I find this a very interesting case because of the unusual nature of the recent controversy.
Obama's must be the most "liberal" in decades, if not ever, in the White House. Support of freedom of speech is supposedly a hallmark of "liberalism".
Conservatives have always used this to bludgeon liberals. Is Fox different?
One only has to look at the structure of Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation and it's haven in Delaware General Corporation Law of Biden's home state to begin to see the irony.
Full Version: The White House "attack" on Fox
Yeah part of the reason I didn't follow the Dodgers for a time was becuz Murdoch owned them. Once he sold them I started watching their games again.
It's amazing what short memories people can have...Bush didn't do MSNBC for the last several years of his term. And I've heard WAY more negative comments about Obama on MSNBC (supposedly Obama's personal salad tosser if you believe FOX) than positive or even neutral comments on FOX. Their claim to be fair and balanced is laughably ludicrious.
Why would anyone watch any of that tripe? None of it is news, and I'm not just talking about Faux News. It's all become so formulated, so predictable. Network news isn't much better, and don't even get me started on the local news here in Chicago. The mistakes I see on a regular basis shock me for a market the size of Chicago. There should, however, be a warm corner in hell for those at Fox, et al, who only hope to divide a nation just in order to garner a few rating shares. I have said it before and I will say it again, the damage they are doing to the American psyche is becoming irreversible. That warm corner is non-partisian, by the way.
My reference to Murdoch though is the distinction I am making between Fox and other networks. The man seems clever enough that he could make lots of money at other things. I noticed Rachel Maddow draws a different conclusion about the distinction. One based on professional differences, as I expect she would.
But most networks avoid supporting or producing the bitterness - very personal attacks - common on Fox.
To me Murdoch seems particularly frightened of Obama.
Perhaps Murdoch suspects that Obama really will begin to require that the "free market" actually have competition. No capitalist really likes competition no matter what they tell you.
But good capitalists seek to improve their own product.
Bad ones simply seek to destroy the competition. Others like a nice
mix.
In the former consumers gain, as the theory goes. We are seeing what happens in the latter. And a twist:
Financiers are even now finding ways around regulations that have not even passed and may yet not pass. Just the other day I noticed an investor on Bloomberg smugly boasting about about the growth of ETFs?
But most networks avoid supporting or producing the bitterness - very personal attacks - common on Fox.
To me Murdoch seems particularly frightened of Obama.
Perhaps Murdoch suspects that Obama really will begin to require that the "free market" actually have competition. No capitalist really likes competition no matter what they tell you.
But good capitalists seek to improve their own product.
Bad ones simply seek to destroy the competition. Others like a nice
mix.In the former consumers gain, as the theory goes. We are seeing what happens in the latter. And a twist:
Financiers are even now finding ways around regulations that have not even passed and may yet not pass. Just the other day I noticed an investor on Bloomberg smugly boasting about about the growth of ETFs?
Much as I loathe Fox News and its ludicrous claim to be "fair and balanced", in some ways I think that by making its agenda so transparent, Fox is less dangerous than media that hide behind the sham of objective journalism. Even if journalists restricted themselves to factual information, there is bias in which facts are presented. A tremendous amount of bias can be concealed in the selection of which facts that are considered newsworthy.
They can't restrict themselves to facts. Not only would it be boring, as Marilynne Robinson observes in the novel, Housekeeping: "Fact explains nothing. On the contrary, it is fact that requires explanation." The standard way journalists have found to interpret the news is to interview somebody with an opposing opinion so they have "presented both sides"--as if there were only two possible views. And very often, there's a preference for extreme views or people who provide good sound bites over thoughtful analysis. There was actually a study that found that the most popular political analysts (based on numbers of television appearances etc.) were less likely than average to be good predictors of future events. They attributed this to journalists had a preferring analysts with strong ideological convictions who saw issues in very stark black and white terms.
I say, let the true colors of the journalists show. In the early days of newspapers, they were not shy about expressing their viewpoints. The daily newspaper (once independent, sadly no more) in my home town is called the Whig Standard--indicating their party affiliation in the title. Let's have media that let us know what they're pushing right up front. The wise will recognize that they need to go to multiple sources to get a "fair and balanced" view--but that's already true, whatever Fox claims.
They can't restrict themselves to facts. Not only would it be boring, as Marilynne Robinson observes in the novel, Housekeeping: "Fact explains nothing. On the contrary, it is fact that requires explanation." The standard way journalists have found to interpret the news is to interview somebody with an opposing opinion so they have "presented both sides"--as if there were only two possible views. And very often, there's a preference for extreme views or people who provide good sound bites over thoughtful analysis. There was actually a study that found that the most popular political analysts (based on numbers of television appearances etc.) were less likely than average to be good predictors of future events. They attributed this to journalists had a preferring analysts with strong ideological convictions who saw issues in very stark black and white terms.
