Looks like Fox News contacted Gen. Petraeus, and asked him in no uncertain terms how he wanted the news written. Bob Woodward exposes it, and they kill the messenger. Nice.
quote:Ailes’s craving for the respect and admiration of a military hotshot like Petraeus emerges with Memorex clarity in this recording. For instance, McFarland tells Petraeus that she has a request “directly from [Ailes] to you: First of all, is there anything Fox is doing right or wrong that you want to tell us to do differently.”
Unpacking the depravity in that one is a multi-part process.
posted
Again, and I feel almost silly at this point asking: who *doesn't* know that they operate this way? Who doesn't already know that these people are not journalists? Just like who doesn't know that the Republicans are not actually conservatives? Who?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um, a crap ton of people don't know they work that way. Speaking as a guy who freelances for GIANT OIL COMPANY who's offices always have a TV tuned to Foxs News. You can imagine how much fun it is for me.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Again, and I feel almost silly at this point asking: who *doesn't* know that they operate this way? Who doesn't already know that these people are not journalists? Just like who doesn't know that the Republicans are not actually conservatives? Who?
I can think of a handful of people.
Posts: 6026 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Again, and I feel almost silly at this point asking: who *doesn't* know that they operate this way? Who doesn't already know that these people are not journalists? Just like who doesn't know that the Republicans are not actually conservatives? Who?
I've thought they were corrupt for quite a while, but I'm still a little taken aback to find out that they're this shamelessly and brazenly corrupt.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sort of not. I think it was maybe two years ago, the last time I surfed over to their website and took a look at their homepage that I was actually shocked to find what was there- and how utterly brazen the whole thing had become. I am not shocked by it now.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The funniest thing about the Fox News website is how they have the WORLD tab positioned all the way over in the corner of the page between LIFESTYLE and SPORTS.
Because who wants to read about the rest of the world? Nothing ever happens there.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:the last time I surfed over to their website and took a look at their homepage that I was actually shocked to find what was there
I can relate to this. A few weeks before the election I was like "just for fun, lets see what the fox news wingnuts are saying".
I was bombarded with something like 85% of the visible stories either being anti-Obama or pro-Romney. The rest of the stories were sports/entertainment/etc. I think my jaw literally dropped at the extent that they were so transparent in their agenda.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Their presentations on Benghazi were just beyond the point of absurd parody. It was ridiculous.
Unsurprisingly, fox news viewers still when tested are reliably misinformed and misled. I can't complain too much because I literally HAVE FINANCED MY RETIREMENT off of the stupidity perpetuated by FNC and co but it's so brazen that I am continually amazed that people are that easy to string along
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Intrade? How did you manage that.
IP: Logged |
posted
more on "what fox news does to you, you freaking loons"
quote:The newest survey from Public Policy Polling doesn't augur well for Republicans: "49% of GOP voters nationally say they think that ACORN stole the election for President Obama. We found that 52% of Republicans thought that ACORN stole the 2008 election for Obama, so this is a modest decline, but perhaps smaller than might have been expected given that ACORN doesn't exist anymore."
PPP chose an imperfect way of framing the question:
quote: Do you think that Barack Obama legitimately won the Presidential election this year, or do you think that ACORN stole it for him?
Obama legitimately won
ACORN stole it for him
Not sure
What about people who thought that Obama stole the election through means other than ACORN? Answering "ACORN stole it for him" seems like the best fit for them among the options given. But even under that more charitable interpretation, nearly half of Republicans think Obama stole the election in some way or other -- this despite the fact that the results are in keeping with the findings of most reputable pollsters, that unlike in 2000 no state is in dispute, and that Obama won with so many electoral votes that you could flip Florida and he'd still be president.
The PPP survey also found that "some GOP voters are so unhappy with the outcome that they no longer care to be a part of the United States. 25% of Republicans say they would like their state to secede from the union compared to 56% who want to stay and 19% who aren't sure."
