The blessings of FOX

Remove all ads!

Referring to a post from another thread by The Great Snook:

Well, I think the blessings of of FOX are of a questionable nature. FOX's owner Rupert Murdock once said that his fav paper is the SUN (of course, his own paper), renowned for it's agressive, bullying tone and sensationalist nature. His papers, and tv stations, have a position and sell it. They are not fair and ballanced. And if that's what the people like to hear - fine - if you like precooked meals.

However, there was a reason why during the recent gulf war surfers from the US were reported to have significantly increased traffic on european news websites to get the two sides of the story.

When you promote a position as consequent as FOX did you leave the area of journalism and enter public relations. Freedom of press there turns into freedom of speech. I can't actually see a big difference between a pizza commercial or a FOX reporter pimping war as an outsourced asset of the pentagon's office of special plans.

 

You have hit upon a major problem I have with the media. In the good old days (and I'm not sure when they were) the media had two responsibilities. The first responsibility was entertainment and for that they programmed sitcoms, variety shows, and sporting events. The other responsibility was sharing impartial information that was primarily done through newscasts. The two were separate divisions and didn't have that much to do with each other.

Now that has all changed. Now news is entertainment and entertainment is news and they barely attempt to hide the fact that they have combined the two. Now you can't watch a show without "A very special episode" that will invariably have deep social ramifications. The same is true with the news. The powers that decide which stories will be broadcast are actually censoring what they want told whether they know it or not.

Fox News is hypocritical for claiming they are broadcasting unbiased reporting. However, for all of their spin doctoring, they are just one station as opposed to the three major networks and CNN that are just as guilty, but on the liberal side. The rallying cry of the Fox News fans is the famous quote from Katie Couric "Florida has fallen to George Bush" which was said on election night on national television. Nobody with any scruples can consider Dan Rather to be impartial.

I know I've been bashing the television broadcasts, but the print media is just as bad. When I was in school I was taught that reporters were supposed to report the facts and to be impartial. Have you ever looked at the front page of a newspaper. Here in Massacusetts our beloved Boston Globe recently finished a five part story about the life and times of John Kerry. John Kerry is our liberal senator who has decided to throw his hat in the ring for the 2004 election. Every day this story took valuable space on the front page and was a major event. How on earth is that being impartial, shouldn't it have been on the editorial pages?

I have no idea as to the state of the media in other countries, but I can only hope that it is better.

As to Prozac mentioning that people went overseas to get both sides of the story. I'm not sure if I buy that. I think we as Americans are willing to click on just about anything. Heck, I know I went to Al Jazeera (sic) to see what it looked like and we all know now they were more full of excrement than any American paper.

 

I think The Great Snook is right on here. The problem is that we don’t know who to believe. I doubt it’s any better in Canada. There was a recent case where a newspaper editor was fired for expressing views on the editorial page that were contrary to those of the corporate owners. The owners, of course, have their own interests to look out for, but it is disturbing to know that the papers under their control are not impartial (or perhaps it’s actually good to know this rather than being led to believe that they are impartial).

As citizens, we are being constantly told that we have a civic duty to educate ourselves on the various issues we are facing. While I don’t disagree with that, the problem is figuring out where to go to get unbiased information.

 

I agree, Prozac. The Fox Channel is a mouthpiece for the republican party and, as such, has no credibility as a true news service. MSNBC is another notorious mouthpiece for the republicans.

There is nothing wrong with op-ed pieces from any news source. But it should be on an issue per issue basis and stated as an opinion. That way a news source can increase its credibility by presenting at least more than one side of an issue and letting the reader or audience decide by a fair evaluation of the issues at hand. This is true more so of printed news sources (though still far from perfect) than electronic media. The worst is AM radio, which is rampant with propaganda from both sides. As propaganda it should be treated as such, and not a reliable source for news.

