In case anyone still watches Fox News
moultano
Creator of ns_shiva. Join Date: 2002-12-14 Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
Creator of ns_shiva. Join Date: 2002-12-14 Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">leaked memo</div><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/11/14/fox-news-internal-memo-_n_34128.html" target="_blank">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/11/14/f...o-_n_34128.html</a>
<img src="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/archive/ap/memo4.jpg" border="0" alt="IPB Image" />
<img src="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/archive/ap/memo4.jpg" border="0" alt="IPB Image" />
Comments
What's your opinion?
Smart guys, those Fox execs.
Sad part is, troops on deployment apparently only get Fox 'News' to watch, and on the radio. Had a buddy get home from deployment, and he was STUNNED at the general consensus. Started royally b*tching about how one-sided all the info they'd been receiving was, compared to reality.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I had a friend similar who came home from iraq after he was left 90% blind from a roadside bomb but is expected to regain complete 20.20 vision. He was shocked and stunned at the same time and now wishes he didnt have to go back and is actually trying to fight to get himself discharged the the marines.
He says its a pointless and never-ending war he doesnt want to fight anymore and it isnt worth the lives or even his.
Nice emphasis on Hoyer there. HOyer. Clever. The epitome of wit. Man, how do they come up with grand comedy like that?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That would be considered a "typo", alongside such words as "THis", and the lovely " isnt' ", with hanging apostraphe. You mis-type things occasionally, right?
I actually missed the other typos. Otherwise I would've made sure to point them out, too.
I'm sorry, I didn't intend to hurt your feelings. Sorry. Friends?
I actually missed the other typos. Otherwise I would've made sure to point them out, too.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well then, allow me to join you in soundly criticizing Fox News execs for failing to use a spell-checker before printing our their memo. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
...
Was there a point to all this? Is it going anywhere?
Was there a point to all this? Is it going anywhere?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, unless yall establish some sort of battle line for a real discussion, let's lock this one.
I want to be outraged, but frankly, being able to easily tell what kind of agenda Fox has even without it being presented written expressly, has curbed my passion somewhat. I think it's a sad state of media affairs america (and the rest of the western hemisphere) is under.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, whatever happened to the good old days where all the TV stations had the SAME agenda? *laments* Whats with this whole "different agendas at different news agencies" thing they have going on now? We should just have 5 different clones of CBS!
Yeah, whatever happened to the good old days where all the TV stations had the SAME agenda? *laments* Whats with this whole "different agendas at different news agencies" thing they have going on now? We should just have 5 different clones of CBS!
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I gotta say, I agree. Who says a privately owned media corporation isn't supposed to have an agenda? Sure, they're slogan is a lie, but you all know about companies and slogans. "We're here for you," and what not are all lies. A corporation will do what is necessary to make a profit, else there is no reason for it to exist.
It's also true that fox news is an extended arm of Rupert Murdoch's vast empires. Whether or not he has ties to other big business or the US government is quite frankly irrelevant. Obviously it benefits the rest of his camp to bias fox news conservatively.
Would you, on owning a corporation such as his, cut off your own arm in the interest of being "fair and balanced?" If honestly and truly so, you may be more noble than most others on earth - but that doesn't change the fact that our system is a capitalist one.
As for governmental decisions to only allow news which benefits troops' morale to be shown to troops when they are in theater, I would again expect nothing less. In fact, I would be appalled if this were not so.
When you volunteer for military service, you waive your rights to decide what is best for you. Uncle Sam will make those calls until the day of your discharge. This is the way it has been for centuries, and this is the way it will continue to be - because this works. You'll find references to keeping troop morale up by keeping them free from outside influence in all the major texts, including SunTzu's Art of Warfare.
I'm sure if CNN's perspectives were more in line with the military's agenda, they would let the troops watch only CNN news.
I gotta say, I agree. Who says a privately owned media corporation isn't supposed to have an agenda? Sure, they're slogan is a lie, but you all know about companies and slogans. "We're here for you," and what not are all lies. A corporation will do what is necessary to make a profit, else there is no reason for it to exist.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not illegal sure, but it's definitely unethical. News organizations have a responsibility to the public discourse, and evidence that they intentionally pervert that responsibility should be a scandal.
It's not illegal sure, but it's definitely unethical. News organizations have a responsibility to the public discourse, and evidence that they intentionally pervert that responsibility should be a scandal.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which evidence has been presented where, exactly?
It's not illegal sure, but it's definitely unethical. News organizations have a responsibility to the public discourse, and evidence that they intentionally pervert that responsibility should be a scandal.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Was... say... Thomas Payne's "Common Sense" covered under you ethical code for news agencies?
Which evidence has been presented where, exactly?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The elections and Rumsfeld's resignation were a major event, but not the end of the world. . . And let's be on the lookout for statements from the Iraqi Insurgents, who must be thrilled at the prospect of a Dem-controlled congress. . . Just because Dems won, the war on terror isnt' over.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Seems pretty straightforward to me.
<!--quoteo(post=1578890:date=Nov 19 2006, 10:56 PM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rob @ Nov 19 2006, 10:56 PM) [snapback]1578890[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Was... say... Thomas Payne's "Common Sense" covered under you ethical code for news agencies?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course. It's editorial.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The elections and Rumsfeld's resignation were a major event, but not the end of the world. . . And let's be on the lookout for statements from the Iraqi Insurgents, who must be thrilled at the prospect of a Dem-controlled congress. . . Just because Dems won, the war on terror isnt' over.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Seems pretty straightforward to me.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, seems pretty straightforward to me, too. So whats wrong with it?
Seems pretty straightforward to me.
