Jump to content

Home

FOX News


Det. Bart Lasiter
 Share

Recommended Posts

I just saw the movie Outfoxed today, it's a documentary/examination of Rupert Murdoch's "media empire". Besides being funny as hell (Bill O'Reilly needs to take a f***in' pill or something), it also reveals various memos and policies of FOX News regarding it's journalistic integrity (or lack thereof).

 

 

My question: what's your stance on journalism and the integrity of FOX News, or the media in general at this point in time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 135
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Nobody can dispute that Fox News approaches news from a conservative point of view. In the same way, nobody can dispute that the New York Times approaches news from a liberal point of view. There is room for both. I tire of the media people attacking each other as if how the other guy reported the news is the story. I wish they would give less opinion and more facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

B.B.C. is awesome for its relatively objective broadcasts ("relatively" as no one, of course, is 100% objective).

 

"It's unfair, it's slanted and it's a hit job. And I haven't even seen it yet."

-Eric Shawn, FOX News Reporter

Moron:rofl:.

 

Just like the White House spokesman on Fahrenheit: "We don't need to watch it to know it's wrong".

 

My question: what's your stance on journalism and the integrity of FOX News, or the media in general at this point in time?

FOX "News" should be made to call themselves something else than a news program, if you ask me. Not that it'd make a difference, of course:rolleyes:.

 

Heck, the media in general is out of control. They have no respect whatsoever for peoples' dignity, right of privacy, or feelings. I'm talking about both news-people and reality shows here.

 

Take disasters. Half a year after a mudslide that killed three here in Bergen, every time the media runs something about the slide they have to show pictures from it. Every time this friend of mine who lost her mom in the slide sees the pictures, all the horror comes back to her traumatized life. Ask anyone who's been in a disaster: 9/11, Katrina, New Orleans, when-the-tornade-came-to-that-little-village. Anyone.

 

It's been half a year, idiots. We've seen it and we know what it looks like. You can say that it's to draw viewers - I know that. It doesn't justify it. You can talk about freedom of the press - which'll get you nowhere as it's not a justification (it says what you can do versus what you should be able to do, which is what we're discussing).

 

I could gather up a thousand other examples. The media needs to be reeled in. People already going trough Hell after having lost their daughter don't need to have their burden strenghtened by being besieged in their own house by TV teams and seeing their dead kid whenever they turn their TVs on.

 

One simple suggestion, specifically, I've brought up before: Let people own the publication rights to their own lives. If I'm in a car accident and get wounded and someone says that "a car accident happened at x, injuring one", fine. If they want to take photos of me, my house, etc. against my will, less fine. No doing without my permission. Need-to-know basis. Of course, you'd just about have to hold all the journalists in the world at 200mm gunpoint to get them to submit to such a change, but there you have it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they want to take photos of me, my house, etc. against my will, less fine. No doing without my permission. Need-to-know basis. Of course, you'd just about have to hold all the journalists in the world at 200mm gunpoint to get them to submit to such a change, but there you have it.

 

I'm no law professor, but I was under the impression that the Right to Privacy or some such prevented News outlets from reporting on you without your permission, or at least reveal your personal information/pictures. I know if I randomly turned up in the news, certain people would be getting a lot of grief from me.

 

 

Personally, I don't follow the news. Only news I get is whatever I happen to see in my local newspaper, what's on the comcast.net webpage, the few random bits on the radio, or whatever Jon Stewart reports on the Daily Show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm no law professor, but I was under the impression that the Right to Privacy or some such prevented News outlets from reporting on you without your permission, or at least reveal your personal information/pictures. I know if I randomly turned up in the news, certain people would be getting a lot of grief from me.

According to Slate magazine (and reality, of course), you can't keep the media from posting pictures of you, etc. You're completely at their mercy, or, rather, the lack thereof. Kid gone? Nothing to stop the media from running pictures of her. Famous pop start? Paparrazi everywhere you go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I find it strange how FOX News must claim they are "Fair and Balanced." No other news channels must do so in order to show they are impartial.