That has been the biggest problem with the rise of the so-called news channels. There is a blurring between news and entertainment. MSNBC's "Hardball" or Fox's "Factor" are examples of this sort of blurring between serious news issues and entertainment. Issues are not treated in a serious matter and instead, treated as a topic for the host's personal point-of-view. The host has no more credibility than the average person on any of the issues, but yet his opinion is supposed to be the standard against which real elected officials and experts on the issues are measured. The idea is that the host controls the debate and thus stacks the deck against any real disagreement on the his/her point of view on an issue.

This is simply for the sake of entertainment and ratings value and has nothing to do with the outcome of how an issue is finally settled (if at all). It usually becomes a shouting match and who can come up with the best one-liners. The end result is that no one becomes really more informed on any issue.

 

Chandos,

Just to be fair, remember Fox and MSNBC(which I have never seen so I can't comment on their prejudice) rose to prominance because of the slant of the other networks. You do yourself a disservice by calling them tools of the republicans without calling the other networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN) tools of the democrats.

 

TGS - I agree that those whom you mention do have a libreal slant, but they had to at least play the game to an extent. And for the most part the coverage was 30 minutes out of a 16 or 18 hour day. That is not the case now where the 24hr news channels are blatantly one-sided in this regard. And to use the argument that WYSIWYG would be fine and that a liberal slant can be exposed. But Fox's mantra is "fair and balanced." There should be at least some truth in advertising.

I think that the big 3 network news outlets have been populated, for the most part, by the rank-and-file journalists with a liberal outlook. But to build a channel from the ground up with a particular slant as its message is a little over-the-top, IMO.

[ August 11, 2003, 23:56: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Fair enough.

 

Remember having read about that. Iirc, those corporate owners already own a lot of papers, over there. Media concentration is a huge problem, because it will lead to a lot of papers which are all one Prawda.

The survival of a news-outlet in the longterm I think is dependent on the product it offers. A news channel offers two different products, infotainment and information. Those people who want information, will in the longer run chose the channel which gives the best information, not opinion, but information which is needed to understand what actually is going on, before everything breaks down and shares have no vaule anymore, for example. Those who want enternaiment and opinions will chose on other criterias.

That obviously implies the existence of a market, which would not be given in the case of media-concentration.

 

There's a perception that Fox is pushing its rah-rah flag-waving support for the war because they're somehow under the thrall of the Republican party but I think ultimately its bias *is* a result of the free market. On one of the other boards I used to visit regularly, all of the regular posters agreed that they no longer watched anything but Fox because they found it disgusting that other media sources sometimes questioned aspects of the war. In a free market, people can choose to buy whatever "truth" they want from their news sources, and there are plenty of Americans right now who want Fox to lie to them. Blame the consumer for demanding biased news, not the vendor who provides it.

And yes, I realise that other news sources are biased too, but Fox is certainly one of the more egregious examples.

Media consolidation doesn't inevitably lead to a single Pravda newspaper for exactly the same reason. People go into the newspaper business to sell newspapers. As long as there are customers demanding one point of view, that point of view will be available for sale in a free market. It's just that the opposing point of view will probably written/sold by exactly the same people.

 

The liberal slant of the old networks is in no way comparable to the blatant Republican propaganda of the Fox News Network. The worse thing about Fox News though is not just what they say...it is some of the things they do...for example, does anyone remember who they had represent the war protestors on their panels? The woman looked like they pulled her off a street corner where she was busy counting cans and drawing blood plasma to turn in for vodka money. And who do they send to Iraq to tell the story of the war back to us?...this teen-age looking blonde whose speech patterns reminded me of a high school cheerleader talking about her "super-important" relationship to her QB boyfriend. Granted, war was never made so arousing before, but I still think it seemed far from professional to have Britney Spears reporting to us the most consequential thing the United States has done in years.

 

Sprite - In your theory there are no real news outlets, only consumerist propaganda networks. I hope things have not gotten to that point yet. When is journalism no longer journalism? When it only gives the message that people want to hear. For that we have the movies and People magazine.