I say, let the true colors of the journalists show. In the early days of newspapers, they were not shy about expressing their viewpoints. The daily newspaper (once independent, sadly no more) in my home town is called the Whig Standard--indicating their party affiliation in the title. Let's have media that let us know what they're pushing right up front. The wise will recognize that they need to go to multiple sources to get a "fair and balanced" view--but that's already true, whatever Fox claims.
When Faux News first became available in Canada it was free for about a year with the cable I had. I used to laugh watching it with just how wildly biased it was. But I refused to put any money in their pockets when my cable started to charge for it. So my exposure to Fox News the last couple of years has largely been clips of outlandish items on it shown on Jon Stewart's The Daily Show.
Last weekend on the way home from a conference out in Calgary on West Jet one of the seat back TV channels was Fox News so I watched it for a couple of hours on my flight home. It clearly hadn't changed as I laughed almost the entire flight with how biased the coverage was on almost every story, be it on the 'news' or one of their opinion shows.
I wonder if I had been watching Fox when the Balloon Boy story first happened if Fox would have blamed Obama and winds from the left at the time. I do pause and shudder a bit though when you realize millions of Americans actually do consider them to actually be 'fair and balanced'.
We have various media up here that lean a little left or a little right - but nothing in the mainstream as slanted as Fox.
Last weekend on the way home from a conference out in Calgary on West Jet one of the seat back TV channels was Fox News so I watched it for a couple of hours on my flight home. It clearly hadn't changed as I laughed almost the entire flight with how biased the coverage was on almost every story, be it on the 'news' or one of their opinion shows.
I wonder if I had been watching Fox when the Balloon Boy story first happened if Fox would have blamed Obama and winds from the left at the time. I do pause and shudder a bit though when you realize millions of Americans actually do consider them to actually be 'fair and balanced'.
We have various media up here that lean a little left or a little right - but nothing in the mainstream as slanted as Fox.
Well this "news" is certainly appropriate for this thread. 
My reference to Murdoch though is the distinction I am making between Fox and other networks. The man seems clever enough that he could make lots of money at other things.
But he's still a right-wing hypocrite. That's why I REFUSE to give my money/support to such an EVIDENT extremist--or to any of his business adventures.
QUOTE(sportinlife @ Oct 24 2009, 07:20 AM) 
My reference to Murdoch though is the distinction I am making between Fox and other networks. The man seems clever enough that he could make lots of money at other things.
But he's still a right-wing hypocrite. That's why I REFUSE to give my money/support to such an EVIDENT extremist--or to any of his business adventures.
Very impressive link SCT. And even more impressive journalistic self-investigation on the part of the authors - something you will not likely see in the MSM which is more concerned with pop-culture like runaway balloons with no kid in them. The parts that most impressed me were the last three about tax havens. I'll quote the first here:
QUOTE
MURDOCH THE CORPORATE TAX EVADER: The BBC reported that "Mr. Murdoch's die-hard loyalty to the tax loophole has drawn wide criticism" after a report found that in the four years prior to June 30, 1998, "Murdoch's News Corporation and its subsidiaries paid only $325 million in corporate taxes worldwide. That translates as 6% of the $5.4 billion consolidated pre-tax profits for the same period…By comparison another multi-national media empire, Disney, paid 31%. The corporate tax rates for the three main countries in which News Corp. operates - Australia, the United States and the UK - are 36%, 35% and 30% respectively. Further research reveals that Mr. Murdoch's main British holding company, News Corp. Investments, has paid no net corporation tax within these shores over the past 11 years. This is despite accumulated pre-tax profits of nearly $3 billion."
The legal tax rate of 35% quoted for the US is probably rarely applied to Fox, other MSM or most international corporations, thanks to some of the best international accountants/lawyers in the business, and influence over politicians through perverting media coverage of the issue (that's totally leaving aside donations to campaigns). And from the final line in the last sectionQUOTE
IRS officials point out that "U.S.-based companies face U.S. taxes on their offshore subsidiaries in the Caymans and elsewhere if more than 50 percent of the subsidiary is controlled by American shareholders. But that doesn't apply to News Corp., an Australian company."
it is obviouse how Murdoch manipulates both our biggest economic lender/competitor (China) and our staunchest ally (Australia) to his financial benefit. Nothing makes it more clear why financial reform is a 'pressing' need.
