Slashdot Mirror

Hear hear. To claim that MSNBC is somehow "just as bad" as Fox News is to invoke a false analogy. Instead of doing journalism, Fox News arguably is trying to destroy it.

FOX should just give up the word news and start calling themselves a "political commentary" channel. That's what they really seem to want to focus on, and what they want to be. Why not just go with that? Note to FOX fans who take this as insulting, this isn't necessarily intended to be a negative thing. If anything, it would probably eliminate a lot of the criticism aimed at FOX News. There's nothing wrong with being a political commentary channel, and you don't need to pretend to hold to some kind of "Fair and Balanced" standard.

Won't. Happen. Ever.

The clear objective of Fox News is to shape their viewers' perception of the world with a strongly conservative slant. They go to unmatched extremes to do this, not just in their "opinion" shows but in their news reporting as well. If they stopped calling themselves a "news" organization, they would undermine their primary mission.

If you want to rewrite history, the most important step is to call yourself a historian.

Obviously his company & friends are getting worried that their grip is failing to bend the hearts and minds of American young'uns to their liking, at least like it used to (PDF).

Sort of. Money is certainly an issue, but so is his conservative agenda. His "genius" is in turning a healthy profit by spreading his message, instead of *spending* money to do the same. Of course, that's not a completely new strategy; he just mastered it in the realm of television by hoisting a tabloid-style news channel under the banner of legitimate news. True, the FOX television network is (or was) known for its "racy" content relative to its competitors, but fun and games end where the news begins. The strategy of any network affiliate is to draw in viewers with the entertainment, then keep them around for the news. In the case of FOX, however, the local affiliates are more and more resembling syndicated broadcasters for the FOX News Channel. Outfoxed has a fairly factual description, albeit presented in a rather hysterical fashion.

You want to find the truth? Research it for yourself instead of reporting on whatever is said by whoever you tend to agree with.

If only Fox viewers would do this. And if only they would start here.

That's not much of a study or report.

Hume's telecast had 39 per cent favourable comments for McCain and 28 per cent positive for the Democratic ticket.

It was the second study in two weeks to remark upon negative coverage for the McCain-Palin ticket. The Project for Excellence in Journalism concluded last week that McCain's coverage has been overwhelmingly negative since the conventions ended, while Obama's has been more mixed.

So. What. What if McCain were the antichrist (or, perhaps, not on par with Obama as the case might be)? If that were true, reporting mostly positive things (or at least as many positive things as were reported about Obama) about him would indeed significant bias. It's neither fair nor honest to say one is as good as the other if this is not true.

The documentary Outfoxed provides a worthy counterpoint here. Specifically they pointed out a few internal Fox News memos that required broadcasters to use loaded words instead of more neutral semantics (abortion clinic vs health clinic, homicide bombers vs suicide bombers, etc). The problem isn't that Fox is leaning one way or another, but the fact that Fox is leaning further than the other networks.

Have you ever seen the movie Broadcast News? There was a point in time when it was considered uncouth for reporters to editorialize. In fact you see Albert Brooks' character lambast William Hurt's character for injecting tidbits about himself into a story, and later for faking tears in another. Yet this is what Fox News does every single day.

I'd love to find a Fox News article to demonstrate my point. Unfortunately, most of the articles I could find on the top FN page were human interest pieces. As Brooks' character said "you really blew the lid off of nookie."

Lemmie give you an example of quality FN journalism. Look for all the uses of "some people", "some users", and the like. Clearly a newspaper isn't an academic article (and, yes, I pity the person writing an academic article about 4chan, but...). However, FN seemingly pulls most of this stuff out of their ass by deferring to "some people" for most of its points without ever backing a single thing up.

Fox News is not centrist news, it's garbage.

"Partisanship, Fox-hatred and left v. right wing BS arguments aside, at least Fox News does go out of their way to provide two opposing viewpoints, and it seems rather popular."

This is bull shit of the most dangerous kind. It was Joseph Goebbels, Nazi propaganda minister, who said that the key to a successful propaganda campaign is to give the appearance of diversity, while at the same time making sure that all media venues convey the same basic message. This is the essence of framing the debate. You take a moderate, call him a liberal, and voilà - you've manufactured diversity where, in fact, none exists. Meanwhile, people who truly disagree never get heard. Nor is this just an accident. They intentionally select weak voiced, barely (if at all) left-of-center people.

