Before Fox News

[Jason]

Before Fox news there was a liberal (liberal not communist) control of all 3 major tv networks and most newspapers. Wouldn't a lot of the American public have a right to be angry about this (since liberalism has obviously failed)?

Of course, Fox news may not have the solution, but it is honestly exposing the problem, mainly the failure of public schools, welfare state etc..

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Before Fox news there was a liberal (liberal not communist) control of all 3 major tv networks and most newspapers.

Was there? Really? I doubt it, actually.

[Os Cangaceiros]

All three? What three were those?

I know the three who control everything now: Time Warner, Viacom and News Corp. News Corp. entered into the American market fairly recently, though.

The thing about cable news is that it's really become it's own thing when compared to standard network news of days old. That's really where the divide is, I think: cable news vs network news, not Fox News vs "the liberal media". You can watch MSNBC or CNN and it's pretty much the same ratings war format that Fox has, with flashy graphics and NEWS AS IT HAPPENS! and all the rest of the b.s. Maybe a slightly different political bent but most of that shit is superficial IMO...you'll remember that all the networks were vigorously cheering on the 2003 Iraq War when the invasion first began.

[Jason]

http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/198901--.htm



In their propaganda model, Herman and Chomsky present a series of five "filters" to account for why the dominant U.S. media invariably serve as propagandists for the interests of the elite. Only stories with a strong orientation to elite interests can pass through the five filters unobstructed and receive ample media attention. The model also explains how the media can conscientiously function when even a superficial analysis ofthe evidence would indicate the preposterous nature of many of the stories that receive ample publicity in the press and on the network news broadcasts.


On Iraq and Vietnam



Almost one-half of Manufacturing Consent, chapters five and six, is dedicated to applying the propaganda model to news coverage of the Vietnam war and the developments in Laos and Cambodia since the late 1960s. These chapters are of particular importance, because they take dead aim on the current, almost universally accepted thesis that the media were opposed to the war and responsible for turning the public against it. To the contrary, the media continued to present the war in a manner consistent with elite interests until the very end, as the propaganda model would anticipate. As for Cambodia, it provides a striking example of how the propaganda model operates; the U.S. destruction of the countryside and civil society prior to 1975 was scarcely acknowledged by the media, while the later atrocities under the Khmer Rouge were the basis of extraordinary outrage with minimal concern for accuracy.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

In my country the news chanels were public (state-owned), but now the troika wants the government to privatise them.

[Red Banana]

Of course, Fox news may not have the solution, but it is honestly exposing the problem, mainly the failure of public schools, welfare state etc..

Blaming teachers unions for all the ills of the public school system doesn't count as "exposing their failure". They just omit propaganda telling parents to send their kids to private schools and turn existing public schools into charter schools, among other things.

And don't be fooled for a second that Fox (or any other bourgeois propaganda outlet) is against the welfare state. They love corporate welfare. Welfare is only bad to them when poor people (read: those who actually need it) get it.

[piet11111]

Fox news may not have the solution, but it is honestly exposing the problem

Are you honestly saying that Fox is fair and unbiased ?

Even right wing bigots here are appalled by the standards of "journalism" by Fox.

[Jason]

Are you honestly saying that Fox is fair and unbiased ?

Even right wing bigots here are appalled by the standards of "journalism" by Fox.

They're not. It's tilted toward the right, obviously. But at least they are admitting that the liberal agenda doesn't work, though they offer bad alternatives.

Look at it this way, if Bill Maher can abuse his hosts on a liberal show, then isn't it only fair that Sean Hannity can viscously attack liberal guests? But that's no concern to me, as I'm not taking sides.


Blaming teachers unions for all the ills of the public school system doesn't count as "exposing their failure". They just omit propaganda telling parents to send their kids to private schools and turn existing public schools into charter schools, among other things.

And don't be fooled for a second that Fox (or any other bourgeois propaganda outlet) is against the welfare state. They love corporate welfare. Welfare is only bad to them when poor people (read: those who actually need it) get it.

Are you so sure? They did mention they were against the GM bailout. How would you define corporate welfare? Is it direct money payments given to them or just "not taxing the wealthy"?

If you say "Teacher unions can salvage one part of the capitalist system", then isn't that saying that capitalism can work under certain conditions? Why not dismantle the whole failed education system and build a revolutionary society?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Fox News viewers are less informed than those who watch other programmes, or no TV news at all, research has found. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9288158/Fox-News-viewers-worst-informed-study-finds.html)

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Before Fox news there was a liberal (liberal not communist) control of all 3 major tv networks and most newspapers. Wouldn't a lot of the American public have a right to be angry about this (since liberalism has obviously failed)?

