What is a "Legitimate News Source"?

[Mirage]

I almost went off on a tangent in another thread, but somebody just said my link to Fox News was not a legitimate news source.

I find that statement laughable at best. First of all, what is a legitimate news source? Second, please tell me how Fox News is NOT a legitimate news source. Note: Don't use any of their OPINION talk show hosts in your response. Please only use evidence where the news programs on Fox incorrectly reported news, or reported news with a bias.

I would argue that the fairly recent Acorn scandal should have been viewed as an outrage by all Americans, but for the most part, it was only covered by Fox. How can I trust other news outlets if they don't report on "legitimate" stories such as that?

Or maybe a news source can't be considered "legitimate" unless they use terms such as 'tea bagging" and "tea baggers" on the air in reference to Tea Party activists? My bad, I had no idea behaving like a teenager posting a link on FARK was all it took to make your network "legitimate".

 

[icegoat63]

To me Legitimate is basically "Widely Trusted".

So in the case of Fox News... its sort of tough because they've began to become alienated to a point almost equivalent of World Weekly News. Whether thats fair or not, or just a Political situation of discrediting.. I dont feel I can answer.

One thing I will say about Fox news is that if I have a thread that I want to base a Fox News article in... I will find other Sources to use as a secondary. Simply because of the expected "Fox is as bad as Wikipedia" kind of remarks. At least if I provide a second backup link... then that remark now belongs to both sites. One I like to use which carries alot of the same Major news as fox is BBC. I find that BBC tends to be one of the most unbiased news sources for American Politics... mostly because its not owned by or influenced by an American Political Party :hah:

le·git·i·mate [adj., n. li-jit-uh-mit; v. li-jit-uh-meyt]
–adjective
1.according to law; lawful: the property's legitimate owner.
2.in accordance with established rules, principles, or standards.
3.born in wedlock or of legally married parents: legitimate children.
4.in accordance with the laws of reasoning; logically inferable; logical: a legitimate conclusion.
5.resting on or ruling by the principle of hereditary right: a legitimate sovereign.
6.not spurious or unjustified; genuine: It was a legitimate complaint.
7.of the normal or regular type or kind.
8.Theater . of or pertaining to professionally produced stage plays, as distinguished from burlesque, vaudeville, television, motion pictures, etc.: an actor in the legitimate theater.

Legitimate | Define Legitimate at Dictionary.com

I think Dictionary.com basically agrees with me... Whatever the standards are... thats what becomes legitimate.

 

[Sim]

My impression is that TV news programs in general are not really a good, reliable source for information. I don't want to get involved in a political bias debate regarding US tv programs, but I think we can all agree that all major news channels on tv at least have a bias towards lurid exaggeration, simplification of complex topics and stupidity -- because that sells, they believe.

As for FOX ... weren't programs on FOX recently debating the question "why does Obama hate God"? With questions like these considered worthy of debate, I don't even know where to begin explaining what's wrong with it on so many levels. And there couldn't be a more direct shoot into your own knee, regarding quality and neutrality, if you are a news source that actually debates questions like these.

But I'm sure there are quite a few rather good newspapers.

 

[Ilus_Unistus]

I think most media puts some "spin" into what they cover. I have seen news from CNN report on the same story as BBC, though the stories are about the same issue, CNN would make "spin" to make it seem in the USA's favor or more precisely the American Democrat, while the BBC might see no favor for anyone. I tend to trust what the BBC or other major international news sources say verses what most American stations say.

I would not call CNN, MSNBC or Fox not legitimate, but I would like to see other sources correspond with them to be 100% satisfied.

 

[Unity]

I immediately thought of the clip below after reading the OP...this is from a comedy show, but pretty well covers a great example of why FOX isn't trustworthy as straight news. Worth a watch, especially 4:00 and on. Basically, back in October Fox News responded to a White House official's accusation of it's lack of legitimacy by stating which hours are straight news and which are opinion. During the straight news hours, people are still giving opinion instead of just reporting. I've seen this outside of the Daily Show, FYI...not just re-posting their jokes, I've seen it myself in years past. And yes, I think MSNBC isn't trustworthy as straight news either.

I think some of the best news you can get is just going to the Associated Press' site, reading a story about what happened and who has said what, and interpreting it for yourself.

For Fox Sake! - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 10/29/2009 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

"Public School officials in Burlington, New Jersey are being accused of indoctrinating their students...." Jon Stewart: "Yes, they're being accused! By the guy who's show is on right before you!"

 

[SmilinSilhouette]

It always gives me a chuckle when folks get their panties in a bunch over Fox. Pretty much all the other mainstream media has leaned left for as long as I can remember. Now that there is one mainstream outlet that leans right folks get all worked up about it. :lol:
I throw the rest of them all in the same bin, AP, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, BBC, Wash Post, LA Times, Newsweek, Time, et al. For me, I came to that realization during the run up to the "assault" weapons ban. Not a one that I remember gave a balanced view of the issue or did their due diligence to actually provide any real information but instead expressed opinion (of support for the ban) and/or misrepresented technical facts about the issue.

