This is topic Subtle Bias Comparison: CNN vs. FOX @ the RNC in forum General Comments at The Ornery American Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:

Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
I only watched Mayor Giuliani's speech and some of the commentary tonight, but I noticed a few subtle instances of subversive media bias while flipping between FOX and CNN's live coverage that I thought was quite interesting.

FOX: Seemed like every other cut away camera shot was showing African Americans in the audience clapping and cheering.

CNN: Didn't see a single African American in any of their audience shots.

My take: Their obviously wasn't a whole lot of African Americans or other minorities in large numbers....not nearly as many as FOX tried to make out, but definitely more than CNN's "whiteout." One PRO-GOP cable network was trying to portray this as a large contingent of minorities supporting the Republicans, while the other ANTI-GOP network tried to continue promoting the false stereotype that the GOP is nothing but rich white folk actively excluding minorities. lol - subtle but obvious to an alert eye....

FOX: Right after Giuliani's speech, the analysts all said it was a great speech that had the right mix while attacking Kerry without getting mean spirited. Even the two Democrat analysts agreed that it was a good speech and that it may prove to be effective against Kerry in the near future of the campaign.

CNN: The analysts all decried Giuliani as being an attack dog and that he was simply reciting Republican talking points. They had NO sense of humor about any of Giuliani's jokes that were made at the expense of Kerry's infamous flip flopping on support/opposition for the war in Iraq. They must of had five different analysts use the word "attack" repeatedly in the three minutes or so of "analysis."

My Take: FOX was trying to live up to it's claim of being "fair and balanced" in the sense that they had two Republican analysts and two Democrat analysts, and both sides had their say on what they thought of the speech. But the Democrat analysts weren't too critical or harsh in their assessments...which is probably why most Democrat/Kerry Supporters hate the station.

On the other hand, I saw about five different analysts on CNN, ALL of which put a Anti-GOP/Pro-Kerry slant on their opinion's and analysis. LMAO. CNN almost sounded desperate. Several of them mentioned that this has been a terrible year for Bush because of the economy and that Giuliani or McCain failed to mention it.......reminds me of the old Goebbels philosophy: repeat a lie until it becomes the truth.

Of course, CNN is just preaching to it's choir of ABB/Democratic Underground Demographic audience.......
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
You know, I seriously doubt that most Democratic Underground posters get their primary news from CNN, any more than most Freepers get their news from Fox. Both groups are fringe enough that there are even more partisan and inaccurate sources out there to cater to their biases.
Posted by David Ricardo (Member # 1678) on :
How about this objective bias comparison?

Fox gave Day 1 of the Democratic Convention speeches 41 minutes of coveage.

Fox has now given Day 1 of the Repulibcan Convention speeches, 1 hour and 14 minutes of coverage.

In simple math, that means that Fox gave 81.5% extra time to the Republican Convention speeches than the Democratic Convention speeches.

I guess that's the "fair and balanced" that Daruma is talking about, eh?
Posted by Sunil Carspecken (Member # 1453) on :
David: I don't think Daruma was saying fox is fair and balanced, I think he was saying just the opposite.

I watched that speech on MSNBC and judging by your description of CNN and FOX's coverages I would say MSNBC's was imbetween the two. A fair amount of blacks shown in the audience, but mostly whites. The general consensus was that McCain and Giuliani's speeches were both very effective although Giuliani lost some steam towards the end of his speach.
Posted by ATW (Member # 1690) on :
I've never cared for Giuliani but it was a solid speech last night. Displayed more of a sense of humor than I'd have guessed.

I listened to the convention on PBS TV. They had exactly the same air time of coverage of the republicans as they had of the democrats. [Wink]

I was doing laundry which made it hard to see the TV most of the time. Saw plenty of women in the audience, some blacks, a few either hispanic or indian. Didn't see any asians but like I said, didn't see the TV much.

As for other networks' coverage of the convention, sheesh, the republicans put McCain and Giuliani up on day one. McCain's had a long-running disagreement with Bush on a variety of issues and could have popped off with something controversial. And Giuliani's had friction with every other republican I've ever seen him with.

The democrats on their day one put on Jimmy Carter and Clinton.

No offense to Carter or Clinton but its pretty much known what they are going to say. Clinton in particular has never really left the spotlight.
Posted by bearcatmark (Member # 1507) on :
I really like MSNBC coverage of about everything. I think they bring in a lot of good outside people. I think Mathews is very fair, as is Scarborough. Pat Buchanon always makes things interesting, and I always get a kick out of Ron Reagan Jr.

however, I kept an eye on CNN and fox coverage throughout the night. i did not notice bias from CNN as you noticed. I also don't know what you were listening to when talking about Giuliani's speech...I also heard people saying it was effective, but some critisism of the way he attacked kerry with talking points.

As for of my least favorite things they do..and they did it last those tapped one on one interviews with Hannity. They had Giuliani.

Giuliani was talking about Kerry's illegid flip, flop record.
Hannity tries to some it up, and says calmly, but very self assured "So he has no core?"

Oh yes Sean, a guy running for president, but doing so having no values, or sense of where he wants this country to go. A guy who has served his country for 30+ years...yup no core for this guy.

I'm sorry but these softball interviews are incredibly offensive to watch.

i thought Joe Trippi made an excellent point(though I've heard it before, from John McCain), when he talked about how we don't elect Senators. They were talking about how any person with that long a record in the senate it would be easy to find some incosistancies at a glance..when you don't get into the entire bill, or the other bills that were being raised about the same issue, or how the money is used on a bill, or every other factor that was around the vote. He pointed out that we hadn't elected a Senator since...JFK for that very reason.
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
Hey, I'm a FOX news regular watcher, and I DO recognize that they are definitely pro GOP....but it doesn't bother me because a) I recognize the attempts at subtle bias and propaganda, so am not unduly influenced by them, and b) despite this bias, they DO give equal air time to opposing viewpoints.

Finally, I do like to see news coverage from FOX because they are not afraid to show their patriotism or to show America and Americans in a positive light.

I can only stand so much of the liberal orthodoxy of the mainstream media/CNN that constantly protrays Christians as unreasonable fanatics, capitalism as the source of all evil and America as an evil imperial empire in the grips of racism, homophobia and hatred. I'll take subtle, pro-American, flag waving patriotism over the self-flagellation of the liberal press.....

If you have intellectual honesty, you should be able to recognize the biases and techniques used by the various media outlets, regardless of your own biases.... i.e. if you think Michael Moore is truthful and honest, while FOX News is a bunch of liars, or that FOX news is not pro GOP and CNN is a bunch of complete liars, you are either ignorant or not intellectually honest.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
You just called FOX subtle? Dude!
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 682) on :
As for the crowd shots, I mostly watched MSNBC, while occasionally switching to Fox News, and once in a while to the known liberal CNN. I noticed that on MSNBC almost all the people they showed in their crowd shots for nearly a minute straight were elderly. Was this intended to suggest that Republicans mostly tend to be old fogies? Or was it just a coincidence? They did show young people in the crowd later on, right when I was beginning to wonder if there were any.

[ August 31, 2004, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by LoverOfJoy (Member # 157) on :
I didn't watch too long but it seemed like MSNBC zoomed in on veterans a LOT tonight.
Posted by WillBest (Member # 1833) on :
This is the problem with the media. In my opinion they have no business providing any analysis of anything. If they really wanted to do a public service instead of giving me 40 minutes or an hour of the convention and another 2 hours of analysis, they would give me 3 hours of convention. It is annoying enough as it is to have to weed out the Republican or Democrat bias in their own presentment of the convention without having to look through News Corp, or Time Warners lense.
Posted by DaleNotSoNoble (Member # 2006) on :
Go Will. I remember when I was younger. The media made it less about them, much less about them. Watching this stuff was more like C-Span, but also more like being there...less like watching tv. dn
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
This guy on CNN pissed me off enormously last night. They were talking about how even your own side's 527's can backfire on you, and this guy said something about " compared President Bush to Hitler". Yeah, very pro-liberal, what can I tell ya...

As for the Gubernator's speech. He must have decided that the "girlie men" thing is working for him. It's not surprising thatg a guy who's penis has reportedly shrunk due to his preoccupation with his physical appearance would be so obssessed with trying to project an image of uber-masculinity.
Posted by Kit (Member # 1299) on :
I only caught a little bit of Laura Bush's speech and some of that commentary. But what really ticked me off was this...

She was talking about hope and optimism in America. When she finished the commentator said something along the lines of, "Of course, we have to point out that it has been a very difficult time in Iraq, and things are not going well there." Whether you agree with that analysis of Iraq or not, why did they "have to" mention it. The only purpose of commenting in that manner is to tear down what the 1st Lady just said. Now I don't know which network it was on (my wife was watching and I just stopped for a second to watch), but that just screammed bias to me. And a particularly mean bias. The 1st Lady has just given a talk about hope and optimism, and you just "have to" tear it down? You know, my mother always said it you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.

Now I don't really believe that there is a vast liberal conspiracy in the media. I just believe that there is a subtle(or not so subtle) bias in almost every news outlet out there. Usually it is not a problem, just recognise the bias and apply the appropriate filter. I get most of my news through and I try to read the same stories in both venues. It really helps in screening bias. Of course, there is also the choice of which stories to publish, but you do what you can.
Posted by ATW (Member # 1690) on :
Originally posted by RickyB:

As for the Gubernator's speech. He must have decided that the "girlie men" thing is working for him.

You are aware the "girlie men" phrase is from an old Saturday Night Live recurring skit that poked fun at Arnold.

On the first night of the convention, they started with a variation of the Saturday Night Live opening "Live from New York, its the 2004 Republican convention".

The audience probably caught the SNL referrence even if you didn't.

I'm personally wanting Cheney to come in as the Samurai Brain Surgeon....


Don't know if it means anything but FOX stomped CNN in the ratings for the first night's coverage. Nearly 3-1.
Posted by Redskullvw (Member # 188) on :

Samurai <fill in the blank> skits are some of the best. the laundry skit may be the best of all.

How about the killer bees?
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
I know all about the SNL skit, but this is the second time he's done it recently, and both times were to insult others. It doesn't matter where it's from, the point is he's using the term "girlie men" to disparage his opponents. Not being original enough to come up with his own gag is no excuse for being obnoxious. Ahhhnold is a bully. If anyone needed any further proof, it positively screams from the natural way he's taken to the "if you don't agree with us then you're a bad person" crap.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 682) on :
Ricky, you like to disparage people you disagree with. Why do you condemn Schwarzenegger for doing the same thing? At least he does it with real wit and a delightful disregard for political correctness. His remark was greeted with a loud, approving ovation. Perhaps you envy him that, as well as some other things.
Posted by ATW (Member # 1690) on :
Shrunken penis envy? LOL
Posted by LoverOfJoy (Member # 157) on :
Now Al Sharpton, on the other hand, is a guy who would NEVER "disparage" people he disagrees with. He'd never call people names or make comments like "girlie men".


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1