Fox News Channel

[timbaly]

Many leftists and even many democrats claim that this channel is biased and spreads falsehoods to the public. Many of you here seem to hate it more than any other station. Why is that, what makes it the worst? I will also definetely want to see someone give a specific example of when they made a blatantly false statement on the chanel. That claim is made on radio shows and internet boards yet I have never seen any proof. The only quibble I have with the station is the cheer leading commentary of the anchors that you occasionaly see especially during the invasion of Iraq. They sometimes inserted phrases to cheer on the action there, they're supposed to give you the story not tell you their opinions on it.

[Y2A]

It's not that they "lie" really. Because in reality they do not. It's just that the bias of it is unbelivable. Just look at Sean Hannitity new book "Deliver us from evil" and look at the sub-caption that reads "Defeating terrorism, despotism, and liberalism"

http://i22.ebayimg.com/03/i/01/a3/45/fe_1_b.JPG

Imagine comparing liberalism to terrorism and depotism. Blatent bias.

I perfer the BBC, C-Span and PBS programs most of all. Although I do sometimes like CNN aswell.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Study Finds Direct Link Between Misinformation and Public Misconception (http://truthout.org/docs_03/100403F.shtml)

But even scarier than that; i've just seen an interview with an american mercinary on ITV and when asked if he was worried he replied "no, god will protect me."

[El Che]

Ultimately they're all biased and bourgeois (CNN, BBC, et al).

[Y2A]

BBC is publicly funded you imbecile.

[Misodoctakleidist]

It's quite ironic that the state media company (BBC) is the most critical of the government.

[canikickit]

I doubt they've really put forward anything which is deliberatly untrue, it's just the way the present their information.

The fact that they have a US flag constantly waving in the corner, and they had "WAR ON TERRORISM" written across the bottom of the screen almost every time I've seen it demonstrates their bias.

when I wtched it during the war, they showed the war as if the soldiers were heros, without a single view from the Iraqi side. They presented an abandoned truck found in Iraq as conclusive evidence of weapons of mass destruction.

It's good for a laugh.
Sky News is the English version, only it's not half as jingoistic. It is pretty bad though.

I think once I saw on Fox News they had the terror alert warning there too.

[Y2A]

That is because it is autonomous from the government. Unlike the media sources in the former Soviet Union that did have government control.

[El Che]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 09:50 PM
BBC is publicly funded you imbecile.
I'm aware of that dipshit.

[Edward Norton]

All media is biased, both private and gov. owned.

Fox will say what Murdoch wants them to say and the BBC will say what the UK media authorities give them.

At the end of the day, you should find out what is fact and ignore the bias/propaganda/misinformation etc........

[Guest1]

Actually, BBC is very independant because there's dedicated tax money that goes to it. This tax automatically goes to the network, and the government only gets to change it every 10 years or something. That's what keeps it independant.

There is one problem though. Murdoch and other media moguls in the UK are determined to kill the BBC, and they have the ear of the government right now. Why? Well, cause of the whole Dr. Kelly affair, the government now smells blood.

Couldn't have come at a worse time, the review of the tax comes within a year or so.

BBC=Fucked.

[synthesis]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/steinreich8.html

[HankMorgan]

So there I am last fall, driving to the Post Office when I'm listening to ABC News on the radio. The announcer gives the story about the third quarter growth rate in the US economy being at a near record 7.1%. He tells how you have to go back 20 years (to Reagan's first term) to find a faster rate of growth. Cool! Then he follows up with the results of a poll. Instantly my bias detector powers up. According to the results of a poll, ONE third of Americans plan to spend less for Christmas than in previous years.

I think to myself, what are the other TWO thirds planning to do? Why were the poll results expressed in the negative? Why did the story about the poll results follow the fantastic news about the US economy? I know the answers to these questions.

Then I get home and turn on Fox News where I see Mara Liason from NPR participating in a discussion with commentators of all stripes.

What I just wrote is true. I can see with my own eyes, hear with my own ears and make up my own mind. There is no doubt, zero doubt in my mind which network has the fair and balanced reporting. It's Fox News. There is no doubt as to why Fox News has a growing audience.

The BBC? They were reporting no American soldiers in Baghdad when the rest of the world was watching the statute of Saddam fall. Losers.

[synthesis]

According to the results of a poll, ONE third of Americans plan to spend less for Christmas than in previous years.

I think to myself, what are the other TWO thirds planning to do? Why were the poll results expressed in the negative? Why did the story about the poll results follow the fantastic news about the US economy? I know the answers to these questions.