QUOTE(JC @ Oct 24 2009, 07:55 AM)
Much as I loathe Fox News and its ludicrous claim to be "fair and balanced", in some ways I think that by making its agenda so transparent, Fox is less dangerous than media that hide behind the sham of objective journalism. Even if journalists restricted themselves to factual information, there is bias in which facts are presented. A tremendous amount of bias can be concealed in the selection of which facts that are considered newsworthy.
They can't restrict themselves to facts. Not only would it be boring, as Marilynne Robinson observes in the novel, Housekeeping: "Fact explains nothing. On the contrary, it is fact that requires explanation." The standard way journalists have found to interpret the news is to interview somebody with an opposing opinion so they have "presented both sides"--as if there were only two possible views. And very often, there's a preference for extreme views or people who provide good sound bites over thoughtful analysis. There was actually a study that found that the most popular political analysts (based on numbers of television appearances etc.) were less likely than average to be good predictors of future events. They attributed this to journalists had a preferring analysts with strong ideological convictions who saw issues in very stark black and white terms.
I say, let the true colors of the journalists show. In the early days of newspapers, they were not shy about expressing their viewpoints. The daily newspaper (once independent, sadly no more) in my home town is called the Whig Standard--indicating their party affiliation in the title. Let's have media that let us know what they're pushing right up front. The wise will recognize that they need to go to multiple sources to get a "fair and balanced" view--but that's already true, whatever Fox claims.
We seem to be living in a society where a significant number of people take what they hear as "fact" or "truth", especially if it's repeated over and over. The whole "death panel" kerfuffle is a great example of that.....absolutely no evidence that it was even possible, but because someone who had a national stage said it many journalists were afraid to say it was bs. And then you get the "opposing view" interview which just gives it more credence as now someone of some import is weighing in on it, etc..... The Birthers are another group that's been given more time and space than their absurd contention deserves. And I hear my conservative friends "wondering" if there's something to these things since they're on Faux and Rush, and Beck, etc...
On CNN's Campbell Brown's interview of White House Advisor Valerie Jarrett:
Jarrett missed an opportunity.
But Brown missed the point.
The issue is not "bias" but "facts". A "news" talk show can express a bias but it should not distort or ignore facts.
Jarrett and the Obama administration should cite third-party sources that have published fact-checking studies concerning information used by any medium to support its alleged biases.
Jarrett may have done a disservice to her employer by not distinguishing facts from opinions, but Brown did a disservice to her profession.
In the mix-up Fox got off free.
I understand the desire of some in the media to come to the defense of its own, but not at the expense truth?
Jarrett missed an opportunity.
But Brown missed the point.
The issue is not "bias" but "facts". A "news" talk show can express a bias but it should not distort or ignore facts.
Jarrett and the Obama administration should cite third-party sources that have published fact-checking studies concerning information used by any medium to support its alleged biases.
Jarrett may have done a disservice to her employer by not distinguishing facts from opinions, but Brown did a disservice to her profession.
In the mix-up Fox got off free.
I understand the desire of some in the media to come to the defense of its own, but not at the expense truth?
So Faux News truly is just that.
Gawd I love it. The hypocrisy of that station. & to think that their tactics are right of the playbook of a communist regime. Imagine the shudder by conservatives @ such a thought. But it is what it is.
One has to question how many other doctored videos/coverage they have had over the years. Being caught twice in one week is not an error, sorry! It is discovering the truth about that joke of a newstation.
Gawd I love it. The hypocrisy of that station. & to think that their tactics are right of the playbook of a communist regime. Imagine the shudder by conservatives @ such a thought. But it is what it is.
One has to question how many other doctored videos/coverage they have had over the years. Being caught twice in one week is not an error, sorry! It is discovering the truth about that joke of a newstation.
They will say, do, anything...to trump up their news stories.
Don't misunderestimate the power of simple incompetence. They may simply be very poor journalists enthusiastic to make a point. It can happen to the best. Remember http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy]url=Dan Rather's errors about George W. Bush's service record[/url] and how it affected his career.
The difference is that Fox propagandists don't get forced out of their jobs.
The difference is that Fox propagandists don't get forced out of their jobs.
QUOTE(sportinlife @ Nov 19 2009, 05:07 PM)
Don't misunderestimate the power of simple incompetence. They may simply be very poor journalists enthusiastic to make a point.
Yes, I am biased about Faux News but you're talking about apples & oranges when it comes to authenticating documents versus intentionally doctoring video footage to make it appear what it truly isn't. The former can innocently happen to any news station the latter is intentional & certainly not innocent. I don't buy Faux News' explanation that it was incompetence when it comes to the 2 video footages.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.