# Rupert Murdoch & the power of the old media (newspapers, television)



## TxllxT

So that pastor Camping in Canada after all got it right: the end of the World *did* come. Only it turned out the be the sudden demise of 'The News of the World'. I see this crisis as part of a bigger crisis: the newspapers are losing control over shaping people's opinions and these spindoctors of the past will become more and more marginalised. The king is dead, long live the new king: the social media.


----------



## Aramis

I walked around the city, volunteers from the vacuum cleaner and sucked the water from the pipes and drains all the crap I was there. I joined them, wanting to help with good will. I made a few mistakes at the start when pushing a vacuum cleaner (slide around in a strange way), but after a few remarks I became a useful assistant and worked. We crossed several streets and a lot of stuff from the earth's surface was sucked. Later we went to a cafeteria where we put glasses and cups.

Then it turned out that they give Traviata at the theater, so I went and changed clothes. I sat in the first row of the second sector in the last row of the first sector saw a former colleague from the time of high school. He began to tear me to sit farther away from him, with contempt, which surprised me because it was a good friend of mine. Yet I went after strange places in the theater and fought with the machinery of behind the scenes but in the end I managed. As soon as the prelude began, a chaps with colored pellets appeared and they treated the people. I got up, took it and stuffed himself in the mouth. He said something like this is pretty good TO YOU MAY InterMezzo feel like Saturday Night Fever and I told him that THIS is pretty good Intermezzo BUT NOT TODAY, SATURDAY BUT MY FRIDAY A TEMPERATURE IS THE RULE and such were the struggles of the heartwood


----------



## Sid James

On a more serious note, I actually admire Rupert Murdoch for the time that he was actually living & working in Australia (he hasn't lived here for ages & he's no longer an Australian citizen as far as I know). During the 1960's, when I think he was already the owner (or part owner or editor or something) of one (or some?) of the major newspapers in Australia, he actually championed things like Aboriginal (native Australian) rights. Particularly leading up to the referendum on whether Aboriginal affairs should become under the power of the Federal government (up until then it was the concern of the seperate state governments). This referendum (I think it was in about 1968?) was returned with a resounding "yes" vote, & I think guys like Murdoch had a big part to play in this, educating & informing the Australian public about Aboriginal issues. In contrast to that time when he had a social conscience, now he is just a big media mogul like the rest of them. I don't hold grudges against the man, in any case what is happening in his empire is a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. His concerns are global, he is at the helm of a vast empire, nothing less than that. A friend of mine has always been critical of Murdoch, in that he's been more concerned about making money than doing good things for the community at large. I'm "on the fence" with this, but yes, I guess the man has kind of become more conservative in his older years, as many people tend to do...


----------



## Ukko

The New Doctors of Spin know that most of their victims/targets, aka *The Common People*, do not do well with reading comprehension. Visual stimuli (video clips doctored and otherwise) with minimal text - preferably in bold caps and monosyllabic, have more impact than newsprint. It is no longer necessary to print the word '******' in order to convey the message.


----------



## World Violist

Really I think it's six of one, half-dozen of another between the downfall of the old and the new reshaping the media things. I just picked the downfall of the old because it's the most obvious, especially after the Murdoch travesty. Cold hard fact is what the people are demanding, and after the cynicism the last several years have instilled in everyone, the tabloids are just falling apart. It's no coincidence the new media are taking over; that's just a result of the old media going away, or a cause of it, or something. It's all part and parcel.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Murdoch is proof that organized crime is alive and well, we just don't call it that anymore.


----------



## Guest

Rupert Murdoch is an interesting character. So many people envision him as the archetype conservative - I think many would be surprised with how conservative he actually is. Sure, he might be more conservative than your average European, but were he to state his positions on any number of fiscal and social issues, I doubt the Tea Party would be pushing for him as their presidential candidate (ignoring the constitutional requirements, of course).