You talk as if capitalism is meant to be fair and that, as a result, when it isn't fair, people have a "right" to be angry. This isn't the case. Capitalism, like propaganda, which is what bourgeois news is, was never meant to be fair. Aside from the fact that the American public never tried to rest control of the media to their own ends (how can they be angry when they never tried to offer an alternative?) how, or why, would they be angry when liberalism and conservatism are two sides of the same coin? They have a right to be angry that there is only bourgeois news to be held, not that there is only one particular flavor of bourgeois news.

[piet11111]

Tilted towards the right ?

How fucked up must your politics be to consider Fox just a bit right of center :laugh:

[Sheepy]

Of course, Fox news may not have the solution, but it is honestly exposing the problem, mainly the failure of public schools, welfare state etc..

Do you really need a liberal conservative propaganda channel to point out that the rest of U.S media is liberal conservative? What logic is this?

[Jason]

Ok maybe not tilted. It's very far to the right.



(http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9288158/Fox-News-viewers-worst-informed-study-finds.html)
Fox News viewers are less informed than those who watch other programmes, or no TV news at all, research has found. (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9288158/Fox-News-viewers-worst-informed-study-finds.html)
(http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9288158/Fox-News-viewers-worst-informed-study-finds.html)

They want everything white washed. But by doing so they are actually less informed. A thinking mind would listen to public radio, but the Fox News crowd are anti-intellectual.

So I take it that NPR is well informed, but does it provide a balanced commentary?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Ok maybe not tilted. It's very far to the right.



They want everything white washed. But by doing so they are actually less informed. A thinking mind would listen to public radio, but the Fox News crowd are anti-intellectual.

So I take it that NPR is well informed, but does it provide a balanced commentary?

What does it mean to provide "balanced commentary"? What would "balanced commentary" on the issue of slavery look like?

I think the promotion of "balance" ignores the fact that many issues are inherently "unbalanced".

[Red Banana]

Are you so sure? They did mention they were against the GM bailout. How would you define corporate welfare? Is it direct money payments given to them or just "not taxing the wealthy"?

If you say "Teacher unions can salvage one part of the capitalist system", then isn't that saying that capitalism can work under certain conditions? Why not dismantle the whole failed education system and build a revolutionary society?

Nice straw men, I'm impressed. What do you think corporate welfare means? I think it means the state giving assistance to private corporations. You, out of nowhere, suggest it might mean "not taxing the wealthy". If that's what you want to think go right ahead and think it, but don't try to attribute that to me, as I said nothing of the sort.

And where did I say, or even suggest that, "teachers unions can salvage one part of the capitalist system"? I said Fox blames teachers unions for the failure of the public school system, nothing else.

No one is going to take you seriously when your method of debate is to simply fabricate positions and attribute them to your opponent. All one has to do is scroll up the page a little bit to see what I actually said and that it in no way correlates to what you suggested I meant.

Your standards of debate are as low as Fox news'.

[Jason]

What does it mean to provide "balanced commentary"? What would "balanced commentary" on the issue of slavery look like?

I think the promotion of "balance" ignores the fact that many issues are inherently "unbalanced".


In other words, some things are evil and not up for debate. Well, I agree with that. However, many people are not convinced capitalism is on the level of slavery. But then again, in the 1850s, many were not convinced slavery was evil.



Nice straw men, I'm impressed. What do you think corporate welfare means? I think it means the state giving assistance to private corporations. You, out of nowhere, suggest it might mean "not taxing the wealthy". If that's what you want to think go right ahead and think it, but don't try to attribute that to me, as I said nothing of the sort.



Actually the right wing does both: It aids big business, and tries to lower taxes on the wealthy.



And where did I say, or even suggest that, "teachers unions can salvage one part of the capitalist system"? I said Fox blames teachers unions for the failure of the public school system, nothing else.


Well, even from a conservative viewpoint, totally blaming the teachers unions, and not the people or culture is misguided. Ultimately lousy parents don't push kids, but you don't hear that on Fox. Teachers are not super-heroes who can do everything for children.




You talk as if capitalism is meant to be fair and that, as a result, when it isn't fair, people have a "right" to be angry.



Well even the tea party crowd has legitimate grievences, but the right doesn't offer the correct solutions.

[Sea]

Before FoxMight wanna consult genesis on that one.
Before Fox news there was a liberal (liberal not communist) control of all 3 major tv networks and most newspapers. Wouldn't a lot of the American public have a right to be angry about this (since liberalism has obviously failed)?

