# Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism



## michaeledward (Jul 14, 2004)

This movie may be a bit harder to find than Fahrenheit 911, but it may be more interesting. Although, I am sure some 30% of the people have already formed the opinion that this film is not worth the celluloid it's printed on.

http://www.outfoxed.org/Clips.php

You can view the trailer and see film clips at the above site. 

Submitted for you review - Mike

P.S. Does anyone actually watch FoxNews?


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jul 14, 2004)

If you want to see the movie free this Sunday evening (7/18), MoveOn.org members are holding Outfoxed parties in their homes across the country.  (For those of you not familiar with MoveOn.org, it's a progressive internet-based grass roots organization dedicated to increasing the participation of ordinary citizens in the political process).  More than 3,000 parties are already planned--these are NOT fund-raisers, and you will not be asked to contribute to anything.  If you're interested, you can sign up to attend a party, or to buy a CD/DVD of Outfoxed, at http://www.moveon.org/front/   I hosted a MoveOn.org sponsored activity, and I've attended activities at other members' homes, and the people are usually pretty cool.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 14, 2004)

I just heard about this - sounds interesting.  Phoenix44, glad you posted about the house parties, I'll try to find someone in town who might be hosting one.  I'd like to see this.


----------



## Nightingale (Jul 14, 2004)

if you join the moveon.org elist, you can search for parties in your area, and if there are none, you can host one yourself.

I, for one, will be out of town in New Orleans, so I'll be renting the film at a later date.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jul 16, 2004)

http://www.wonkette.com/archives/fox-news-memos-the-whole-batch-017613.php

 This site contains about 30 memos from Fox News chief John Moody to his staff, released by the makers of "Outfoxed" to support their claims about Fox News' practices.

 Moody's directives are almost refreshing in their sheer blatancy.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 16, 2004)

The blatantness of the memos ARE refreshing.  It's so obvious!

I'm still a bit sick. so I think I won't go to a house party and hack all over some nice strangers... I'll try to order it later.  I'd love to hear all about it from those of you who do see it tonight.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 18, 2004)

Along with the flick, make sure to read Al Franken's "Lies and the lying liars that tell them".  He takes on Murdoch, bodyslams Sean Hannity, and craps all over Bill O'Reilly...the latter action is absolutely enjoyable.  I do so detest O'Reilly.

On Hannity...do you get the sense that during commercial breaks he gives "swirlies" to Alan Colmes in the Executive Washroom at Fox? 

Colmes is a wimp.  I hate to indulge in stereotypes, but where did they get this bespectacled pencil neck?  


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jul 19, 2004)

I saw Outfoxed last night at a MoveOn.org party.  I was really shocked...I don't watch Fox News, so it was a real eye opener.  Telling your guests "SHUT UP" because you don't like what they have to say?  Cutting off their microphones?  Counting down the days until "President Bush is re-elected"?

I'm really angry, too, because Fox is using the public airwaves...the airwaves WE own for cryin' out loud...for a political agenda, and then calling it "Fair and Balanced" news!!!  Hey, I don't care if they're expressing a right-wing agenda, but don't call it "NEWS" on the airwaves that you are using by the good graces of the American people, and then make a huge profit off it!  Call it "OPINION."


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 19, 2004)

Write your congressman & senators.

I ordered the DVD last week .. I am hoping it shows up in the mail today. Although, they changed their purchasing so that it is now through Yahoo. We'll see.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jul 19, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Write your congressman & senators.


 What do you suggest we say to them?  I'm certain they all are aware of Fox' bias, and Freedom of the Press happens to guarantee their right to be misinforming dirtbags. 

 Since it's a cable news network, they're not even really using public airwaves to broadcast their message of insanity.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 19, 2004)

Write Fox's sponsors...the ones paying for commercial time.  Hit 'em in the wallet.

It may not work, but if you're going to put something to paper, this might be more effective than writing a Senator.  I fail to see how a legislator could make a lasting impact with this.

Regards,


Steve


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 19, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> What do you suggest we say to them? I'm certain they all are aware of Fox' bias, and Freedom of the Press happens to guarantee their right to be misinforming dirtbags.
> 
> Since it's a cable news network, they're not even really using public airwaves to broadcast their message of insanity.


I would suggest that we the people strongly voice our opinion that the loss of the "*Fairness Doctrine*" has been a detriment to society. I would suggest that we the people strongly voice our opinion that the *consolidation of media *has been a dis-service to the American People. I would suggest that we the people strongly voice our opinion that *nepotism* has no place in American Politics (The son of the US Secretary of State is the head of the Federal Communications Commission ... what's up with that).

I would further suggest that we the people strongly voice our opinion that the First Amendment is something that we cherish; but if those who control the airwaves, control all of the airwaves, our free speech can not be voiced.

I would suggest that we the people strongly voice our opinion that the Federal Communications Commission should strictly codify those speech items for which broadcasters and journalists may be penalized for when presenting material. 

I would suggest that we the people demand that FCC obscenity legislation should be passed on its own merit, and not buried within the annual Military Appropriations Bill (as it is this year). 

Those are some of my suggestions. 

I might also recommend 'FAIR' Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting as a place to look for suggestions. www.fair.org

Thanks - Mike


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jul 19, 2004)

Hey Mike,

 I'm a supporter and follower of FAIR... great resource.  You'll note that their efforts focus on documenting bias, hate speech, and inaccuracy in the press, calling them on it, and educating others.

 I agree with you about news fairness, conolidation, and nepotism.  These are issues that we can deal with through the government.