I think he is a business genius. He saw a niche needing to be filled in the U.S. He recognized what many others did - that the available news media had a definite slant. And it wasn't a slant that conservatives were comfortable with. Then he saw how popular dissenting views were - Rush Limbaugh, etc. And he realized that there was money to be made by offering news with a different slant. Now the problem most people run into is that they don't distinguish the news commentary shows from the straight news shows on Fox. But, arguably, it is the commentary that wins Fox the ratings. 

But as to the larger question in this poll, I think the biggest problem is this - technology. Technology has always been very democratic. The more the technology evolves, the more access the general public has to it. Take computers, for example. Originally, only government and large companies could afford even the most basic computers. Now, even people very destitute may very likely have a cell phone that contains more power than the earliest computers. Newspapers and such held such sway for so long because there was no other way for people to obtain information. Those historical barriers are no longer there. Now, it may be that we get more false or junk information to us, but since when is filtered information preferable? Let's not be naive - newsprint has a long and sordid history of being just as deceptive to the public as anything now transmitted through new media. Before people could independently verify information, newspapers could print whatever they wanted. Politicians would frequently manipulate news to their own purposes. Newsprint was often used to influence public opinion. Think of how large a role newspapers played in spurring on the Spanish-American war at the dawn of the 20th century. Think of people like Walter Duranty who came back from a tour of the USSR, extoling the virtues of Stalin and how plentiful the food supply was, winning a Pullitzer, and we now know that he was being manipulated, and that Ukranians were starving from famine.

People crave information. Some are more discerning than others, but you simply can't suppress information, no matter how hard you try. That newspapers held such sway for so long is not a reflection of how virtuous they were, so much as there was no alternative. They are now trying to compete with modern technology, and some have chosen less than honorable ways to do that. But that is not new, or unique.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

DrMike said:


> Rupert Murdoch is an interesting character. So many people envision him as the archetype conservative - I think many would be surprised with how conservative he actually is.


I would tend to agree with that. His newspapers in this country aren't particularly conservative compared to right-wing ones like the Daily Mail and the Telegraph, which he doesn't own. Setting aside the News of the World, which never really covered politics, the Sun and the Times both supported Labour throughout most of the Blair years. The Times isn't exactly left-wing, but it is quite liberal on most social issues.

I could be wrong, but I don't think Murdoch has ever tried to exert much control over the political slant of his British papers, or even paid much attention to it; rather, it was mainly left up to the discretion of the editors, who aimed for the centre niche, with the Mail and Telegraph positioned to the right and the Guardian and Independent to the left.


----------



## Sid James

Fsharpmajor said:


> I would tend to agree with that. *His newspapers in this country aren't particularly conservative compared to right-wing ones *like the Daily Mail and the Telegraph, which he doesn't own. Setting aside the News of the World, which never really covered politics, the Sun and the Times both supported Labour throughout most of the Blair years. The Times isn't exactly left-wing, but it is *quite liberal on most social issues...*


Similar thing could be said of the political stances Murdoch's tabloids have taken here in Australia over the decades. They have been variable, although they are kind of becoming more right wing now (I rarely read them, but I rarely read the more "reputable" broad-sheets either, I'm not a fraction as big a reader of newspapers as I used to be - probably due to political apathy). Anyway, as I said, when Murdoch was actually living here & "one of us" he did kind of go out on a limb to support causes speaking to social justice - esp. Aboriginal issues in the 1960's. In 1999 we had a Federal referendum on whether we wanted to become a republic or not. Murdoch's tabloid press here actually went against the opinion of the then Prime Minister, John Howard (of the Liberal Party, but capital "L" Liberal, not a small "l" one, in other words an economic liberal but a social conservative). Anyway, the PM pushed strongly for the "NO" vote - he wanted us to remain a Constitutional Monarchy. Murdoch's press pushed for the opposite, supporting severing the ties with the British Crown. The "No" vote won by a huge margin.

