WTF Fox News

My job requires my office to have a news channel on 24/7 so that we can keep up with events that might effect our network. Most times we're watching Fox News, and I've had an extended time to study it in detail.

Fox News is highly tuned propaganda for a very subtle reason - they do in fact maintain the overall appearance of being "fair and balanced", but if you listen carefully, they editorialize almost everything.

I'll segment my thoughts by the show:

In general:
- Most shows are opinion shows. It's a news network where most shows are editorials. That doesn't seem like much of a news network.
- While they do present opposing views, most times it's partisan bickering and a middle ground is lost. This sort of problem Jon Stewart brought up when he appeared on another network's "Crossfire" and absolutely slamming the show.
- There are far more conservative hosts, shows, and anchors than liberal. (God forbid they have a moderate.)
- What stories are addressed is very selective, and it's deceptive to people who don't check other sources of news.

Hannity & Colmbs:
1. Sean Hannity interrupts any guest he disagrees with.
2. Hannity will outright ignore arguments that make sense that conflict with his own.
3. Hannity oversimplifies most arguments.
4. Allen Colmbs, while a liberal, is respectful of guests and often will aquiesce to opposing views.
5. Colmbs makes some brilliant observations.
6. Hannity gets the lion's share of time.

The O'Reilly Factor:
1. For the most part, Bill actually is fair and balanced. He is very respectful of guests, gives them time to talk, and will ask tough questions on both conservatives and liberals.
2. Bill has the same guests on all the time. Many are Fox News analysts. Having guests on a news show, presenting them like outside sources, when they are in fact with your company, is nonsense.
3. Bill clearly has a conservative agenda, but he's also been very critical of the Bush administration and mistakes made in Iraq.
4. Bill will claim he is more fair than he really is by picking and choosing the mail he reads - often times reading both "You're a right-wing fascist" and "You're a liberal commie" type emails in an attempt to protray opinion of him as polar and incorrect. This is perhaps his most sly and underhanded tactic to appear "fair and balanced".

Neal Cavuto's "Your World"
1. Generally fluff.
2. Very pro-American on Iraq.

the business shows on Fox:
1. They give out the worst damn stock advice I've ever heard.

Fox & Friends in the morning:
1. Bunch of conservative asshats.
2. These folks are perhaps the most biased set of "journalists" on the network. Granted, it's a morning show and meant to be less serious, but that stupid black-haired jock whom they continually promote his sports book is the most ignorant twat I have to listen to.

On The Record w/Greta Van Sustren
1. Hi, WAY too much Scott Peterson coverage?
2. Greta is one of the more professional journalists on the station, but she's given the lamest assignments.

Fox News Alerts
While the general news alerts are presented fairly decently, Rupert Murdoch's choice of stories is appalling. Try looking at the BBC and seeing what CNN and Fox News exclude. It's surprising just how much American media pick and chooses.

so much for the world according to the hero.

Not the work of the Devil - as the tale of Faust shows, the devil has some accountability

But worse than any other network -- well, yes they are.

Where else but on Fox could I see such things as *insert huge banner* only 118 days till President Bush is re-elected!

What other network needs to point out it has 'token liberals' on the air? (and spare me the 'liberal media' line - 78% of *THIS* station is republican)

And as most know - one of the tennants of journalism is being able to source your findings... a term that sums it up really nicely is used by the Australian Law Enforcement Community -- 'a continuity of evidence'.
Now - this is *barely* sidestepped with the phrase 'Some people say...' 'I've heard some people say' 'now... some people would say' -- which changes 'opinion' into a more admissable 'heresay'. Do a test - watch your fave show and count how many times it's said -- Do the same for the other newscasts -- I have -- I get bored here some nights..

A lot of the networks today are very very shoddy, playing journalist at best -- but they DO at least give it more than the 'lip service' that Fox does...

But hey, at least they're blatant

It is simply the greater of the evils.

