Bias on Fox News???

[jonza]

Isn't it difficult to know what to believe in nowadays! There may or may not be a "smoking gun" in this particular case, but I certainly find the pattern distasteful.
Unfortunately we are also getting more and more of this (cheap news, ranting and raving, pseudo-patriotism!) in Europe too.
So who should we believe? Fox News? Michael Moore? Tony Blair's spin doctor? It's all sooooo confusing isn't it!

At least it's nice to know that there are still people around who are prepared to question these issues and document them.


Documentary Aims to Show Bias on Fox News
By FRAZIER MOORE

NEW YORK (AP) - A new documentary backed by liberal political groups aims to document that the Fox News Channel is anything but "fair and balanced,'' despite the cable-news network's motto.

The film, "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism,'' draws on clips compiled during weeks of round-the-clock taping of the network to demonstrate what the filmmakers believe is a pattern of right-wing bias and support for the Republican agenda.

"What we found is not that Fox is a conservative network, but that it's a network that follows the party line of the Bush administration,'' said "Outfoxed'' filmmaker Robert Greenwald, a Hollywood producer-director whose credits include the 2003 documentary "Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War'' and such TV films as "The Crooked E: The Unshredded Truth about Enron'' and "Blonde,'' a biopic of Marilyn Monroe.

Greenwald said he decided to make the film after hearing numerous journalists refer to the "Foxification'' of the news. That approach, he says, has served the 8-year-old Fox News Channel well, and "put pressure on many of the other networks to move in the same direction: cheap news, ranting and raving, pseudo-patriotism.''

Greenwald's 75-minute film includes complaints from several Fox News staffers about the workplace climate at the outlet of the global Murdoch media empire. They say their bosses promote a conservative slant.
"We weren't necessarily, as it was told to us, a newsgathering organization so much as we were a proponent of a point of view,'' says Jon Du Pre, a former Fox News correspondent.

The film also quotes internal memos from a top network executive that seem to call for pro-Bush coverage.
"Ribbons or medals? Which did John Kerry throw away after he returned from Vietnam?'' wrote senior vice president for news John Moody in an April memo to the staff. "His perceived disrespect for the military could be more damaging to the (Democratic presidential) candidate than questions about his actions in uniform.''

In a statement Monday, the network dismissed the whistleblowers as "former low-level Fox employees'' who are "hardly worth addressing.'' It challenged other media organizations to make public their own employee memos, whereupon "Fox News Channel will publish 100 percent of our editorial directions and memos, and let the public decide who is fair.''

The film also draws on a study commissioned by Fairness & Accuracy in Media, a national media watchdog group. The study found conservatives accounted for nearly three-fourths of ideological guests on the network's marquee news program, "Special Report with Brit Hume,'' between June and December 2003, and that Republicans outnumbered Democrats five to one.

"Outfoxed'' was compiled during the past seven months in association with liberal political organizations Center for American Progress and MoveOn.Org, as well as the citizens' lobbying group Common Cause.

Budgeted at $300,000, the "guerrilla'' documentary will premiere Tuesday at the New School University in Manhattan, then initially be distributed through private "house party'' screenings and DVD sales.
At a news conference to introduce the film Monday, Greenwald called Fox News Channel "an opinion station, not a news station.''

When former White House terrorism coordinator Richard Clarke testified before the 9-11 commission, he apologized to the American people for the government's failure to protect them.
The film displays a flurry of Fox pundits blasting Clarke, often in similar terms. "It was almost like Fox News was working off of the playbook coming out of the White House, that he had to be torn down,'' FAIR co-founder Jeff Cohen says in the film.

Fox host Bill O'Reilly is seen on his show insisting he has told a guest to shut up "only once in six years,'' after which he is seen in clips telling one person after another with whom he disagrees to "shut up.''

The documentary also includes a rapid-fire succession of clips of more than a dozen Fox hosts using the phrase "some people say'' - which the filmmakers say is a way to insinuate opinion disguised as reporting into on-air discussions.

"There's no smoking gun,'' Greenwald admitted in explaining what his film set out to reveal - "just a pattern.''

