the combination of Blitzer and Cooper really don't compare to the combination of Matthews and Olbermann when it comes to covering breaking news stories (the only time I watch any of the 24 hour news networks anyways, pretty much). (Matthews does get on my nerve sometimes, but generally he is so much more intelligent, and dare I say it, alive, than Blitzer that he is much more pleasant to watch. And when Olbermann is covering news stories and not on his own show, he hides most of his bias and generally covers events in an objective matter.

I agree with you that most American newspapers are terrible, with the exception of the New York Times. And you can't even say they are strongly liberally biased anymore with the addition of the execrable Kriston to the Op-Ed pages.

You seem to be fairly open-minded, which makes me wonder why you would say such ridiculous things like 1. O'Reilly is a moderate 2. MSNBC isn't news 3. Olbermann isn't a journalist 4. Fox News Watch, at least based on the clip cited above, is conservatively slanted, and the rest of the network is an entertainment network, not a news network (Yes, occasionally, the main anchors will question the conservative talking points they have been fed by the suite of Republican pundits they are talking to, but they accept the ridiculous explanations without comment)

I've replied above. I would also add however, that whilst many, if not most, of the commentators on fox are slanted, the same can be said about MSNBC. Shepard Smith is VERY unbiased, yet HIGHLY opinionated. Niel Cavuto, the same. I watch News all the time, so perhaps my view is more detailed, but Shepard Smith covers breaking news better than any other anchor on television...except for Matt Frei.

As for Kristol, he's the token conservative on an otherwise liberal paper, and most papers are still highly lefty.

Uhm, maybe I am just a little slow, but what is the difference between being biased and opinionated, if the vast majority of those opinions are on one side of the political divide? Both Shepherd and Neil are highly biased under that definition.

I'll admit that I don't watch Fox News for breaking news (I am not a masochist), but I really doubt that they cover news with any amount of honesty, given the lies and complete mis characterizations present in that "straight" news clip above. Maybe you could just watch MSNBC for a couple minutes during the primary coverage tomorrow, and see how a real news network covers events. (Although NPR probably is the best of all, forgot to mention that above. Although they are similarly "lefty" like the New York Times, so you probably don't like them)

Hey has it ever occurred to you that maybe there is a more reasonable explanation behind the lefty bias across all these varied news sources than a vast liberal conspiracy? Maybe reality has a liberal bias, and the media is just trying to reflect that? A famous philosopher said that once, and it has a ring of truth to it.