There are a lot of other differences behind the scenes too... Suffice to say I work in T.V. News.. I have no allegience to any station because I don't WATCH the shit anymore.. They are ALL chock full of idiot anchors and asshole executives, and owned by people who think their opions are right because they can show them on the idiot box at 6pm

-- but I *won't* work for Fox.. even after a substantially larger wage is offered...

Siggy.

And I won't accept a professorship at Alabama or Auburn. So what?

As part of my Masters' degree work, I did work at an NBC affiliate for a year and at Fox Headquarters for a summer (believe it or not, a 40-something year old intern). I didn't see a lick of difference in story selection or preparation --- from the perspective that each network had an identifiable agenda.

In the case of Fox, they are pretty rah-rah and nationalistic and make no bones about it. Then again, I compare it to the BBC that I heard and watched while on temp duty there - equally identifiable as "ideologic" in more than one sense.

In the case of the NBC affiliate, not a whole lot of difference from what I saw coming down the pike from network. On the occasions when a national figure would deign to visit the affiate and I got to ask a few questions directly, the impression I got was they had a very clear and very liberal agenda --- something that my Masters' Thesis work centered on (the identifiability of a growth in liberal bias across the Big Three Television Networks from the 1950s to the mid 90s - in evening news transcripts [that is pretty close to the exact wording but I could look up the title if you really want it]). You can dispute it if you want... but it kinda makes sense on its face if you just remember the 60s-70s. There WERE more social events stories than the previous decade because that WAS the news... and spin began to increase in a truly noticeable amount by about 1983.

You don't respect Fox? Fine. I don't think they are a wit's different from any other network except maybe in being more honest about their core value. Of course, if you ARE a liberal, or see yourself as a non-conservative, YMMV.

Bad News At Black Rock is a great book about network news transitioning from old world ideals of journalistic neutrality to the "if it bleeds it leads" mentality, and playing for emotional response rather than objectivity.

Oh, I saw the greatest thing the other day on the subway.

I was riding the train through manhattan, saw a poster advertising Fox News.

Smack dab in the middle of the poster, a vandalist activist had slapped down a sticker, in parody font and logo of Fox News. It proclaimed "Fox News: Illuminati Mind Control"

Brilliance!

I don't believe any are.

They all slant the news in whatever way they think will bring the best ratings. Presenting the news used to be seen as a public service obligation in exchange for use of a public resource (the airwaves). It wasn't about winning ratings or market share. When it became a revenue stream it all went to hell. Ultimately it can't even be blamed on the networks. They're just serving up the slop that the public wants to swallow. Fox wouldn't exist if it didn't appeal to a whole lot of people. Maybe another factor is that people used to look to the news to provide them with factual and contextual information in order to form opinions. Now they tune in to memorize opinions already made for them. Why shuck corn when you can get it in a can already slathered in butter and salt?

Weird... I wrote this in reply to a post that I can't find now. I think that's a sign I need to post less and sleep more.

Of course I wasn't in America during the 60's - but I am talking about the here and now - the past 10 years.. I could say that 60 minutes was a fine show ---- right up till when they sold out to big tobacco.... but I couldn't exactly say "60 minutes is a fantastic show today" based on yesteryears performance.

You took a nickle tour and an internship? Bully for you.. I've been watching this go down for quite a number of years, working and socialising with people from all the stations.. I've taken the nickel tour of Fox myself.. and swapped the 'war stories' with just about everyone there is to swap em with.

And no, I don't respect Fox.. because they are simply the worst offender at throwing away any pretence of journalistic integrity.. which is the thrust of my entire statement. As someone who works professionally in T.V. I have only ONE allegience - that is to collect as much money for my skills from the highest bidder in order to put food on the table.. My allegience is to my family and my responsibilities -- that being said -- that Network has such a high disregard for the field I work in, that I am able to overlook that one single allegience and refuse to work for them.