This is the best you can do as evidence for bias?


The BBC? They were reporting no American soldiers in Baghdad when the rest of the world was watching the statute of Saddam fall. Losers.

I seem to recall Fox News claiming no Iraqi civilian casualties months into the war :rolleyes:

[Y2A]

Originally posted by El Che+Apr 15 2004, 10:01 PM--> (El Che @ Apr 15 2004, 10:01 PM)
[email protected] 15 2004, 09:50 PM
BBC is publicly funded you imbecile.
I'm aware of that dipshit. [/b]
No you were not. You just wanted to sound "cool" and "rebellious" and by doing so made an ass of yourself. Maybe if you took Che Guevara's cock out of your mouth for a few seconds and listened to logic instead of making reactions based on emotion, then you might be taken seriously.

[El Che]

Y2A, you obviously have a very tenuous grasp on Marxism if you are anware that we consider the state to be merely a tool of the bourgeoisie. The BBC, too, is merely a tool of the bourgeoisie. It is you that are an ignorante and insulting bastard.

[Hate Is Art]

OK Children, stop the *****ing please, BBC is publicly funded so it therefore doesn't have to show the new Murdoch or other media baron's want shown.

[El Che]

Digital Nirvana I don't know who you are calling a child but you'd best look to your self. I know perfectly well what I am saying. That you can not understand it is not my fault.

[Hiero]

In australia there are 3 news shows that a private (assuming 2 are) and 2 public. The difference i notice is that they depth in topics, like with the recent haiti revolt NBN news onlyreported what was going on but on the other two public stations they went more into the rebels and there cause etc. Same with iraq

Its like the private news shows are meant for people with low attention span.

[El Che]

Y2A misunderstood something I said because of his ignorance, proceded to insult me, and now claims I didn't know the BBC is publicly funded, what a laugh. Please, Y2A, show us some more of your arrogant ignorance.

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 04:19 AM
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/steinreich8.html
Using capitalist sources now? :)

Here in the Netherlands our privately funded news is less biased than our publicly funded.

And you can say a lot about the BBC but it still is one of the most objective sources for your daily news. Fox is certainly not in their league.

[革命者]

Originally posted by Hoppe+Apr 16 2004, 02:19 PM--> (Hoppe @ Apr 16 2004, 02:19 PM)
[email protected] 16 2004, 04:19 AM
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/steinreich8.html
Using capitalist sources now? :)

Here in the Netherlands our privately funded news is less biased than our publicly funded.

And you can say a lot about the BBC but it still is one of the most objective sources for your daily news. Fox is certainly not in their league. [/b]
Since when? :o

* turns on TV *

*sigh* HART VAN NEDERLAND bestaat nog steeds... <_<

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by æ@Apr 16 2004, 02:37 PM
Since when? :o

* turns on TV *

*sigh* HART VAN NEDERLAND bestaat nog steeds... <_<
Tja, RTL4 vs NOS journaal.

[STI]

The CBC (Canada&#39;s government-owned broadcasting corporation) is MUCH less biased than, say, Global news (fucking Aspers). They&#39;re also critical of the government, which basically flies right in the face of the "All government media spew what the government tells them to" statement.

[timbaly]

Just as I suspected nobody has proof of blatant lie telling, yet I hear it quite often, though I don&#39;t remember when i saw someone say that here. I think we can safetly say that all of the media has some sort of slant and bias, on both sides that is.

[synthesis]

Using capitalist sources now?

I don&#39;t know a whole lot about Lew Rockwell, aside from the fact that he&#39;s a libertarian. But it doesn&#39;t necessarily seem to be a capitalist source. For example, he links to the Statesman, which is not a libertarian paper. His site seems to be more opposed to the war on Iraq than it is to government intervention in the economy.

[redstar2000]

Just as I suspected nobody has proof of blatant lie telling...

Timbaly, I think you (and some others here) have sort of missed the point.

The modern bourgeois media does not, for the most part, indulge in the lie direct.

Instead, they take refuge in "their professional news judgment" -- that is, they decide what stories are "worth telling" and what the "angle" on each story they tell should be.

Consider that they (and we) are "flooded" by information daily. They (and we) must "pick and choose". What are they "likely" to choose?

Obviously, any news story that brings capitalism as a system into disrepute will have a much more difficult time making it pass the "deciders" than other kinds of stories.

