I watched that movie "Outfoxed" last night. It was stomach turning. A must-see, without a doubt. There wasn't anything that really surprised me as much as appalled me and reinforced my feeling that Fox News should not be allowed to represent itself as a news channel. It should be forced to call itself a "political editorial outlet" or a "conservative talk show" but never "news." News is objective. Fact based. Here's the facts, do with them what you like. That kind of thing.
I don't mind that Fox is as blatantly conservative and non-objective as it is. I don't mind that Bill O'Reilly routinely tells guests who disagree with him to "shut up" or that he has stated that it is the duty of all dissenting Americans in a time of war to "shut up." I don't mind that they routinely present information and events from a heavily slanted perspective. I mind that the premise itself is deceptive. I mind that it is the highest form of propaganda parading around as journalism. I mind that they call themselves "Fair and Balanced" when there couldn't possibly be a more innaccurate categorization or a more shameless misrepresentation. I mind that unsuspecting citizens watch with the perfectly natural presupposition that they are going to see something that truly is fair and balanced, at which point many are manipulated and brainwashed as a direct consequence of that trusting attitude. Because they believe that it is fair and balanced, they believe that it is the truth. But it's not necessarily the truth. It's a point of view. Which is why Fox News should no longer be allowed to represent itself as a news entity and instead should be identified as a news commentary entity.
Another thing that appalled me was the way that liberal guests were treated by many of the hosts. Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly really get the prize for the world's biggest assholes. They are both very abusive people. I feel bad for any wives or families that they may have. I truly believe that Bill O'Reilly should be sent to therapy and anger management. He has a serious problem, not only with telling the truth, but with the severe verbal mistreatment of other human beings. He accosts guest with a venom that is so inappropriate and unprofessional that it scares me that he is allowed to behave that way on television and get paid. Any person at my job would be fired for speaking to ANYONE the way that he speaks to guests. I found this hilarious thing. A satire of what it would be like if Bill O'Reilly interviewed Jesus. I have to say, I believe it is a frighteningly accurate projection of what could take place. Hahaa. I don't know if it's totally accurate as to what Jesus would say, that's a little hard to call. But Bill O'Reilly's imaginary dialogue seems pretty believable based on what I've seen of him. It's also pretty clear that he is both heavily dillusional and pathologically untruthful. On that note, I love this blog.
Finally, another thing that struck me was the kind of tactics that are used in debates on the Fox News channel. Similar to the kinds of tactics that are often used by conservatives that I have observed and interacted with in blogtown. Derailing the subject with accusations, baiting for defensiveness, vehemently denying or dismissing even the hardest of facts and repeating unsubstantiated retoric ad nauseum.
Then there are the memos. Aaaah, the memos. That's just the proverbial icing on the Fox News cake.
Rupert Murdoch must be stopped.
what kills me is how glaringly obvious their bias is in favor of the repugs. And yet they toot their horn louder than any station stating they are "fair and balanced."
They truly are representatives of the GOP - the party that will rape you up the ass and tell you it is good for you.
Posted by: nunya at September 10, 2004 08:12 PMHere's a really silly solution: don't watch FoxNews.
There - I've solved your churning stomach problem.
Posted by: Mad Mikey at September 11, 2004 11:21 AMMike, I know it's easy for republicans to think only in terms of themselves, but I have news for you: (1) I don't watch Fox News. There was a time I did. Long, long ago. It would make me angry but I would watch anyway just to see what kind of outrageous scare tactic or brainwashing technique they would come up with next or what kind of provocative or nasty dialogue would come from the interviews. Then the entertainment got old. (2) I'm not concerned about the effect that Fox News would have on me. I'm concerned about the effect that it has on society in general, as it represents itself as news & journalism, and I truly believe from the bottom of my heart that they should not be legally permitted to make such a false representation about the service they provide. They provide entertainment (as incendiary as it may be), an occasional factual tidbit and political commentary that clearly reflects one side of the political spectrum.
I guess you probably don't get the whole harm in false advertising thing, but I do. It's not about me and what I personally choose to watch when I turn on my television or which paper I choose to buy on my way to work in the morning. It's about the pervasive nature of Rupert Murdoch's control over the media and news industry, (which reaches far beyond the confines of the Fox News channel) that I see as a great danger to society the world over.
Posted by: Maria at September 11, 2004 01:09 PMTwo words : Dan Rather
Posted by: sandy at September 11, 2004 01:14 PMMmm. Dan Rather's defense of the authenticity of Bush's military records does not fall into the same category as the everpresent conservative tilt of Rupert Murdoch's enterprises.
"WASHINGTON (AP) - C-B-S News anchorman Dan Rather is spearheading an aggressive defense of a "60 Minutes Two" report about President Bush's service in the Air National Guard.Rather said on "The C-B-S Evening News" that broadcast memos questioned by forensic experts came from -- quote -- "what we consider to be solid sources."
Rather said "no definitive evidence" has emerged to prove the documents are forgeries. He added: "If any definitive evidence comes up, we will report it."
Sounds to me like he's just defending the integrity of CBS sources and the integrity of his own reporting. I don't see anything partisan about it.
Hmmmm..if you follow the history of CBS and the history of Dan Rathers' interviewing skills..you might come up with a different conclusion.
Posted by: sandy at September 11, 2004 08:36 PMinteresting how repubs label any spurce as "liberal" and question the sources integrity whenever it doesn't play into their game.
Posted by: nunya at September 11, 2004 08:38 PMYou never complain about the "liberal" biased news which, for years, has been deceptive and non-factual. ?? Now the conservatives have a voice and bring out the TRUTH about whats been going on, and you whine and call it 'biased and non-factual' .
?? what a hypocritical bunch of bs.
Posted by: bob at September 14, 2004 10:25 AMYou sound really confused. Point to me a single instance of a media empire that leans as liberal as Murdoch's does conservative.
You are clearly unhinged.
Posted by: Maria at September 14, 2004 11:15 AMeven npr finally had to give into the corporate strongarm. fox news is hardly truth. It cannot get any more biased than it is. The only "media outlets" that go so far left as fox news does so far right, are on the Net. No far left organization exists in mainstream media. And even when one tried to wiggle into a spot on AM radio (air america) it was stomped out by none other than the fcc - always a republinazi organization).
'Splain to me how this is fair and balanced?