19
   

MSNBC's top programs provide more than 18 times as much coverage of Haiti earthquake as Fox News' to

 
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2010 07:16 pm
@msolga,
msolga wrote:

Quote:
It's very kind of you to express an interest in what i say--however, i consider this a "non-story." First because Fox "News" isn't really a reputable news program--rather it's entertainment and propaganda dissemination. Second because, as has been pointed out to Nihm, other parts of their "news" organization did give this event extensive coverage.


(as an "outsider") I find it extremely interesting, rather than a "non story", Setanta. My understanding is that Fox news plays an important role in forming US public opinion through its broadcasting. It might well be "disreputable", as you say, but I see it as being a very important influence, never the less.
IMHO FOX is not actually considered a "news" source, It is an entertainment network. On the other hand MSNBC quite simply runs and reruns film clips etc over and over again filling time.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2010 07:18 pm
Well, i really can't provide any reliable information on the extent to which they form public opinion. My gut feeling, though, is that they simply script the outrage of the extreme right wing, and that the propaganda they peddle is simply a case of preaching to the choir. I see them largely as an exploitative organization, which realized the success of right-wing radio demagogues in the 80s and 90s, like Phyllis Schafly and Lush Lamebrain, and decided to take advantage of it themselves. Fox is the most watched "news" organization in the United States, in terms of regular viewers (i.e., those who tune in every day). But they're like the "ditto-heads" of Lush Lamebrain (a.k.a. Rush Limbaugh) in the early days of his radio program. They're tuning in to hear predictable drivel which they expect to hear, and which tells them what they want to hear.

There are four other networks which broadcast in the clear as well as over cable in the United States, as well as Ted Turner's CNN, and a host of other cable and satellite channels which provide news. Fox has captured a market for which they tailor their message. I don't know that i'd consider them influential, because they are just feeding pap to an audience which tunes in to have their prejudices confirmed.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2010 07:37 pm
@Joe Nation,
Quote:
Fox doesn't know how to cover actual news events.


But I think it does, Joe. I think it is choosing to give prominence to some issues, some political view points as opposed to others, which are relegated to less significant, or insignificant coverage.

I know all about infotainment, appealing to the lowest common denominator, "giving the people what they want", etc, etc ... the US is not alone in this. It happens in many other countries too.

Take, by comparison, the response in Oz to the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia.(in our immediate neighbourhood, like Haiti is in yours) A huge catastrophic event for that country. It was front page news, day after day, in all the media outlets. The "respectable" newspapers, the tabloids, commercial & more "respectable" TV & radio news. It was a subject that everyone was talking about ... a totally different response. Now, in case anyone thinks that I'm implying that Australia & Australian news providers are superior to the US, I assure you that is not what interests me. What interests me (as an outsider) is why the US response to Haiti appears to have been so different. I can't understand why it's so & I'd like to know more.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2010 07:46 pm
@msolga,
msolga wrote:
What interests me (as an outsider) is why the US response to Haiti appears to have been so different.


It hasn't been any different, which is why so many people are dismissive of Habibi's story. It is only a comparison of the three top pundit shows at Fox to three similar shows at MSNBC. As i've pointed out to you, others have pointed out that this criticism does not apply to Fox's regularly scheduled "news" programs, just the talking heads shows. Quite apart from that, there is CNN, HNN, CBS, ABC, NBC and PBS, in addition to many news shows which come to us over cable or from satellite services. So there is no difference, or if you think you see one, it is apparent rather than actual. I assure this is story one on all the outlets i have mentioned, and has been since the event took place.
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2010 07:55 pm
@msolga,
IS it different?

Different how?

Do you mean in how much it is discussed?

Or in the practical response?

It isn't being discussed much on A2k...and the discussion seems to have been dragged into the muck of whether the Haitians are bad or not (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)...but we don't reflect US media I'd have thought.


The NYT has an entire Haiti section.

Washington Post, it's lead story.





And the US sure as hell seems to be rushing aid to Haiti asap...although whether they deserve Hillary and Bill Clinton and George Bush is a whole other thing.

(I DO think that sending heavy duty politicians, with all the attendant demands for security and press and suchlike crap is a weird reaction....but they'll likely be good at mobilizing attention)
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2010 07:56 pm
@Setanta,
I'm sorry, Setanta , but it does seem different to me. (I'm not going to go on & on .. )

And it also seems different, too, that so much of the US focus here has been on that crazy evangelist's "retribution" comments, as opposed to the actual horrendous tragedy which is occurring so close to you in Haiti.

I don't know, maybe this is just my perception. Maybe no one else shares it. And maybe I'd better stop here, because my comments could be perceived as biased & and anti-US. Which is not my intention. Anyway, I won't take this any further.
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2010 07:57 pm
@dlowan,
Bush hadda come walk through the rubble after the big tornado here, too.

it's part of his schtick...
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2010 07:59 pm
@dlowan,
Quote:
It isn't being discussed much on A2k...and the discussion seems to have been dragged into the muck of whether the Haitians are bad or not (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)...


Yes, that, too.

And whether they've somehow brought it on themselves.

I just don't get it & I'm leaving it here.
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2010 08:04 pm
@msolga,
Well, damn!!

I was interested in knowing what you meant.
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  2  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2010 08:08 pm
@nimh,
nimh wrote:
The O'Reilly Factor, Hannity, and Glenn Beck, Fox News' three top-rated programs for 2009, combined to devote a total of 6 minutes, 41 seconds of coverage to the earthquake in Haiti.


well those three would have to admit that there was something in the world more important than their egos, and that would be impossible for them to do
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2010 08:18 pm
@dlowan,
Quote:
IS it different?