I'm not even a U.S. citizen - so the whole 'liberal' 'conservative' yadda yadda means absolutely NOTHING to me.. You guys can buy guns, stuff em full of pot and pull bong hits from the breach while bathing in oil drums full of stocks, bonds, and bibles for all I care.

The one thing I *do* have some care about is my chosen field, and how far along the line I'll toe before 'enough is too much'.

I showed ways and examples you can see for yourself just by channel surfing, but I don't see you addressing those.. Instead Korg, you take a 'liberal / conservative' tangent - rather than what I'm addressing : A lack of journalistic integrity.

"core values" very interesting - "core values" don't have a place in 'balanced' journalism - which is supposed to be 'objective' not 'subjective'... and although other stations can - and do - assert opinion and corporate slant -- Fox is - by your own statement "more honest to their core values" - which is to say - they are being subjective.

But then again - I could also say :

"So you don't respect (insert other TV station here"? Fine. I don't think they are a wit's different from any other network except maybe in being more honest about their core value. Of course, if you ARE a republican, or see yoruself as a neo-conservative, YMMV."

and get just as far as you did - which isn't that far Korg... not far at all.

But I guess watching Fox you must be used to stating opinion and having it read as fact.

Siggy.

Awww Papi, Ann Coulter is way hawwt in her skimpy black leather gear and den she has a talking action figure doll !!!

Well, rather than turn this into a bash Siggy fest - which would be like shooting ducks on a pond due to the fodder provided in the your inconsistent post - I am going to respond quite concisely...

Your allegiance is to your pay...wait... to your family....so you won't work for Fox? Sounds like "hero" logic to me.

You're not an American citizen so "liberal"/"conservative" labels mean nothing to you? Uh huh. Makes perfect sense to me now.

I state opinions as fact while you can't relate to a reference of an academic study of your industry and how it operates/has operated/developed over the last 40 yeras? Okay.

Then it's just pointless to respond to you further. It's not that you won't understand. You are not equipped to understand.

Why don't you go heroically troll elsewhere?

No Korg, you are unable to make your argument stand up. Instead you spout rhetoric and avoid the various points that have been made.

You asked to be shown how Fox differed from other networks, and rather than say 'oh it's right wing - blah blah blah blah blah' I instead showed how they had a disregard for journalistic integrity. Now you brought up the 'well you're liberal and so is the media' as the whole sum of your retort. So your paper - being about liberal points of media - is actually irrelevant to any of the points I brought up.

Rather than approach the points, you are trying to change them.

I will not work for Fox because they cross well over the line - to a point that I am not comfortable... A point where I couldn't do the job they want - because I don't beleive they are objective. This is saying a lot where reporters/anchors/producers/photographers/editors will shift and change based on salaries, contracts, and benefits... they have very little allegiance to 'the network'. I like to think it's not that you can't see that point, it's that you choose to ignore it (as you did the other points).

And yes - the branding of someone as 'liberal, conservative, neo-con, leftist' as some kind of insult is a very LOCAL phenominon to this country - it's like calling me a cracker -- it's a cultural thing that honestly has no effect on me.

Your opinon is simply that Korg -- your opinions.. you have yet to address even the most basic of points that I brought up.. instead using it as a platform to spout your usual rhetoric.. In leiu of an answer or arugment.. your paper (if it exists) still doesn't even address the questions of journalism brought up (and I notice you didn't back your point on 'core values' either)...

I have addressed your points, now if you'll be so kind as to address mine, if you are able.

Which at this point Korg - I don't think you can.

I think I'm very equipped to understand - enough to see how you're sidestepping, as per usual. Much the way O'Reilly would in fact.

I'll take you're 'not responding' as a concession in light of the inability to address the points..

Siggy.

I want to clarify my position and where I am coming from politically. I am not a Lefty. I feel the left has become as tired, self-satisfied and dogmatic as the Neo-Cons. Back in the 50’s and 60’s the Left was visionary and fearless. Today the left is not getting the job done so please don’t consider me a Lefty.