But don't take my word for it. Just read the transcript from Outfoxed. According to former Fox News producer Clara Frenk: And the first thing that I noticed was that I recognized all of the conservatives who were in the roster. They were very well known people who had come from, you know, talk radio or from some sort of political background, and so I knew all of those people, and they were very, very strong people... But when I looked at the liberal roster, there was only one person's name who I recognize, which I recognized, and that was Bob Shrum, who is a very well known speechwriter and political consultant in Washington. The other ones, though, were people I had never heard of. My entire background was in politics and political journalism, so I knew pretty much all the players in D.C. and I had never heard of these people... A lot of the times the liberals that they get to appear on are either, you know, faux-liberals, like, I would use Susan Estrich as an example of that, a person who was brought on, who essentially agrees with the person on the right in a lot of cases."

Every time the BBC is mentioned on slashdot, there it is.

Rupert Murdoch loves you guys, enjoy your Fox news!

I think you're missing the point, corporate TV may be entertaining but it is hardly reliable as a source of information. Have a look at the news you get on corporate channels that prioritise entertainment and pushing their own personal agendas over telling people what is actually happening in the world. Compare this to BBC who aren't afraid to tell the truth about corrupt corporations and governments both in their documentaries and news programs as well as actually talking about what's happening in the world rather than the latest Hollywood scandal and telling blatant lies. I think that if Wikipedia choose to advertise they will have to be very careful to not allow the advertisers to have any kind of influence over the content of actual pages. Well, no more influence than the average person anyway.

OUTFOXED. If you haven't seen it, do. You might not agree 100% and the bias may not invalidate *everything* they have to say, but its an interesting foray into the world and power of one of America's most influential (non-governmental) organizations.

What any of that has to do with a caption typo, I have no idea. I won't even get into the level of your world view.

It has everything to do with it. The grandparent makes the point that there is a concerted effort to give out misinformation in todays media. And if you are in any doubt on whether Fox does this, watch Outfoxed. trailer on offical site.

In this documentary you will learn of the infamous daily fox memos. Each day they were told what to cover and what not to cover. They were told specific word sequences to use for things. For example, using "targetted killing" instead of "assasination". It was no accident that "flip flop" was on the tip of everyones tounges in late 2004.

Fox is a disinformation network. Saddam, terror, Saddam, terror, Saddam, terror. If you repeat the mantra enough, people believe you.

You mean the producers!

Seriously though, am I the only one who watched Outfoxed? And don't get me wrong, I don't blame Fox, I think apathy is a social problem and businesses are in the business of widening their bottom line. Or maybe ignorance *is* bliss? I've probably got the whole thing backwards. :)

Fox News is a legitimate news organization... [W]atch the news and -- while it's most definitely slanted toward the administration and Republicans -- it's also factually accurate news. *shrug* Like all TV news it's watered down and of little factual value.

How can it be "factually accurate" and "of little factual value" at the same time? Maybe that's what "fair and balanced" means.

Fox News is not a legitimate news organisation by any stretch of the imagination. I've seen Outfoxed , and I recommend it, but I think the reality is even worse than Greenwald has portrayed.

It's virtually impossible to watch Fox News for more than about ten minutes without seeing some conservative bias. You can make examples of non-news-reporters like O'Reilly, Geraldo or Hannity & Other all you want, but for each of those, there's a Brit Hume or a John Gibson who looks and sounds like a newsreader but is really just another right-wing pundit. That's why Fox News is such a dangerous thing to watch: not because it's partisan hackery disguised as news, but moreover because they deliberately make it difficult to tell the difference.

The only reason it's not more obvious is that Fox News is only slightly more ridiculously biased towards the government than the other major US news outlets. It's scary that the other major media outlets have followed in Fox's footsteps towards news-tainment. At least not all of them are so insecure that they need to attack Comedy Central's "news" programming to feel good about themselves.

many of the examples you gave are about corporations trying to peg exactly who you are to market to you

ok.. i'll give you some more examples

yeah.. corporations are not out to enslave us.. we just don't own anything we buy anymore.. oh wait.. only serfs and slaves dont own property. Guess who is complicit with them... certainly not the general populace from these stories, just a wealthy and influential few.

Then there is the engineering of information and "farming" of public opinion

so really.. its not too far from dystopia as one might think.

Wow...all those words, and you managed to say absolutely nothing. You do know that the White House Press Secretary position has already been filled, right?

If you actually watched OutFOXed, you wouldn't bother trying to maintain that FOX News is capable of generating an unbiased story.

Here's a downloadable version (Part 1 Part 2). Watch it and get back to me...and then try to tell me that my language regarding Rupert Murdoch was inappropriate.

(P.S. If your opponent has truly 'lost', then you shouldn't have to state in your post. Making that assertion without any support only makes you look stupid.)

