|Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: Fox just isn't Cosmopolitan|
Fox just isn't Cosmopolitan
Posted - 10/4/2013 8:28:35 AM | show profile | flag this post
We've discussed occasionally here how Fox News is often not a credible source. Here's yet another reason to think so. Gretchen Carlson did a five-minute panel discussion about how the Obama administration is advertising the ACA on the pages of Cosmo.
One problem: they haven't done that.
Fact-checking is Journalism 101 stuff. Clearly, they got an idea in their heads and facts weren't pertinent to their objectives.
Posted - 10/4/2013 9:40:18 AM | show profile | flag this post
VTexan, do you understand what advertising is?
VTexan, do you understand context?
Yeah. Journalism 101 stuff.
"Clearly, they got an idea in their heads and facts weren't pertinent to their objectives."
Clearly, this happens to many FOX NEWS haters.
Posted - 10/4/2013 11:25:48 AM | show profile | flag this post
Here's the first graf of the Cosmo article:
(The art accompanying the article is a picture of Obama.)
You've heard people arguing about Obamacare (officially known as The Affordable Care Act or ACA) for months... but you may have tuned it all out, because it’s all so confusing and you don’t even know how—or if—it affects you. But starting in 2014, the law will require most people to buy insurance or risk paying a $95 fine, so now’s the time to pay attention. And the fact is, you may discover that there are lots of benefits you’ll be able to take advantage of that you couldn’t before. Here's a quick list of what’s great about the ACA, especially for young women:
QUESTIONS (for those with a functioning brain):
Does this read as though it is unbiased editorial content?
Does this read as though it is advertorial content?
I have not seen the FOX discussion. A link to that by the OP would have been helpful.
Posted - 10/4/2013 11:31:55 AM | show profile | flag this post
y'know, i would have thought the "journalists" on this..
journalism site would know the difference between an article and an advertisement..
but apparently, none of the "journalists" bothered to read it..just like Gretchen Carlson didn't read it..
Posted - 10/4/2013 12:05:49 PM | show profile | flag this post
Orth, this is not about a PAID advertisement show me the receipt. It IS, however, about HOW the information is presented.
And I'm pretty sure you understand the difference.
IMO, the Cosmo "article" is a best a lame puff piece. Anyone with a brain would already know that basic information. At worst, it definitely borders on the advertorial side because it does not alert young women to any possible problems they may run into with ACA.
Quite frankly, it reads like a press release.
Than again, if you are looking for information from a mag that tells you how to please your man 48 exciting ways, you aren't the smartest bulb. Unfortunately, millions of women read it.
So what does that, ultimately, tell you about the opinions readers will form after reading that article?
Do you think young, not-so-educated women will be for or against ACA?
If you saw the content of that "article" having no background info on it whatsoever, would you identify it as an article, editorial or advertorial?
Read it and let me know.
What about NBC's coverage of ACA over the past week?
Would the content in the multiple reports be considered "advertorial" or "editorial"?
Posted - 10/4/2013 12:16:44 PM | show profile | flag this post
This is all part and parcel of
a willing and compliant media falling all over itself to carry Obama's water.
Where oh where are the impartial chroniclers of events?
Posted - 10/4/2013 1:03:17 PM | show profile | flag this post
Another interesting question:
Suppose the article were: "Eight Reasons the ACA is BAD for Young Women."
Would this count as editorial or advertorial? Vtex? Orth? Any thoughts?
The answer has to be the same for both instances (ACA good/ACA bad), as long as what is stated in the article is fact and not blatantly misinterpreting the ACA.
(for instance, women were able to purchase health ins with or without maternity care, and this is now NOT an option as all insurance includes maternity coverage which drives costs UP.)
Essentially it comes down to defining what type of piece the article is: informational, PR, opinion???
Again, to me, EITHER would fall under PR/advertorial because there is no real info provided, no real examination of facts, and is in a simplified bullet list.
Add in the art of Obama, and what does that say? Why not have a young woman accessing med care in some way? What is the intent of having a pic of the president there?
Posted - 10/4/2013 1:50:07 PM | show profile | flag this post
Posted - 10/4/2013 2:45:28 PM | show profile | flag this post
c'mon. beenthere..the beef about this is faux snooze..
and Gretchen Carlson's characterization of the story as an advertisement..
i'm not sureashe knows the difference.. I assume you do, or should..
was it written with a point of view?..sure.. most stories are..would I have written it that way?..probably not.. but that's not the point.. the point is, fox news LIED.. again..and should be held to account for it..
Posted - 10/4/2013 2:55:13 PM | show profile | flag this post
"fox news LIED.. again"
Read this as: "Fox News aired a truth that liberals and radical leftists simply do not want to confront. As a result their attack and ad hominem machine has been cranked up to full volume."
|it's just tv folks||
Posted - 10/4/2013 3:34:17 PM | show profile | flag this post
2oldcruztwit, exactly how was the piece an "advertisement"? Did Cosmo get paid for the space in the magazine? You do know the difference between an article and advertisment, don't you? Maybe you are just that uneducated. Guess the for profit colleges don't make sure you are educated. They just want your money.
Posted - 10/4/2013 4:02:25 PM | show profile | flag this post
" media falling all over itself to carry Obama's water"
Ummm, cruiser... Obama can carry water in those little bottles. I don't think he needs an entire industry to do that. I mean they're pretty light.
You feeling ok?
Posted - 10/4/2013 6:49:31 PM | show profile | flag this post
no, cruiztwit...read that as..
one of your favorite pretty faces with no brain behind it LIED..again..
there IS no other way to read it..
deal with it..
Posted - 10/4/2013 6:58:20 PM | show profile | flag this post
...said it was advertising. It wasn't. What's complicated about this?
You can try to obfuscate by saying Cosmopolitan was taking an editorial stand in favor of Obamacare, and you'd be right. And a magazine has that right. There's nothing wrong with that.
What IS wrong is for Fox to say something that wasn't true. They did, and people here are lining up here to defend them. So the question now isn't what's wrong with Fox. It's what the hell is wrong with you?
Posted - 10/4/2013 7:53:49 PM | show profile | flag this post
"the point is" You have no point. This faux outrage is like moonbats circling the moon. Round and round without getting anywhere.
"the beef" Is hatred of FOX NEWS.
Someone who does a opinion show doesn't make "FOX LIES". When Rachel Maddow lies, does that make MSNBC LIES?
LET'S BARRYCADE FOX NEWS!!!!!
Posted - 10/4/2013 7:58:46 PM | show profile | flag this post
Any adults want to chime in?
Posted - 10/4/2013 8:05:37 PM | show profile | flag this post
VTex.. probably not...
they seem to be in short supply these days..
Posted - 10/4/2013 8:06:51 PM | show profile | flag this post
I take that it you don't. On with with you FOX NEWS hate.
I'm done wasting my time.
Posted - 10/4/2013 9:29:22 PM | show profile | flag this post
don't let the door hit you in the ass..
on your way to whoever you plan to entertain next..
Posted - 10/4/2013 10:32:07 PM | show profile | flag this post
...he was pretty entertaining. In a cat-knocking-a-cockroach-around-in-the-corner kind of way.