That&#39;s not to say that some of that stuff doesn&#39;t get reported...but you really have to hunt for it. A really scathing story on corporate corruption might indeed be found on page 37 of the Los Angeles Times...but will probably not be carried by any of the television networks.

But also keep in mind that there are business rivalries among capitalists themselves. A really scandalous story involving Fox News might get "big play" on CNN...or vice versa. Or, it&#39;s also possible that rival networks might not give the scandal "big play"...because they won&#39;t want to bring the whole "infotainment" industry into question.

My strategy: if the bourgeois media report something "bad" about capitalism, it&#39;s probably an understatement of the real situation. If they report something "neutral" or "good", they&#39;ve almost certainly puffed up or spun the information into a "favorable light".

Not owning a dummyvision set, I&#39;ve never had the dubious "pleasure" of seeing Fox News; by all accounts, people at Che-Lives primarily detest it for its grotesque and unashamed cheerleading for U.S. imperialism.

Someone did tell me about Fox&#39;s leading obnoxious asshole Bill O&#39;Reilly though, and his habit of bullying his "guests". Wouldn&#39;t it be great if one of his victims just suddenly sucker-punched the bastard? :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Maynard]

Just as I suspected nobody has proof of blatant lie telling

Did you read DyerMaker&#39;s link ?


Bill O&#39;Reilly is on Fox, correct ?
http://www.fair.org/extra/0205/oh_really.html

"Canada can&#39;t help us anyway. They have no military to speak of. And the socialistic system they have there has nearly bankrupted them. So Chretien is history. A new administration is upcoming. We should be trying to work things out with Canada." Bill O&#39;Reilly

"Finance Minister John Manley announced that Canada&#39;s budget surplus for the fiscal year 2002-2003 was a whopping &#036;7 billion. The entire amount, he said, will go toward paying down the national debt – keeping it to a projected &#036;510.6 billion by the end of the fiscal year. A noble decision, indeed.

On the other hand, this is Canada&#39;s sixth straight budget surplus, and debt payments aren&#39;t the most exciting way to spend &#036;7 billion. The CBC&#39;s Justin Thompson did some window-shopping to see what else Manley could blow the money on.
"

http://www.denmarkemb.org/oreilly.html

Another lie from him, no attempt at claryfying his remarks.

http://www.netfeed.com/~jhill/RupertMurdoch.htm is another you can look at


"I think what&#39;s going on is the Democratic lawyers have flooded Florida. They are afriad of George W. Bush becoming president and instituting tort reform and their gravy train will be over. This is the trial association&#39;s full court press to make sure Bush does not win."
--Fox News Channel anchor John Gibson (12/9/00)

I would see that as a lie. A comment that I don&#39;t think should be made by an anchor.

However, the news does not present as far as I know, too many outrageous lies, that is not really what is being complained about. It&#39;s the level ofbias in the show, which is undoubtably true. Stuff like this

"Former CBS producer Don Dahler resigned from Fox after executive John Moody ordered him to change a story to play down statistics showing a lack of social progress among blacks" Is to me, just as bad as lying, they delibratly pick out and report what suits the stations political views and then claim to be "Fair and Balanced". So, the claim that they are Fair and Balanced, is a lie within itself.



Someone did tell me about Fox&#39;s leading obnoxious asshole Bill O&#39;Reilly though, and his habit of bullying his "guests". http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/entertainers/pundits/bill-oreilly/. You can see a transcript of one of his interviews with someone who lost his father on Septermber 11. It&#39;s hilarious :)

[Misodoctakleidist]

This video (http://blugg.com/stuff/foxs_view_of_the_bbc_player.htm) is all i&#39;ve even seen of fox news, thankfully, i find it amusing the way he claims the BBC lied when actually that&#39;s a complete lie.

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 01:38 AM
I don&#39;t know a whole lot about Lew Rockwell, aside from the fact that he&#39;s a libertarian. But it doesn&#39;t necessarily seem to be a capitalist source. For example, he links to the Statesman, which is not a libertarian paper. His site seems to be more opposed to the war on Iraq than it is to government intervention in the economy.
He&#39;s founder and president of the Mises Institute so that should tell you something. :)

[timbaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 01:27 AM

Just as I suspected nobody has proof of blatant lie telling

Did you read DyerMaker&#39;s link ?


