Hello:

I'm a bit of a news junkie. Recently I was able to get Fox News on my cable. Are these guys kidding?

It is almost cartoonish....and I find it amazing they start their broadcasts with "fair and balanced"! Talk about one-sided! They would make even our most ardent conservatives flinch. My G_d! they make the National Post look like the National Enquirer!

Am I the only one who thinks this way?

Like the phrase "Military Intelligence", "Fox News" is to put it kindly an oxymoron.:D

Ever see Outfoxed (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6737097743434902428&ei=y5QJSvy5G6C0rQKS-aXDCA&q=outfoxed&hl=en)?

OUTFOXED: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism (http://www.outfoxed.org/)

No, but thanks for the link. I think the trouble is that news is not news, it's entertainment....and that's the issue..

When we have 24 hours of news [ and that is all you cover ] everything has the same level of importance....so in order to maintain viewers....you resort to formula.

I guess ole Rupert has found a lucrative formula.

I get Fox News and watch it now and then for a laugh.

They know their demographic and they play them well. They have the highest ratings in the business and the highest revenues. News is secondary.

If you take them seriously, you will just feel angry. If you take them for what they really are, which is just playing a part, then it makes for good comedy.

Speaking of good comedy, be sure to watch The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. He relentlessly skewers Fox News, CNN, Rush Limbaugh and other right wing media.

After seeing the Red Eye segment with Greg Gutfeld about the Canadian Military in Afghanistan, I don't think 'Fox News' and 'real' should be in the same sentence.

The saddest thing of all is that their are many out there that believe that Fox is real news and quote it like it's an authority. :eek:
Very scary.

CNN is going to out-radicalise Fox news to increase ratings. Fox News is the most watched news source in the US. It explains a lot. I watched Lou Dobbs on CNN once, it was painful how blindly neo liberal he is. Disgusting.

The problem is that we now have nothing but advocacy news, both minor and major. The best we can do , it seems, is to attempt to figure out the actual news through the process of triangulation.

The problem is that we now have nothing but advocacy news, both minor and major. The best we can do , it seems, is to attempt to figure out the actual news through the process of triangulation.

That is definitely true. It's amazing to see how Fox will stick to 'talking points' issued by the Republican Party. They definitely know how to stay 'on message'.

The problem is that we now have nothing but advocacy news, both minor and major. The best we can do , it seems, is to attempt to figure out the actual news through the process of triangulation.

Totally agree with that. I don't quite remember who proposed it, but there's a line of thought that says the Internet and mass media are now leading to more radicalized and extreme viewpoints among people, because rather than using them to gain a wide variety of news, many people are instead just watching/reading the specific sources that cater to their views and support their opinions. So instead of everyone in the country watching the 6 o' clock news together and forming opinions based on a shared source, people are instead only watching news that is aimed at their political/religious/social views. Not that I advocate state-run media, but I think there's a lot of truth in that. Someone can honestly grow up watching the news every day and having their entire world-view be made up from only one end of the spectrum.

I don't quite remember who proposed it, but there's a line of thought that says the Internet and mass media are now leading to more radicalized and extreme viewpoints among people, because rather than using them to gain a wide variety of news, many people are instead just watching/reading the specific sources that cater to their views and support their opinions.

I've heard it called the Information Super-Echo. No only do people stream only the news they prefer to read, they begin to believe that the opinions shared by the target group are accurate, because they are reflected back to them consistently by both the source and other members of the audience.

The Colbert Report out-foxes Fox News constantly.

Kind of like how on the Internet, you can find a community that supports absolutely anything you can think of. I'm sure if you looked hard enough, you could find a group of people who believe, I don't know, that shoplifting is morally defensible. So someone could join that group, be encouraged to shoplift, and by the results reinforce the view in others that shoplifting is good (either you get more stuff, or you got caught so now your buddies have to steal more stuff to stick it to the man and win the war, yeah). Whereas without it, there would be no way to find anyone else who shared your view about shoplifting, since it's not really the kind of subject you can just casually bring up in polite conversation.

... I have the receipt for this computer.

The Colbert Report out-foxes Fox News constantly.

This is so very true.

The problem is that we now have nothing but advocacy news, both minor and major. The best we can do , it seems, is to attempt to figure out the actual news through the process of triangulation.

But 80% of all image and video taken for news in the World is done by BBC and CNN. Text news is dominated by UPI, AP and Reuters (at least non-local news).

