Canadians want Fox News Now!

Actually, truly, only, I think, in America, could your alphabets be seen as left-ward tilting!

Lola, don't take offense, please, but it seems to me you - and Libruls in general - still just plain don't get it it - and I doubt anything I can say is gonna change that a bit.

I figure there will be somebody tunnel visioned enough to go on thinking Salon is an unbiased news source showing all points of view.

Example: President Smith spoke to the Ladies' Aide society today. Smith has come uner fire recently for voting against a popular widget subsidy prorposal. Smith speaks tomorrow to Almagated Local #409.

The next thing we hear is that Smith is scaring old ladies with taking away their widget subsidies.

Most conservatives however said hallelujah, finally, we have somebody who is on the right side for a change.

@&w Lola ...
Now, usually in a case like this, I'd say the fair thing to do would be to debate the question and put it to a vote - but the way things have been goin' over the last decade or so, the folks on your side don't seem to do too well when that approach is tried

It of course increased Fox's market share considerably.

It was a new low even for Murdoch.

I don't know what you are referring to re the assault on Baghdad, but Fox has unashamedly and without reservation declared their editorial policy to be one of supporting the American and coalition troops. If that's what they were doing, then no doubt the anti-war people saw that as shameless propaganda. Most conservatives however said hallelujah, finally, we have somebody who is on the right side for a change.

It of course increased Fox's market share considerably.

I still have no idea what you are talking about Deb, but are you talking about the reports from the field when the troops were advancing on Baghdad? You think an imbedded reporter reporting on his/her experiences with the troops advancing on Badgdad should be unemotional and impartial? Just delivered as straight news? Wow you Aussies are tough.

IMO, there is a huge difference between an on-the-spot eye witness report and the report given on the nightly news. This has been true in EVERY war in which we have had media present as well as reporting on tsunami's, hurricans, and tornadoes as they are happening. You don't impartiallyh say a tsunami has hit the island. You report on what is happening and what you see and what you are experiencing. Did you never hear the news report as the Hindenburg crashed and burned? Can you imagine that report simply saying "The Hindenburg is on fire and drifting toward the ground." No, the report was describing the scene and his agony at watching it and the deep tragedy of the loss of life. It is one of on-the-scene news reporting classics.

Fox's stated news policy however is "We report, you decide." After watching them for some time now, in their straight news reporting, they are keeping to that policy better than ANY television news source out there. On-the-scene reporting is a much different animal.

Quote:

Maybe I AM tough - but the crap I heard was beyond contempt.

And yes, I expect clear objective info from embedded reporters - hopefully acknowledging where their embeddedness is limiting their ability to know - and not would-be-stirring propaganda.

The Australian reporting I heard/saw never descended to such drivel - not - that I saw - even on Murdoch's own outlets here.

And, frankly, I have heard, seen and read a lot of on the spot war correspondent stuff. I say again, this was at a depth I have never witnessed. Including stuff from D Day.

I think that emotion can be perfectly well conveyed, should it be necessary - (and this is moot - the live reporting from September 11th that I heard was far more moving in its lack of histrionics than the Fox fella's dramatics) - in reporting on what one is seeing. This fella was raving on about stuff like back in America a nation waits and watches and prays in reverend awe or some damn thing - going on about sombre whatever a noble word for fear is (he assumed everyone was waiting for a terror attack) but proud steadfastness as its noble troops etc etc.

He wasn't even in America! He acted not only as though he was, but as if he was able to speak for a country that was as deeply divided about the war as Oz was! That is only a beginning.

I was less fussed by his very emotive stuff about racing for Baghdad - which he said about fifty times - poor fella had nothing to say except that the troops were moving fast towards Baghdad! But on and on he went.


I am sure that his stuff about the troops prolly woulda made them sick, if they heard it. Prolly the kind of stuff the military wanted - actually, dammit, no, I doubt if it was!!! I have heard/read your military brass talk about having reporters with them. They said they are happy for the bad stuff to be filmed, cos overall they expect it to be good stuff - REAL good stuff, not ridiculous, hyperbolic nonsense - I was far more impressed by American soldiers when I heard a broadcast from an embedded Oz team - which was there in a fire-fight which turned out to be a couple of different groups of American soldiers firing at each other, in an understandable panic - complete with a couple of very calm fellas saying over and over to their buddies that the incoming tracer was American - and to stop firing - then the discussion amongst the fellas, where they all talked about what had happened - some insisting it had been the enemy, others pointing out why it was not - all in a totally open and reasonable way. THAT made me admire the troops - not some idiot spouting noble-sounding nonsense. And it conveyed so brilliantly the sense of being there - in a spare and objective way - eg, the reporters, not being charged with the actual decisions and such - believed from the start that this was a fight between two American units - (heard them interviewed later). At no point did they intrude themselves and this belief into the reporting - though they DID accurately report the colour of the tracer - which some of the troops around were wrongly identifying as the Iraqi's colour. They let the situation - and the people - speak for themselves. And speak they did. What kind of guts does it take to admit on international media that some of your people have panicked and tried to shoot each other?

The other reporting I have seen from Iraq has been similarly far more restrained and less propaganda-like - and some of it has been immensely powerful - without histrionics.

I might add that we seem to see more of the Iraqi casualties than you guys have - seems Fox is not alone in slant...

There was no emotional nonsense from the Oz reporters (not that I am necessarily saying Oz reporting is not able to be as bad) - only clarifying comments, describing the events, and much letting of the actual recorded sound tell the story - which was an absolutely dramatic one, conveying the confusion, fear, calmness and rationality etc that was going on.

Well I still don't know who it was or what was said or how it was said. I'll accept Deb didn't like it and she has writtenoff Fox Cable News because of it. So be it. I don't think some here are the demographics Fox News shoots for anyway.