[lbaker]

That's why I read two or three different newspapers daily (or at least try to check out their Web sites), switch between TV news stations including the BBC and have two all-news radio stations in my truck. Then I enjoy having "lively" discussions among my co-workers, family and some acquaintances. Sometimes I really have to watch my mouth though, my tongue can get rather acidic when I'm riled or encounter really stupid people :rolleyes:

[Logan]

Bottom line, Jonza, is that we probably have to make up our own minds about politics, especially, in this country, and not let the media swing us one way or the other. Fox is just about the only network that is considered "conservative". I suppose a documentary could be made about NBC, CBS, ABC or CNN with the exact opposite slant!!!

Guess which one I prefer to watch? :o

[Kona & Oreo's mom]

I think that most of the network news and my local paper are also biased. Sometimes it is rediculous to hear all of the opinions they present as "news."

My worry is that many people don't listen with a "critical ear" and that they just accept it as fact.

[Edwina's Secretary]

As long as news is presented by people it will be biased. For example, I was listening to a CBS all news radio station the other day. They were reporting on the issue of the words "Under God" in the pledge. They referred to the man who brought the case as "a self-described atheist." I have never heard anyone referred to as a "self-described Baptist" or a "self-described Muslim." Who else is qualifed to describe one's beliefs? Subtle, but definitely bias.

I am reading a book about the Kennedy administration. They were masters of manipulating the press -- as is the current administration. They use access. If a news organization prints something that displeases the administration, they give the next scoop to a rival news group. There is a reason that Press Secretary and Spin Doctor positions exist.

And, at the end of the day, news organizations are "for profit." To "sell" they need access...to the latest, most confidential, most exciting, sexiest, most explosive. And what feels good. Read the thread in General and see how many don't read newspapers because they are too "depressing."

News organizations are "big business" and which side is "big business" usually on?

[sirrahved]

Well, all of the other news channels are left wing, so maybe pick one other and watch both. Go somewhere down the middle and you'll find the truth!

[DJFyrewolf36]

Originally posted by sirrahved
Well, all of the other news channels are left wing, so maybe pick one other and watch both. Go somewhere down the middle and you'll find the truth!

I completely agree!

[lbaker]

Liberal
Conservative
Faith-Based
Secular................
all will be out in full force during the Conventions. All will be represented by their own media buddies ad nauseum.....Isn't THAT going to be a zoo!

[DJFyrewolf36]

Better get the hip-waders and a shovel...

[Logan]

Originally posted by DJFyrewolf36
Better get the hip-waders and a shovel...

Amen to that! :p

[jonza]

Well, I'm certainly glad that I don't have to make a choice in November. But I wouldn't be very good at it, as I never had the chance to vote in any national election until I was nearly 50, due to my moving around.

So - it's a question of Bush, (who I don't like at all), or this one:

"We've got a better sense of what's happening in America, and we've got better hair." - Senator John Kerry on why people should vote for him and John Edwards


Wow! Some choice! :rolleyes:

[lbaker]

Granted, the hair remark was silly but I think that was his own attempt to appear "loose". He was getting a lot of flack about his stoney, aloof demeanor and had probably received some advise to show a "just a regular guy" attitude. At least the comment was harmless, unlike some comments I've heard the uh, er other guy make.

[Pam]

Originally posted by Edwina's Secretary
As long as news is presented by people it will be biased.

Isn't that the truth! I do like Fox's little line "we report, you decide." That's the bottom line. We all must decide for ourselves. My hubby says the REAL news never makes it to the news anyway. Who knows what goes on behind the scenes that we never hear about.

Gotta say, though, that I do love Bill O'Reilly and try not to miss The Factor. ;)

[Logan]

News organizations are "big business" and which side is "big business" usually on?

This something that baffles me, Sara. I've always "heard" that new organizations are much more slanted to the "left" (Liberal politics). Big business is usually associated with right wing conservatives. Do you think differently? I really don't watch the news or read the newspaper enough to know this for a fact, and conservative as I am, I still will switch the channel to "4" to watch the Today show when Scott isn't in the room (otherwise, we always watch Fox and Friends in the mornings). Most of my news comes off the internet, lately, and you can get any slant you want from there!! LOL!!!