Do all these Republicans really think that ACORN stole the election? Do they really want their state to secede from the union? Given the depth of misinformation spread in some corners of the conservative media, I've no doubt that seemingly lunatic beliefs are genuinely held by some of the respondents. But my guess is that most respondents who gave these answers were less worried about the specific questions than signaling that, in general, they judge the outcome of Election 2012 to be illegitimate, perhaps in ways they themselves haven't articulated.
quote:the last time I surfed over to their website and took a look at their homepage that I was actually shocked to find what was there
I can relate to this. A few weeks before the election I was like "just for fun, lets see what the fox news wingnuts are saying".
I was bombarded with something like 85% of the visible stories either being anti-Obama or pro-Romney. The rest of the stories were sports/entertainment/etc. I think my jaw literally dropped at the extent that they were so transparent in their agenda.
You don't watch much MSNBC do you?
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geraine, Can you explain that comment in a way that wouldn't make you ashamed if your 10 year old child tried to use the same logic?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Nope. I don't watch much TV at all, actually. When I do its usually a show I have DVRed and not any sort of news channel. I mostly get my news from CNN.com and other sites.
I've only been to msnbc.com a few times. Going there now, it doesn't look all that partisan to me. I wouldn't claim to be an unbiased evaluator of such things, however.
Comparing with foxnews.com. Actual headline: "POWER PLAY: Obama to Republicans: Don't You Dare Give Me What I Asked For"
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: You don't watch much MSNBC do you?
Hi I did, I compared it directly to other media and fox news because I greatly suspected (and pretty much think it is showable) that they were beginning to essentially adapt the fox news channel's model of being ideologically targeted news.
Cutting off the Geraine argument at the fore (see, liberals do it too / the other side is just as bad) MSNBC is just making its little itsy bitsy steps into the world of baldly partisan newschanneldom. It is not even remotely near what Fox News has become, a cocoon of absolute misinformation and corrupt collusion with Republican interests. There is nothing going on in MSNBC that acts as an analogue to FNC's severe blitznuttery on Benghazi. MSNBC heads are not getting caught asking people how they would like to have the news fixed for them. Most importantly, when polled and studied, MSNBC viewers are not consistently filled with misinformation and outright false information. MSNBC is not in the position that FNC is in, wherein FNC is "news" that literally leaves people less accurately informed than control groups that eschew watching or reading news in general.
MSNBC clearly leans one direction, but will bring on alternative viewpoints and can admit to being wrong when it happens.
FOX clearly operates as the publicity arm of the GOP and will invent news, which they then broadcast 24/7 until it becomes news.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If a Democratic representative is in a scandal MSNBC will display their photo on the air, but forget to mention which party they belongs to.
If a Republican representative is in a scandal FOX News will display their photo but mistakenly proclaim them to be Democrats.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think all of the comparisons between Fox and other channels miss the point. For me, regardless of what the other people are doing, what Fox is doing is immoral, irresponsible, and shameful. I don't see how you can try to defend them, especially when your defense "But look what other people do." wouldn't fly if a 10 year old tried to excuse their poor behavior that way, and not be ashamed and embarrassed by doing so.
They do very bad things. Your defense even acknowledges that they do bad things. The correct, adult thing to do in this situation is to explicitly acknowledge it and react appropriately, i.e. identify it as shameful, stop relying on it, and try to convince other conservatives that they should abandon it for more accurate, non-shameful sources. That you fail to do this, especially while using immature defenses, both betrays the actual valid parts of conservative ideology and confirms the worst that your opponents think of you.