 

I've got a few things I'd like to point out that prove how FOX News is not as impartial as they'd want you to think...

 

- They fly the American flag in the top left corner of the screen. This shows that the station is biased as it is pro-America; if the station were unbiased it would not show allegiance to a country.

 

- They have forced all of their anchors and reporters to use the term "homicide bomber" instead of "suicide bomber" (even going as far as editing the quotes of politicians who use the proper term "suicide bomber"), as this is official Bush Administration rhetoric. For one, it doesn't even make sense. Someone who uses a bomb to commit homicide could be someone who throws a grenade, or detonates a roadside bomb. But they use the term to refer to a suicide bomber.

 

- They were quick to adopt the term "terrorist surveillance program" to refer to the warrantless NSA wiretapping. Again, this is official Bush Administration rhetoric. All other news channels use NSA surveillance program, NSA warrantless wiretapping, etc.

 

- Bill O'Reilly is a dickhead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's fantastic (about Rowling). Good Freak, have a biscuit. And good Rowling, even if she did it mostly for her own kid.

 

Personally, I find it strange how FOX News must claim they are "Fair and Balanced." No other news channels must do so in order to show they are impartial.
I guess it's akin to how North Korea calls itself democratic.

 

- Bill O'Reilly is a dickhead.
Come now, it's the Senate:p.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(...), but i feel that fox is the most unbias of the main news networks, whether you agree with me or not isnt important, thats just my opinion

 

Source: The Pub, GamingForums.

 

Who needs horror movies when you have these people:eek:? Seriously. Not to mention this complete re-defining of the news media's desired role:

i.e. they are out to make money first and foremost. as such they market a product based to what their preceived customer likes. You can have the same story and two different agencies will report it differently based on their desired audiance.

 

Fox:US forces WMDs in the form of hundreds of Sarin field artillary shells have een unearthed...

CNN:Occupation forces unearthed decades old, degraded chemical artillary shells...

Al-Jazeera: US military 'discovered' shells in Iraq containing alledged chemicals. it comes at a time when the US government is in desperate need of good news....

 

And this (mistakes in spelling are theirs, not mine):

ALL news is biased. News is a business

&

ts impossible to be completely unbias

"We can't do it perfectly, so why even try to do it right?

 

Again, who needs horror movies?

 

What the Heck do you say to people like that?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And here's the scary part, Dagobahn: Those - uh - people vote...

 

Nobody can dispute that Fox News approaches news from a conservative point of view. In the same way, nobody can dispute that the New York Times approaches news from a liberal point of view.

 

Such equivocation is sickening.

 

Let me first point out that the NYT is not, by any sane standard, a left-wing outlet.

 

It is - however - a reality-based outlet. Unlike Fux News. Fux News is regularly caught red-handed in outright, obvious lies. FFS, they make up half their 'news' out of whole cloth.

 

That said, I was not impressed by the 'scholarship' employed in Outfoxed. Especially not when there are so much better references available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody can dispute that Fox News approaches news from a conservative point of view.

 

Fox News approaches news from a more conservative perspective than other news outlets, but their conservatism is questionable...but, then, you have to be a conservative to get that one...

 

 

And ShadowTemplar, the New York Times is a liberal rag, whether you like it or not.

 

As far as the rest of the stuff I've seen here, it's just a bunch of juvenile nit-picking. Who cares if they have an American flag in their logo? They broadcast primarily in America. They know who their target audience is.

 

The main thing people are missing is this: Every mainstream media organization, whether it's cable news, newspapers, magazines, or even talk radio, exists for one reason, and only one reason: to make money. They're not there to give fair, balanced, unbiased news, they're there to sell commercials. And if FOX News thinks they have to give a more conservative view to sell more commercial time, then that's what they'll do. And if CNN thinks they have to give a more liberal view, then that's what they will do.

 

That's reality, ShadowTemplar.

