Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism

[Flatlander]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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'.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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?

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"

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.