Advertisement

LJWorld.com weblogs Sharpening My Pen

Dissension in the Ranks

Advertisement

Wow. You know it's got to be getting bad when one main stream news source actually goes so far as to call out another news source and call them bald faced liars on international TV.
http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/21/robertson-this-allegation-is-outrageous-and-its-absolutely-hypocritical/

I don't think I can recall in all of my years anything like this ever happening. I grew up with TV news. Our very first TV was acquired in 1955. It had a cabinet that took up half of the wall and the screen was the size of a dinner plate. We got two stations if we were lucky and you had to constantly mess with the antenna. Our TVs grew with the times and by the sixties we had color and could reliably get the three networks. Vietnam became the first televised war and it was on all three networks every night.

My parents tended to watch CBS the most. They adored Walter Cronkite. Throughout that time, TV news was always dignified and without fail, trustworthy. The three networks competed, but never did they impugn the integrity of another network's news. CNN joined the pack and was welcomed into the brotherhood. They were "different". They were cable and never really threatened the stability of the "big three". CNN followed the rules, competing by always going for the story and not the reputation of it's competitors. Then Rupert Murdoch came along and (literally) set the "fox" loose in the hen house.

The evolution of FOX broadcasting has actually been fairly gradual. Murdoch tested the waters and kept pushing the envelope of his partisanship but made it very clear from the beginning that he bought FOX for one purpose and one purpose alone; to reshape and influence political discourse to the right. He didn't care how he did it and he had every intention of using every dirty trick in the book.

FOX News lies. Multiple nonpartisan sites on the internet have pointed out the outright lies that FOX News has put forth before the public over and over again. Along with that, it has been pointed out multiple times by multiple sources that FOX News slants it's stories, sometimes by withholding information crucial to the story or showing only part of a sound bite and taking the utterance completely out of context. Murdoch has achieved his goal. He has turned the FOX network into his personal propaganda machine. So big has his juggernaut grown that it commands a place at the table with every other large news organization.

Which begs the question. Everyone knows FOX News lies. It's the elephant in the room; an elephant that has grown so huge that it's to the point where other media sources are actually calling FOX on their lies, an act that thirty years ago would have been unthinkable. So why do people watch it? Why are people so desperate to believe this one, lone news source to the extent that they will vilify every other major televised news source in this country? Somebody have an answer?

Comments

ksrush 3 years, 4 months ago

One reason people watch FOX is because they are tired of listening to the same lib slant on every story. The lib media has run rampant since the late 60's and not challenged until the likes of the FOX programs, Rush and numerous others now making a name for themselves. As for the " lies " I believe the rest of the media is just as guilty of manufacturing their version of news.

You are correct the news is not what it used to be. I suffered through an episode of the CBS morning show recently and could not believe thats what passes for news. The anchors have to be paid big bucks to try and keep a straight face while broadcasting " the news "

0

jafs 3 years, 4 months ago

Please post some examples of the liberal bias you claim exists in the mainstream media.

From actual mainstream news stories or sources.

0

jafs 3 years, 4 months ago

Ok.

I guess you like to post unsupported claims, and then insult anybody who asks you to support them.

Not very convincing.

0

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 4 months ago

The link I posted at the very beginning of this blog entry is documentation. It's the reason I wrote it. You are a perfect example of the willful ignorance I am posting about.

0

notanota 3 years, 4 months ago

Projection: it's not just for movies anymore.

0

jafs 3 years, 4 months ago

Since I haven't made the claim that FOX is biased, why should I have to document that?

You're the one making the claim, it's up to you to support it.

0

strongarmcrunch 3 years, 4 months ago

The truth is a lib slant, isn't it?

0

beatrice 3 years, 4 months ago

So they watch to it to get a conservative slant instead? Okay, but why seek news with a slant in the first place?

0

scott3460 3 years, 4 months ago

I wonder how many of the ditto heads ever stop to contemplate the fact that FAUX "News" is tax payer supported. They sure have been happy to run all the Chevy and GM ads the auto dealer bailout money can buy.

0

scott3460 3 years, 4 months ago

"Somebody have an answer?"

Sure, the advertisers have taken over. TV stations no longer deliver news, they sell a brand. The difference between the ads pitching coke and taco bell differ from the show content only in subject matter.

By the way, the same forces that have destroyed TV's content are now at work and plotting a similar takeover of the internet. Stay tuned for more restrictions from your ISP on what you can view and what information to which you'll have access.

0

jafs 3 years, 4 months ago

Actually, the other possibility is that the news was in the center.

There are 3 possibilities - left, center, and right.