 

As I said a news outlet sells to completly different products, information and infotainment. Fox is master of Infotainment (=court jester). That's where we agree.

That's where I completly disagree. Sounds like St. Gallen-doctrine, by the way. The key-word is demand. (Yes, I must confess, I'm not a die-hard believer of the hand-of-god, humans have to move their own butt). How I can I demand something which I do not know that exists ? What use is demand, if there is no one able to supply, even if there is enough demand, but distribution channels are already filled and there is not enough space left on the newsstand ?

That Canadian example from Splunge made headlines over here, because we've got the same problem. A big Zürich company (et al.) made a big Zürcher newspaper shut down a story it had about that very company. But the plurality of media made that story very popular, how the other paper had to let go of it's story, because different owned papers from Argovia and Lucerne picked on that very story.

 

"Fair and ballanced" as FOXes trademark?! Learn more and wonder, here or here

 

Here an actual FOX article by Brit Hume:

A nice glimpse, quoted from the CSMonitor, about how FOX makes pro-war propaganda with statistics:

Fair and ballanced and devoted to be neutral ...

 

Chuckle, lambasting a new source as biased by quoting with a link that when followed at the top of a page has a "George Bush Scorecard of Evil."

Oh the irony.

It seems to me that while this thread is about bashing fox and really about digging those who watch it the exact same thing could be said for those who seem to gather their news primarily from websites like you just linked or like tompaine.com or....

I think reading this the conclusion is that at least according to some:

"fair and ballanced" = they agree with me.
"unfair and unballanced" = they disagree with me.

As an aside, the website you linked also has some squishy numbers. Last I saw according to the NY Times about 2/3 of the deaths of American soldiers since the end of the war were in accidents or because of the flu or a heart attack or, well, lots of things. They all get lumped into 'dead soldiers' though.

[ August 31, 2003, 16:53: Message edited by: Laches ]

 

Does that change anything about the fact FOXes statistic was plain bull****?

 

Laches,
I see you really have a problem with biased sources. Ever thought about appreciating their value? It's just so that you sometimes just don't have better ones. Some people certainly find that the annual AI and HRW reports on the US are hopelessly biased - continuous critic over a decade now ... and that on the freest and best society ever. That can't be true, right?

You remember the new twist released documents gave the official history writing about US involvement in Afganistan and Angola? As you didn't read anything about that in mainstream media it must be biased, and as it is biased, it is probably inaccurate ... err ... it isn't as if this is a logical conclusion.

You criticised Prozac over a link to a biased site - and overlooked that there was a good point made on it.

Well, mainstream publications aren't foolproof either - look into Kissinger's bigraphy on Angola. It states something that contradicts the released documents. How comes? Well, as a "noble price for peace" winner he has all reason to use "cosmetics" on that bit or on his good contacts to commie-eater Pinochet - Kissinger in the end is just as questionable as a source because in is bio he follows his own interests, that is, painting a glorious picture of his politics. He is not biased, he's more, a liar even when stating "We only reacted on communist inasion in Angola".

Biased sources can be pretty valuable when you read them carefully. Why? Well, you won't find some stuff reported on mainstream media because no one really cares or plainly because it's bad news, you can't place commercials well in it, and ugh, it's sunshine and the people are in too good a mood for that - and the anchorman used to play tennis with the presidents family (that iirc is for Brit Hume).

Socialist publications will probably be much more accurate on Nicaragua than the Reagan crew's official records - because it looks pretty sh*tty in your biography when you write: "And then we controlled and hired the contras, a bunch of right-wing thugs, to - under our guidance - blow up schools, hospitals and agricultural collectives as well as other soft targets to undermine public support for the left regime. In the end we achieved our goal of regime change and we got some 100.000 + civilians killed without notable US casualties." I choose Nicaragua because it is well documented and internationally undisputed thanks to a judgement of the IC against the US. That is underreported because it kinda doesn't fit the US image generated in a people singing the national anthem in school every morning.

