Fox News and the Murdoch Empire

ed2hands

The "News of the World" bit the dust today. Hacked to death over the massive phone-tapping scandal. No doubt it will be replaced by something else very similar soon enough.

Rupert Murdochs massive media empire rolls on unabated either way.
He's still a very powerful man indeed. Below is a 2004 doc film about his flagship Fox news station and it's huge role in shaping US political opinion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ok01hJHvobM

Full movie here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6737097743434902428

Youtube link for Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ok01hJHvobM

Emiko

This article, especially the second paragraph, may be relevant to why Fox can do what it does in the States.

Torakx

Canada's Radio Act requires that "a licenser may not broadcast ... any false or misleading news." The provision has kept Fox News and right-wing talk radio out of Canada and helped make Canada a model for liberal democracy and freedom. As a result of that law, Canadians enjoy high quality news coverage, including the kind of foreign affairs and investigative journalism that flourished in this country before Ronald Reagan abolished the "Fairness Doctrine" in 1987.

Nice one Emiko,its kind of hilarious dont you think.
They cant get into a country to share the news because they dont have any mwuahaha.

A thought on the side.
Where does Ireland stand in relation to acts such as this?

fontanalis

Fox have a news station now?

studiorat

Torakx wrote: »

Canada's Radio Act requires that "a licenser may not broadcast ... any false or misleading news." The provision has kept Fox News and right-wing talk radio out of Canada and helped make Canada a model for liberal democracy and freedom. As a result of that law, Canadians enjoy high quality news coverage, including the kind of foreign affairs and investigative journalism that flourished in this country before Ronald Reagan abolished the "Fairness Doctrine" in 1987.

This country?

Not exactly true though is it? Nearly all of the network providers in Canada carry Fox News.

fontanalis wrote: »

Fox have a news station now?

Yes it's called Sky News. :cool:

Emiko

studiorat wrote: »

This country?

Not exactly true though is it? Nearly all of the network providers in Canada carry Fox News.

American Fox News.

There is no Canadian Fox News, afaik.

studiorat

Emiko wrote: »

American Fox News.

There is no Canadian Fox News, afaik.

What did Torakx mean then?

So where does this appear in the whole freedom of speech debate? This also right wing ban I suppose keeps Alex Jones and his ilk out too...

I guess not : http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/fox-news-north-secures-broadcast-49377

Fox news is simply unashamed opinionated news, it makes no bones about it. There's no shortage of opinionated news items complaining about Fox.

ed2hands

studiorat wrote: »

Fox news is simply unashamed opinionated news, it makes no bones about it.

It is that, but disguises itself as, in it's own words "fair and balanced".
It maintains that it is exactly what it isn't.

jackiebaron

studiorat wrote: »

What did Torakx mean then?

So where does this appear in the whole freedom of speech debate? This also right wing ban I suppose keeps Alex Jones and his ilk out too...

I guess not : http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/fox-news-north-secures-broadcast-49377

Fox news is simply unashamed opinionated news, it makes no bones about it. There's no shortage of opinionated news items complaining about Fox.

Fox News is definitely "opinionated" but they also broadcast blatant lies and half-truths. Take for example the O'Reilly Factor. This guy outright lies through his teeth and is never called up on it. No statements or apologies are issued. No corrections or clarifications are given and the public is left to take as fact the fallacies that he's spewed out before he moves on to the next ranting pack of lies.

studiorat

ed2hands wrote: »

It is that, but disguises itself as, in it's own words "fair and balanced".
It maintains that it is exactly what it isn't.

Show me a news related outlet that doesn't.

Very few aren't biased in some way. The Independent today which is supposed to be free from bias was positively gloating in some of the articles about NOTW. Full of sickening finger wagging, Fisk's article was basically a gloating "I told you so..."

ed2hands

studiorat wrote: »

Show me a news related outlet that doesn't

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/
http://counterpunch.org/

studiorat wrote: »

Very few aren't biased in some way. The Independent today which is supposed to be free from bias was positively gloating in some of the articles about NOTW. Full of sickening finger wagging, Fisk's article was basically a gloating "I told you so..."