Bill O&#39;Reilly is on Fox, correct ?
http://www.fair.org/extra/0205/oh_really.html

"Canada can&#39;t help us anyway. They have no military to speak of. And the socialistic system they have there has nearly bankrupted them. So Chretien is history. A new administration is upcoming. We should be trying to work things out with Canada." Bill O&#39;Reilly

"Finance Minister John Manley announced that Canada&#39;s budget surplus for the fiscal year 2002-2003 was a whopping &#036;7 billion. The entire amount, he said, will go toward paying down the national debt – keeping it to a projected &#036;510.6 billion by the end of the fiscal year. A noble decision, indeed.

On the other hand, this is Canada&#39;s sixth straight budget surplus, and debt payments aren&#39;t the most exciting way to spend &#036;7 billion. The CBC&#39;s Justin Thompson did some window-shopping to see what else Manley could blow the money on.
"
From what I read in DyerMakers link there was alot of speculation, there was not a blatant lie told from what i read, although I did not read it all. Sure they are grossly misleading speculations but not blatantly false like i&#39;ve heard many claim.

I&#39;m also pretty sure some of O&#39;Reilly&#39;s quotes were taken out of context, the ones you posted seem like jokes to me. The first one however sounds like something O&#39;Reilly truly believes.

[timbaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 10:48 PM

Just as I suspected nobody has proof of blatant lie telling...

Timbaly, I think you (and some others here) have sort of missed the point.

The modern bourgeois media does not, for the most part, indulge in the lie direct.

Instead, they take refuge in "their professional news judgment" -- that is, they decide what stories are "worth telling" and what the "angle" on each story they tell should be.

Consider that they (and we) are "flooded" by information daily. They (and we) must "pick and choose". What are they "likely" to choose?

Obviously, any news story that brings capitalism as a system into disrepute will have a much more difficult time making it pass the "deciders" than other kinds of stories.

That&#39;s not to say that some of that stuff doesn&#39;t get reported...but you really have to hunt for it. A really scathing story on corporate corruption might indeed be found on page 37 of the Los Angeles Times...but will probably not be carried by any of the television networks.

But also keep in mind that there are business rivalries among capitalists themselves. A really scandalous story involving Fox News might get "big play" on CNN...or vice versa. Or, it&#39;s also possible that rival networks might not give the scandal "big play"...because they won&#39;t want to bring the whole "infotainment" industry into question.

My strategy: if the bourgeois media report something "bad" about capitalism, it&#39;s probably an understatement of the real situation. If they report something "neutral" or "good", they&#39;ve almost certainly puffed up or spun the information into a "favorable light".

Not owning a dummyvision set, I&#39;ve never had the dubious "pleasure" of seeing Fox News; by all accounts, people at Che-Lives primarily detest it for its grotesque and unashamed cheerleading for U.S. imperialism.

Someone did tell me about Fox&#39;s leading obnoxious asshole Bill O&#39;Reilly though, and his habit of bullying his "guests". Wouldn&#39;t it be great if one of his victims just suddenly sucker-punched the bastard? :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas
I&#39;m well aware of this Redstar I just wanted to see if anyone would be able to show an example of direct lie telling, since so many people on liberal and communist websites and communities claim.

[Y2A]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 05:32 AM
The CBC (Canada&#39;s government-owned broadcasting corporation) is MUCH less biased than, say, Global news (fucking Aspers). They&#39;re also critical of the government, which basically flies right in the face of the "All government media spew what the government tells them to" statement.
The CBC is made in the same format that the BBC is made in. It is autonomous from government control it only gets funded by public taxes. When people denounce state-owned media they are most likely talking about media inwhich the state has direct control over the media source.

[DaCuBaN]

I just wanted to see if anyone would be able to show an example of direct lie telling, since so many people on liberal and communist websites and communities claim.

I&#39;m sure there are examples out there - the BBC recently had to apologise to the UK government if you remember...


The Hutton Report criticised BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan and his superiors over a radio report which alleged that an intelligence dossier on Iraq&#39;s weapons programme had been &#39;sexed up&#39;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/hutton/story/0,1...1133397,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/hutton/story/0,13822,1133397,00.html)
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?p...30-1-2004_pg4_1 (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_30-1-2004_pg4_1)
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/...l?from=storyrhs (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/30/1075340841764.html?from=storyrhs)
http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0129/bbc.html

now, whether you believe the dossier was &#39;sexed up&#39; as it was put is up to you, but that is a news organisation - a highly respected one - apologising unreservedly for reporting unfounded allegations.

I&#39;m sure there are PLENTY of other examples out there too :)

[Osman Ghazi]

Well just this year there was that journalist at the NY Times being fired for making up like 50 of his 75 stories. It took them forever to figure that out, do you think that they really know who is lying and who isn&#39;t?