Yes, seems pretty straightforward to me, too. So whats wrong with it?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The elections and Rumsfeld's resignation were a major event, but not the end of the world<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Clearly indicates that most people at Fox would think they were the end of the world.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And let's be on the lookout for statements from the Iraqi Insurgents, who must be thrilled at the prospect of a Dem-controlled congress.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Actively promoting equating Democrats with Terrorism.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Just because Dems won, the war on terror isnt' over.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Implying that Democrats are less competent to handle the war on terror.
These would all be fine if they were merely pointers to his editorial staff. They weren't.
<!--quoteo(post=1578938:date=Nov 20 2006, 02:48 AM:name=moultano)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(moultano @ Nov 20 2006, 02:48 AM) [snapback]1578938[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Clearly indicates that most people at Fox would think they were the end of the world.
Actively promoting equating Democrats with Terrorism.
Implying that Democrats are less competent to handle the war on terror.
These would all be fine if they were merely pointers to his editorial staff. They weren't.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why aren't these pointers to the editorial staff? It's an internal memo from someone higher up briefing and reassuring those lower down. Otherwise, it would have been copy-edited. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
It's a sad day when people think that bias in "news reporting" is perfectly acceptable. Instead of wanting ACTUAL "fair and balanced" reporting, you're content with getting an equal share of propaganda from both sides, oblivious to the possibility that both may be wrong. I guess idealism (one of the driving forces behind the founding of your country) is well and truly dead.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What? Journalism has always carried a sense of agenda. When things have changed in the past, many times it has been through steady journalistic pounding of the issue in question. It was <i>no</i> different during the American revolution.
It's certainly idealistic if your ideals include using the news to sway the public.
Although, it's my personal belief that you <i>can't</i> simply just report the news when you have an entire network devoted to it 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. You have the fill time with something, and before long, "news" becomes a series of 60 second sound bites and talking heads spewing off about things they know nothing about.
A panel of experts providing insight into a situation is not news reporting, it's news analyzing. If you want reporting, read a paper/website or watch the 6 o'clock on local channels.
A healthy democracy needs free an open debate, which must include both partisan journalism and objective journalism. But these are just minor points compared to the more fundamentals - investigative journalism is mainly dead in the US. The closest thing you have to a hard-hitting political discussion program is The Daily Show. Does this not depress you?
There is nothing wrong with journalism carrying an agenda, but they should state the agenda publicly. Journalists are given certain liberties in society and have an obligation to society to at least be honest.
A healthy democracy needs free an open debate, which must include both partisan journalism and objective journalism. But these are just minor points compared to the more fundamentals - investigative journalism is mainly dead in the US. The closest thing you have to a hard-hitting political discussion program is The Daily Show. Does this not depress you?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In a word, yes. Though, I tend to believe that political discussion programs are unnecessary, investigative journalism is very important. There frankly is no depth to journalism these days. I lay most of the blame on our people, who would prefer to be entertained by foolish bickering amongst idiots whose self-importance is eclipsed only be personal incompetence. For the sake of everything holy, they could be entertaining themselves by bickering amongst each other, like we are right now. At least then you are better exposed to other points of view.
I for one need more investigative journalism so that I have more ammunition to through at discussions!
Now CNN International is a differently beast somehow. May be since they didn't have to cater to ONE market, they can't afford to use the pundits... And the results were mostly pure news.
Bloomberg is the exact opposite reason, business news... no room for politics.
My two most trusted sources outside The Daily Shows.
Clearly indicates that most people at Fox would think they were the end of the world.
Actively promoting equating Democrats with Terrorism.
Implying that Democrats are less competent to handle the war on terror.
These would all be fine if they were merely pointers to his editorial staff. They weren't.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You have demonstrated that the high-level execs at Fox already have opinions about the news.
This might be troubling, if it wasn't already par for the course at every major news organization we have. Fox just stands out because their execs have <i>different</i> opinions than the execs at most of the other news organizations.
Am I happy with this setup? Well, it might be nice to have a completely non-biased news organization. But as long as that is unlikely to happen, having different news outlets with different biases is the next best thing. At least you can get both sides of a story by flipping channels, even if you wont get both sides of a story by watching just one channel.
----------------------
<!--quoteo(post=1579011:date=Nov 20 2006, 08:39 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Nov 20 2006, 08:39 AM) [snapback]1579011[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
There is nothing wrong with journalism carrying an agenda, but they should state the agenda publicly. Journalists are given certain liberties in society and have an obligation to society to at least be honest.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am inclined to agree with you. But Fox News is hardly the only offender when it comes to disguising their agenda. Nor do they even do a very good job of disguising it--most people already assume that Fox is "the conservative news station", just as many assume that CBS is liberal, even though they vehemently deny that as well. It would be nice if Fox came out and admitted they were conservative, on the same day CBS and the like gave press releases admitting they were liberal. You know as well as I how likely THAT is to happen.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A healthy democracy needs free an open debate, which must include both partisan journalism and objective journalism. But these are just minor points compared to the more fundamentals - investigative journalism is mainly dead in the US. The closest thing you have to a hard-hitting political discussion program is The Daily Show. Does this not depress you?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It does, yes. I just don't see any easy ways to solve the problem. If you have a suggestion, I'd be glad to hear it.
You have demonstrated that the high-level execs at Fox already have opinions about the news.
This might be troubling, if it wasn't already par for the course at every major news organization we have. Fox just stands out because their execs have <i>different</i> opinions than the execs at most of the other news organizations.[...]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wasn't the famed "liberal media bias" quite thoroughly discredited?
CBS even did an internal investigation into the Rathergate scandal, and decided that was completely unbiased! Well, I totally trust them now! <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />