It's strange, because FoxNews journalists have such a long history of having no bias.

Just ask this guy:

Fox News, we hire the intellectually challenged.

Just another brilliant Mccain supporter. However will Obama win in the fall?

She wasn't a reporter.

Subby fales at reding komprehshion.

Etchy333

Russert worked for Daniel Patrick Moynahan.
Matthews worked for Tip O'Neill.
Stephanopoulos worked for Clinton.
Moyers worked for LBJ.

See a pattern here?

It's sad when Farkers don't RTFA, but when subby's don't RTFA and it goes green...

Something's rotten in the state of Farkistan.

Lionel Mandrake

FWIW, you have one of the top ten all time greatest Fark names. Every time you post I see Sellers and Hayden in Ripper's office and hear the words "precious bodily fluids".

gterz66: Etchy333

Russert worked for Daniel Patrick Moynahan.
Matthews worked for Tip O'Neill.
Stephanopoulos worked for Clinton.
Moyers worked for LBJ.

See a pattern here?

All those people went from poltics to the private sector journalism. Tony Snow was in the private sector, and kissed enough butt in the process to land him the sweet press secretary gig.

Etchy333

Wrong. Snow worked for George H.W. Bush and that helped him to get the gig at Fox.

What, they're upset she didn't vote for Rudy or one of the other fascists?

gterz66: Etchy333

Wrong. Snow worked for George H.W. Bush and that helped him to get the gig at Fox.

Fox, like all news companies, hold REPORTERS,who are supposed to be unbiased in their reporting, to ANALYSTS, who are supposed to give opinions. People forget that while FOX has more conservative's in its department, that was where you could get the best talent for the lowest prices. It was a good business move.

Lionel Mandrake: It's sad when Farkers don't RTFA, but when subby's don't RTFA and it goes green...

Something's rotten in the state of Farkistan.

Whatever has to be done to get traffic and up post count. Even if it involves flat-out lying in submissions (Not including this article, but there have been headlines that were just submitted lying so a flamewar could break out. This article is only half-true).

She should have kept her mouth shut about who she voted for. And why would you do it on the Red Carpet?

Lionel Mandrake: Something's rotten in the state of Farkistan.

Sorry 'bout that. I ate pork and beans tonight.

Um, maybe I'm not understanding the article correctly, but what did this person do wrong, exactly? Was she telling the viewers who she voted for?

NeverDrunk23: Whatever has to be done to get traffic and up post count. Even if it involves flat-out lying in submissions (Not including this article, but there have been headlines that were just submitted lying so a flamewar could break out. This article is only half-true).

She should have kept her mouth shut about who she voted for. And why would you do it on the Red Carpet?

To impress Elizabeth Kucinich.

Sgeo: Um, maybe I'm not understanding the article correctly, but what did this person do wrong, exactly? Was she telling the viewers who she voted for?

I think it was because a reporter, who is suppose to be unbiased, at least in front of the camera, told McCain she voted for him.

That's a fair and balanced solution. If you worked for the DNC and admitted you voted for Bush, you wouldn't expect to keep your job.

NeverDrunk23: Sgeo: Um, maybe I'm not understanding the article correctly, but what did this person do wrong, exactly? Was she telling the viewers who she voted for?

I think it was because a reporter, who is suppose to be unbiased, at least in front of the camera, told McCain she voted for him.

Oh. I wasn't certain if she was in front of the camera or not..

*face palm*

I guess she was star struck, almost feel bad for her.

NeverDrunk23: Sgeo: Um, maybe I'm not understanding the article correctly, but what did this person do wrong, exactly? Was she telling the viewers who she voted for?

I think it was because a reporter, who is suppose to be unbiased, at least in front of the camera, told McCain she voted for him.

It wasn't a reporter, it was an assistant. However she came right out and said this on videotape. Given that she was representing the capacity of the news crew at the time, this was a major faux pas.

FTFA: "A 24-year-old Fox News Channel production assistant"

This had nothing to do with journalism, it had to do with falsely representing Fox News. It's like when a sports star says or does something idiotic; he is giving his team a bad name. Same thing here.

/not saying voting for McCain is idiotic...

A Fox News insider called it "journalistically unacceptable."

That's like a serial rapist getting upset with a guy for checking out some chick's butt.

I did some phone banking for one of the Dems this year and I was surprised at how many people don't really get the whole secret ballot thing. The fact that the ballot is secret doesn't mean that you shouldn't publicly announce for whom you will vote; it means that you needn't publicly announce it.

