Canadians want Fox News Now!

... He's been known to swap sides, you know, if it suits his (business) interests.

0 Replies

Of course it is, msolga - Murdoch is the Anti-Christ, the real Damien. Well, thats not exactly true - he's merely the frontman for a vast extraterrestrial conspiracy now very near to realizing its goal of dominating this planet in order to exploit its resources and enslave its inhabitants.

Its OK to tell you earthlings this now, since by this point, we're unstoppable. That Roswell thing back in '47 gave us a little scare, but we managed, thanks to the cooperation of the Trilateral Commission and The World Bowling Congress.

It was us who set you up the bomb. All your base belong to us.

Resistance is futile.

0 Replies

Lol - the right are assuming this is about not liking the Fox news slant - actually (while clearly I, for instance, get more agitated by appalling pseudo-journalism with an extreme right bias than I do about left) it's about the JOURNALISM, stupid! (If I may coin a phrase). In fact, Fox reminds me of leftish student rags - with the slogans reversed.

If this drek were being served up as balanced reporting with as extreme a left stance as Fox's is right I would be shocked to see IT masquerading as journalism, too. This is why I keep asking if such a beast exists on the left - not so much with the same level of propaganda, but with the same amount of propaganda AND declaring itself to be a mainstream outlet that is "fair and balanced".

Yes - Murdoch changes sides to suit audience - to some extent - but he is far more determinedly right these days. In his early days, in the first lowest common denominator rag he inherited - the Adelaide News - he was quite popular leftish in lots of ways. It was still crap. Not as bad as the gutter press stuff he went into later in England - which was sometimes still sort of leftish sometimes - cos it was aimed at working class men.

(Except in China, of course - but right meets left in places like that, no? Totalitarianism is totalitarianism. And of course he will exclude right wing agitprop - like the BBC news for instance - from his offerings of fair and balanced news in China. lol!)

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Of course it is, msolga - Murdoch is the Anti-Christ, the real Damien. Well, thats not exactly true - he's merely the frontman for a vast extraterrestrial conspiracy now very near to realizing its goal of dominating this planet in order to exploit its resources and enslave its inhabitants.

Its OK to tell you earthlings this now, since by this point, we're unstoppable. That Roswell thing back in '47 gave us a little scare, but we managed, thanks to the cooperation of the Trilateral Commission and The World Bowling Congress.

It was us who set you up the bomb. All your base belong to us.

Resistance is futile.

Call it a conspiracy, call it what you like, timberlandko, but Rupert Murdoch has a long history if using his media outlets in Australia for his own political ends. You might like to take a look at the history of the Australian newspaper from the early 70s-on to gain some insight into his history of manipulation of the news. When it suited his interests the Australian was pro-Labor, when it didn't it was the Liberals. There were any number of disputes with the journalists at the Australian during this period. It's on record. But when Oz became small fry in terms of his business ambitions he happily relinquished his Australian citizenship in favour of the US. You are now getting the benefit of this, courtesy of Fox News, about as "fair & balanced" as the political position of the Australian at its lowest ebb. It took that newspaper years to regain some of the credibility & integrity it lost during this period. Then there is the history of Murdoch & Packer & their attempts to change Australian media ownership laws for their own gain. Since his Oz days we have observed Murdoch's rise & rise from London to the US & the inevitable loss of journalistic integrity in just about any media outlet that comes under his control. I don't think it's an unreasonable observation to say that it's his ambition to be be the most powerful media owner in the world, nor that he is particularly concerned about the integrity of the "product" he peddles.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Lol - the right are assuming this is about not liking the Fox news slant - actually (while clearly I, for instance, get more agitated by appalling pseudo-journalism with an extreme right bias than I do about left) it's about the JOURNALISM, stupid! (If I may coin a phrase). In fact, Fox reminds me of leftish student rags - with the slogans reversed.

If this drek were being served up as balanced reporting with as extreme a left stance as Fox's is right I would be shocked to see IT masquerading as journalism, too. This is why I keep asking if such a beast exists on the left - not so much with the same level of propaganda, but with the same amount of propaganda AND declaring itself to be a mainstream outlet that is "fair and balanced".

Deb

Did you watch Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism on the ABC last night? It investigated in depth the methods Fox News use to sell it's political message:repetitive slogans, graphics & unsourced statements, the muddying of the line between news & opinion, opinions presented as if fact .... etc, etc ... (And in the case of an interviewer called Bill O'Reilly, aggressively shouting at interviewees whose opinions he disagreed with & not giving them an opportunity to respond. "Shut up!" Boy, that guy was really something! Shocked

)

I can assure you that the stream of former journalists & producers interviewed on the program had no say in the content presented & the methods of presentation. We were shown examples of "daily memos" outlining what to cover & what to ignore. No prizes for guessing what the priorities were! It was very frightening viewing, indeed. I can't imagine why anyone would regularly watch this stuff, say nothing of actually believing they were being presented the "truth".