I consider myself part of an oppositional culture, a growing number of revolutionaries who share an overwhelming rage against consumer capitalism and a sense that the time has come to act as a collective force. I believe that instead of treating vegetative, corporate driven TV culture as something gentle and ironically mocked, it is time to face the bullshit results of a society entranced and entrapped living a lie. It is time to admit that chronic TV watching is North America’s number one mental health problem. I also believe a nation that spends a quarter of its collective waking life in front of a fucking TV set spewing agenda based propaganda is in desperate need of shock therapy.

I do not align myself with a political party but rather with a history of revolutionaries who are willing to take action against the modern challenges that will shape my childrens’ future. I believe the critical issues of our time are neither Left or Right, neither male nor female, neither black nor white. The challenge for myself and the new revolutionary activists is to bring revolutionary consciousness back into the modern world and effect change.

I believe that ordinary people maintain the tools needed for a revolution. The only thing missing is a perceptual shift – a tantalizing glimpse of a new way of being – that suddenly brings everything into focus. And I will assist in bringing about this perceptual shift by all means necessary.

It is time to Rage Against the Machine! IT IS TIME FOR A CULTURE JAM!

-Darko

Damn Darko, you better edit that - you didn't say 'fuck' once

Siggy.

Haha. FUCK FOX AND FUCK THE AMERICAN MEDIA AND THE NEO-CONS LIKE OUR PAL KORG!

Oh and btw I did say fuck. "I also believe a nation that spends a quarter of its collective waking life in front of a fucking TV set spewing agenda based propaganda is in desperate need of shock therapy." I also said bullshit! Haha.

*sips his hot cocoa and watches dutifully*

you said that in response to this" it's just pointless to respond to you further. It's not that you won't understand. You are not equipped to understand."

Actually, I may have stated my view of you/your argument backwards. Sorry.

You seemingly possess the intellect to process the arguments presented. You merely do so in such a skewed and self-centered fashion that it is pointless to continue this. But having time on my hands, I will give it a final shot - lest you feel I am avoiding a response because I am afraid to admit "you won" when this is not a competition.

Your limited experience of a single person working within an industry does not provide THE perspective on your industry nor on Fox itself. I don't claim to have THE perspective either - I simply reject your assessment BECAUSE it comes from a limited perspective, that of your own experience as a worker wihtin the industry.

Believe me or don't - it doesn't really matter... my master's degree work was not designed nor intended to prove anything. I started not actually believing what my conclusion ended up as --- as a matter of fact, I set out to determine if there was a middle of the road bias. As opposed to your limited knowledge (not worthless, just limited perspective from personal interaction), my research involved studying every 10th broadcast of the evening news for a 40-plus year period. That is breadth, not narrowness. Other similar studies have found similar results to mine - using different methods than I chose, coveirng specific netowrks I did not study, and covering specific personalities while I looked across the Big 3 asa whole. Dispute their results and mine if you want. All academics is not just mental masturbation. I don't claim to know more about your industry - I know different things and from a completely different perspective.

My mention of internships was solely to provide a glimpse that I have a small clue, at least, of how two different networks from a perspective related to yours. Obviously, as an intern, that is not the same as that of a network anchor - or yours (whatever job you have) for that matter. However, I wasn't a clueless 18-21 year old doing it for kicks either - so I approached the job and was treated differently than most interns.

All that said, you don't like Fox? So what? My claim is that the "so what, Fox sucks" attitude colors your every interpretation of them and their reporting. It's similar to my reading a "hero" post. I read it with prejudice aforethought - at least the first time.

In this thread, Fox didn't screw up. They reported something fairly accurately. They didn't stray from the facts. You don't want to admit that and you want to go off on a rant against Fox? Fine. You want to read this as a slam on you, that's cool too. Rant onward.