Of course he was gloating. Fisk had a right go and he's entitled to more than most IMO as he's got more journalistic balls in his little toe than the rest of those sewer rats put together.
It's true though that everyone is queuing up to get the digs in. Even the Daily Mail:pac:.

enfant terrible

jackiebaron wrote: »

Fox News is definitely "opinionated" but they also broadcast blatant lies and half-truths. Take for example the O'Reilly Factor. This guy outright lies through his teeth and is never called up on it. No statements or apologies are issued. No corrections or clarifications are given and the public is left to take as fact the fallacies that he's spewed out before he moves on to the next ranting pack of lies.

You should watch MSNBC if you think the O' Reilly Factor is biased.

CiaranMT

studiorat wrote: »

Show me a news related outlet that doesn't.

Very few aren't biased in some way. The Independent today which is supposed to be free from bias was positively gloating in some of the articles about NOTW. Full of sickening finger wagging, Fisk's article was basically a gloating "I told you so..."

Every single paper is doing that, and rightly so. What the NOTW had done is sickening.

280special

enfant terrible wrote: »

You should watch MSNBC if you think the O' Reilly Factor is biased.

Think??? Ohh come on now , who could think that it isnt one of the worst ?? It's brutal and would be funny if it's influence wasnt so serious !!

That clown O'Reilly cant get his facts ,even historical facts, right. I seem to remember somewhere that he claimed that US troops massacred members of the SS at Malmedy during the Battle of the Bulge..Fox later tried to claim that he said Normandy, yeah right ! What about his claim that 58% of single mothers were claiming benefit , which then changed to a maximum ( as per O'Reilly settings ) of 30%...no apology, no explaination, Or his claim that Jack Abramoff financially supported both Democrats and Republicans, again proven wrong, no apology issued. You could write a book about this arrogent fool, his attitude and his mistakes.

CiaranMT

280special wrote: »

Think??? Ohh come on now , who could think that it isnt one of the worst ?? It's brutal and would be funny if it's influence wasnt so serious !!

That clown O'Reilly cant get his facts ,even historical facts, right. I seem to remember somewhere that he claimed that US troops massacred members of the SS at Malmedy during the Battle of the Bulge..Fox later tried to claim that he said Normandy, yeah right ! What about his claim that 58% of single mothers were claiming benefit , which then changed to a maximum ( as per O'Reilly settings ) of 30%...no apology, no explaination, Or his claim that Jack Abramoff financially supported both Democrats and Republicans, again proven wrong, no apology issued. You could write a book about this arrogent fool, his attitude and his mistakes.

An obligatory meme:

digme

CiaranMT wrote: »

An obligatory meme:

atleast you kept it pithy

studiorat

CiaranMT wrote: »

Every single paper is doing that, and rightly so. What the NOTW had done is sickening.

Yes, but it reduces the journalism to punditry. Which would you rather read a balanced analysis of the story or a rant ?

Surely it's up to you to decide if it's sickening, not for someone else to tell you it is?

CiaranMT

studiorat wrote: »

Yes, but it reduces the journalism to punditry. Which would you rather read a balanced analysis of the story or a rant ?

Surely it's up to you to decide if it's sickening, not for someone else to tell you it is?

Indeed it is. And I think that the coverage that the broadsheets have been giving has been balanced. I don't read the Independent btw so I'm going to guess that Fisk is a columnist?

Punditry is basically what columnists do, non?

studiorat

CiaranMT wrote: »

Indeed it is. And I think that the coverage that the broadsheets have been giving has been balanced. I don't read the Independent btw so I'm going to guess that Fisk is a columnist?

Punditry is basically what columnists do, non?

Mostly balanced, the Times gave a good account of it IMO.

I'm saying it reduces the Journalism. Increasing partisanship in news coverage. The rise of the opinionated format is most evident with the likes of Bill O'Reilly et al. It's making peoples minds up for them, and on the opposite side of the fence you have just the same thing happening.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Fisk

The image of the journalist breaking a story on behalf of those who can't and sticking up for their side is commendable, unfortunately it now seems that every half arsed hack, especially online, seems to think they need to take a side to portray the story. Or more likely to portray themselves as some leading light for civil liberties.

jackiebaron

enfant terrible wrote: »

You should watch MSNBC if you think the O' Reilly Factor is biased.

Bias is one thing.....LIES is something completely different. And we're not talking about MSNBC, we're talking about FOX. I find it a neverending source of amusement that when you criticise something that a right-wing know-nothing worships, they can never stick to the point and defend their guy/book/station/whatever. They always attack someone/something else. Criticise Bush and they'll take digs at Clinton and Obama and I usually tell them that I couldn't give a fcuk about Clinton or Obama and ask them why they are bringing these people up when we are talking about Bush. They usually have a sort of meltdown at that point.

ed2hands

studiorat wrote: »

the Times gave a good account of it IMO.

