Ugh, I didn’t think it started this early..

@SoDakCampaigns

My High School aged daughter was telling me about her day yesterday, and brought up the fact that in her government class her teacher was spouting off about how the kids shouldn’t watch “biased” news programs and singled out Fox News in particular.

No mention of MSNBC, or the dozens of liberal news outlets who bring a lefty spin, but apparently Fox is bad.

I’m surprised I made it through 3 kids without one of them getting stuck with a teacher who tries to ram that kind of naked bias down their throats.

29 thoughts on “Ugh, I didn’t think it started this early..”

  1. unfortunately, a lot of fox news programming is spun to the right. too bad, we need a straightforward objective network now more than ever.

      1. the bbc is not without biases as well, but their u-s coverage ends up being more complete and comprehensive than the american networks’ output much of the time, true.

  2. Beware: soon this “teacher” will be using his pulpit to “encourage” students to become “more involved” by writing letters to lawmakers to make Dr.Pepper the official soda of SD. or to get the state to pay for sex-change operations for bullied transgendered students or …to increase teacher pay in SD. The list never ends.

    Not too many years ago, a colleague was troubled by [negative] feedback he was receiving from older students regarding his oral challenges to justify GW Bush’s decisions IN HIS SCIENCE CLASS! He was just trying to get them ‘to think,” he claimed. I retorted, no, I don’t think that was your purpose, and his SCIENCE students knew it.

    A few years passed, and BHO arrived. I asked him if he was getting his students to “think” about BHO’s decisions. He was perplexed. I reminded him of his hate for GW Bush, and how many similar questions he posed to his students about BHO. He replied, “None”! I asked him why not. He said that BHO had not done anything wrong so there was no need to get his students to think critically about BHO!

    Did I mention he was a SCIENCE TEAHCER???

    These teacher-crusaders need to be reined in NOW.

  3. I don’t think your retort using MSNBC as a counter-example to Fox is legitimate.

    At least Fox tries to be fair & balanced.

    MSNBC has no such aspirations, and takes pride that it does not.

      1. SOTU, 2015:

        Obama: “Many of you have told me that this isn’t what you signed up for — arguing past each other on cable shows,”

        Chris Matthews, in response :

        “I think there are a lot of people, and on our network especially, who have hoped and in fact shared his hope with regard to the end of racial division and the need for the continuing hope for that aspiration and not all benefited from it,”

        1. Nobody is denying MSNBC is shill trash. It’s your assertions about what Fox is and isn’t that blow my mind.

            1. It’s pretty easy Fox isn’t fair and balanced. Moreso than MSNBC? Absolutely. A clown car is more fair and balanced than msnbc. But it doesn’t “try” to be a solid news source. Statistics about its coverage of politics are easy to drum up, and definitely show a tilt towards the GOP.

              1. I didn’t realize this was really disputed.
              2. I didn’t realize that reading a simple statistical analysis meant I had a closed mind.

              I guess facts=ignorance.

              1. There are no “facts” or “statistics” to verify or disprove which is fairer or more balanced.

                It’s impossible to formulate a definition of “fair” or “balanced” that anyone can then measure for statistical analysis. Time of coverage? Number of references? What’s “negative” What’s “positive”? Length of stories? News stories v. commentary or discussion? It is fair to provide racist Al Sharpton 30 seconds v. 30 minutes for Geo. Will?

                Its akin to trying to measure which Smother brother was more loved by his mother.

                So, you have not read any statistical analysis that determined whether Fox was more or less fair or balanced. You just tried to cover an assumption or presupposition that you had for which there is no factual basis.

                  1. Did you read these 5 “facts” from Pew?

                    1. Fox was tougher on the Dem candidate than the Rep in 2012!

                    Response:

                    –Gee, maybe that was because BHO, as an incumbent, HAD A 4 YR RECORD to discuss and analyze? And that 4 years record was replete with failures upon failures–plenty of “negative” to discuss.
                    –The Pew study did not distinguish between the “negative” comments & coverage made by commentators or analysts versus reporters.

                    2. Fox viewers skewed more ideologically.

                    Great fact, but how does that demonstrate FOX’s NEW’s unfairness or imbalances IN COVERAGE?

                    3. Fox news is expensive.

                    See #2.

                    4. Fox leads in audience but it is smaller.

                    See #2.

                    5. Fox outspends its competitors.

                    See #2.

                    So, your “source” has one possible “fact” about Fox coverage–not Fox NEWS coverage, but all Fox coverage that includes commentators etc.

                    And Pew does not define “negative” coverage.

                    Why fight so hard?

                    Because “conventional wisdom” is so often wrong, or at least, lacking in substantiation.

                    Btw, I don’t have cable and watch Fox News Sunday over the air maybe once a month.

    1. fox has only a few shows that really strive to be fair and balanced, the rest of it is republican party rah rah.

      1. but at least they do have a few shows that strive for balance, so that puts them ahead of the other networks by far.

          1. i said they only had a few shows striving for balance. the corollary to that of course is that the rest of the time, they’re skewed and potentially erroneous. so kiss off.

  5. Dicta,

    I don’t think you two are saying anything really different but just applying a different expectation of fair and/or balanced. Or looking at different shows and not including them as “news.”

    Different Expectation: Hannity has both sides debate the issue. One could say that is fair and balanced. Or, one could say that his editorial selection of issues is unbalanced.

    Different Shows: I don’t consider most of the prime-time shows as news shows but editorial shows. I consider only Shep as news and thus think Fox is fair and balanced. He just tells us what happened today, doesn’t have many “fluff” pieces where selection of what fluff to run opens up a charge of unbalanced.

    Thus, if you define Fox News as the gamut of prime-time, I’d generally agree with you.

    But, if the guy you are arguing with says he is only thinking of Shep (and maybe Brett) as Fox News, I’d generally disagree with you.

    1. I’d consider Fox News to encompass all of its programs that editorialize, yes. The weird thing about this pissing contest I was drawn into is that there is nothing inherently wrong with editorializing, there is a place for it. It’s just weird to me to refer to it as a fair and balanced news network when that clearly isn’t the case.

      1. I think the point is, that shep, and i would add greta (though she does editorialize she is fair), and their hard news reporting in general, is actually fair at fox news. the comment shows, not so much.

      2. I’m old enough to remember Cronkite on CBS.

        Frequently, he would offer a commentary–most of the time the screen would light up with “Commentary” while he was doing so, but not always. And it was seamless–we’d have a news story, then Walter would return and start in on his commentary.

        There was NO ONE else to rebut Cronkite anywhere on CBS News–certainly not on his news broadcast.

        I don’t recall anyone calling CBS News w/ Cronkite unfair and unbalanced.

  6. Dicta,

    And, that is the rub. I think the pissing contest is you didn’t two didn’t define the “contest” and were talking from different expectations/understandings/definitions. His point that even the determination of “fair” requires subjectivity and this is not measurable.

    Self-appointed Arbitrator: I deem you both right. 🙂

    1. Unlike the bullying tactics of this and other teachers, I don’t go that far.

      The teacher simply needs to hear from an informed and concerned parent that HE IS BEING WATCHED.

  8. From the conversation here–what someone actually watches MSNBC?

    Too bad about the teacher… teachers should be teaching and being fair and giving students choices, while hopefully there parents fill in the important lessons like not voting for a Jack*ss , I mean donkey, he he

  9. Congratulations Pat on being a parent involved enough with your daughter to have this type of conversation. You’re able to talk directly to your daughter to give her enough information so she can make her own informed decision. That’s great.

Comments are closed.