 

And you won't find that printed in the New York Times, because they're just there to sell advertising, too.

 

So I say, who cares? If you don't like Fox News, don't watch it. Personally, I don't watch any cable news. It's all a waste of my time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who cares if they have an American flag in their logo? They broadcast primarily in America. They know who their target audience is.
I care. It constitutes patriotism, which has nothing to do in a news channel which is supposed to be objective.

 

The main thing people are missing is this: Every mainstream media organization, whether it's cable news, newspapers, magazines, or even talk radio, exists for one reason, and only one reason: to make money. They're not there to give fair, balanced, unbiased news (...)
Yes, actually they are. Whether or not they choose to succeed or fail miserably at it is another matter, but being informative and objective is what they're for. Not to entertain you and tell you you how absolutely right you are in your belief.

 

Watching FOX News is like going to Church and listening to the Reverend tell you what to believe. It's equally objective, open-minded, and inviting to debate. Except most Churches don't pretend they're news broadcasting facilities.

 

As a side note, FOX News should be made to drop the "News" and "Fair and balanced" lines. It's illegal to have a brand name that does not correctly represent what the product is. Akin to selling orange juice and saying on the container that it contains five sorts of fruits.

 

And if FOX News thinks they have to give a more conservative view to sell more commercial time, then that's what they'll do. And if CNN thinks they have to give a more liberal view, then that's what they will do.
And that's the problem in a nutshell. Not that FOX News isn't about a 1000 times more conservative than CNN is liberal, but that's it.

 

That's reality, ShadowTemplar.
I don't recall him, or any of us pretending otherwise?

 

So I say, who cares?
And I say I do.

 

I want to be informed by someone who makes an attempt at being remotely objective. Which is why I prefer BBC over the US outlets.

 

Let me first point out that the NYT is not, by any sane standard, a left-wing outlet.
Any news publication that does not 100% tolerate everything the Bush Administration does is liberal:p.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

EDIT: [snip]

 

And ShadowTemplar, the New York Times is a liberal rag, whether you like it or not.[/Quote]

 

Nope. It's a reality-based newspaper - most of the time. Unlike Fux News, which is a lie-based propaganda sender. The NYT is actually considerably to the right of standard references like the BBC and Der Spiegel on a great many issues.

 

As far as the rest of the stuff I've seen here, it's just a bunch of juvenile nit-picking.[/Quote]

 

Well, if all your nitpicking were in the same league as the scholarly reference I provided for my claim that Fux News deliberately and systematically lies to its viewers. [Deleted]As you amply demonstrate, you maintain something of a double standard w.r.t. the concept of 'nitpicking...'

 

So, to summarise: What is your position on the credibility and general trustworthyness of Fux News, in light of this report?

 

The main thing people are missing is this: Every mainstream media organization,[/Quote]

 

When did Fux News become 'mainstream'?

 

whether it's cable news, newspapers, magazines, or even talk radio, exists for one reason, and only one reason: to make money.[/Quote]

 

A wonderful admission. And the best possible argument for a strong, independent, publicly financed news provider, like the BBC.

 

And if FOX News thinks they have to give a more conservative view to sell more commercial time, then that's what they'll do. And if CNN thinks they have to give a more liberal view, then that's what they will do.[/Quote]

 

And the corrollary to that statement is that if any 'news' provider believes that it can make money by lying through its teeth, then it'll do so. Which, incidentially, is what Fux News and the Corporate News Network do all the time...

 

And you won't find that printed in the New York Times, because they're just there to sell advertising, too.[/Quote]

 

Curiously, though, it is a consideration that you will actually find in places like the BBC and Der Spiegel...

 

So I say, who cares? If you don't like Fox News, don't watch it.

 

The problem is not that 'I don't like it' - and for the record, I resent your continuing and pathetic insinuations that everyone who doesn't agree with you is motivated by the same kind of unthinking (quasi-)religious political 'reasoning' that your posts continue to evidence.