Why Act Morally?: Philosophy Forums (http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/why-act-morally-34513-2.html)

Kind of like how on the Internet, you can find a community that supports absolutely anything you can think of. I'm sure if you looked hard enough, you could find a group of people who believe, I don't know, that shoplifting is morally defensible. So someone could join that group, be encouraged to shoplift, and by the results reinforce the view in others that shoplifting is good (either you get more stuff, or you got caught so now your buddies have to steal more stuff to stick it to the man and win the war, yeah). Whereas without it, there would be no way to find anyone else who shared your view about shoplifting, since it's not really the kind of subject you can just casually bring up in polite conversation.

... I have the receipt for this computer.

If the issue is accuracy and importance - I'll take TMZ over FOX any day. Really, the only thing worse than FOX for news is MSNBC... Ummm... Even worse is any sporting event put on FOX, with all of the crazy graphics that block everything a fan would want to see, while cramming in more "factoids" on the screen than any video game.

I don't even know if I watch anything on FOX, but then I haven't watched much CNN, except when that black dude with attitude is on cutting up his co-anchors after commercial breaks.

CNN is going to out-radicalise Fox news to increase ratings. Fox News is the most watched news source in the US. It explains a lot. I watched Lou Dobbs on CNN once, it was painful how blindly neo liberal he is. Disgusting.
That's the first time I ever heard Lou Dobbs being equated to "liberals". I mean, sure, he isn't the Limbaugh style reactionary who pretends to be conservative - but I 've never heard Dobbs ever say that the Government should be doling out free goods to the lazy.

I can identify with Dobbs on the point that he expresses the exhaustion that is felt when problems are not only dealt with incorrectly, they are fertilized and fester until they become unsolvable syndromes. He only preaches about the need to regulate Wall Street because we have seen the result of the corruption that goes on - that there are people who will go to extremees to make a dime, even if it means flushing the nation down the toilet. Easy credit just leads to wholesale bankruptcy, and we stand witness to it. And nothing, nothing did more harm than for the Administration to preach a mantra of "oh, nothing's wrong", even if it was outright fraudulent criminal behaviour that endangered the economic health of the world.

FOX "News" is even more faux than the crud they peddle as "journalism" on our own national broadcaster - but at least Murdoch is flipping the bill, whereas the CBC is our cash eating apatosaurus...

Lou Dobbs comes out swinging against the hypocricy and waste of whatever government is in power, or against various government agencies. I don't agree with him on every issue, but I can see his frustration when he asks "Does anyone there know what they are doing?"

http://www.turnoffyourtv.com/networks/foxnews/MurdochBrockman.gif


"All across America, there are offices that resemble newsrooms, and in those offices there are people who resemble journalists, but they are not engaged in journalism. It is not journalism because it does not regard the reader — or, in the case of broadcasting, the listener, or the viewer — as a master to be served," said Los Angeles Times Editor John S. Carroll in a Lecture on Ethics delivered at The University of Oregon in May 2004.

"To the contrary," he said, "it regards its audience with a cold cynicism. In this realm of pseudo-journalism, the audience is something to be manipulated. And when the audience is misled, no one in the pseudo-newsroom ever offers a peep of protest."

Carroll goes on to say that journalists of the past such as "Lippmann, Reston, Murrow, Sevareid and others . . . are still held in high regard. They were, foremost, journalists, not entertainers or marketers. Their opinions were rigorously grounded in fact. It was the truthfulness of these commentators — their sheer intellectual honesty — that causes their names to endure. Today, the credibility painstakingly earned by past journalists lends an unearned legitimacy to the new generation of talk show hosts. Cloaked deceptively in the mantle of journalism, today's opinion-brokers are playing a nasty Halloween prank on the public, and indeed on journalism itself."

Why Fox News Is An Industry Joke - TurnOffYourTV.com (http://www.turnoffyourtv.com/networks/foxnews/foxnews.html)

You don't need to read much of my posts to know what I think of Faux Noise. I know some people see them as "entertainment," but they are not "harmless." They are (not single-handedly, mind, but leading the charge) destroying legitimate journalism.

It's perfectly okay for journalists to have an opinion. We all have opinions. But it is not okay to alter and distort reality in service to rigid ideology, to blatantly lie to the audience, to invent stories to support a pre-determined agenda (particularly when that agenda isn't even your own -- it's being handed to you by a particular political organisation).

The fact that Canadians can so clearly see Faux for what it is -- even if they like it -- whereas many Americans seem unable to distinguish it from reality (makes you wonder if they think Roadrunner cartoons are real!) is highly troubling and speaks volumes about the increasingly different path these two countries are on.

That's the first time I ever heard Lou Dobbs being equated to "liberals". I mean, sure, he isn't the Limbaugh style reactionary who pretends to be conservative - but I 've never heard Dobbs ever say that the Government should be doling out free goods to the lazy.