Korg - do you honestly believe that Fox News is fair and has integrity?

I mean, they are pretty commonly held in contempt by many actual journalists and hard news outlets and are a running joke amongst just about everyone I know due to thier sensationalism and slanted views.

Do you believe the Jerry Springer Show provokes deep thought and explores important social issues?

Do you believe that professional wrestling is "real"?

ROFLOL. That was exactly my argument to you in response to your theory about an oldbie clique. Do I get to charge a royalty?

There is a major difference.... I don't claim to have been an oldbie... and I don't claim mine is the only valid opinion.

But if you want a royalty... ask hero for one. He likes to feel good about himself and charity you would probably give him that feeling.

My opininon of Fox has nothing to do with the opinions of other "active journalists" who are in competition with Fox. It is to their benefit to publicly belittle the competition, whatever and whoever that is.

My opinion of Fox, as I said before, is no different than my opinion of any media outlet - it has a bias, all do. Theirs is worn on their sleeves.

Personally, I think Dan Rather was a running joke as "I am not a liberal". The same could be said of Jennings - except that he openly admits his liberalism - and thus that affects his reporting.

Someone mentioned Cronkite earlier.. supposedly because he was unbiased. Even he said he regretshis manner of reporting many of the stories he covered - as jingoistic or overly critical .. with personal bias injected into it.

Reporters/network people are human. Humans have biases.

I think Fox is no better an dno worse than any other network. Sue me if you feel differently.

Yes it is pointless Korg, but not for the reasons you're stating - pointless because I have shown several points to show a lack of journalistic integrity - and you have still done nothing to refute them - you asked to be shown something, and it was shown.

There is no 'winner' but you asked for discussion, and you are unwilling to discuss what is brought up! -- instead you are trying to re-invent it anew...

I have no choice but think 'You won't challenge the very simple points and examples I gave - it must be because you cannot'.

Instead you chose to turn the discussion to points of liberal/conservative bias - but alas, that's not what I brought up - and so I'm not going to follow that..



Ah I see, whereas your experience of NOT working in the industry makes you a most excellent judge... My 'limited perspective' of dealing with matters of journalism every single working day makes me 'too close' to be able to objectively see what is bad journalism?

Please Korg - even for you that is one hell of a stretch! It reads like 'my opinion is obviously right - because it's mine'



For the record - I don't. But that's neither here nor there.

Again - it is a study not on the journalistic integrity of the Fox News Network as it broadcasts today - which has been, from the outset, my point. Fox was, at one time - a decent network... But today it is not. Your paper is still fairly much irrelevant to the points presented (these being examples of a lack of journalistic integrity).



No - I don't like Fox because they (once again - ta da) have very little journalistic integrity -- again -- the point as to why Fox is worse than the other Networks (which I pointed out in an even earlier post - are going down the corportate shitter). The point you asked someone to show.

I have to LIKE Fox News to be able to rationalize that they aren't good? come on... This, like the above, is one of the most boneheaded arguments I've read in weeks.

And it's not even hard to see where I'm coming from on this - and your own 'core values' statement even helps support it!

When a *News* station says '120 days until President Bush is Re-Elected!' -- from the main anchor no less - that is at best speculation, commentary, or just downright innacurate.. that's ignoring everything to do with slant or left/right bias.

When a reporter states 'Some people say -- (insert statement)' it is a sidestepping to include commentary or opinion - at it's very best it is heresay..

This is just plain bad journalism.... and I don't need to look over 10 years of broadcasts to see that... it's there, in plain view, nearly every night of the week.



Rant? please Korg, the only one ranting is yourself.
Your statement - the one I replied to - was this (and I quote) :



To wit I showed several ways that Fox, was in fact, worse than other stations. I made sure to show ways other than 'Fox News sucks! , Fox News is the Devil!', 'Fox News is a Neo-Con platfrom' yadda yadda yadda...

That way would have been subjective..

Siggy.