 

The problem with Fux News is that they lie and lie and lie again - and with a straight face too. And when they've been indisputably caught lying, they continue to lie - they just turn up the volume and venom a little.

 

Oh, and Dagobahn, I fail to see what's the least 'patriotic' about Fux News' use of the flag:

 

Fascism-t.gif

 

In point of fact, using the flag to promote fascism is pretty close to being the most unpatriotic thing I can think of off the top of my head...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OUTFOXED trailer, for reference.

 

The problem is not that 'I don't like it' - and for the record, I resent your continuing and pathetic insinuations that everyone who doesn't agree with you is motivated by the same kind of unthinking (quasi-)religious political 'reasoning' that your posts continue to evidence.
An all-too-common problem, unfortunately.

 

By all means, don't attack the movie, just go with attacking liberals. The best defence and so on:rolleyes:. Example:

 

True, you have every right not to like any channel if you feel like it, but you don't have the right to trash or question the integrity of Bill O'Reilly or anybody else just because their political beliefs differ from yours (we don't attack him "just because he disagrees with us"). Keith Olbermann spends almost every episode of his Countdown show on MSNBC trashing O'Reilly and the FNC (two wrongs don't make a right). No wonder MSNBC is dead last in the cable news ratings and Fox is still number 1 (jumping to conclusions). This films is total slander and Liberal trash and propaganda just like all of Michael "The Buffet King" Moore's films are.
Three elementary fallacies in one paragraph. New freaking record.

 

I also liked the ones about the "forged memos". Facts got you cornered? Pull the lie card! It's become the freaking neo-con strategy of choice: If something has you against the wall, just say that the reasoning for it is based on liberal lies. There, it's out of the world:rolleyes:.

 

Oh, and I just don't get YOUTUBE's e-mail confirmation system, so if someone would kindly post this for me as a commentary to the trailer, I'd very much appreciate it.

 

"So this is what liberals think of free speech huh?"

I find it amazing that a RIGHT-WINGER, under Bush who calls all dissenters "anti-American" and who pushed through the PATRIOT ACT, somehow finds the nerve to rant about LIBERAL "feelings on freedom of speech".

 

No, we do not attack freedom of speech, smoothie. We leave that to you. We're busy attacking the Neo-con propaganda machine so that we can have us some OBJECTIVE and BALANCED news sources meant to INFORM, not PREACH.

 

Oh, and Dagobahn, I fail to see what's the least 'patriotic' about Fux News' use of the flag:

 

In point of fact, using the flag to promote fascism is pretty close to being the most unpatriotic thing I can think of off the top of my head...

I meant that it appeals to the right-wingers' impression of patriotism. I agree it is abuse of a flag symbolizing democracy:).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also to all you people out there who thank that I am a UFO nut or a conspiracy nut. Then I say seeing ,feeling, smelling, tasting or hearing is not always believing.

 

Well, whatever floats your boat.

 

One thing you might want to keep in mind, though, is that using a lot of colours does not necessarily enhance readability...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the thread is about FOX and the media in general, so technically I don't think there's something wrong with posting what he posted. Except it could turn the thread into a UFO discussion really fast, of course:p.

 

I just don't trust the media or the goverments of this planet. I think they both lie about 80% est. of the information that they convey to the public in general.
Not more:eek:?!

(Joking).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I say, who cares? If you don't like Fox News, don't watch it. Personally, I don't watch any cable news. It's all a waste of my time.

 

I care because 70% of my neighbors believe it to be the pure, unvarnished truth. If they're allowed to grab a larger percent, America = ****ed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I care because 70% of my neighbors believe it to be the pure, unvarnished truth.
Put a copy of the PIPA/Knowledge Network report in [next to] each of their mailboxes. Chances are they'll disregard it as Liberal Conspiracy Theories as it proves them wrong, but it's worth a try.

 

Particularly, I'm frightened by this:

FOX News Propaganda Machine: 80% of viewers had at least one serious misperception about the Iraq War.

PBS: 23% of viewers had at least one serious misperception about the Iraq War.

