Bush AWOL documents fake?

OutFoxed - Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism
Outfoxed - Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editorial Reviews
Amazon.com

Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism uses the inflammatory tactics of the Fox News Channel to demonstrate the conservative bias that's handed down by Fox's owner, media mogul Rupert Murdoch. The documentary gathers interviews from media watchdogs and former Fox employees (including a former anchor, Jon Du Pre, who describes his flailing efforts to create a celebration for Reagan's birthday when the one he was sent to cover never materialized), but their overwhelming condemnation of Fox's skewed news practices isn't half as effective as footage taken directly from Fox itself--an appalling montage of pundit Bill O'Reilly telling guests to shut up; repeated efforts to paint Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry as weak and waffling, while President Bush is captured in respectful, reverent images; and management memos dictating language, subject matter, and point of view. Outfoxed is unlikely to persuade Fox News fans to change their views, but it may spur outraged liberals to take action. --Bret Fetzer

About the Director
Outfoxed Director/Producer Robert Greenwald has produced and/or directed 53 television movies, miniseries and features. He is the director of Uncovered and the Executive Producer of the UN series - Unprecedented, Uncovered and the soon to be released Unconstitutional.

Description
"Fair and balanced"??? How about anything BUT?!?! For the first time ever, this documentary reveals the secrets of Former Fox news producers, reporters, bookers and writers who expose what it's like to work for Fox News. These former Fox employees talk about how they were forced to push a "right-wing" point of view or risk their jobs. Some have even chosen to remain anonymous in order to protect their current livelihoods. As one employee said "There's no sense of integrity as far as having a line that can't be crossed."
"Outfoxed" examines how media empires, led by Rupert Murdoch's Fox News, have been running a "race to the bottom" in television news. This film provides an in-depth look at Fox News and the dangers of ever-enlarging corporations taking control of the public's right to know.

"Outfoxed" first examines media mogul Rupert Murdoch and the Australian company, News Corp., tracing how the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) helped Murdoch break the rules to establish a fourth network in the United States. The film explores Murdoch's burgeoning kingdom and the impact on society when a broad swath of media is controlled by one person.

Media experts, including Walter Cronkite, Jeff Cohen (FAIR), Bob McChesney and Chellie Pingree, provide context and guidance for the story of Fox News and its effect on society.

The team behind "Outfoxed" created a system to monitor Fox News 24 hours a day for months to discover exactly how its shows worked. A team of volunteers around the country scrutinized every hour of Fox News programming, noting examples of bias in its coverage. The result is an intense examination of Fox News and the lie inherent in its favorite motto: "Fair and Balanced."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The content of OUTFOXED may not come as a surprise to many long-time political activists, but this DVD will absolutely floor many people who tend to take their news for granted. In short, OUTFOXED takes on FOX News the same way Michael Moore's FAHRENHEIT 9/11 takes on the Iraq invasion - and produces some hard-hitting results.

Testimonials and eyewitness accounts from former and current FOX News reporters and employees (some deliberately kept anonymous) help build the case against the channel's perceived right-wing bias and editorial censorship from the top brass at FOX, including owner Rupert Murdoch. Excerpts from FOX memos are also exhibited, but would have packed more of a punch if shown as originally distributed instead. The most damning evidence, however, seems to come from FOX News broadcasts themselves, which are presented in substantial quantity in this documentary.

Although it can be argued that OUTFOXED has its own bias and agenda, the arguments it presents are extremely hard to dismiss. Highly recommended, especially for journalism students.
-----------------------------------------------
Exposes Fox Tactics, July 22, 2004
Reviewer: A. E Rothert (Edwardsville, IL)

This documentary is mostly strong. Using volunteers who monitored Fox "News" 24 hours a day for months, the film makers are able to discern and highlight several tactics Fox uses to portrary right-wing opinion as news. Although the film demonstrates conclusively that Bill O'Reilly is over-the-top and frequently plays loose with the truth, I doubt anyone will be surprised by the revelation. More disturbing are the more subtle ways in which Fox indoctrinates its viewers into believing things that are not true. For instance, the film exposes the frequent use of "People say..." as the introduction to assertions that don't meet anyone's criteria for news. The numerous former Fox employees who are willing to speak out are impressive, as are the comments from Walter Cronkite. In the end, Outfoxed overwhelmingly proves its thesis : Fox News is grossly misrepresenting itself to America when it claims to be fair and balanced. Fox, in reality, is neither. Nor is it news. BUT people watch Fox News to reconfirm what they want to believe. Fox could drop its misleading self-description and still have plenty of viewers; thus, this documentary is more about confronting Fox News' spin in an attempt at making the corporation responsible than about helping its willingly duped viewers. Nevertheless, it is a worthy goal. Finally, as much as I enjoyed the revealations about Fox News, the film does not merit five stars. The production values are mediocre; some hands are overplayed.
------------------------------------------