 I still feel, however, that Fox News is entitled to whatever bias and ridiculousness they wish to have.  I shy away from telling individuals or organizations what they can or can't say... it's a dangerous, slippery slope.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 19, 2004)

> Write Fox's sponsors...the ones paying for commercial time. Hit 'em in the wallet.
> 
> It may not work, but if you're going to put something to paper, this might be more effective than writing a Senator. I fail to see how a legislator could make a lasting impact with this.


 In our captialism-rules society, this is a good approach.  I'll have to start watching FOX news and writing down the names of the companies advertising.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 19, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> I still feel, however, that Fox News is entitled to whatever bias and ridiculousness they wish to have. I shy away from telling individuals or organizations what they can or can't say... it's a dangerous, slippery slope.


They absolutely  have can say what ever they want to say. And perhaps our best recourse there is to contact advertisers, as someone mentioned. But, as others have pointed out, many of the advertisers are not your local neighborhood vendor, they are multi-national companies purchasing advertising time to influence the country's movers and shakers (General Electric, United Technologies, etc.).

What is needed is to restrict the number of television stations one company can own. In a single market, the company should not be able to own a television station and the newspaper (I say 'the' newspaper, because most major cities are now down to just a single paper). Broadcasters should not be able to own more than a certain number of Radio Stations (Does any actually know where that god-awful Delilah actually sits to do her radio show? - But we are all hearing the exact same garbage).

I like Free Speech. I get amused that Bill O'Reilly is out there making an *** out of himself 5 days a week (on radio and tv) ... but really need to be able to have some voices saying different things.

We have surveyed on this message board the Presidential Race .... The opinion seems to be Kerry at about 80% and Bush at about 20%. ... some have argued that the Bush supporters don't speak up in this forum. They point to national polls that the contest is pretty even. Could it be that the contest is not pretty even at all ... but rather the media (huge multinational corporations doing really well under Bush) are working to spin an even race?

I try not to get sucked into conspiracy theories ...  but, here in New England, that is the vibe I am getting.  Thanks for listening.

Mike


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 19, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> I still feel, however, that Fox News is entitled to whatever bias and ridiculousness they wish to have.  I shy away from telling individuals or organizations what they can or can't say... it's a dangerous, slippery slope.




I agree.  Leave the attempts at censorship to THEM.

We meet them in the marketplace of ideas, and we kick their a**es.  That's the American way, and that's the fun way.

Bring 'em on.  Ooops...sorry.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Thesemindz (Jul 22, 2004)

How many of you guys watch Fox News?


-Rob


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jul 22, 2004)

Thesemindz said:
			
		

> How many of you guys watch Fox News?


 I make a point of watching as much corporate news as possible... at the very least, Fox and CNN.  It's important to keep an eye on what the public is being fed (and more importantly, what we're NOT being told).


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 22, 2004)

Thesemindz said:
			
		

> How many of you guys watch Fox News?


I very rarely watch television at all. Certainly, not the news. 

Law & Order in all its incarnations
Angel - Series has ended.

Other than that ... doesn't seem to be much on. I do listen to radio quite a bit, I have lots of windshield time in my current position. I listen to WBUR (the NPR station in Boston), & WTKK (Imus, O'Reilly, Ingraham and other Right wing nuts).

I especially enjoy when I travel to Burlington Vermont ... They have the best public radio stations up there ... at least from my POV.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 22, 2004)

Hmmm.

I have a question.  Why is it when one source spins things in favor of a Liberal adgenda you guys feel its being "honest" or at best its denied that it is "biased" that way, but when one does it in favor of conservatives its wrong and evil, and should not be allowed, etc?

I'm sure the hardcore conservatives feel the same way about the liberals, but here at least, on MT I see far more of the liberals shouting about how stupid the conservatives are.

Being on the side of "Niether of the Above", I am just wondering why that is?


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 22, 2004)

Where do you see a denial of Liberal bias?  I ask because alot of what is discussed in this thread is way out of my jurisdiction as a citizen, what with my 'Canadian handicap'.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 22, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> Where do you see a denial of Liberal bias?  I ask because alot of what is discussed in this thread is way out of my jurisdiction as a citizen, what with my 'Canadian handicap'.



Most recently in my mind would be the stalwart defense by many of Mr. Moore.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 22, 2004)

Rule 1 of understanding these arguments:

ANY time somebody tells you that they have no axe to grind, no view to espouse other than that of common sense, no politics, they are arguing from a middle-class viewpoint. 

It's the zero degree of the political, its Greenwich meridian, and it includes BOTH "liberal," and, "conservative," views.

Rule 2 of understanding these arguments:

Many of the accusations that somebody's being, "liberal," come from people who are operating out of an impoverished understanding of the full political spectrum. Why? two basic reasons: they do not understand what a "liberal is," and they think that the extreme left of the political spectrum is liberalism, while a) there is no extreme right to speak of, so b) our current Prez appears only mildly conservative, and c) groups like the Green Party have no place on the spectrum at all.

It's why Americans often do not understand England and Europe, not to mention Latin/South America, where there's a full political spectrum running at least from socialists on the left all the way through to monarchists on the right.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 22, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Hmmm.
> 
> I have a question.  Why is it when one source spins things in favor of a Liberal adgenda you guys feel its being "honest" or at best its denied that it is "biased" that way, but when one does it in favor of conservatives its wrong and evil, and should not be allowed, etc?
> 
> ...




Technopunk,

We've addressed the issue of a liberal bias in the media at length.  I believe there are threads on it.  There is very strong evidence that there is a conservative bias throughout the media.  Fox is clearly biased to the right and noted for the hypocrisy of their tag line "fair and balanced".

I don't believe in a double standard, and don't believe in censorship.  I certainly don't believe the media has been fair to liberals in the last eleven years.  In that light, I'm all for working the First Amendment for all its worth and writing and debating those aspects of the liberal agenda I support.*

As for the liberals shouting (sic), you would be correct in pointing out that there are a number of liberals on MT who post here in "The Study".  Some might not define themselves as liberals, but seem to adopt that stance on certain issues.  By sheer weight of numbers we seem to dominate the conversation.  That isn't our fault.