0 Replies

Outfoxed
http://www.outfoxed.org/OutfoxedSummary.php

0 Replies

yep - and I have been looking at other stuff.

Like I keep saying ad nauseum, I was so shocked by how bad it is that I have been investigating.

It is scary how it seems to direct the nastiest right stuff here, for instance.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

It is scary how it seems to direct the nastiest right stuff here, for instance.

Not sure what you're saying, Deb.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

blatham wrote:

Rush (as well as other conservative talk shows) is popular because, .... well, ... he's popular.

He's popular because the viewers are bored and to relieve that they sit on their backsides imagining they are engaged in the political process,which they don't understand but which they are led to believe they understand by the programme,and are thus neutered.It is one of the many forms of alienation management and is associated with general reluctance to arise from the recliner coupled with a feeling of wishing to do something but being afraid of starting at the bottom and competing with activists who,like any exclusive club,erect barriers of entry as tests of committment in order that any spoils don't have to be shared with those who haven't earned them.Such is life.

spendius.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
blatham wrote:

Rush (as well as other conservative talk shows) is popular because, .... well, ... he's popular.

He's popular because the viewers are bored and to relieve that they sit on their backsides imagining they are engaged in the political process,which they don't understand but which they are led to believe they understand by the programme,and are thus neutered.It is one of the many forms of alienation management and is associated with general reluctance to arise from the recliner coupled with a feeling of wishing to do something but being afraid of starting at the bottom and competing with activists who,like any exclusive club,erect barriers of entry as tests of committment in order that any spoils don't have to be shared with those who haven't earned them.Such is life.

spendius.

Hmmm - from what I have seen of O'Reilly, for instance (never seen Rush) , it is just about having someone do what you would like to do yourself, but most reasonably civilised people don't - ie shout someone whose views you do not like down very rudely from a position of power - sort of the unthinking modern person's political blood sport. I imagine if these people have guests in whose opinions they like they sort of schmooze with them, or fawn?

It is a form of entertainment - certainly not journalism. We have their ilk here - but not on mainstream TV - they seem to exist on Sydney talkback radio - and perhaps Melbourne's?

0 Replies

Outfoxed had some play here, Deb, and can be had on DVD. I've seen it. Struck me as a well-structured hitpiece ... very much in the Michael Moore vein; clever, contrived, and contemptible. I'm no big FOXWatcher, BTW - bein' more market-oriented, I'm partial to Bloomberg TV, with a little CNBC tossed in. I usteta follow CNN-FN some, but that went away.

Somehow, I just don't find boogeymen and conspiracies behind every irritation and unpleasantry. But thats just me - no imagination, I guess.

0 Replies

Who except you is speaking of conspiracies Timber? I have no idea what you mean.

I do not think there is a conspiracy - what I DO think is that a right wing man has a lot of power and money - and that he has set up a huge network to pander to the more stupid and undiscriminating of the American public - (or seemingly those who want their views supported - with no challenge - in the extraordinarily divided world that appears to comprise politics for many folk in the US right now) - just as he has gutter rags to do the same in the UK. You never lose by underestimating the audience. Anywhere. Shrugs.

I am not alleging a conspiracy - what I AM doing is expressing disgust at the level of journalism on Fox given its claims - which, as I said, stuns me, given the number of its adherents here, and THEIR claims about it. I had expected it to be a lot better.

I DO think that such journalism debases the national debate in every country it touches - and I think I can see the effects of this debased debate in some of what happens here - as I have described in previous posts. I do think it terrible that, seemingly, many base their opinions only on such pap. Left pap of such an ilk would be equally damaging if it a lot of influence. I have not personally come across such pap on mainstream media from the left. I know lots of rightwing people claim to see it on your "alphabets" - I strongly disagree with their analysis. So be it.

You might also wish to consider that we, as Australians, and especialler me, as a denizen of the place where he got his start - have been well aware of Murdoch's tendency to get his agenda forwarded by his outlest - some - the "quality" ones - he allows more freedom. Some less. I take it you hav enot bothered to read my comment about his absolutely unashamed announcement that he had come home from London to make sure the right party won? Rupert might talk the talk these days - re his political agenda - but we know what he says in unguarded moments - and have had his jouros and editors speaking out for many years.

Yes - the doco it was a hit piece - that is why I have been looking at other sources - and my own eyes.