Logan

[Edwina's Secretary]

Logan, that is just it. You always "hear" that the press is slanted left but where are the examples? There are as many of the right as of the left. I believe it is like one of my favorite definitions....the difference between major surgery and minor surgery? Major surgery is something I have, minor surgery is something you have. If I am to the left I see a right slant and if I am to the right, I see a left slant!

I don't watch much tv and especially not talking heads tv. I prefer my news in print where there is less emotion. But I also believe news organizations go with what sells. After all...they have stockholders to satisfy (and I may be one of them!:rolleyes:)

[Pam]

Sara (regarding news with a "left" slant)....I think you answered this yourself. I got this from the thread about the Satirical View of Terror Alert Warnings.

Your post..."I was just reading the current issue of Newsweek. They made a joke about every time news comes out that is bad for Bush or takes the focus off Bush....the terrorist alert goes up."

I don't mean to pick on you, but there's plenty of proof out there if one is looking. :)

[Edwina's Secretary]

but there's plenty of proof out there if one is looking

Pam....probably right next to the WMDs! :p :D

[lizzielou742]

Oh that film should be great!! I can't wait to see it!! I hate Fox "News." Watching that channel makes me want to kick someone!!! (Bill O'Reilley, maybe?) :mad: :mad: :mad:

I remember watching him when I was a kid on Hard Copy. I can't take him seriously after that.


Did anyone else see the C-SPAN coverage back earlier this year of that book convention where he got all mad at Al Franken?? That was great!! :D

[Pam]

Lizzielou I'm sorry that you don't like Bill, but then different strokes for different folks. When I was a lot younger I was a flaming liberal - even voted for George McGovern (probably one of the 100 votes that he got that year. :rolleyes: ) Nowadays I find Bill to be a pretty good spokeman for my feelings on a lot of things. The following I think speaks to this thread. I have bolded a few statements where Bill certainly does not "coddle" the conservatives. Read it if you dare. Warning: it is long. :) I would be hard pressed to find a liberal criticizing another of like mind. Can we say "fair and balanced?" :)

Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thanks for watching us tonight.

Dissent or dishonor? That is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo." America was founded on dissent, that is loyal opposition to government policies. And that's a good thing. But now some Americans are confusing true dissent with dishonesty and dishonor.

"Talking Points" believes the Bill Clinton situation is a good example. While president, Mr. Clinton did a number of questionable things. Conservatives especially were angered that Mr. Clinton used the Oval Office in an unseemly way and then lied about it. The dissent over that was absolutely appropriate, but some right-wingers went overboard and began accusing Mr. Clinton of all kinds of deeds that were unproven and sometimes even defamatory.

That kind of behavior is simply dishonorable. Just because you don't like a politician doesn't give you the right to lie about them. Dishonor is defined as treating someone in a degrading manner, trying to injure them personally. There's no place for that in America.

So, flash forward to President Bush, who's being accused of many things, some of them flat-out untrue. For example, the Senate Intelligence Committee did not find any evidence that the Bush administration attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgment on WMDs in Iraq — so reads conclusion 83 of the Senate report.


Thus, all the bomb-throwers who accuse Mr. Bush of lying about WMDs have been dishonorable. They were wrong and had no proof to begin with.They are guilty of a slander, a dishonorable act.

Other examples, Whoopi Goldberg made crude jokes about Mr. Bush's name. Is that dissent or dishonor? Whether you like him or not, Mr. Bush is the president. It is dishonorable for Ms. Goldberg crudely to mock him without purpose. There's no dissent in that and it reflects poorly on her.

Meryl Streep said, "If you're going to invite Jesus on the campaign bus and ask him to stump for you, you'd better listen carefully to what he has to say first. He did not say 'blessed is the preemptive strike.'"

Dissent or dishonor? In this case, Ms. Streep is dissenting. She's objecting to a policy matter and that's legit. See the difference? Goldberg is disrespectful. Streep is entitled to her opinion about an issue, although I'd love to talk to her about it.

Michael Moore's movie is dissent, but his dishonesty within the film is dishonorable. Also, when he runs around Europe bashing America, he's giving comfort to our enemies, totally dishonorable and disgraceful in a time of war. You have to be careful where you utter anti-American statements. What's OK in Berkeley is not OK in Paris.