0

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 4 months ago

It indicates no such thing. I honestly believe that up until FOX came along, the major news outlets tried to stay centered and balanced as an ethical obligation.

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 4 months ago

"What is your honest belief based on?"

'Cause CNN, CBS, and MSNBC told her so, silly.

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 4 months ago

"I honestly believe that up until FOX came along, the major news outlets tried to stay centered and balanced as an ethical obligation."

Well, you probably believed in the tooth fairy and easter bunny, too.

0

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 4 months ago

And the fact that a clearly biased news source is shaping opinion about those "bigger issues" means nothing?

0

Art 3 years, 4 months ago

It's too bad the U.S. doesn't have a law like Canada, making it a crime to deliberately tell a lie in a newscast. Because of that simple law, Fox News can't broadcast in Canada. (Well, they could, but they can't lie, and since that's "what they do," they consider their broadcast prohibited.)

Rupert Murdoch even enlisted the help of the rightwing Prime Minister to try to get the law changed, but the Canadian equivalent of our Supreme Court upheld the law.

So simple: Can't lie on the air? Fox News stays out of the country.

0

Boosh 3 years, 4 months ago

Was curious myself so I googled "Fox News can't broadcast in Canada" and google reports "About 20,700,000 results (0.17 seconds) " :)

http://www.google.com/search?q=Fox+News+can%27t+broadcast+in+Canada&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

0

sr80 3 years, 4 months ago

I'am puking my spagetttoies !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

0

tomatogrower 3 years, 4 months ago

Too funny. Glad I wasn't eating when I watched this.

0

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 4 months ago

What does this have to do with the blog post? Oh, right! Nothing. This is just TS spewing his usual BS.

0

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 4 months ago

I suggest you look up the definition for "yellow journalism". Now look at FOX News. Now look at the definition. Now look at FOX News. I'm on a horse!

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 4 months ago

So, a blog, the transcript of an interview by Wolf Blitzer of another CNN reporter, is what you consider "documentation", and solid, responsible, objective journalism.

Riiiiight.

0

jafs 3 years, 4 months ago

The problem with the idea that distortion in the media isn't a big deal, and that truthful sources should simply produce a "better product" is many faceted.

People tend to believe what they initially hear about something, even if they find out later that it's not true.

Given the various desires of consumers, who says that a truthful news source is a "better" product for them? Many people seem to like being stirred up by partisan rhetoric.

Once the idea that news is slanted becomes commonplace, standards of all news sources are likely to decline.

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 4 months ago

vertigo (Jesse Crittenden) replies…

"In an April 2009, the Fox News show America's Newsroom made the claim that Obama's $3.6 trillion budget is 4x bigger than Bush's costliest plan. Bush's budgets for 2009 and 2008 were $3.1 and $2.9 trillion respectively. So is 3.6 4x larger than 3.1 or is that a lie?"

Nice paraphrasing, but don't you think you should cite your source when parroting MediaMatters, vertigo? The actual quote is:

"During the April 3 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, on-screen text repeatedly falsely claimed that President Obama's $3.6 trillion fiscal year 2010 budget is "4x bigger than Bush's costliest plan." However, President Bush submitted a $3.1 trillion budget for FY 2009. For FY 2008, Bush submitted a $2.9 trillion budget."

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200904030018

But you got it close enough.

Now, while it's awfully difficult to dispute what was actually being said, since the renowned and completely unbiased MediaMatters for America ("Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.") didn't see fit to tell us what was actually being talked about while that graphic was on the screen, ya' think maybe it's possible that they were talking about how the $3.6T budget quadrupled the deficit?

Admittedly, the graphic, taken out of context, appears to be talking about the budget. Perhaps Fox figures their average viewer is intelligent enough to know the federal budget hasn't been at or below $0.9T (1/4 of $3.6T) in close to 30 years, and someone seeing that graphic would be smart enough to know they weren't talking about the budget itself. But I can see where members of a political party that relishes its gullibility would be confused. I haven't been able to locate a transcript of what was actually being talked about while that graphic was on the screen. How odd that the completely unbiased MediaMatters didn't publish one to go along with their pictures. After all, it's unthinkable that they might have taken the graphic's numbers and then changed the title to suit their stance. That might show a clear bias, after all.

0

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 4 months ago

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell

0

Boosh 3 years, 4 months ago

I just find it interesting that Harrigan sent a "red shirt" with a camera. Bet he were surprised when he came back alive.

0

Flap Doodle 3 years, 4 months ago

Speaking of dissension: "...Painting a general picture of organizational chaos, they pointed to a lack of civility in the organization, a lack of democracy and a lack of consultation...." Who is being discussed? http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0311/The_Coffee_Party_and_its_discontents.html

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.