I'm more than ready for the conservatives to argue back.  There don't seem to be many of them who want to do that, though.  I'd be more than happy to go spar people on a conservative board...if  anybody can find one for me.  I bet some of the other liberals would like that, too.  It doesn't seem there are that many conservatives out there with cogent arguments, though.

Regards,

Steve

*Start a gun control thread and you'll see me leap the fence with great agility all the way over to the right side...no mean feat for a man my age.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jul 22, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Most recently in my mind would be the stalwart defense by many of Mr. Moore.


  Technopunk,

 Can you point out a post in the Fahrenheit 9/11 discussion(s) where it was claimed that Michael Moore did not hold a left-wing bias?

  Thanks.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 22, 2004)

I'm A Liberal! I'm A Liberal!  I'm A Liberal!!! 

You can call me a progressive if you'ld like. I'm sure there are some differences, but I don't know what they may be. 

I have argued that Michael Moore's film is not 'Liberal', but rather an attack on George W Bush and his presidency. Of course, I argue that only because Mr. Moore says that is what it is ... oh, yeah ... and 'cause I saw the movie.

Now, if by 'Liberal' you mean that Moore found it curious that the United States doesn't support democracy in countries like Saudi Arabia ... well, yeah ... but that wasn't really his argument in the film, was it?

I think there was perhaps a bit of a Liberal statement at the end of F911 when Mr. Moore pointed out that those in the impoverished neighborhoods are the ones who end up fighting and dying for the likes of the Congressmen and Presidents (rather than the sons of Congressmen and Presidents). This was a small part of the film, and rarely mentioned in the reviews. Those who do mention it talk of 'class warfare'.

But ... returning to Technopunk's original question "when something is being presented by the Liberal Media" we see it as "honest", or at least deny its "Bias". 

Well, let me say this about that ... I hardly ever see a 'Liberal' presentation of anything, unless I am reading the elsewhere mentioned 'The Nation'. Those media sources that DittoHeads and FoxNews Nuts call Liberal, I see as extremely mainstream; they wouldn't know a liberal idea if it was thrown through the boardroom window.

Mark Green, a columnist in 'The Nation' has a good article on the 'Progressive' point of view. He outlines four big topics 

A) Strengthen the Middle Class
B) Strengthen Collective Security
C) Strengthen Democracy
D) One America

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040802&s=green

Show me a story you think is spun to the 'Liberal Point of View' ... and I'll see if I can find a way in which it falls short of 'Liberal'.

Thanks - Mike


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 22, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Technopunk,
> 
> Can you point out a post in the Fahrenheit 9/11 discussion(s) where it was claimed that Michael Moore did not hold a left-wing bias?
> 
> Thanks.



Specifically I was refering to the idea that was presented, supported by  michaeledward's post above I don't care about the answer enough to bother looking it up... I think that hardheadjarhead answered part of my question in his post when he said that the reason it seems that way is because the Conservatives are not speaking out... the liberals are more vocal, and thats why it doesnt seem like the conservatives are doing it...

I don't deny Fox is uber-conservative.  My question remains, even if I worded it poorly in my initial post,

Thats their opinion, why is that wrong for them to have?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 22, 2004)

Nothing wrong with that atall--why shouldn't Americans have their news controlled by an Australian billionaire whose dictatorial style has been notorious for twenty years (check his reputation back in Australia), and who began and has continued as a tabloid journalist? Only one objection occurs--that claim to be fair and balanced. 

I don't see that, "progressive," and "liberal," are synonyms at all. But I do tend to think that "conservatives," who take the approaches of Savage, Limbaugh, Hannity et al are hothouse flowers, who can't hang for a minute in real discussion. 

That's why they avoid real discussion, relying instead on talk shows and bullying, accusatory tactics. Good thing they don't do what the character I saw on an old "West Wing," a conservative and brilliant Justice did--which was tear the libs a new one, intellectually speaking, whenever they got sloppy.

But he could do that, having had a real education, real thoughts, and real arguments backed by real facts. If the libs and lefties have slid--and they have--one reason is because they got used to beating up, intellectually speaking, on the incompetent. Just not many Jackson Bates or Allan Blooms around.

What's dangerous about the likes of Murdoch lies in the way he's got power, he's a bully, and he pushes ideas and agendas that have no justification whatsoever in reason, history, or present reality. 

It's not  presenting a view that is the problem. It's the shouting and bullying, whoever does it--and right now, whatever whining about being oppressed you hear from Limbaugh and the rest, it's the rightists that are doing the national shouting and the bullying.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 22, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> I don't deny Fox is uber-conservative. ...
> Thats their opinion, why is that wrong for them to have?


Oh, it certainly is not 'wrong' for FoxNews to have an 'uber-conservative' point of view. It does make it problematical that they are stating in their trademarks and advertisements that they are 'Fair and Balanced'.

It's a bit like McDonalds advertising the BigMac as 'Healthy and Nutritious'.

Further, if an institution positions itself as 'News', wouldn't that require a news gathering and reporting organization? The top billing programs are not News Programs, as defined by the dissemination of facts and figures, but commentary programs, where facts and figures are debated according to a political point of view. To a certain extent, the American public has allowed itself to be duped into thinking that 'News' and 'Entertainment' can, or should, co-exist.  Oh, and don't let me forget ... Look at the memos from FOX senior managers about how to position stories for the day ... what's up with that?