Of course, Fox news may not have the solution, but it is honestly exploiting the problem, mainly the failure of public schools, welfare state etc..That's better. And it wasn't much of a problem.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Before Fox news there was a liberal (liberal not communist) control of all 3 major tv networks and most newspapers. Wouldn't a lot of the American public have a right to be angry about this (since liberalism has obviously failed)?

Of course, Fox news may not have the solution, but it is honestly exposing the problem, mainly the failure of public schools, welfare state etc..

There are no mainstream liberal news networks. There's a far right one and the others are simply pro establishment aka corporatist. The only liberal network I can think of is Current, and maybe less corporatist are AlJazeera and RussiaToday, all of which are not major.

[Jason]

On the Fox News show "The Five", they said it was wonderful some McDonalds were opening on Christmas day. :D I'm sure that doesn't surprise you guys. :rolleyes:

[Fourth Internationalist]

On the Fox News show "The Five", they said it was wonderful some McDonalds were opening on Christmas day. :D I'm sure that doesn't surprise you guys. :rolleyes:

They also aren't being paid :D

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

On the Fox News show "The Five", they said it was wonderful some McDonalds were opening on Christmas day. :D I'm sure that doesn't surprise you guys. :rolleyes:

Why would fox scoff at McDonald's for increasing their revenue by having their employees work a holiday?

Al Jazeera and Russiatoday are both mouthpieces for the governments in their respective countries of origin.

[p0is0n]

FOX news reports that the goofs at "Westboro Baptist Church" are left-wing, apparently.


Bikers Turn Out to Protect Newtown Mourners from Left-Wing Westboro Cult

http://nation.foxnews.com/connecticut-elementary-school-shooting/2012/12/20/bikers-turn-out-protect-newtown-mourners-westboro-baptist-church#ixzz2G2X0Hisl

Sometimes I am astounded by the fact that FOX News is taken seriously at all by anyone anywhere in any way what so ever.

First, we're communist atheist satan-worshippers who want to destroy America and all its glorious values (incl. the Constitution), and we also hate christians and have infiltrated the school system and removed all christian values from teaching to turn the kids of America into communists. Now, it seems, we're a bunch of christian religious fundamentalists who hate homosexuals and celebrate the death of children.

[Fourth Internationalist]

FOX news reports that the goofs at "Westboro Baptist Church" are left-wing, apparently.



http://nation.foxnews.com/connecticut-elementary-school-shooting/2012/12/20/bikers-turn-out-protect-newtown-mourners-westboro-baptist-church#ixzz2G2X0Hisl

Sometimes I am astounded by the fact that FOX News is taken seriously at all by anyone anywhere in any way what so ever.

First, we're communist atheist satan-worshippers who want to destroy America and all its glorious values (incl. the Constitution), and we also hate christians and have infiltrated the school system and removed all christian values from teaching to turn the kids of America into communists. Now, it seems, we're a bunch of christian religious fundamentalists who hate homosexuals and celebrate the death of children.


After reading this, I wonder how Faux News can be taken serious even by conservatives. Perhaps they're calling him that because he supported civil rights, and they agree on the other issues like gay marriage, religion, etc.?

[piet11111]

First, we're communist atheist satan-worshippers who want to destroy America and all its glorious values (incl. the Constitution), and we also hate christians and have infiltrated the school system and removed all christian values from teaching to turn the kids of America into communists. Now, it seems, we're a bunch of christian religious fundamentalists who hate homosexuals and celebrate the death of children.


Its because we are so devilishly contradictory that makes us so evil.
FOX is clearly onto us.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Before Fox news there was a liberal (liberal not communist) control of all 3 major tv networks and most newspapers. Wouldn't a lot of the American public have a right to be angry about this (since liberalism has obviously failed)?

Of course, Fox news may not have the solution, but it is honestly exposing the problem, mainly the failure of public schools, welfare state etc..

Before FOX news the networks did not present a "liberal" viewpoint as much as they attempted to present a "neutral" viewpoint. So in actuallity, the news media would represent things from either a liberal or conservative view, but within capitalist mainstream parties obviously.

The Regan administration had a very concerted media campaign about "crime hysteria" in order to build support for increasing police power and ramping up a "war on drugs". So the pre-FOX media was a mouthpice for all sorts of mainstream and establishment voices, not just a certain subset.

The idea that the "media is liberal" is right-wing propaganda - most often stemming from right-wing media itself (broadcast regulations changed in the 1980s no longer requiring ideological "balence"). There's a cynical logic to this: trust only us, all other news sources are against your interests. The left and the right in the US mistrust the mainstream press pretty equally, but only the right has a major media infrastructure on radio and TV (until recent years) and so that whole disatisfied segment of the (right) population could now turn elsewhere for information. There's also a political logic to this myth of "liberal media" because without an actual liberal counter to the right, dennouncing media that attempts to present itself as "neutral" as biased in favor of liberals and the Democrats actually means that the mainstream media can be pushed further and further to the politics and agenda of the right.