So because a news organiziation admits bias, that automatically moots all their points?

In a word, yes.

A news organization that is biased is no longer objective, and is therefore worth much less than an unbiased news source. Fox News is demonstrably biased, so much so that their 'news' is worthless.

Check here to see just how much Rupert Murdoch has prostituted his 'news' program in the service of his right-wing ideology.

Perhaps because the newspapers only print stories that promote their own agenda.

Oh...you mean like Fox News?

WMD actually have been found in Iraq as well as the intent to manufacture them.

Liar. Cite proof of this or admit your lie.

Ties to Al Qaeda have also been found.

See response to above.

BUt I doubt the media is trumpeting that much.

If WMDs were actually found in Iraq (or ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda were discovered), do you really think the current administration would spare any expense 'trumpeting' this information? And seeing how the new White House Press Secretary, Tony Snow, was a former White House news anchor, your cute little fantasy about the 'liberal media' keeping the American public in the dark to promote 'their agenda' is revealed as the bullshit right-wing propaganda it is.

I could respond to the rest of your 'points' in the same manner, but this is already getting too long, and I don't feel like wading through two more paragraphs of non-sequeturs, ad homenim attacks, and outright lies. Take your astroturfing elsewhere...most readers here are smart enough to not watch Fox News.

You ought to watch "OutFoxed" sometime dude.

http://www.outfoxed.org/

Cheers
Stor

Why, again, do we care about the cesspool that is MySpace?

Exactly. And why should we be surprised about their censorship? It is, after all, owned by the same person who runs the Republican propaganda machine known as Fox News.
I'm shocked. Shocked I say.

Can the rumors be true? Is CowboyNeal really Rupert Murdoch?

On a more serious note, you might have a look at http://www.outfoxed.org/

Hahaha. Insufficient facts. At least Bill O'Reilly drilled something into you kids, eh. Repeat the mantra: facts facts shut up shut up!

Sorry, but you just blew your post, and revealed yourself as the typical foul-mouthed Foxite

Anyway, Mr. Wingnut, the point is not whether this was a journalist (does anyone really believe Fox has *any* journalists?), or a columnist, but that the person was not identified as working for a company funded by Microsoft. I guess to a Foxite, that's a might hard to understand what the problem is so I'll couch it in Slashdot understandable terms. Company A publishes a report that Microsoft IIS is faster than Apache! Turns out Company A was funded by Microsoft! Do you see the problem with that? Good. Keep reading Slashdot, turn off Fox, you might learn something.

I haven't seen this mentioned yet, so I'll do it. There is an excellent documentary on the right-wing bias present in Fox News, called Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism. You can find out more about it here.

I recommend buying the DVD to support the work of director Robert Greenwald. And FWIW, the DVD is not region-coded -- I was able to play it without libdecss. Also of interest: all of the interviews in the film are licensed under the Creative Commons license.

It was mentioned in Outfoxed during an interview with someone from Mediwatch. You might have better luck perusing their site

Like a proper little Darwin

Like a proper little Darwin

Commie bullshit. Lots of nitpicking, but mostly bullshit.

Leftist hatred of Fox News stems from the fact that FNC allows people to the right of Stalin to express their viewpoints.

Fox News!

'TiVo's top management did not like Murdoch's offer,'

I wonder what they didn't like about the offer. It seems to me that being the propaganda arm of the Republican party is pretty profitable work.

For more on Robert^H^H^H^H^H^HRupert Murdoch, check out Outfoxed

btw

The Daily Maul don't like the BBC because they don't like anything or any body

I assume you mean the Mail don't like anything or anybody? Damn English language!

CBS gets flamed over one story, and the 24/7 slanderhouse known as Fox News gets a free pass? Blasphemy!

Download it (bt) if you're too cheap/lazy to buy it.

You forgot one:

Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's war on journalism.

Direct by Robert Greenwald, the all of the original, digital footage is available for free under a creative commons license.

Hey if you get a FOX news channel, or read any one of the conservative blogs, you can get the same information as from their campaign site.

I wonder why....

Perhaps it has something to do with OutFOXed

A Boston Globe story? You've got a lot of balls posting that link in here.

Why? It's not as if it's Fox.

Except, you know, for the fact that he was honorably discharged, not an honor conferred upon them what don't show up. And the public record of Bush's attendance. And the expert opinion of Lt. Col. Lloyd given upon examining the records. And the dental check-up that you guys love to forget about.

Hell, even CBS News admits that ample evidence of the president's honorable service exists.

Quote sources, please.

