Fox Business Network (FBN)

[Spazzman]

Fox announced today that they are launching a new Financal News Network.

http://investing.reuters.co.uk/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=media&storyID=nWEN9274

I am thinking D* will definately carry the network.

[DCSholtis]

Yep when this was first being talked about D* was one of the first to agree to carry it.

[PoitNarf]

Another "fair and balanced" channel from News Corp? Joy... :rolleyes:

[Mavrick]

But I wonder if it will be in HD? :D

[PoitNarf]

But I wonder if it will be in HD? :D

Ofcourse it will be. It will also be filled with attractive women that probably don't have really in depth knowledge of the material that they are reporting on; all of which is designed to mask psuedo-news into "important" news. And no, I am not biased against Fox "News" ;) :lol:

[MikeR7]

Ofcourse it will be. It will also be filled with attractive women that probably don't have really in depth knowledge of the material that they are reporting on; all of which is designed to mask psuedo-news into "important" news. And no, I am not biased against Fox "News" ;) :lol:

I like Fox News. I think your analysis of Fox definitely shows a liberal bias.:lol:

[DonCorleone]

Fox has the only real, non-liberally biased news on the airwaves. It's so nice, but unfortunate that there's only 1 place to go for real news.

[Elistan98]

Fox has the only real, non-liberally biased news on the airwaves. It's so nice, but unfortunate that there's only 1 place to go for real news.

There is no unbiased news. All news stories have an angle of one sort or another and that angle is to sell whatever medium that it is be it newspapers or viewership of a channel for sponsors.

[purtman]

Fox has the only real, non-liberally biased news on the airwaves. It's so nice, but unfortunate that there's only 1 place to go for real news.

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Non-liberal? Yes. Biased? YES!

[msmith198025]

There is no unbiased news. All news stories have an angle of one sort or another and that angle is to sell whatever medium that it is be it newspapers or viewership of a channel for sponsors.

That is correct. It is all slanted to one side or the other, however Fox News seems to be the most "balanced" i think i should come up with a slogan for them...

[fluffybear]

Myself, I am looking forward to Fox Business Channel. It will be nice not have to listen to put up with all the hot air which comes off CNBC

[Nick]

This is general programming news and as such, it should have been
posted in the "Standard Definition Programming & TV Talk" forum.

Not everything is just about D*

Moderators?

[Spazzman]

I loathe NBC. I hope FOX kicks CNBC's fanny.

Sorry about posting this in the wrong spot!

[MikeR7]

This is general programming news and as such, it should have been
posted in the "Standard Definition Programming & TV Talk" forum.

Not everything is just about D*

Moderators?

I guess they are all vacation Nick! :lol:

Or, they don't care that it is here. :hurah:

[Nick]

You're probably right -- either way! :sure:

[FHSPSU67]

Myself, I am looking forward to Fox Business Channel. It will be nice not have to listen to put up with all the hot air which comes off CNBC
You mean you can't stand Kramer, either. Imagine having him for a finance class in school.:D

[durl]

I'm anxious to see Fox Business Channel. If "biased" means telling the good economic news when it's all around us, bring on the BIAS. :)

[purtman]

That is correct. It is all slanted to one side or the other, however Fox News seems to be the most "balanced" i think i should come up with a slogan for them...

I don't know that I would call it "balanced". The one thing that cost all credibility with me was when former congressman Mark Foley (R-FL) was caught with this whole issue some of the former congressional aides. After three times of showing him as a Democrat, I thought that was pretty bad. I guess that's what's known as "balanced" -- call a person from one party as a member of the other party. That way you cover both parties. :lol:

As far as a slogan, maybe "Fox. We just report the news -- just certain parts of it."

Both sides have some issues and I won't make this a political statement because it's not. What happens many times is that if the media prints or broadcasts something, people from either side will say that it's slanted because it doesn't agree with their views. Most of the time the actual news being broadcast is true and not as slanted as people would like to believe. We'd always like the media to show people the favorable side and not the negative. Do they always show both sides? Certainly not always.

But the situation above? That's not slanting the news. That's flat out lying.

[purtman]

I'm anxious to see Fox Business Channel. If "biased" means telling the good economic news when it's all around us, bring on the BIAS. :)

Send the rest of us some. Most of us IT guys who didn't have their jobs outsourced and didn't have to change careers are still making less money than we made six years ago.

[Cable Lover]

I hope Insight Cable carries it. I want to see hot women in short skirts talking business.:D

[ChrisPC]

I don't know that I would call it "balanced". The one thing that cost all credibility with me was when former congressman Mark Foley (R-FL) was caught with this whole issue some of the former congressional aides. After three times of showing him as a Democrat, I thought that was pretty bad. I guess that's what's known as "balanced" -- call a person from one party as a member of the other party. That way you cover both parties. :lol:

That's not slanting the news. That's flat out lying.

All networks make graphical mistakes, especially on live news. When Columbia fell to earth, CNN had a graphic saying it was flying 25 times the speed of light. Also, there was that one time MSNBC misspelled "Niger"! :rolleyes:

[purtman]

All networks make graphical mistakes, especially on live news. When Columbia fell to earth, CNN had a graphic saying it was flying 25 times the speed of light. Also, there was that one time MSNBC misspelled "Niger"! :rolleyes:

I understand that. The first one you list here is an obvious mistake. The second, I hope, was not a freudian slip. I was surprised that the Foley thing went on three separate times, not just once. That's why I believe it was intentional.

[Dusty]

Ofcourse it will be. It will also be filled with attractive women that probably don't have really in depth knowledge of the material that they are reporting on; all of which is designed to mask psuedo-news into "important" news. And no, I am not biased against Fox "News" ;) :lol:

If this is a true, I probably would watch it in mute.

[purtman]

There's definitely some of the hiring for looks in the business. A friend of mine, who was an anchor for a TV station, said he cringed when the anchor called the Mojave Desert the "Mo-Jave" (like mo-cave). There were a few other instances, but that one sticks out the most.