Finally, let's take a look at conservative Ann Coulter. She writes,"Kerry picks a pretty-boy milquetoast as his running mate, narrowly edging out a puppy for the spot."

Dissent or dishonor? Well, it's dissent. She's simply making fun of John Edwards. Although to be fair, short of Newt Gingrich, Coulter would have been displeased by anyone Kerry picked.

Once again, dissent must be protected, but dishonorable behavior must be condemned.

And that's "The Memo."

[lizbud]

Jonza,

I don't watch FOX news, so I don't have an opinion as to
their "balance" or lack of it. I did see an interesting blog piece
today that talks about North American news reporting in general.

Althought I haven't finished the article yet, it does look like
interesting reading.

[/url]http://blogs.csmonitor.com/my_american_experience/

[Edwina's Secretary]

That's alright Pam...I voted for Nixon once!

But O'Reilly is being disingenuous here. He nearly breaks his arm patting himself on the back. I can cite plenty of examples of liberals criticising other liberals....although I am hard pressed to find in this article where O'Reilly actually criticises anyone except Whoopi Goldberg and Michael Moore. Ann was just simply making fun when she calls Edwards a pretty-boy milquetoast, but Whoopi was being dishonorable when she mocked Bush.

He refers to those who believed Bush lied as bomb-throwers. Is that simply making fun or mocking????? Or dishonorable? I didn't see anyone throw any bombs?

Just look at the difference here....when he speaks of Clinton he says..."deeds that were unproven and sometimes even defamatory."

Bush's critics meanwhile "had no proof to begin with. They are guilty of a slander, a dishonorable act."

So we have unproven and sometimes defamatory on the one hand and no proof = slander and a dishonorable act on the other.

Fair and balanced????

[Pam]

Originally posted by Edwina's Secretary
That's alright Pam...I voted for Nixon once!



:eek: :D :p Thanks for going to the trouble of reading it through anyway. We may agree to disagree on things and that's OK. ;)

[DJFyrewolf36]

From the article posted above


I think they fell victim to what I call the "Particle Principle." Allow me to use an analogy from science, quantum physics to be precise. Scientists know that the appearence of a particle is directly affected by the person observing it. In effect, the observer helps create the actual physical properties of the particle. News gathering often works in the same way. The observer creates the story by the act of observing it ... or writing, broadcasting or e-mailing it. The story can't exist without the observer (the reporter) and thus is directly affected by all of his or her beliefs, prejudices, values, etc.

This is pretty much how I feel. The only fair and balanced anyone is ever going to get is the type of fairness that comes from reading/watching more than one news source. Reporters ARE human after all and run into the same human failings. Stage an auto wreck in front of three people and you'll get three different stories.

[jonza]

Thanks Lizbud, an interesting article.

I suppose it all boils down to "Wishful thinking" in the end. It's much easier to believe something if it fits what you want to believe. (I particularly like the "Particle Principal" theory too).

Interestingly enough, when I made my first venture into the world of the Dog House, I found some satirical articles that were derogatory about Tony Blair. But I got severely dumped on for attacking Americans and the administration. (Perhaps it was because I was also foolish enough to mention the American flag!). I hadn't made it clear that what really irked me was the increasing use of "spin" and advertising tricks by the British Government.

I worked for nearly 20 years in the advertising industry as a photographer, with some of the largest international agencies among my clients, but got completely and absolutely sick of the one sided fixation on profit above all, of "Psychological Profiling" being the new goal, and any other tool that could be used to increase turnover and profit. The truth came a distant second. Nowadays it's "Branding" and "Image" that are the buzz words. Anything to make a buck. Everything is becoming commercialized.

I was also sometimes involved in distorting the truth in order to sell more products (is politics also a product by the way?), but in the end I got so tired of the shallowness that I changed my vocation and now only work on educational material. As I found out, I feel much better helping to sell knowledge than gasoline or washing powder. Even if I do earn less money doing it.