Reviewer: D. Maisano "Smart Person" (Waltham,MA)

This film shows beyond a shadow of a doubt the corruption in the news media and how it is effecting our country. Ironically, I first heard about this movie ON the Fox News Channel! Of course they were trying to smear it, like all conservatives act, rather than giving an opposing viewpoint with evidence, but all it did for me was whet my appetite to see this film. Although this is somewhat preaching to the choir, it always helps to give people evidence of just how corrupt our country has become, and why we need a change in power. The sad thing is that most of hte people below the Bible belt rely on the Fox News Channel for info, and its just playing into the hands of the Bush administration. This is a sign that we need to change things. Good job.
-------------------------------------------

Good journalism promotes greater awareness., September 15, 2004
Reviewer: A. Pendola

There is no doubt that this film does some great in-depth journalism and reporting. The research is mostly well thought out and the points are quite valid in many respects. The whole notion of "uncovering" the bias in FOX News seems thin if not pretentious to me though. This film doesn't really "uncover" anything radically new. I was under the assumption that just about everybody knew that FOX is conservative and CNN liberal. Listen to the headlines these two stations churn out each day and note the differences. FOX is a blatantly conservative station, and if you choose to watch it, then you should be aware of that. If you watch it and do not realize that it is conservative, then you are obviously not listening or thinking. CNN is much the same, but their liberal views are more subtle, and usually, presented in a more tasteful manner. Please don't believe that FOX is the only station that has strong partisan views. ABC, CBS, NBC. All these stations have bias, and if you watch for it, it is obvious. Nearly every station will change the facts to make news either more interesting or to promote individual preferences. Really, I wish everyone would watch the news on PBS, as it is the most unbiased news I have ever seen, and it doesn't try to dazzle people with fast moving journalism and potent, emotional headlines. It is just good news, with very little partisanship.

Sorry to get so off topic. Just my own 2 cents. But in watching this film, it does make one more aware of how news in general acts to endorse partisan views, and how the media can make or break a story depending on their beliefs. This is a good film to promote an overall awareness of what kind of news you are watching. Make sure you think when you watch the news, and always be skeptic of what both sides are saying, whether you agree with them or not. Frankly, I am glad that FOX News exists, because it creates a balance with other stations. There are always two sides to every story. Please remember, it is up to you to make your own decisions, not the media.

I'm not sure if Timber is just being facetious here...but on the off shoot chance that he is not...

...pot, be quiet. We know the kettle is black!





I

testing 123
testing 123

Re: testing 123


Hey, that looks like a proportionally spaced font!

So what's the proportion 17:21?

I could do this. . .

Is it a copy of an original that may have been printed proportionally? Is it an uncertain certainty that the document is a fake? Or is it a certain uncertainty?

Please clarify.

did i not say that i was going to make the clip available? then what would be the point of my quoting the whole thing?

so what's your point? just wanna say "look! the liberal didn't quote the conservatives! liberal bias! liberal bias!"

cool your jets until i find a way to post it. they don't make it easy to do here.

Re: OutFoxed - Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism


done on a shoe string. not a lot of new info here if you are already a close scrutinizer of fox.

not a great effort, but it's great that he made the effort.

imho.

Meanwhile, back to the original topic ... here's an update. The reclusive Colonel Staudt has come forth. If the CBS coffin needed another nail, Staudt supplied it and drove it home.



There are two ends of a horse. The foregoing came from the horse's mouth.

The Texas Attorney General's office is rumored to "be interested" in "certain aspects of and persons involved with" the clumsy caper. A number of the principals in the fraud have begun "refering requests for comment to counsel".

Seeing as how Staudt was the one who was on Bush's d***, this doesn't really shed any light on things.

I would strongly suggest that anybody and everybody either watch or buy (as I did) the movie "Outfoxed." It really is a frightening and factual portrait of a news industry gone terribly astray, where entire news organizations (FOX being the exception) literally utilize the art of Goebbels propoganda, pushing a lop-sided propogandist message of ever so subtle (to some) fascist tendencies down the throats of a ever-growing ignorant society.

My many thanks to BumbleBeeBoogie for bringing that up. It is extremely appropriate when dealing with an American populace which is getting hardlined into a neo-fascist, conservative society. And yet there is a crack in the armor of the Republican party, as the realities of the Iraq war, and what Kerry was saying the other day, are much worse than what the Bush administration is telling us.

If a neoconservative can explain to ME why the news of Iraq that the press is reporting compared to what Bush is saying about Iraq sound so paradoxically different, then I'll eat my shoe.

Bush doesn't deny the facts of death and struggle in Iraq. So, he agrees with the reporting.