As I think about it, an argument could be made that National Public Broadcasting Television and Radio could very well have paved the way for this confusion. Publically financed media has always allowed more time to a story than has commercial media. NPR really does devote far more time to a news story than anyone else, I think. Commercial television followed suit, I think with shows like 20/20 ... where a single story is covered for an entire segment. The downfall, is that the producers of this type of television have to get the extreme stories to draw in viewers. 

As an example, yesterday on NPR I heard part of a story about Lowell, Massachusetts, and how the city has changed in the last 10 years, because of ethnic immigration, community policing, and other adopted policies. While the 'community policing', and the 100 new police officers Lowell was able to hire were the result of the Clinton administration (thus a 'Liberal Story'), the story was really a pretty low-key story about a, perhaps, typical small American City. What were the headlines for Stone Phillips this week?

Ok .. that was a tangent ... Returning to Fox, again, certianly, they are entitled to their point of view. I think it is healthy if we can 'debate' all spectrums of thought (assuming O'Reilly doesn't yell at everyone to 'Shut Up' - did you see the ad?). 

Where we need to be cautious, is the 'Right-Wing' echo chamber. As an example, Drudge publishes an un-researched, un-substatiated story, it is picked up by Rush, O'Reilly screams that the 'Liberal Media' isn't covering the story, and all of a sudden, this un-researched, un-substatiated story is being reported by ABC, The New York Times, CNN and all of the mainstream media. Something that should never be news, is all of a sudden being reported everywhere. - 

For example, the current Sandy Berger flap ... so far, there are so few 'facts' out there, to draw any conclusion is just foolish. Yet, the New York Times is calling for the release of the documents, so that we can judge what Mr. Berger was really up to .... how's that again, release classified documents? Oh, but Berger stuffed the papers in his socks ... and down his pants ... and this is going to KILL the Kerry candidacy. Please ! This story is not yet ready for Prime Time. It certainly should be researched and reported on, but how much 'News' has already been reported, about what? 

Constant Vigilence - Constant Vigilence.

Thanks - Mike


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 22, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Oh, it certainly is not 'wrong' for FoxNews to have an 'uber-conservative' point of view. It does make it problematical that they are stating in their trademarks and advertisements that they are 'Fair and Balanced'.
> 
> Thanks - Mike



Well, the little I have seen of them, I certainly wouldnt call them that.  (fair, maybe... balanced, no way. ) They are most definatly Bush-supporters.

What I see here, however, is a lot of people screaming (if in some cases indierctly) "We need to shut fox up!"  (Such as the Suggestions by Feisty Mouse and Hardheadjarhead about forcing Fox to stop thru their sponsors)

If thats the case, we also need to sew shut the mouthes of many of the Hollywood actors and actresses that are as openly anti-conservative on the airwaves we seek to censor as Fox is anti-liberal.  I mean, what are we going for here, one party socialism?  Democrat or Jail?

I agree with Peach Monkey that its dangerous ground to start down the "dark path" of silencing those who disagree with us.

I say if you do not like Fox News point of View, you can always flip on reruns of Buffy the Vampire slayer.  Wasnt it George Carlin who said there are two knobs, one shuts it off, and the other changes the channel?


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 22, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> I say if you do not like Fox News point of View, you can always flip on reruns of Buffy the Vampire slayer. Wasnt it George Carlin who said there are two knobs, one shuts it off, and the other changes the channel?


Buffy the Vampire Slayer is quite possibly the Best Television show since Star Trek the Next Generation .... however ... 

Again, the danger is that thing which Eric Alterman has named the 'Echo Chamber'.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Where we need to be cautious, is the 'Right-Wing' echo chamber. As an example, Drudge publishes an un-researched, un-substatiated story, it is picked up by Rush, O'Reilly screams that the 'Liberal Media' isn't covering the story, and all of a sudden, this un-researched, un-substatiated story is being reported by ABC, The New York Times, CNN and all of the mainstream media. Something that should never be news, is all of a sudden being reported everywhere.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 22, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Again, the danger is that thing which Eric Alterman has named the 'Echo Chamber'.



Ah... but my opinion is that has no relevance in terms of "Left and Right"

Thats just the stupidity of mankind.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 22, 2004)

I have a problem with FOX News - and think that they should be "told" that there is a problem with what they are doing, either in writing directly, or in the best consumerism tradition, through their wallets (directing to advertising): they claim to be presenting "fair and balanced" news, but they are simply not presenting news in a fair and balanced way at all.  Having a host who screams at people he disagrees with (hhmmmm...liberals?) to shut up, and cutting their mikes, is not fair.  Nor is it balanced.  When directives start out at the top of the chain of command to press certain messages home in and around and through the "news", it becomes a propaganda machine.  

I'm sure there are other programs I do not enjoy, choose not to watch, or dislike their coverage.  It's the idea that FOX is presenting itself as something that it is not that bothers me.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jul 23, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Freedom of the Press happens to guarantee their right to be misinforming dirtbags.


Wrong.  "Freedom of the Press" does not apply to *advertising*.  When Fox News uses the slogan "Fair and Balanced" news, they are violating Truth in Advertising laws, and it is up to the Federal *Trade *Commission (as opposed to FCC) to stop it.

Write to your Congressperson, and tell them to demand that Rupert Murdoch explain what he's going to do about it.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jul 23, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Ah... but my opinion is that has no relevance in terms of "Left and Right"
> 
> Thats just the stupidity of mankind.


 That may well be the case, but I'd prefer not to surrender the future of our nation, and the planet, to those people who are best able to manipulate the "stupidity" of people.  

 We can only truly hope to have a democratic republic if the people make their decisions based on education and knowledge rather than propaganda and manipulation.