On an unrelated note, I'd rather that reporters were more up front with they biases. It would make it easier to filter what they have to say. It's not all that hard, as is, but if they made it explicit, then we could know and assess their reporting or opinions appropriately.

What? But I thought that McCain was doing all that pandering...supporting Falwell...changing his stance on torture...now I'm just confused.

I'm an ex-journalist, so I really got a kick out of McCain's reply.

"You're not supposed to reveal that."

She'll get a chance to redeem her career in a much smaller market.

If she worked for MSNBC and said she voted for Obama she would have received a promotion.

McCain was overheard saying to her, "You're not supposed to reveal that." Locke apparently continued to explain that she is the daughter of a Vietnam veteran.

Mr. Locke voted for Clinton, explaining that he is the father of an inappropriate idiot.

mcwebe0: I did some phone banking for one of the Dems this year and I was surprised at how many people don't really get the whole secret ballot thing. The fact that the ballot is secret doesn't mean that you shouldn't publicly announce for whom you will vote; it means that you needn't publicly announce it.

On an unrelated note, I'd rather that reporters were more up front with they biases. It would make it easier to filter what they have to say. It's not all that hard, as is, but if they made it explicit, then we could know and assess their reporting or opinions appropriately.

This. This. This. It is oh so very hard to be truly unbiased- if not impossible. Yet, in order to protect the "integrity" of a profession, we insist they lie to themselves and the public about it.

Of course people have biases. Let them out in the open. Further, just because she wants McCain's thing, doesn't mean she can't be an accurate reporter- if that were true then all of journalism is a sham anyways. Though, at least after reading some Chomsky, it probably is anyways.

mcwebe0

On an unrelated note, I'd rather that reporters were more up front with they biases. It would make it easier to filter what they have to say. It's not all that hard, as is, but if they made it explicit, then we could know and assess their reporting or opinions appropriately.

I agree totally, as a (currently drunk) republican, I'd just like to know the bias or leaning of the person providing any reports. Let me filter and decide...I appreciate many perspectives, that challenges me to determine whether or not my currently held position is best. If it isn't, I modify my position. That is part of the learning process. I'm afraid too many of us just try to silence the opposition without reevaluation or sometimes reinforcement of our original beliefs. We're too quick to demonize the "other view".

It wasn't a reporter, it was a PA. They get fired for farting. The better question is who put a PA on camera?

mcwebe0: On an unrelated note, I'd rather that reporters were more up front with they biases. It would make it easier to filter what they have to say. It's not all that hard, as is, but if they made it explicit, then we could know and assess their reporting or opinions appropriately.

You shouldn't have to filter what they say, they just read the farking news. They're reporters - they're not supposed to provide opinions. If they do reveal their biases, you stop watching if you disagree with them. It may work for pundits, but they don't even try to report the news, they just BS about what they think, as if it matters more than what you or I thinks.

moothemagiccow:

While certainly it's debatable whether mainstream TV reporters gather facts, certainly newspaper and others do. Thus, in their fact gathering and filtering process, even without knowing it, many reporters will take a stand on an issue or event, rather than just "report" the news.

That's why we attempt to make politicians reveal who funds them- Joe Senator can easily say X is good for various reasons, but if Industry who makes X is funding him, I know to look more into whether or not his reasons are correct.

ON the other hand, you can instantly tell that most analysts have absolutely no clue what the hell they are talking about- like Glenn Beck who I turned on the other night and within 1 minute he had already lied about 2 things. But the news or commentary isn't really about what is right or wrong, it's what people want to hear- supply and demand at its finest.

Considering right now we hold them up to no standards at all, outing their party choice doesn't really seem like a priority to me.

My post was more from a business perspective, it's not profitable to have your anchor telling you who they voted for; for some reason it's the only political taboo left in this country.

moothemagiccow: You shouldn't have to filter what they say, they just read the farking news. They're reporters - they're not supposed to provide opinions. If they do reveal their biases, you stop watching if you disagree with them. It may work for pundits, but they don't even try to report the news, they just BS about what they think, as if it matters more than what you or I thinks.

The thing is that all human beings have biases. It is a part of our subjective nature. No one can be truly impartial. Even if a reporter merely states the facts of a case, they still choose on which stories to report, and which receive no attention. In addition, the facts within a story that seem significant may be different depending on the biases of the reporter. As a result, if they would simply state their biases, we could account for that in our assessments of what they report.