He just also tells the positive side. The news doesn't.

They tell part of the picture. He acknowledges their part, and adds the part they're not telling.

I'm not really a neo-conservative regardless of the accusations, but let me give this a shot.

Bush is a politician, a pretty good one actually. Despite what the left want you to believe about him being a moron, he is a damned good politician. He works to do what he believes is best for the country and he has a cabinet of advisors that should be experts in their particular niche.

It would be political suicide for Bush to get in front of the camera and say that he fucked up and that we should never have invaded Iraq. We have now demonstrated that our bite may not be as bad as we barked about. Bush knows, because he is a good politicain that his opponents will demonstrate as much negativity as possible, he doesn't need to. Instead, Bush advertises the good thing happeneing and attempts to further the good fight because their is always the possibility that his plans may bear fruit.

The press has a liberal slant to it. Not an uncommon occurrence during a time of war. No one wants to send their sons and daughters of to a war so the press, an organization built for profit, knows that bad news moves product. Who cares if Iraq has new schools, untreatened sports teams, freedom to learn, freedom to travel, people only want to know how many people dies and what our administration is doing to curb it.

So, there ya go. I hope you have small feet.

Dookie, I happen have both freinds and relatives who are or have been active military in the Iraq Theater of Operations (and in Afghanistan as well), as well as throughout the military of The US and several other nations. With many of them, I am in daily contact via the web, with others, its phone calls and letters. To an individual, all are apalled, puzzled, dismayed, and angered by the negatively biased media coverage of the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't expect you'll dine on shoe based on my anecdotal references, but I happen, from my correspondents who are or have been "on scene", to get a very different picture than that forcefed into the living rooms and onto the periodicals of an otherwise uninformed public. You believe whomever you wish. I trust folks I know and respect. I'm not so accepting of The Mainstream Media. How do I know somebody like ... oh, say Dan Rather ... isn't trying to press an agenda through unscrupulous means?

Um, then why is it that when Bush says that 75% of the Al Qaeda leadership has either been captured or killed, he doesn't tell you that most of them have been replaced already? It would seem the "other" side of the argument that Bush is telling us in this regard is rather moot.

It is also a forgone conclusion that elections in Iraq will not happen as scheduled, that the insurgency is getting much more emboldened and sophisticated, and that many additional troops are now needed in Afghanistan, as the Taliban, and other arab factions, are regaining ground lost in the region.

And that would be a direct result of resources being solely dedicated to Iraq, whereas Al Qaeda was firmly operating out of Afghanistan, and therefore justified our reasons for bombing them out of the region and hopefully into oblivion to begin with.

Quite frankly, I'm just interested in the truth. Are the Bush NG documents forgeries? Seems so. But I want to know the TRUTH, whether it be from CBS, the RNC, the DNC, and whoever else may know.

What is intrinsically wrong with Bush telling the American people the truth, when he never does to begin with?

I imagine there was some jaw clenching and tooth-grinding at AP and CBS over this. Particularly galling must have been the documentation of Guard training completed in the previously questioned May-June '73 timeframe, and the explicit reference to Lt Bush's failure to be a druggie. To their credit, they ran with it, though still managing to avoid actually acknowledging the intentional fraud to which they were party. I note with some amusement the AP/CBS storyline still is that Bush was "Not permitted to fly" after having "failed to take" a flight medical, despite the obvious and oft-stated fact no flight medical would be required for someone who was not going to be at an installation equipped with aircraft for which he was trained and qualified, and therefore would not be flying.

A big problem CBS came up against was that not all of their "sources" and "corroborating witnesses" were either dead or Democrats. That's what bit them ... real live people with real memories, memories contraindicative of the veracity of the allegations, allegations which stand now discreditted along with those who maliciously, consciously, and fraudulently pressed them.




And Dookie, I don't buy your premises that The Incumbent and his Adninistration are incompetent and duplicitous, Al Queda is sound and thriving, the elections will not happen as scheduled, that the insugency is succeeding (I don't deny it is currently at a peak ... but I doubt seriously the insurgents can sustain the current level of operations - we'll see, but info I have from sources other than The Mainstream Media leads me to think the jihadists are sorely pressed, and without broad popular support). I also do not agree, nor do my correspondents, a few of whom are in relatively senior command positions, that either Iraq or Afghanistan is in need of "Many additional troops".

Sorry, I just don't share the viewpoint you express. I'm sure you're a fine person, with plenty of great qualities and unique talents, a worthy human in every regard. That we may differ in political outlook is no cause for rancor, but for dialogue ... not that either of us will change the other's mind, but that both of us may more clearly understand the perspective of the other.

hey folks, sorry to put this up here, off of topic, but this thread is where the discussion on outfoxed sort of started. i'm not going to leave it up for long, so get it while ya can.

fox on air discusses republican bias

fox mp3

You heard it here first, kids :wink:

"


Ain't the 'net grand?