I can identify with Dobbs on the point that he expresses the exhaustion that is felt when problems are not only dealt with incorrectly, they are fertilized and fester until they become unsolvable syndromes. He only preaches about the need to regulate Wall Street because we have seen the result of the corruption that goes on - that there are people who will go to extremees to make a dime, even if it means flushing the nation down the toilet. Easy credit just leads to wholesale bankruptcy, and we stand witness to it. And nothing, nothing did more harm than for the Administration to preach a mantra of "oh, nothing's wrong", even if it was outright fraudulent criminal behaviour that endangered the economic health of the world.

FOX "News" is even more faux than the crud they peddle as "journalism" on our own national broadcaster - but at least Murdoch is flipping the bill, whereas the CBC is our cash eating apatosaurus...

There is a very big difference between Liberal and Neo Liberal. I use Liberal with a big L. I do not equate Liberal to the left in this sense.


For example, George Bush, economically speaking is a neo liberal. Politically is a radical neo conservative and professional criminal and dictator.

Lou Dobbs comes out swinging against the hypocricy and waste of whatever government is in power, or against various government agencies. I don't agree with him on every issue, but I can see his frustration when he asks "Does anyone there know what they are doing?"

Yes but then he goes on to tread a fine line of racism when discussing immigration and and brings on "Scientists" ordained by the Western Evangelical Church to give their expert opinion on the fallacy of Climate Change and Science in general.

Wow!!! This generated more discussion than I thought. I'm wondering is there is a danger in the "infortainment" approach. It seems we are losing a newspaper daily....to me it is like the loss of a dear friend.

While I do enjoy the web versions, there is something comforting about a "paper", I think it is that you can share it....

And, their local journalists at least try to provide a community prospective.

Fox News et al....doesn't do it for me.

Yes but then he goes on to tread a fine line of racism when discussing immigration and and brings on "Scientists" ordained by the Western Evangelical Church to give their expert opinion on the fallacy of Climate Change and Science in general.

True, Adrian. For the past year or so I have felt that LD has gone off of the deep end on certain issues, immigration being one of them.

Faux Noise

LOL!

I went to the Dominican Republic in Feb of this year. There was only a couple of English channels. One was FOX news. The right-wing bias was crystal clear, especially when talking about the economic stimulus bill.

LOL!

I went to the Dominican Republic in Feb of this year. There was only a couple of English channels. One was FOX news. The right-wing bias was crystal clear, especially when talking about the economic stimulus bill.

I agree Fox is blatantly right wing but I also see blatant bias in our state run media the CBC. I'd say they're as biased as Fox only from a Lefty perspective. The sad thing is we have a choice to pay for Fox but I have no choice with the CBC.:(

Cheers
MacGuiver

I love to hate Bill O'Reilly. :ptptptptp

True, Adrian. For the past year or so I have felt that LD has gone off of the deep end on certain issues, immigration being one of them.

More to the point -- these guys (particularly Dobbs, Hannity, Limbaugh et al) are mostly people who have ZERO practical experience doing or leading ... well, anything. They've not been in the military (and certainly nowhere near a war zone), not a successful businessperson, no experience with the kind of compromise and statesmanship one needs to be successful politically, need I go on ...

They are blowhards, plain and simple. They are well paid to publicly fantasize (some would say masturbate) about how dissent and reality would simply melt away if only THEY were in charge, if only everyone thought the same way they did. Yeah, that's never going to happen ... so what else ya got?

Al Gore's The Assault on Reason is an incredible look at what the state of news and information production in the US is doing to its population and particularly the acute effects it has on democracy. Because people like Dobbs and Hanity distort reality to such an extent that peoples' ability to make rational decisions has been compromised. In fact, reason itself is being undermined by this manipulation of information and its pervasiveness.

Al Gore's The Assault on Reason is an incredible look at what the state of news and information production in the US is doing to its population and particularly the acute effects it has on democracy. Because people like Dobbs and Hanity distort reality to such an extent that peoples' ability to make rational decisions has been compromised. In fact, reason itself is being undermined by this manipulation of information and its pervasiveness.

Wow talk about pot and kettle.
Yeah nobody could ever blame Al Gore of distorting reality and he's got an Oscar to prove it.:rolleyes:

Cheers
MacGuiver

More to the point -- these guys (particularly Dobbs, Hannity, Limbaugh et al) are mostly people who have ZERO practical experience doing or leading ... well, anything.

Like Obama!

Al Gore's The Assault on Reason is an incredible look at what the state of news and information production in the US is doing to its population and particularly the acute effects it has on democracy. Because people like Dobbs and Hanity distort reality to such an extent that peoples' ability to make rational decisions has been compromised. In fact, reason itself is being undermined by this manipulation of information and its pervasiveness.