But media is not neutral regardless, it's kept tied to the ruling class as much as possible directly, but also just in form: in having to raise revenue and being dependant on capitalist advertising or funding. So even where there is some leeway, it's always going to reflect the ruling interests in society. Countering that requires a working class movement that can not be ignored and can use it's organization and power to force their politics into the mainstream "politics". The right can talk about how "unions steal your money" all day long, but if rank and file union struggles were beating back austerity and wage-cuts, then that talk would mostly fall on deaf ears (as far as tons of workers would be concerned).

[Jason]

The Regan administration had a very concerted media campaign about "crime hysteria" in order to build support for increasing police power and ramping up a "war on drugs". So the pre-FOX media was a mouthpice for all sorts of mainstream and establishment voices, not just a certain subset.


It's true that the Fox News and those before have "exploited" the drug culture for political benefit (and that's VERY EVIL). However, are people so weak minded, as to have no ability to resist drugs and other poverty forming habits?

As for the viewers of Fox and people like Reagan, I think a huge gap exists between the watchers and the evil plotters. Probably most conservative viewers were fooled into accepting "The War on Drugs" cause they linked Reagan with Christian values etc..

Looking at this from a revolutionary perspective (which this would make a good seperate thread), at some point people have to develop a "revolutionary mindset". This mindset would cause people to work harder at whatever they do and resist negative influences like drugs. But the people have to make the first move, no matter how crappy the environment. For instance, Lenin and Marx were not lazy men, and if they had become drug users, then couldn't have moved mountains.

Anyhow, the revolutionary mindset is no different than the ambition of the stockbroker, except that it doesn't lead to elitism and exploitation of others.

[Red Banana]

^"Better than Haiti" does not equal "everything available for people to get an adequate education".

The US has one of the worst public school systems in the developed world. The so-called education you get there is misguided and incomplete. I have friends who are high school graduates who can barely spell. If you want to educate yourself, in any meaningful sense of the word, you're largely on your own. US public schools have been reduced to the status of daycares.

In many counties, like the one where I grew up, the funding for each school is determined off of the property tax collected from it's 'jurisdiction' (if that's the right word), which basically means if you live in a poor neighborhood (which are usually more populated), you get an underfunded school and if you live in a rich neighborhood (which are usually less populated), you get an overfunded school.

Beyond that, higher education in this country costs a fortune and is becoming increasingly harder to get into and expensive, which just exaggerates the public school narrative of "those with money get a good education, those without get a bad education" to "those with money get an education, those without get nothing". I remember in Berlin over the summer someone there told me they had to pay a 500 euro fee to go to university. My sister had to pay about $1400 a semester when she went to community college. It's ridiculous.

Anyway, the United States most certainly does not have "everything available to get an adequate education", in fact, the past two administrations have been trying pretty hard to make it impossible to get an adequate education in this country for anyone whose parents aren't billionaires.

Edit: Oh, I see you edited that part about education out. Well then I guess that kind of makes this whole post irrelevant...

[Jason]

The US has one of the worst public school systems in the developed world. The so-called education you get there is misguided and incomplete. I have friends who are high school graduates who can barely spell. If you want to educate yourself, in any meaningful sense of the word, you're largely on your own. US public schools have been reduced to the status of daycares.

You have a point, a lot of people are taking high school algebra in college. But, myself, Iv'e been studying a lot of math lately (on my own), and I'm amazed at how easy algebra is. So if people can't grasp it, then something must be going wrong.

You gotta admit there are lots of tools (especially with math) to learn on your own. But the problem is proving you know the stuff.

[Red Banana]

^Same thing with me and history. The public school system wasn't teaching it to me so I went out and learned it on my own. One hour of reading (for example) A People's History of the United States, is worth more than a week spent in a high school US History class filling in bubble sheets.

I always hated math though, and still do. I can't imagine myself ever making any personal initiative to learn more math, which kind of fetters my understanding of physics, something I'm actually interested in.

[Jason]

^Same thing with me and history. The public school system wasn't teaching it to me so I went out and learned it on my own. One hour of reading (for example) A People's History of the United States, is worth more than a week spent in a high school US History class filling in bubble sheets.

I always hated math though, and still do. I can't imagine myself ever making any personal initiative to learn more math, which kind of fetters my understanding of physics, something I'm actually interested in.

Unfortunately you have to pay your dues in math, to totally understand physics. I don't want to get off topic, but I think people hate math cause thier attitude about it is very poor.