Character matters. Integrity and honesty matter. Fox News stands in opposition to this. It is not a channel for adults. If you think these things matter, I suggest you think long and hard about why you are defending them.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good news for Fox News. Study concluding that self identified conservatives who watched Fox News had lower IQs, apparently was pretty shoddy research.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I remember when I first had that study described to me, to which my response was "who the hell would seriously make the argument that fox news has a causative relationship with low IQ"
fortunately (A) this was not the claim being made by the study anyway and (B) the study was pure BS, soooo
quote:"It's making a social commentary," suggests Nichols about the lightning spread of this flimsy excuse of a press release. "Facts are obsolete. And numbers aren't as objective as they should be."
said Nichols, before derp de teedly tee-woobying all the terp ta toodly too off back to the land of people who are as horrible as him
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Good news for Fox News. Study concluding that self identified conservatives who watched Fox News had lower IQs, apparently was pretty shoddy research.
But that was posted on HuffPost. Certainly we can't trust that liberal rag, can we?
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're right. The truth must be that those who watch Fox News are actually smarter than their non-watcher conservative brothers, and sisters!
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Count me among those that thought that Fox was actually more than a mouthpiece. I cannot believe that something can be so transparent and still exist.
I bet things would go better if mainstream journalism in North America (for I include Canada in this hilarious carnival of awfulness) was better.
Canada's online news seems to be primarily editorial. So, the main news article on a certain topic is actually one that should be under an editorial heading. There's no article that just says what happened in no uncertain terms. Yeah, that kind of article is sparse and unexciting, but accurate.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
a large portion of american media fell into a trap of substituting "a balanced viewpoint" for journalistic objectivity, in order to avoid being called out as partisan and the end result of it was that it more or less became convenient towards the bending of truth against being convenient towards the representation and broadcast of facts. Some say it means that the news thus failed at an 'obligation' or a 'duty' but to be honest it really was neither an obligation or a duty. A newsmedia corporation has no real obligation to do anything other than get money, so
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:A newsmedia corporation has no real obligation to do anything other than get money, so
That's why the BBC actually works, then... and to a very minor and failing extent the CBC as well. They *do* have an obligation to tell the news as it is.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually I wonder if there is a case for fraud here.
Murdoch and Fox News has a final argument about their bias. It is, "We are a company. Our only obligation is to make a profit for our stock-holders."
Lets take this out of the media range and say the Fox was selling--foxes. The advertise live and breathing foxes. Now suppose you order the foxes and find out that they arrive at your door dead and stuffed, or that they are Great Danes in little fox costumes. This Fox company would be closed down for misrepresentation and fraud.
But, its not fraud because no money or property is lost by the person watching Fox News. Their real clients are the advertisers, not the viewers. You can not sue for damages because there was nothing damaged.
However, since they advertise a service and do not provide it--"Fair and Balanced News" if a case could be made that someone suffered a loss from acting on what they were told was fair and balanced when it was not, could a lawsuit be successful?
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, the Reagan administration pushed through some changes to the laws governing news that made it much more difficult to to sue news agencies who reported false stories. It used to be that you just had to prove it was false. Now you have to prove they knew it was false and went ahead with it anyway. It seriously complicates matters.
they tried to push through similar changes to the laws governing media in Canada about the time Murdoch was trying to buy his way into a Fox News Canada type of thing. Canadians, using the state of American media as a cautionary tale, finally decided, "Oh HECK no."
Posts: 79 | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: A newsmedia corporation has no real obligation to do anything other than get money, so
And a doctor has no higher obligation than the same? It's not as if a hippocratic oath (Declaration of Geneva specifically) is binding legally, is it?
No, I don't buy this line of reasoning because it doesn't gel with what the social contract. People, collectively and individually, have ethical responsibilities beyond their legal, corporate, financial responsibilities. And while dispensing with those responsibilities may not be a *crime,* it is certainly a violation of the social contract, and we can certainly say that it is wrong. It is a strange notion that we have now in America that nothing in human relationships is accounted for outside the law -especially given that the basis of the law itself is a gentlemanly agreement between some white men from various states, centuries ago. Why is that somehow valid, but our established expectations for proper behavior just don't rate?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