Al Gore himself is an assault on reason--but he's getting rich on it.

Yeah nobody could ever blame Al Gore of distorting reality and he's got an Oscar to prove it.

I look forward to examining your proof of the falseness of the claims made in "An Inconvenient Truth."

SINC couldn't do it, I'm pretty sure you can't either.

SINC couldn't do it, I'm pretty sure you can't either.

MacGuiver: SINC could do it and I'm sure you could too. The fact that Gore finds himself incapable of public debate on the issue is a strong indicator of just how much he values this cash cow.

SINC couldn't do it, I'm pretty sure you can't either.

I don't have to do it. Gore did a great job of it himself by demonstrating his only desire was to create an artificial carbon credit commodity market to line his own pockets.

'Course he had motive too. How else could he afford to keep up with the far above normal energy consumption of that oversized mansion he built himself?

I don't have to do it. Gore did a great job of it himself by demonstrating his only desire was to create an artificial carbon credit commodity market to line his own pockets.

'Course he had motive too. How else could he afford to keep up with the far above normal energy consumption of that oversized mansion he built himself?

SINC, I'd like to believe you, but you tabaccy-chewing, saddle-sore Albertans can't be trusted with important issues like making Al Gore rich beyond the dreams of avarice.;)

There is a very big difference between Liberal and Neo Liberal. I use Liberal with a big L. I do not equate Liberal to the left in this sense.


For example, George Bush, economically speaking is a neo liberal. Politically is a radical neo conservative and professional criminal and dictator.
I think you need to have an exact definition, because I think of a "neo liberal" as someone who will explore new frontiers in lying and promise breaking, while being entirely weak and unable to make a tough decision so long as the polls are ambiguous.

I wouldn't define George Bush as neo anything, he was nothing more than 100% USDA Approved gangster. Not only did he lie, he had a hidden agenda that was corrosive. He and his Administration provided shelter for all kinds of criminals and criminal activities, especially on Wall Street, where trillions of dollars of wealth were destroyed in an orgy of greed and fraud. He directed the misanthropic goals of warfare, which obviously was conducted without any kind of plan, and sacrificed the flower of the nation for so little to gain. For a man who did not respect humanity and who would poop on basic rights like habeus corpus - it is curious why he just didn't save us a lot of time and pain and juts hire some mercenaries to "take care" of Saddam. I am sure that for the money Bush pumped into Iraqi corruption (some $18 billion US "went missing"), he could have hired some pretty swank mercenaries.

I think the problem with political parties these days is that they all steal each others policies, and campaign too much on the thing they really lack, personalities. No one votes for Harper, they vote against Dion; and no one votes for McGuilty, they vote against Tory. If "neo" means anything, it means a facade of falsehoods. So voting in a neo-con will obviously not lead to any sense of social justice or the greater good - but pandering to special interests and paying out rich cronies and pushing all of their friends up to the pork barrel is in; while a neo-lib will obviously not seek justice for the individual or to promote the rights and freedoms of the individual - but pandering to special interests and paying out rich cronies and pushing all of their friends up to the pork barrel is in. Therefore - there is no difference between Neo-Con and Neo-Lib - just the lies and deceit have been altered to assault the innocent.

The problem is that we now have nothing but advocacy news, both minor and major. The best we can do , it seems, is to attempt to figure out the actual news through the process of triangulation.

Wow, I totally agree with the above statement.

What really gets me is the ultra-sensationalism of news for ratings.

I look forward to examining your proof of the falseness of the claims made in "An Inconvenient Truth."

SINC couldn't do it, I'm pretty sure you can't either.

You mean other than the hockey stick graph which was the lynch pin of the entire movie and has been thoroughly disproved.

There are enough threads about global warming. This thread is about Fox news.

So does Fox news qualify as Journalism?

According to The Elements of Journalism, a book by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel, there are nine elements of journalism [1]. In order for a journalist to fulfill their duty of providing the people with the information they need to be free and self-governing. They must follow these guidelines:

Journalism's first obligation is to the truth.
Its first loyalty is to the citizens.
Its essence is discipline of verification.
Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover.
It must serve as an independent monitor of power.
It must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise.
It must strive to make the significant interesting, and relevant.
It must keep the news comprehensive and proportional.
Its practitioners must be allowed to exercise their personal conscience.

Journalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism)

If not what is it? Is it even a "news" organization?

By those standards, CBC isn't journalism either and they only succeed on the last point.

Fox, like CBC, CTV, Global, CNN, ABC, CBS, ad nauseum are all in the info entertainment business. None of them meet that strict definition of journalism by Wiki.

Having said that, Fox is by far the worst of molding the news to attract audiences, but all practice such tactics aimed more at ratings than integrity.