Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism

[Cryozombie]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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?)

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!!!