 THIS is the problem with networks like Fox News (and to different extents, *all* corporatist media, regardless of their "bias"); you certainly don't *have* to watch them, but as long as they pretend to provide "news", these propaganda machines have the power to manipulate the people.  Regardless of where you stand on a political spectrum, I can't see how anyone can stand idly by and watch it happen.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 23, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> We can only truly hope to have a democratic republic if the people make their decisions based on education and knowledge rather than propaganda and manipulation.
> 
> .



Haha, like that will EVER happen.  Ask yourself how many people you see wearing GAP, TOMMY, or ABERCROMBIE.

The trick, you see, is not to silence the propaganda... but educate the "consumers..."

"No, billy, you can get an orange t-shirt at Walmart for 6 dollars, you dont need to spend 60 because it says abercrombie... thats not cool, its moronic."


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jul 24, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> you certainly don't *have* to watch them, but as long as they pretend to provide "news", these propaganda machines have the power to manipulate the people.


Exactly.  They should not be permitted to advertise themselves as "news."  And that is why the FTC should be involved.  Fox should be called a "talk show," like the "Jerry Springer Show."

In fact, my partner suggests they simply run a "laugh track."


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 27, 2004)

I received my copy of the DVD yesterday and watched it last night. 

I am a bit disappointed in movie. I feel that it did not present its point of view strongly enough. The edits happened too quickly, I think. Comparisons to other news organizations would have been helpful.

Two things I thought were powerful:

1) Survey results showing viewers of FOX NEWS are about 5 times more likely to *not* *know* *facts* about current events.
2) The Call To Action at the end of the movie (the coda to Layla was unusually appropo).

Mike


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 27, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> What I see here, however, is a lot of people screaming (if in some cases indierctly) "We need to shut fox up!"  (Such as the Suggestions by Feisty Mouse and Hardheadjarhead about forcing Fox to stop thru their sponsors)
> 
> If thats the case, we also need to sew shut the mouthes of many of the Hollywood actors and actresses that are as openly anti-conservative on the airwaves we seek to censor as Fox is anti-liberal.  I mean, what are we going for here, one party socialism?  Democrat or Jail?




How does one "scream" on line?  Are Feisty and I "suggesting" (your words) or "screaming"?  The two verbs contradict each other when used in this way.

I'm not calling for Fox to shut up.  I'm calling for them to be held accountable.  Journalism has ethical standards...Fox doesn't meet those standards.

There is a difference between an actor/actress mouthing their views and a major network claiming (falsely) to be "fair and balanced".  Entertainers get sound bites...if at any time at all.  Fox gets 24/7 airtime.  Entertainers openly aknowledge their political stance...Fox plays a deceptive game of pretending to be impartial.  Entertainers receive no funding from advertisers for their views.  Fox makes millions.  Entertainers don't have billionaires funding and pulling their strings.  Fox has Rupert Murdoch.

Bringing up the issue of entertainers is a way of de-railing the argument by switching the subject.  We're not debating the tactics of entertainers.  That has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and can not be properly tied in with it.  

You also de-rail the argument with your suggestion that we're going for "one party socialism".  Apparently not able to soundly to debate the issue, you change the subject and create a totally different and invalid argument in attempt to distract us from the issue at hand.  This thread isn't on the two party system in America, nor is it debating the merits of socialism.

I'd suggest you start threads on those topics if you'd like to discuss them.  If you start to switch the subject off of _them_, however, you're likely to find a liberal in your back pocket demanding that you keep to the subject at hand. It keeps the discussion focused and honest.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 27, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> How does one "scream" on line?  Are Feisty and I "suggesting" (your words) or "screaming"?  The two verbs contradict each other when used in this way.



Well, for that matter, can you scream indirectly? I think, unless you are less educated than you come off in your posts, that you know what I meant, you are just making this personal, "suggesting" I am unaware of what I was saying.  



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I'm not calling for Fox to shut up.  I'm calling for them to be held accountable.  Journalism has ethical standards...Fox doesn't meet those standards.



I can agree with you on the part about them not meeting "ethical standards..." for claiming to be fair and balanced. But by suggeting you force them to change their message by using their sponsors as leverage, you are in fact calling for them to "shut up".  Let me ask you this... and please answer honestly... if their Bias was totaly to the opposite side of the fence, OR if they claimed to be a conservative news station... would you still be having thois discussion?



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> There is a difference between an actor/actress mouthing their views and a major network claiming (falsely) to be "fair and balanced".  Entertainers get sound bites...if at any time at all.  Fox gets 24/7 airtime.  Entertainers openly aknowledge their political stance...Fox plays a deceptive game of pretending to be impartial.  Entertainers receive no funding from advertisers for their views.  Fox makes millions.  Entertainers don't have billionaires funding and pulling their strings.  Fox has Rupert Murdoch.
> 
> Bringing up the issue of entertainers is a way of de-railing the argument by switching the subject.  We're not debating the tactics of entertainers.  That has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and can not be properly tied in with it.



It was never my intention to De-rail the arument... I percieved the comments in this thread, (perhaps incorrectly) as a thinly veiled "We need to stop the blatant conservative viewpoint" from being aired on Fox.  It was my suggestion that if you silence one party, you must slience both, based on that perception of the nature of this thread... not an attempt to "change the subject" 



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> You also de-rail the argument with your suggestion that we're going for "one party socialism".  Apparently not able to soundly to debate the issue, you change the subject and create a totally different and invalid argument in attempt to distract us from the issue at hand.  This thread isn't on the two party system in America, nor is it debating the merits of socialism.



Again... Not an attempt to derail the subject... would you like to have a sound debate about somthing, I am sure we could arrange one?  My comments about "one party socialism" again were directed at my perception that people were claiming Fox should be forced to stop having a conservative viewpoint, soley because it was a conservative viewpoint.   I concede to the fact, now, that I may have been mistaken. 