A good account as in went easy on NOTW compared to some?
I wonder why that is? Is it because Murdoch owns that too maybe?

studiorat

ed2hands wrote: »

A good account as in went easy on NOTW compared to some?
I wonder why that is? Is it because Murdoch owns that too maybe?

No, because they gave the first ten pages of the paper to it. Pretty full coverage and let the reader make up their own mind. In fact it's often noted that the Times opinion pieces do damage to it's 'paper of record" status. In particular when it attacks interests that go against those of its parent company.

enfant terrible

jackiebaron wrote: »

Bias is one thing.....LIES is something completely different. And we're not talking about MSNBC, we're talking about FOX. I find it a neverending source of amusement that when you criticise something that a right-wing know-nothing worships, they can never stick to the point and defend their guy/book/station/whatever. They always attack someone/something else. Criticise Bush and they'll take digs at Clinton and Obama and I usually tell them that I couldn't give a fcuk about Clinton or Obama and ask them why they are bringing these people up when we are talking about Bush. They usually have a sort of meltdown at that point.

Calm down buddy you take O' Reilly, Olbermann and co way too seriously.

Torakx

I should point out i was posting mostly in a light hearted fashion.
I just thought it was a pleasant and funny notion.

I dont actually think Canada is free of propoganda because i have no clue,i take as granted that all news companies/corps have agendas linked to their governments or outside interested parties.

When i want to get my news i actually go to this forum and see whats been happening around the world.
I dont need to believe the stories 100%.
I can take what i know to be true and leave what i dont agree with and it works ok for me.
No tv,newspapers or anything like that really interest me enough to pay for them.

CiaranMT

enfant terrible wrote: »

Calm down buddy you take O' Reilly, Olbermann and co way too seriously.

The trouble is, most of their fans do too.

studiorat

Like so many presenters of the genre he comes out with this stuff for it's discussion value. Oddly enough in surveys half of his audience knew more than the average joe when it came to news and current affairs. (according to Pew research)

Basically if he didn't come out with these clangers every now and again, people wouldn't be discussing him here and all over the net, and he wouldn't be able to earn the money he does. People watch this kind of television as much to be able to laugh at the eejit presenting it at there are people who actually take him seriously. Car crash television, you know you shouldn't look but you do...

ed2hands

studiorat wrote: »

Like so many presenters of the genre he comes out with this stuff for it's discussion value. Oddly enough in surveys half of his audience knew more than the average joe when it came to news and current affairs. (according to Pew research)

Basically if he didn't come out with these clangers every now and again, people wouldn't be discussing him here and all over the net, and he wouldn't be able to earn the money he does. People watch this kind of television as much to be able to laugh at the eejit presenting it at there are people who actually take him seriously. Car crash television, you know you shouldn't look but you do...

Bull****. Most would watch him to find out whats going on in the world. They mistakedly trust him and what he has to say and are indoctrinated and downloaded with lies and propaganda of the highest order.

steelcityblues

People aren't forced to watch rubbish like O'Reilly Factor. Unfortunately, when a fair chunk of the population believe anything a semi convincing snake oil presenter says, then what can you do really?

jackiebaron

What I do love is this:

It's FOX news essentially trying to allude that the News of the World were hacked rather than THEY conducted a hacking operation. This is hysterical:


http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/07/the-most-incredible-thing-fox-news-has-ever-done/242037/


Now, those of you who deny global warming or think that people who challenge their government should be shot at dawn.....can you seriously give this any truck?

Zebra3

fontanalis wrote: »

Fox have a news station now?

Nope, but they do have a channel called Fox News.

studiorat wrote: »

Show me a news related outlet that doesn't.

Very few aren't biased in some way. The Independent today which is supposed to be free from bias was positively gloating in some of the articles about NOTW. Full of sickening finger wagging, Fisk's article was basically a gloating "I told you so..."

And rightly so. He despises the way journalists bootlick media moguls and political leaders. And does so with a passion. We're blessed that there is still someone of his calibre out there reporting the facts and not just a "sanitised", rose tinted western view of the Middle East.

ed2hands

Fox News:pac:. Thats a contradiction in terms.

Here's a good 'un. Was broken down by some person that spotted these things...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfyesxC066s