Different how?

Do you mean in how much it is discussed?

Or in the practical response?

It isn't being discussed much on A2k...and the discussion seems to have been dragged into the muck of whether the Haitians are bad or not (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)...but we don't reflect US media I'd have thought.


(super brief, OK?)

Yes, how much it is discussed, how it is actually discussed, how people form their opinions about a certain event, what's actually considered important & about it & was isn't .... things like that.

But, as I said, this appears to be only of interest to me, in this particular discussion, anyway.

I'm fascinated by the media & the effect it has on public opinion. How it uses its power & influence.

And I've found some the responses to Haiti here (the only immediate contact I have with US folk) rather perplexing at times. (even leaving hawkeye out it.)

0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2010 08:27 pm
@djjd62,
Yes, but there are executive decisions behind what they say. There is policy behind their broadcasts. I'm positive they are not just given free reign to do & say as they will.

There was a decision that only 6 minutes & 41 seconds of coverage was allocated.

JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2010 08:29 pm
@msolga,
Quote:
There was a decision that only 6 minutes & 41 seconds of coverage was allocated.


I wonder what the 6:41 had to say.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  2  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2010 08:30 pm
@djjd62,
djjd62 wrote:

nimh wrote:
The O'Reilly Factor, Hannity, and Glenn Beck, Fox News' three top-rated programs for 2009, combined to devote a total of 6 minutes, 41 seconds of coverage to the earthquake in Haiti.


well those three would have to admit that there was something in the world more important than their egos, and that would be impossible for them to do



I think their is way more policy behind such stuff than you think.

Murdoch and his henchmen have been very active in setting Fox's tone.

Murdoch once said of a return to conservative government in a bitter Australian election..(and said it on camera, to a news program) something like :

"Well, I gave them (a Labor Government) a chance, but I came back to make sure they were defeated this time."
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2010 08:37 pm
@dlowan,
granted other factors are in play,but other fox shows gave better coverage according to the story, these guys are the top of the heap (or dung pile depending on your position) and their opinions on how to change the world (or at least the american part of it) are more important than the suffering of some third world folk, in the minds of their bosses, and i'm pretty sure in their own minds (at least two of them, beck and o'reilly)
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2010 08:42 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:

They have collected 50,000 bodies and expect between 100,000 and 200,000 total dead. That is like an above average (in population) American city being wiped off the map and it's newsworthy if you can empathize with people who happen to live in a different country (because none of you would call this a non-event if it were American dead).



I believe there are some Americans that do not empathize well with foreigners' tragedy. O.K. What I do not understand is why does it seem like there are some that are ready to stand in judgement of that? As private citizens, do we not have the right to choose with who to commiserate?

It is one thing to be politically correct, but another thing to have to emote like a specific segment of the populace.

Could there be a correlation between empathy for Haiti and specific groups in the U.S.?

Sometimes I do believe that the liberal progressive movement may subscribe to the concept of "thought policing." I wonder if standing in judgement of others' level of empathy is a vestige of the historical societal emphasis on proselytizing (religion)? In other words, subscribe to the religion you were born into; however, learn to have the "correct" values and we can all be one.

Thank goodness this country is likely too big (and populated) to really take over everyone's values. But, that may not stop some from dreaming of that eventuality?





dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2010 08:44 pm
@djjd62,
Possibly.

Or, to be less conspiracy theorist about it (on my part, not yours) Fox execs know their market, and know that the drongoes who watch those shows couldn't give a tuppenny ferk, generally speaking, about the world beyond their bums and the political crusade they believe they are fighting.

So they give 'em the circus they want.

Thing is, Fox continues to label that dreck "news"...and they ought to be held to truth in advertising!!
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2010 08:45 pm
@Foofie,
He's talking about news coverage, not individual empathic ability.

Would you hold that the quake is not news, whether individual USians react to it or not?
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2010 08:49 pm
@dlowan,
agree about the news moniker, unless it's straight forward reporting, it's an agenda and shouldn't be labelled as anything other than corporate or personal opinion
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2010 09:04 pm
Perhaps there's more than just a little fear among those three that issues such as this one might crop up.

Quote:

Haiti: Uncovering U.S. Involvement in Aristide Coup

By Judith Scherr
In These Times
Sunday, Apr 5, 2009

More than four years after President Jean-Bertrand Aristide went into exile, questions linger about Washington’s involvement.

...

Nicole Lee, executive director of Washington, D.C.-based TransAfrica Forum, an advocacy group, is an attorney who, before the coup, lived in Haiti. Lee (no relation to the congresswoman) says one of the key functions of the commission would be to document the role of the International Republican Institute (IRI) in destabilizing the Haitian government. The nonprofit IRI is affiliated with the Republican Party and funded, in part, by the nonprofit National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which Congress partially funds “to strengthen democratic institutions around the world through nongovernmental efforts,” according to the NED website.

“The International Republican Institute all along really fomented a lot of tension between the Democratic Convergence [the anti-Aristide party] and the government,” says Lee. “There were reports"and continue to be reports"that the IRI provided information and also provided funding and training to former Haitian military officials that ended up coming across the border with the Dominican Republic” leading to the February 2004 coup, she says.

Unless the truth about the coup is uncovered, Congress will write off the Bush policy of regime change as an anomaly, says Lee.


http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_55355.shtml

 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/23/2021 at 05:29:40