Perhaps, however... and this is just my opinion... (and keep in mind, I am neither a 'Crat or a Republikan) people would think the liberals were less wacky and these types of misunderstandings could be avoided, if they came off more like, in this case for example, you wanted to change Foxes claims of unbiased  reporting, rather than sounding like they want the conservative viewpoint silenced.

Anyhow... I am sorry if you feel I sidetracked the thread... I misread your intentions with the posts.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 27, 2004)

And BTW...

YOU SCREAM ON LINE LIKE THIS! ALL CAPS IS JUST LIKE SCREAMING ONLINE... WHICH IS WHY IT IS FROWNED AGAINST AS BAD "NETTIQUTE"


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jul 27, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> YOU SCREAM ON LINE LIKE THIS! ALL CAPS IS JUST LIKE SCREAMING ONLINE... WHICH IS WHY IT IS FROWNED AGAINST AS BAD "NETTIQUTE"


 Using small amounts of caps online for emphasis is not "screaming online" or bad netiquette.

 Can you point to a post in this thread where any of the anti-Fox News contributors have used *all caps* in a post?

 Thanks.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jul 27, 2004)

I'm definitely not comfortable with "shutting up" Fox News.  

 I don't even consider Fox to be the most dangerous of the so-called "news" sources... at least their bias is worn on their sleeves.

 Even NPR doesn't cover political issues with the depth and detail required for citizens to make informed decisions.  During the run-up to the war in Iraq, NPR simply parroted the Colin Powell/Condeleeza Rice/GW Bush party line.

 It's even perfectly okay for organizations to have bias as long as they actually perform *journalism*.  None of the major news organizations appear to value this anymore.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 27, 2004)

_Well, for that matter, can you scream indirectly? I think, unless you are less educated than you come off in your posts, that you know what I meant, you are just making this personal, "suggesting" I am unaware of what I was saying.  _ 

Not at all.  I'm saying Feisty and I were neither figuratively or literally screaming.  Now, I have been known to come on exceedingly strong in certain points...which if acted out dramatically would no doubt be interpreted by an actor as an in-your-face-got-you-against-the-wall approach.  But in this thread I have yet to do that...or scream for that matter.  I have no personal issues with you.

_But by suggeting you force them to change their message by using their sponsors as leverage, you are in fact calling for them to "shut up".  _ 

No.  We're saying "be objective."  We're saying "be impartial."  We're saying "report the truth."  We are not saying "slant it to the left."


_Let me ask you this... and please answer honestly... if their Bias was totaly to the opposite side of the fence, OR if they claimed to be a conservative news station... would you still be having thois discussion?_

See above.

_It was never my intention to De-rail the arument... I percieved the comments in this thread, (perhaps incorrectly) as a thinly veiled "We need to stop the blatant conservative viewpoint" from being aired on Fox.  It was my suggestion that if you silence one party, you must slience both, based on that perception of the nature of this thread... not an attempt to "change the subject" _ 

Perhaps you didn't intend to, but you did.  People often do so without realizing what they're doing.   Now you're aware of it, and can avoid erring that direction in the future.  

Remember, the "other side" you listed was not a news station, but people with individual viewpoints.  Again, I don't advocate FCC silencing of Fox.  I do not call for government intervention.  The tactic I specify is both legal and ethical and has been used as by consumers to right perceived wrongs in many different industries.


_Again... Not an attempt to derail the subject... would you like to have a sound debate about somthing, I am sure we could arrange one?  _ 

Start a thread.  I'll play.


_My comments about "one party socialism" again were directed at my perception that people were claiming Fox should be forced to stop having a conservative viewpoint, soley because it was a conservative viewpoint.   I concede to the fact, now, that I may have been mistaken. _ 

Fox can have its conservative view point.  And we can oppose it as I've outlined.  Kudos to you for your concession.

_Perhaps, however... and this is just my opinion... (and keep in mind, I am neither a 'Crat or a Republikan) people would think the liberals were less wacky and these types of misunderstandings could be avoided, if they came off more like, in this case for example, you wanted to change Foxes claims of unbiased  reporting, rather than sounding like they want the conservative viewpoint silenced._

Liberals generally call for First Amendment rights...and I think it improper for them to call for censorship.  I'm not calling for censorship.  

Should Fox adjust its viewpoint to actually reflect "fair and balanced" impartial reporting...like they teach in journalism ethics classes...and if that adjustment is based on business decisions based on viewer's taking the actions I've described...THAT (he wrote, with emphasis) is not censorship.  It isn't censorship if it is self intitiated.  It is censorship if the government is involved.


_Anyhow... I am sorry if you feel I sidetracked the thread... I misread your intentions with the posts._

No problem.  If I sense you are sidetracking, or you feel I am...we should call each other on it.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 27, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Using small amounts of caps online for emphasis is not "screaming online" or bad netiquette.
> 
> Can you point to a post in this thread where any of the anti-Fox News contributors have used *all caps* in a post?
> 
> Thanks.



Nowhere.   hardheadjarhead asked how you scream online.  That was my demonstration how.   

Your Welcome.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 27, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Nowhere.   hardheadjarhead asked how you scream online.  That was my demonstration how.
> 
> Your Welcome.





He was referring to your post that stated Feisty and I were "screaming".


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 27, 2004)

This makes me think of a series of inappropriate jokes, but I will let that slide. 

I've been pretty calm in this thread, I have to say.  I still think that this is false advertising on the part of FOX news, and should be stopped.  They can say whatever they want and deluge the media with propoganda, but they should label it as such, not "news".


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 27, 2004)

Technopunk, have you seen 'Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism'?

Because of your neutrality and independence, I am curious about your take on the special, and how you might describe what the Fox News Channel actually presents during its broadcast.

Some of us have indeed called for taking our case against Fox News to the advertisers. In this instance it could be traced to at least two sources. 

First, is in the Movie, itself; there is a call to action to take back control of the airwaves. And while FOX NEWS is a cable station, I think the deliniation between broadcast and cable is sufficiently blurred to demand equal standards of enforcement.

Second, is to allow that conservative idea of the 'marketplace' to make itself known. Certainly, you aren't suggestion that only Bill O'Reilly and the Southern Baptists have the right to organize a boycott (Pepsi & Disney respectively). Now you have posited that organizing such a boycott is the equivilent of telling them to 'Shut Up'. I can not accept these two ideas as synonyms. Using economic and market-driven values to change a point of view are tools that can and should be wielded by concientious citizens looking to protect against injustices.

To answer your question ... if the bias was reversed  ... etc ... etc ... Oh the Fantasy Land we live in. Can you imagine a time that for every 

Rush Limbaugh there is an Al Franken
Sean Hannity there is a ___________
Bill O'Reilly there is a _____________
Joe Scarborough there is a ____________
Laura Ingraham there is a _____________

Keep going ... try to find an equal voice on the left for *any* of the voices on the right. I have to laugh ... just put Sean Hannity next to Alan Colmes and you get the picture; one has comic book good looks and the other looks like he was brought through a meat grinder. 

And none of that actually answers your question ... which is ... Would I be arguing for silencing a Liberal Point of View as vigorously as the Fox News Conservative point of view. Of course not, but I would respect conservatives for arguing that point.  

And, the arguement would change radically if the FOX NEWS CHANNEL began to identify itself as a Conservative Commentary Station. I don't believe NEWS can be 'conservative' or 'liberal'. News is News. Why News matters, how it integrates into our daily lives, and how it is presented is 'commentary'. 

To find a mirror of the Fox News Channel, you have to go to Jon Stewart's 'The Daily Show'; which, of course, doesn't pretend to be anything other than commentary (and hopefully humorous commentary at that).

Technopunk ... would you want to see 'Outfoxed'?

Mike


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 27, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Technopunk, have you seen 'Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism'?



Nope.  My original comments on this thread came as, (I intended them to be anyhow) A question regarding the amount of bashing the conservative side seemed to be taking by the liberal posters.  A question, that, unfortunatley, seems to have sidetracked the thread, for which I apologised. 



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Because of your neutrality and independence, I am curious about your take on the special, and how you might describe what the Fox News Channel actually presents during its broadcast.



I have not denied, nor will I, that Fox is Unbiased.  I don't watch them... its silly.  I also do not watch cr@p like "The Daily show" which, while satirical in nature, has also what IN MY OPINION, passes for liberal bias.  If i want to be fed what to think, I'll spend time with my family who urge me to vote bush for no other reason than he's not a 'Crat. Stupid stupid stupid. 



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Some of us have indeed called for taking our case against Fox News to the advertisers. In this instance it could be traced to at least two sources.
> 
> First, is in the Movie, itself; there is a call to action to take back control of the airwaves. And while FOX NEWS is a cable station, I think the deliniation between broadcast and cable is sufficiently blurred to demand equal standards of enforcement.
> 
> Second, is to allow that conservative idea of the 'marketplace' to make itself known. Certainly, you aren't suggestion that only Bill O'Reilly and the Southern Baptists have the right to organize a boycott (Pepsi & Disney respectively). Now you have posited that organizing such a boycott is the equivilent of telling them to 'Shut Up'. I can not accept these two ideas as synonyms. Using economic and market-driven values to change a point of view are tools that can and should be wielded by concientious citizens looking to protect against injustices.



Hmmm.  Hmmm.  You have a point there, but...  Again, it was my (incorrect) understanding that the people posting on this thread were calling for the Boycott simply to stop Conservatives from speaking out.  I dont care who you are... Pepsi, Disney, Al Franken, God, or Allah, that's BS.  But, again, those comments came from that fact I misread the comments to be the "Liberal Voice of Martial Talk" wanting the "Conservative Voice of Fox" silenced... not that they were upset that Fox was presenting themselves as "fair and balanced news" when they clearly are not.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Keep going ... try to find an equal voice on the left for *any* of the voices on the right. I have to laugh ... just put Sean Hannity next to Alan Colmes and you get the picture; one has comic book good looks and the other looks like he was brought through a meat grinder.



What, you are trying to say that because liberals are ugly they dont get a fair shake?   (That is, BTW PEOPLE, a Joke. You guys remember what those are right?) 



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> And none of that actually answers your question ... which is ... Would I be arguing for silencing a Liberal Point of View as vigorously as the Fox News Conservative point of view. Of course not



Thank you.  Honesty is refreshing. 



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> To find a mirror of the Fox News Channel, you have to go to Jon Stewart's 'The Daily Show'; which, of course, doesn't pretend to be anything other than commentary (and hopefully humorous commentary at that).
> 
> Technopunk ... would you want to see 'Outfoxed'?
> 
> Mike



I would have no reason not to, unless it was presented with as much BS, Propaganda, and outright deception as say... a Michael Moore film... 

Although, if all it's gonna tell me is "AHHHH FOX IS BIASED"... I think I know that, and got the Gist of it here as well, don't you think?  I don't neccessarily need someone else to tell me what to think of Fox News.

And actually... although, I cannot say this is true or not anylonger... but the "Daily Show" does (or did) Advertise itself as a "News Program"... although I suppose it could be forgiven since its on the "Comedy Channel"


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jul 27, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> I've been pretty calm in this thread, I have to say. I still think that this is false advertising on the part of FOX news, and should be stopped. They can say whatever they want and deluge the media with propoganda, but they should label it as such, not "news".


 I'm still not fully *down* with the whole "let's nail Fox News for false advertising" meme.  I mean, is anybody *really* fooled by that?  What is actually gained by this pursuit?