That being said, I usually try to find a different source for any issue as I know that any post using Fox as a source will immediately be dismissed offhand by those to my left.

 

[Merc]

What makes me laugh is that there has not been such thing as a "legitimate news source" for a long time now and there probably never will be for one major reason: money. News companies are obviously businesses and the only way to make money is to get people to read. Now, it's clear that the American people do not like reading the news, they want sensationalized news. That's why stations like Fox and MSNBC get the attention they do because they serve their meals with what certain people want. Fox will scare the shit out of its viewers, telling them all the grisly ways they're going to die and all the horrible people plotting against them. MSNBC and their ilk will convince all their viewers that the world was created by Walt Disney and that there are bad people out there laughing at homeless people and busy being fat in their giant mansions made of gold. Everyone has their stereotypes and they're easy enough to point out. People simply pick their own poisons.

On a sidenote, I don't know how people just don't get this, but do you think FOX gets ripped on the most NOT because of its obvious political slant but because it's the largest news source and continuously credits itself on being "fair and balanced"? When it clearly is not? Why not just wear your badge proudly? Dishonesty is a deal breaker.

 

[CaptainObvious]

I disagree that it is clearly not Fair and Balanced, taking everything into consideration I would say they are the most fair and balanced. Look, you're going to have a slant whether it be to the right or to the left. Anyone that denied the mainstream media, whether in print or on TV, doesn't lean to the left isn't paying attention. So now there is ONE major news source that leans the other way and suddenly they're not a legitimate source?

The logic behind this is if you don't lean to the left you're not a legitimate source...really?

I would think those on the left, since they advertise themselves as being more open-minded and tolerant of different views, would welcome Fox News. Even from opinion shows instead of straight news I would think they would welcome it. I can literally count the number of times I have agreed with the opinions of Bill Maher, Keith Olbermann, etc, on one hand...yet I'll still find the time to watch their shows because it's a different perspective. I've read Cass Sunstein's book "Radicals and Robes" not because I knew I'd agree with it, but because I figured I'd disagree with most of it. But at least it would make me question my perspective.

All I'm saying is I would think those on the left would welcome Fox News because it's different from the same old left leaning news we would ordinarily get. I would think in a place that prides itself as the "market-place of new ideas" would want different perspectives instead of dismissing a news source simly because they don't align with you politically.

 

[Merc]

The logic behind this is if you don't lean to the left you're not a legitimate source...really?

You've missed the "logic" entirely CO.

I don't know what was hard to understand. You seem to be agreeing here that Fox leans right according to the above post. So don't you think it's a bit . . . stupid to label yourself fair and balanced when you clearly aren't? Are you going to tell me that if tomorrow Rachel Maddow changed her her motto to the same thing, you wouldn't break out in hysterical laughter? I mean, I would. Why? Because we know she's not balanced! She's completely liberal and that's fine. People dislike Fox, again, not for their political stances, but for 'false advertising' so to say. If they didn't try and convince people they don't have a slant, people would respect them more.

 

[CaptainObvious]

You've missed the "logic" entirely CO.

I don't know what was hard to understand. You seem to be agreeing here that Fox leans right according to the above post. So don't you think it's a bit . . . stupid to label yourself fair and balanced when you clearly aren't? Are you going to tell me that if tomorrow Rachel Maddow changed her her motto to the same thing, you wouldn't break out in hysterical laughter? I mean, I would. Why? Because we know she's not balanced! She's completely liberal and that's fine. People dislike Fox, again, not for their political stances, but for 'false advertising' so to say. If they didn't try and convince people they don't have a slant, people would respect them more.

No I didn't, you did. They are still more fair and balanced that any other news source. Besides, they bring balance to the otherwise left leaning mainstream news. How about the Times' motto of "All the news that is fit to print" yet obviously have a left leaning slant? Is that false advertising? False advertising would be based on fact, something you can show inconclusively. "I don't like them because they're conservative" is not conclusive evidence of anything.

The problem with your point is that it is based on your opinion only. Most people find them fair and balanced, you don't because of your bias. How does that make them liars? How is that false advertising? It's opinion, yours, not fact. Judging by their ratings most people DO respect them, you don't but that doesn't make their claim false. That only makes that claim false to you.

And I have to disagree with you, most of the people who dislike Fox News, and that would not be most of the people in general, dislike Fox because of their political stance, not because of their slogan. I don't think most give a crap about their slogan.

And as for the Rachel Maddow example, she's opinion, not news. Just like Bill O'Reilly. That's not Bill O'Reilly's slogan, that's the network's slogan. I don't find much slant at all in their news coverage.