We can't measure human values like honesty, tolerance and compassion in dollars and cents. Greed and extravagance seem to be the order of the day, and "All the News that Fits" the message from the media instead of honest, unbiased reporting. Same old story.

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by jonza

We can't measure human values like honesty, tolerance and compassion in dollars and cents. Greed and extravagance seem to be the order of the day


Shaq and Kobe???;)

[nibblets]

Whetever slant to the left Fox may put out gets slammed right back over to the right by Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh.
I listen to Sean Hannity's radio show when I drive home sometimes just for the entertainment value of listening to them get all worked up over the Liberals.
I heard a saying once, something like you point a finger at me..three fingers point back at thee. I hate partisan politics...they make it out like the Good ol' boys vs the Hippies. Sheesh...gimme a break. FYI- I sit just slightly left of center...;) We don't have a candidate...not one that could actually get elected anyway.

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by nibblets
FYI- I sit just slightly left of center...;)


I have to sit in the center or my butt falls asleep ;)....
I don't have alot of padding down there...:eek:

[jonza]

Well my my! Poor old Fox News. They are being put through the wringer nowadays aren't they! :eek:

Advocacy Groups Challenge Fox News Slogan By JAKE COYLE

NEW YORK (AP) - Fox News' use of the slogan "Fair and Balanced'' constitutes deceptive advertising, two political advocacy groups claimed Monday in a petition filed with the Federal Trade Commission.

Liberal MoveOn.org and historically nonpartisan Common Cause assert that Fox News' reports are "deliberately and consistently distorted and twisted to promote the Republican Party of the U.S. and an extreme right-wing viewpoint.''

Alleging consumer fraud, the complaint calls for the FTC to order Fox News, consistently the highest-rated cable news network, to cease and desist from using the slogan.
Irena Briganti, a Fox News spokeswoman, told The Associated Press that "while this is clearly a transparent publicity stunt, we recognize all forms of free speech and wish them well.''

In a statement later Monday, FTC Chairman Timothy J. Muris indicated the petition has little chance.
"I am not aware of any instance in which the Federal Trade Commission has investigated the slogan of a news organization. There is no way to evaluate this petition without evaluating the content of the news at issue. That is a task the First Amendment leaves to the American people, not a government agency.''

But Chellie Pingree, president of Common Cause, said the legal actions were consistent with the First Amendment. "Fox has no obligation under the law to be fair and balanced, just not to market itself as fair and balanced,'' he said.

After a press conference announcing the petition, members of MoveOn.org and Common Cause marched to the Fox News Headquarters to hand out DVDs of the recent documentary "Outfoxed,'' which alleges a pattern of right-wing biases in the network's reporting, citing statements by former Fox employees and internal memos. The documentary is "Exhibit A'' in the FTC petition.

At the press conference, Common Cause's Pingree said the petition was consistent with the 34-year-old citizen advocacy group's history, and a response to the "growing firestorm about what's going on with the media.''

It could take months for the Federal Trade Commission, which hears all consumer complaints, to judge whether the complaint has merit.
Fox has sought to trademark its "Fair and Balanced'' motto, which also has been met with legal action.

Independent Media Institute, a not-for-profit promoter of independent journalism, filed a petition last December with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office challenging Fox's trademark request.
The IMI's petition claims that the term "fair and balanced'' is so prevalent as to be generic, and is "entirely mis-descriptive'' when it comes to Fox News.

Last summer, Fox News Channel tried to block publication of liberal humorist Al Franken's book, "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right,'' saying it made unauthorized use of Fox's "fair and balanced'' slogan.
The judge dismissed Fox's case, saying it was "wholly without merit,'' and the trademark "Fair and Balanced,'' registered by Fox in 1998, was weak. He also said the network was "trying to undermine the First Amendment.''

[lizzielou742]

Outfoxed is currently the #1 selling DVD on Amazon.com at only $9.95. Buy it here:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0002HDXTQ/104-4709072-0249536?v=glance&s=dvd&n=130

Interesting videos:
Outfoxed trailer -
http://http.dvlabs.com/carolina/Trailer_A.wmv

Bill O'Reilly -
http://mfile.akamai.com/11672/wmv/cdn.moveon.org/data/ShutUp_Final_large.wmv