 CNN and MSNBC claim to be news organizations, but their increasing focus on entertainment and unwillingness to pursue the depth of truly critical issues has revealed that they can't be relied upon.  Rush Limbaugh and Al Franken and Jon Stewart don't claim to be journalists, but people still go to them for their partisan news "fix".

 The whole "Let's get Fox News in trouble with the FTC" movement, to me, carries a faint reek of revenge-fantasy from those who are tired of seeing the prevalance of conservative/corporatist agendas dominating "news" organizations.  

 While I wholly sympathise, I'm not sure it's the most effective or fair way to deal with the situation.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 27, 2004)

While journalism in general in this country recently seems to have ... dropped off, I still think that there is a difference between lousy reporting across the board, and pandering to the lowest common denominator (which also bothers me), and intentionally biasing news towards a particular political agenda.  


Am I happy about either?  No.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jul 27, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> While journalism in general in this country recently seems to have ... dropped off, I still think that there is a difference between lousy reporting across the board, and pandering to the lowest common denominator (which also bothers me), and intentionally biasing news towards a particular political agenda.


 I agree that all these trends suck, and I find Fox News to be *loathsome*, to be honest with you.

 I just don't think going after them with the FTC fixes *any* of this.  At best, they have to stop calling themselves "Fair and Balanced".  How does that affect the price of bananas in Baghdad?


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 27, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> I'm still not fully *down* with the whole "let's nail Fox News for false advertising" meme. I mean, is anybody *really* fooled by that?


Is anybody really fooled?

Those who watch FOX NEWS are more likely* to think that the United States has found Weapons of Mass Destruction in the aftermath of the Iraq War.

Those who watch FOX NEWS are more likely* to think that Iraq was directly involved in the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

Those who watch FOX NEWS are more likely* to think that most of the other countries in the world supported the United States invasion of Iraq.

Apparently, somebody is fooled.

*In each of these cases ... viewers of FOX NEWS are 'more likely' than those who primarily listen to PBS and NPR broadcasts.

The more you listen to FOX NEWS, the LESS INFORMED you are as a matter of FACT!

Mike


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jul 27, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Those who watch FOX NEWS are more likely* to think that most of the other countries in the world supported the United States invasion of Iraq.


 But is going to the FTC about their slogan going to make people stop buying all this false crap, whether served to them in undiluted partisan form through Fox News or through any of the other sources that simply barf up the administration's party line?

 I still haven't seen any gain here, and I think the energies could be better spent in other areas.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 27, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> But is going to the FTC about their slogan going to make people stop buying all this false crap, whether served to them in undiluted partisan form through Fox News or through any of the other sources that simply barf up the administration's party line?
> 
> I still haven't seen any gain here, and I think the energies could be better spent in other areas.


It is a difficult question, and difficult to think of effective ways of countering the propaganda that is dispensed by FOX NEWS.

One of the bigger problems, and this was discussed in the Outfoxed video, is that the other news channels are trying to copy FOX. If I told you that Joe Scarborough was not on Fox, would you be surprised? I am. He is classic FOX.

I just got through watching Ron Reagan at the Democratic Convention. Mr. Reagan gave an speech in favor of embryonic stem cell research. Science (I know another questionable subject) says that stem cells hold great potential in treating disease. 

After his speech, Wolf Blitzer was spinning how George W. Bush is in favor of Stem Cell Research, as if it was someone else who restricted federal funding for this research, as if it was someone else who told us there were 62 existing stem cell lines available for research with federal dollars, when in fact there less than 12 viable stem cell lines available.

Wolf Blitzer does not work for FOX. But suddenly, CNN is re-writing the current president's record to slap Ron Reagan. Why would this be? Perhaps because FOX NEWS is so successful (profitable) when it behaves this way.

I feel like the media has been invaded by FOX nanites!

Mike


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jul 27, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> One of the bigger problems, and this was discussed in the Outfoxed video, is that the other news channels are trying to copy FOX.
> 
> I feel like the media has been invaded by FOX nanites!


 I know you already know this is the case, but this is because of market forces.  Media-as-entertainment appears to draw more advertising money than journalism-to-actually-freaking-tell-us-the-news, so everyone chases those dollars like lemmings.

 Further proof that capitalism, as worshipped by so many in our society, really *is* effective... at watering everything down to its least common denominator, rather than preserving any sort of redeeming social, educational, artistic, or other value.  The Shareholder Is Always Right... even if they destroy everything they touch.

 But I (bitterly) digress.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 28, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> After his speech, Wolf Blitzer was spinning how George W. Bush is in favor of Stem Cell Research, as if it was someone else who restricted federal funding for this research, as if it was someone else who told us there were 62 existing stem cell lines available for research with federal dollars, when in fact there less than 12 viable stem cell lines available.
> 
> Wolf Blitzer does not work for FOX. But suddenly, CNN is re-writing the current president's record to slap Ron Reagan.


As a follow-up, this morning on National Public Radio, Fox contributor Mara Laisson stated that President "Bush opposes" embryonic stem cell research.

I could never figure out why Ms. Laisson went to work for FOX, but it is nice their influence apparently doesn't reach into her radio work.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 28, 2004)

Mara Liasson went to work for FOX? Damn.




> But is going to the FTC about their slogan going to make people stop buying all this false crap, whether served to them in undiluted partisan form through Fox News or through any of the other sources that simply barf up the administration's party line?


I think it *will* affect a number of people (I know one of my relatives in particular) who may think twice about the swill they are swallowing daily from FOX News if FOX is forced to change their slogan. I think you think more people are informed and aware as you are. I don't think that's the case, sadly.

ETA: "barf up the administration's party line" is a good one!!!


----------