Oooh, one quote taken out of context and misrepresented. (He was talking about an event that happened in the winter of 1968, dumbass.) You baffle me. "There's no evidence at all! Except for all that evidence, which doesn't count because the Boston Globe which never, ever lies told me so!" Loser.

Ad homenim attack if I've ever seen one. You can't produce anything concrete, so you resort to attacking me? And besides, I only tried to pick a representative sample. If you want something not from the Globe, do a search for awol bush on Google. Before you even say biased, realize that what will turn up are sites that link to news articles about the issue. Please at least look before you respond with another ad homenim. Your karma will thank you.

http://www.outfoxed.org/

Fox is a marketing arm for the Bush policy machine.

Examples of Fox News being everything but "fair and balanced":
http://www.outfoxed.org/

Spread the word.

(1) Bush may have speech impediments, but so did Enoch and Moses. If you take the time to listen to Bush's message and see what he things and he feels, you'd be surprised at how absolutely brilliant he is.

Are you out of your mind? "Brilliant"? BRILLIANT? Have you ever actually listened to Bush? Speech "impediment" (if by "impediment" you don't mean it in the traditional sense-- ie, slurring, stuttering, lisping, etc.) aside, the man speaks only in soundbytes-- he says the same pre-cooked phrases over and over. He does not respond directly to challenging questions. He does not provide thoughtful answers. He is smug. There is no clarity of thought and he does not demonstrate any depth or familiarity with issues. He repeats the same surface slogans again and again and again. GENIUS? Are you mad?

According to biblical tradition,

One traditional story tells that when he was a child, sitting on Pharaoh's knee, Moses took the crown off of Pharaoh's head and put it on. The court magicians took this as a bad sign and demanded that he be tested: they put a brazier full of gold and a brazier full of hot coals before him to see which he would take. If Moses took the gold, he would have to be killed. An angel guided Moses's hand to the coal, and he put it into his mouth, leaving him with a life-long speech impediment (Ex. 4:10).

Unlike Moses, Bush wore his gold crown on his head and a silver spoon in his mouth from the day he was born and hasn't yet taken it off. Look at the demeaning way he talks to people. I've literally seen him wipe his hands on other people's clothing. He's a prick.

Instead, you focus on his speech impediment and you can't get into his message.

He's a terrible speaker, we agree. But he also represent shallow self-serving, hypocritical, elitist, and compassionateless ideas.

To criticize Bush's critics for poking fun at his "speech impediment" is a serious underestimation of how and why he's going to lose this election, God willing.

(2) Sure, let Ashcroft speak. Maybe he can teach you a thing or two about real justice, how to end the racial divide and the cultural divide in America, how we can really change the tide of the sickening plague of divorce and marital problems and hopefully encourage people to get and stay married for the right reasons. I believe Ashcroft is one of the great visionaries on the cultural / religious debates. He is redefining what it means to be a religious, yet tolerant and just, public official.

Sometimes it's not worth responding to the insane, but because there's a chance impressionable children are reading, I guess I'll indulge you.

Explain to me-- where's the real justice in arresting and holding American citizens without trial or even representation for years? Where's the end of the cultural divide when innocent, loyal, and patriotic immigrants to this country are arrested and deported without any kind of due process? How has the "plague of divorce" been stemmed when Republican mouthpeice FOX promotes show after show that view exploiting marriage as entertainment, when at the same time Bush wants to amend our sacred Constitution so that two people who have love each other for years can't get married?

Where is the Republican outcry about the sanctity of marriage when Bush supporters get married on a whim in Las Vegas for the hell of it and then get annulled hours later?

You have no idea what the Republican party stands for, because you get all your information second-hand. We stand for racial equality.

Yeah right. While fighting affirmitive action. While fighting a living minimum wage so that people can raise their families. Who do you think you're fooling? If Republicans were concerned about racial

after watching outFoxed I find this particularly disturbing. OutFoxed is an excellent just released documentary on the non-journalism of Fox News. Groklaw has shown how microsoft's news results skewed results from the SCO case. we need to be careful about our news sources. All of them.

If so then are the recent 'non-technical' political stories a sign/symptom of this website sweeps phenomena?

Interesting idea, but I think it's more that people (at least in the U.S., and probably in other parts of the world as well) have suddenly become more vehement in their political beliefs. What GW and those who are now in power are doing is frightening.

A movie like this one (OutFoxed) would barely have registered four years ago. See also the review in today's NY Times.

And whatever you think of Michael Moore and F9/11, it's not the most financially successful documentary of all time because of all of the Bush supporters rushing out to see it.