 

Said misperceptions:

  1. WMDs found in Iraq by US forces post-invasion.
  2. Iraq collaborated with the Al-Q'aida terrorist network.
  3. The World's Public Opinion favoured a US invasion of Iraq (36% of Bush supporters believed so at the time of the poll).

I'd say that speaks quite clearly. Especially since FOX News P.M. presents the misperceptions as "facts".

 

I had my respect for FOX News P.M. greatly increased at reading this. If they manage to convince people that the world in general favours the Iraqi invasion, they should be nominated for the Herman Göring Medal of Exceeding Propaganda Work. They already won Mao Zedong's Price for Best Non-Chinese Propaganda Machine, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see any reason for all of the hostility toward my post. I'm not defending Fox news...all I'm saying is that all news organizations, no matter how biased you think they are or what biases you think they have or (this is for you ShadowTemplar) whether you think they are mainstream or not, expecting any news organization to be pure as the wind driven snow is both unrealistic and naive. These are businesses. As a marketting strategy for their business, Fox News markets themselves as "fair and balanced." Does that mean that they are absolutely 'fair and balanced?' No. But they don't seem to have any problems selling their goods to the general public.

 

And Dagobahn Eagle, you say you want to be informed by someone who is 'remotely objective?' Well, if you don't think Fox News is, then *gasp* don't watch them! It's called the free market...and, strangely enough, it works. It's not like Fox News has a corner on the news market - heck, they aren't even the only 24-hour cable news channel. And if you think they're out there lying to the public, then tell RoxStar, tell those neighbors about it. Word-of-mouth is one of the one of the most effective marketting tools out there, and it can work either for or against any business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not defending Fox news...

It definetly seems to me you are.

 

all I'm saying is that all news organizations, no matter how biased you think they are or what biases you think they have or (this is for you ShadowTemplar) whether you think they are mainstream or not, expecting any news organization to be pure as the wind driven snow is both unrealistic and naive.
Maybe in the US it is. Yes, most news organizations all over the world have their faults. Most of them have very little respect for people. None of them are completely objective. And many of them are for entertainment just as much as information.

 

But many of them try to be objective. Except, of course, for the official propaganda machines in dictatorships such as North Korea and unofficial propaganda machines such as FOX News.

 

In most free countries, believe it or not, news are, as they should be, something you watch to be informed of current events in an objective way so that you can form an opinion.

 

FOX News is run just as much by the Republican Party as by its owner. It even takes direct orders from them.

 

These are businesses. As a marketting strategy for their business, Fox News markets themselves as "fair and balanced." Does that mean that they are absolutely 'fair and balanced?' No. But they don't seem to have any problems selling their goods to the general public.
Probably because the "general public" watching FOX is dumb enough, to be frank, to believe the slogan?

 

And as I said, that's the problem: That they are businesses just trying to make money, rather than businesses trying to do what they should do: Inform.

 

And Dagobahn Eagle, you say you want to be informed by someone who is 'remotely objective?' Well, if you don't think Fox News is, then *gasp* don't watch them!
Ludicrous argument. They'll keep lying and broadcasting biased propaganda disguised as news no matter how little I watch them. If it was a matter of them not suiting my taste, I'd not watch them. This is not the case, however.

 

And if you think they're out there lying to the public, then tell RoxStar, tell those neighbors about it. Word-of-mouth is one of the one of the most effective marketting tools out there, and it can work either for or against any business.
I don't "think" they're lying to the public - I know they're lying to the public.

 

And yes, I'm sure as H*** making that view known.

 

It's not like Fox News has a corner on the news market - heck, they aren't even the only 24-hour cable news channel.
They are very influential. Don't for a second believe otherwise.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I meant that it appeals to the right-wingers' impression of patriotism. I agree it is abuse of a flag symbolizing democracy:).

 

I think Faux's use of the flag is desecration. Maybe once the ammendment is passed, Faux News will be prosecuted for it. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...