0 Replies

It's rather more than "irritation & unpleasantry" I would have thought, timberlandko. Quite a long list of respectable former journalists & producers thought it was far more than that. The snippets I saw of interviews, the memos from "above", the deeply offensive O'Reilly, etc, were quite disturbing.

0 Replies

I appreciate you folks feel strongly the way you do - I just don't share your perception. In fact, I think it ridiculous. Not that I think you're ridiculous, mind you, just that I think the perception is. Sorta the same way I feel about religionists, I guess - mostly fine folks, well intentioned and otherwise reasonable and well-thought, but inexplicably caught up in some absurd, ancient superstition. I don't hold it against 'em, I just don't share their fantasies. As I said, I s'pose I just lack the imagination required to enjoy the game. Makes no sense to me whatsoever ... total waste of time and effort when there are real things to deal with.

0 Replies

so - you think Fox is good journalism?

0 Replies

You think it unbiased and fair?

My perception is that it is appalling journalism

Apart from calling our beliefs ridiculous, what do you think of FOX, not our alleged beliefs, which you see convinced amount to conspiracy theories.

Do you think Murdoch has no say in the content of Fox?

Do you think he hired people - like Ailes - for their utter balance and journalistic zeal?

0 Replies

You see I would have little to say about Fox, if it were not held up as some wonderful thing by some here.

As I keep saying, the reality has stunned me. I will get over the shock, and file it away soon as another lesson learned.

But, on threads like this beating Fox's drum in a strangely triumphalist way, I feel moved to comment for a time.

0 Replies

Didn't say that at all - you're projectin'. I'm sayin' I don't think it matters anywhere near as much as some folks seem to think it does. I'm on record elsewhere here as sayin' I think most broadcast media "News" is infotainment - worth what its worth and no more. If one is insufficiently informed and discriminating as to rely primarily on one source or a limited selection of similarly-themed/viewpointed sources for news, one is fully deserving of all the disappointments, stunning reverses, and unpleasant surprises one's world is filled with.

0 Replies

I am calling you on this Timber. These are your words:

timberlandko wrote:

Somehow, I just don't find boogeymen and conspiracies behind every irritation and unpleasantry. But thats just me - no imagination, I guess....

...but inexplicably caught up in some absurd, ancient superstition. I don't hold it against 'em, I just don't share their fantasies.

I am projecting nothing.

But - at last you have actually almost responded about FOX, instead of about your misperceptions of what I am saying.

You regard, it seems, almost all broadcast media "news" as infotainment. There I agree with you. I simply see Fox as an especially bad version of this. And one that seems able to gather unto its views great loyalty from some. Indeed, sadly, many. I do not see folk flocking here to tout the wonder and accuracy of NBC, or whatever other alphabets you have, for instance. Fox seems to have attracted to itself for some a special journalistic status.

timberlandko wrote:

If one is insufficiently informed and discriminating as to rely primarily on one source or a limited selection of similarly-themed/viewpointed sources for news, one is fully deserving of all the disappointments, stunning reverses, and unpleasant surprises one's world is filled with.

I shall avoid the temptation, in light of your bandying around psychological terms like "projection", to label the above as a Freudian slip - and merely say I assume you meant "uninformed" and "undiscriminating".

I wil merely comment that, in a country as powerful as the US, an ill informed and undiscriminating electorate, ably assisted by the likes of Fox, is capable of assisting in filling others' worlds with stunning reverses and surprises.

To look at an analogy - we don't want the Islamic world fed on biased crap, do we, we want a strong, independent and objective media - whose journalists seek truth and balance fearlessly, and who encourage rational and informed discussion about issues from all points of view?

Why should I wish less for the US?

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Outfoxed had some play here, Deb, and can be had on DVD. I've seen it. Struck me as a well-structured hitpiece ... very much in the Michael Moore vein; clever, contrived, and contemptible. I'm no big FOXWatcher, BTW - bein' more market-oriented, I'm partial to Bloomberg TV, with a little CNBC tossed in. I usteta follow CNN-FN some, but that went away.

Somehow, I just don't find boogeymen and conspiracies behind every irritation and unpleasantry. But thats just me - no imagination, I guess.

As someone whose very interested in the workings of the media, particularly in the political context, I have to disagree with you, timberlandko. Outfoxed wasn't clever & contrived at all. The function of the program was to dismantle & explain the propaganda methods employed by FOX to convey a particular point of view. I think that was achieved very well. It would be different if these dubious methods were employed for entertainment purposes, but apparently some people actually form their world view & base their vote on pap like this. Now THAT is frightening!

0 Replies

Canadians want Fox News Now!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know