As for turning off stuff with which you disagree, that is a good way to increase your myopathy. The only way that we can move past our subjective nature is to listen to what people with different perspectives have to say about things where we disagree. As we hear their perspectives, it allows us to view the world around from subjective perspectives other than our own. It gives us a more holistic picture so that we can make decisions with more information (and thus hopefully make better decisions).

Is the perp...err...reporter...err...production assistant hot? Hese are the facts that are missing, kids

mcwebe0: [snip]

As for turning off stuff with which you disagree, that is a good way to increase your myopathy. The only way that we can move past our subjective nature is to listen to what people with different perspectives have to say about things where we disagree. As we hear their perspectives, it allows us to view the world around from subjective perspectives other than our own. It gives us a more holistic picture so that we can make decisions with more information (and thus hopefully make better decisions).

Subconsciously though, we may end up tuning out everything the perceived "opposition" has to say. It's better to resist that, of course, but it still biases how you receive information..

Suicidal Writer

My god.. A pie chart with no source?! Let all other voices be silenced so that this truth may speak.

But more importantly- if she's hot, is there a boobies link for her already?

*back to reality*

The biggest problem with attaching journalism to a business/capitalist model is that you then have to pander to the majority of fail and stupid that encompasses this country. I mean, honestly, if you gave a logic 101 exam to analysts and reporters- how many would fail? Like 50%? 80%? Or, do they just present themselves on the air because that's what sells?

I personally would really like to know.

On the other hand, getting high and watching some of these asshats is hilarious.

Stopped clock. Twice a day and all that.

@Unright:

You should know that just like on cable news, the internet has self-generating truth graphs and statistics. Do not question the truth. If it weren't true, it wouldn't be in a pie chart. I personally love pie, and therefore always trust it. Apple is delicious.

Now if you're a cake man, just get off Fark. I'm sure there is some self-hating community that will take in your lies. Don't even get me started on the abomination that is cheesecake- I can smell your rot anywhere.

/more importantly, why is it called a pie chart when clearly there are so many other foods that are round?

Sgeo: Subconsciously though, we may end up tuning out everything the perceived "opposition" has to say. It's better to resist that, of course, but it still biases how you receive information..

We can never escape our biases. I will filter the way we receive information just as it does for those reporters. The goal is to expose yourself to as broad a picture as possible. That way, even though you won't receive it all, you'll receive as much as possible.

I'm surprised it wasn't more like, "You're a PA, you're not supposed to talk... or make eye contact."
Actually, it probably was, in her exit interview when she was fired...

Any pics of this woman and was she hot

Fox is taking advantage of the fact that roughly half the country is conservative but only 1/3rd of the news big three news stations are. Big bucks.

This incident sparks an interesting question though. Would the news be less biased if reporters had to tell you which way they lean instead of pretending they are detached from political stories?

Violate a company ethics policy and get fired? Never would have seen that coming.

//"FOX enforces ethics?" jokes aside, obviously.

@Maudite,

The news would only be partially less biased. A lot of the bias comes from what they choose not to report on, what they choose to emphasize, and who their sources are. Chomsky illustrated this, but it is fairly obvious none the less. Take his example of government sources- we know they lie, yet if you read Fark.com today you'll know that the government and the American College of Physicians released information about mary jane. The government used scare tactics and bad math, the ACP decided to go with sound science- yet, the average joe will probably believe the government and think the ACP has lost its credentials.

There in lies the problem- as a consumer of news, I (and most Americans) can't really be bothered to check everything. That's why we have journalists- it is their job to get the stories right and properly report what is right. As a recent college graduate, I have the time to do this, but if I were a parent who works 40 hours a week, the time would be non-existent. So, on some level, the news reporters should be sitting in the press conference going, "Why do you claim marijauana causes depression when most accurate scientific studies posit the opposite?" Very, very few do.

The problem with news is that in order for it to be accurate and efficient, it cannot be based upon supply and demand- unless the assumption that demand reflects an accurate representation of the facts and circumstances with little bias and all angles covered holds up. (It never will).

A better way to do it (though in my opinion still lacking) would be to set up Journalism as truly prestigous (sp?), where journalists are considered smarter than doctors. For, in reality, a journalist must be able to read and decipher all types of scientific journals (the real source of most news) as well as play detective/ historian in the real world as real time passes us by. However, if you read most college newspapers you'll realize the standard of journalism is slightly above the intelligence of Forest Gump. But alas, sports, Hollywood, and party politics are where the money and fame are at.

/How much would farkers pay to watch Nancy Grace, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, etc... get eaten by lions live on tv?
//sarcasm, of course

Is it technically a "balance" if you're forcing one side to stay up?