Don't look like the blogbuzz re Kerry was the all the way on the mark though; it seems the Navy's Inspector General has concluded his Vietnam citations were "received in accordance with procedure":


Not really conclusive for either camp ... the debate on this is likely to continue a while yet. Oh, well, Judicial Watch ain't 'specially known for stunning successes.

Blogger Who Faulted CBS Documents Is Conservative Activist
As more information seeps into the news, it seems not unreasonable that Karl Rove may have been behind the false documents creation as some of us thought immediately after the story broke. How did MacDougald obtain copies of the documents within four hours of the CBS broadcast? I think the only way possible was if Karl Rove had created and planted them with MacDougald to try to discredit the CBS broadcast. Rove's goal would have been to divert attention away from the content of the documents re Bush's national guard lack of service. Rove's fall guy would have to be Retired Lt. Col. Bill Burkett, who history of hostility against Bush would be Rove's cover. Rove has known of Burkett's claims since at least February 2004 that he saw Bush's military records being tossed in the trash. Plenty of time to created false documents to discredit the revelation about Bush's guard "service" knowing the Medias' compulsive feeding frenzy would focus on the false documents and not their content.

One only need remember that Karl Rove bugged his own Texas office during the 2000 campaign and then blamed Democrats for doing it. He was caught in his lies and his long time tactics were exposed. I see the dirty hands of Karl Rove in this latest political move. It is so typical of his tactics. ---BBB

"I Am Buckhead": Newspaper Exposes Blog Folk Hero
Wow! Even Editors and Publishers seem to see Karl Rove's fingerprint on this latest dust up. BBB

"I Am Buckhead": Newspaper Exposes Blog Folk Hero
By Editors & Publishers Staff
Published: September 18, 2004
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000632714

NEW YORK It was the scoop of the day in the presidential campaign (which tells you something): The Los Angeles Times found Buckhead.

The paper reports that it has solved the mystery of who exactly posted the very first (and in some minds, very suspicious) blog blast at the credibility of the "60 Minutes" Killian memos. But as the Times put it, "it did not come from an expert in typography or typewriter history as some first thought."

Buckhead, as he was known at the Free Republic site, has been unmasked as Harry MacDougald, an Atlanta lawyer with strong ties to conservative Republican causes. He even helped draft the petition urging the Arkansas Supreme Court to disbar President Clinton after the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

His identity, the Times says, "is likely to fuel speculation among Democrats that the efforts to discredit the CBS memos were engineered by Republicans eager to undermine reports that Bush received preferential treatment in the National Guard more than 30 years ago." GOP officials have denied this.

Reached by telephone by the Times on Friday, MacDougald, 46, confirmed that he is Buckhead but declined to answer questions.

MacDougald, a lawyer in Atlanta, is affiliated with two prominent conservative legal groups, the Federalist Society and the Southeastern Legal Foundation, where he serves on the legal advisory board.

Suspicions that MacDougald may have been tipped off have arisen because his quick comments on typography seemed to go far beyond his reputed expertise. He wrote that the memos purportedly written in the early 1970s by the late Lt. Col Jerry B. Killian were "in a proportionally spaced font, probably Palatino or Times New Roman....The use of proportionally spaced fonts did not come into common use for office memos until the introduction of laser printers, word processing software and personal computers," MacDougald wrote. "They were not widespread until the mid to late 90's. Before then, you needed typesetting equipment, and that wasn't used for personal memos to file. Even the Wang systems that were dominant in the mid 80's used monospaced fonts."

Rathergate is goin' places, BBB, but it ain't gonna go anyplace near The Whitehouse, or anywhere else that's gonna do any good at all for The Democrats and Kerry, or for CBS and Rather. Now, sometimes, these things just sorta fade from the scene. Maybe that's what will happen here, and I would not be surprised if that turns out to be the case. On the otherhand, sometimes these things just keep growin' and growin', as did Watergate or Iran-Contra, for instance. It would not surprise me if this flap turned into something like that, either; at this point it could go either way. If it does really blow up and take on a life of its own, it will be the pivotal event of The Election, and will be recorded as the scandal which destroyed the Democratic Campaign of 2004.

And right now, I gotta say, whatever happens, the current tack of tryin' to blame this on Rove illustrates perfectly, and totally confirms, my hypothesis that as opposed to looking inward to discover, address, and remedy the causes of their decline, the Democrats fail to take responsibility, refuse to admit, or even to recognize, the truth, and futiley seek to lay blame on "Those evil Republicans". The Republicans have done far, far less damage to The Democrats than have The Democrats themselves.

And they just keep gettin' better and better at it. What is it with them ... a deathwish?