Biased sources are valuable because the people writing them have a genuine interest in the issue, usually providing additional sources, or background info. That is a great help to get an overview. On a good day that even applies to FOX despite the overall tone.
What's really silly about TomPaine is that they are hypochrits insofar as iirc a pretty large number of democrats voted pro war and now attack Bush - because the post-war planning was carried out poorly or the niger lie (which was just as obviously a lie a year ago). Great, as if the rest was ok ... That actually made *me* switch over to the CSMonitor quite a while ago.
What's sickening about FOX is easily displayed on the statistics part. They even lie to make the US look good. Because the US have to look good and because Rupert sais so. FOX is feelgood tv. Yesterday I read their persuasive praise of Bush's new nuke plans - tactical nukes back into commanders arsenal, lowering the nuclear red line again is a progress indeed Well, the feelgood part didn't work for me.

The only problem with biased sources is that you have to handle them carefuly (Prime and very recent example: Iraqi defectors on Saddam's weapons programs). They bear the risk of the reader becoming a prisoner of his own beliefs - but doesn't that also apply to the avid FOX watcher?
As in real life there also is the risk of several articles referring to a single original soure or of falling for a polemic or rather than a fact or for an ouright lie even. On the internet and in newspapers you have more time to ponder - and the ability to make cross-checks easily.

Some things just stink - like starting a war of agression and destabilising a country. And when something is at odds it's a good thing to point out. And if that necessiates biased sources - so be it - discussing a topic today I can't wait for the US to open their archives in 20 years. And if the price is you frantically crying "Biased! Biased!" or "US bashing!" for a change ... ah well ...

[ September 01, 2003, 15:01: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

It appears I may've struck a nerve.

I thought the point of this thread was essentially-

Fox is TEH SUCK because it's biased.

Looking back over it though it appears that it is really just Fox's coverage of one issue that is being complained of and not surprisingly those complaining of that coverage disagree with the viewpoint being expressed. And have another dozen threads on that too.

I didn't realize that it was the one issue that was the driving point of this thread when I responded though and so I thought it was ironic that this is the way it went:

1)Fox is TEH SUCK because it's biased.
2)To prove it, look at this site on the Report Card of Evil by Bush.
3) See, I'm right, Fox is biased, isn't that despicable.

If the thread is about one issue really, then it should just be honest and say, "this is a thread about Fox's coverage of one issue that I disagree with." If the thread is about Fox in general and whether it's biased, then it is ridiculously silly to link a Report Card of Evil site as support. I suspect I know what the thread was really about and I was just too obtuse to see it earlier.

There is one other issue I thought was funny. It's the: "Yes we read biased sites but we're smart and discerning so we can do that and keep our perspective. Those "avid Fos watcher(s)" though disagree with me and my sites so it must be that instead of them just disagreeing with me they're stupid and not discerning and not able to think for themselves."

It appears to me the avid Fox watchers here are y'all. You face the opposite way but you're made of the same metal.

 

There are the same tired old lines from the same old mentality that attacks people commenting on an issue, while not taking a stand on any issue at all; just commenting on what it thinks is funny.
What's not funny is a lack of courage to show any conviction on an issue under a pretense of "honesty."

[ September 02, 2003, 01:27: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Definitely. Laches doesn't choose a side. He only tries to attack what he perceives as those evil biased people's mindset, that is in the essence, he is attacking personally.

Laches didn't bring up a position in comment to my post, nor did he his reply to Ragusa's. It's just "You're oh so biased"

It's reserving the privilege of accusing others to be biased by being exactly that: Yelling accusations while avoiding the vulnerability of making a statement of your own.

That is attempting to force the opponent into the defensive with minimum intellectual investment and effort, in a word: Cheap.