An unrelated issue to this thread overall, but one that comes up in my mind when talking about Australian expatriates who have made it "big" in the world and chosen to live elsewhere, is that I think what they say about Australian affairs has limited relevance or currency to things going on in this country. These people - like Germaine Greer, the late Dame Joan Sutherland, or Rupert Murdoch - have been living in other countries for decades, yet they have the temerity to "butt in" to our local issues, which (I think) they have little or no clue about (in terms of what's been happening "on the ground" here Down Under). More often than not, their views are out of step with a large portion of the Australian public, but they still persist in talking cr*p. I'm not judging their professionalism in their respective fields, I'm just questioning (basically) whether they qualify to be called "Australian?" Anyway, it's a bit of a "hobby horse" of mine - & others I know - as you can see...


----------



## presto

Murdoch was getting too big, powerful and arrogant I’m glad to see his downfall.
One person monopolising the media (and it was getting very close to that in the UK) isn’t a good thing.


----------



## Almaviva

presto said:


> Murdoch was getting too big, powerful and arrogant I'm glad to see his downfall.
> One person monopolising the media (and it was getting very close to that in the UK) isn't a good thing.


 Do you think it's really a downfall? He will survive.


----------



## Aksel

Almaviva said:


> Do you think it's really a downfall? He will survive.


I don't know if he will survive no matter what. If the problem is in fact contained within the UK, then yes, he'll do just fine. If, however, it turns out that the same practices that has been used by NOTW has been used by other News Corp. media outlets, I do think he will have some major difficulties explaining himself. It will be interesting to see what comes out of the hearing in Parliament later this week. But I do hope this is, if not the end, then at least a major setback for News Corp. in the UK, not because of the political leanings of Rupert or the newspapers and TV stations, but because I find it terrifying that one man alone can control so much of the world's media.


----------



## Sid James

Aksel said:


> ...I find it terrifying that one man alone can control so much of the world's media.


This is true, monopolisation of anything cannot be a good thing, imo. We had the same thing in Australia, with the late Kerry Packer, a "media mogul" of Murdoch's generation. Like Murdoch, Packer was okay in some ways, it's just that the principle of monopolisation doesn't agree with me at all. In fact, there was a bit of a "turf war" between the two guys here, which kind of resulted in Murdoch going global. Packer stayed here but also "branched out" into other things like casinos. I think Packer's company is still going, but they have let go of a number of their former concerns, I think they only now own part of Channel 9 (one of our main commercial TV stations) whereas before they owned all of it. So things have been changing over the last 10 or so years, some media companies seem to be branching out into other areas. Even if Mr Murdoch's media empire crumbles, he's probably got several other ventures on the boil which he can turn to & expand his business interests (although, since he's getting on in years, it may be his dynasty that ends up doing that)...


----------



## TxllxT

Murdoch may turn out to be the last media-tycoon. Nowadays the media-public is getting dispersed over so many entertainment opportunities, that it has become quite impossible to get an attentionwave to one's own newschannel, newspaper etc. And when you get it, the attentionspan has become so short, that it is again useless for making money on it. In the past I thought this process would be having all kinds of negative impacts, but in reality we see in our news-world becoming so interactive with so many participants (when there is a fire, the next moment someone has recorded it and put on Youtube), that I have changed my mind. Perhaps I'm too optimistic.....


----------



## Guest

Sid James said:


> This is true, monopolisation of anything cannot be a good thing, imo. We had the same thing in Australia, with the late Kerry Packer, a "media mogul" of Murdoch's generation. Like Murdoch, Packer was okay in some ways, it's just that the principle of monopolisation doesn't agree with me at all. In fact, there was a bit of a "turf war" between the two guys here, which kind of resulted in Murdoch going global. Packer stayed here but also "branched out" into other things like casinos. I think Packer's company is still going, but they have let go of a number of their former concerns, I think they only now own part of Channel 9 (one of our main commercial TV stations) whereas before they owned all of it. So things have been changing over the last 10 or so years, some media companies seem to be branching out into other areas. Even if Mr Murdoch's media empire crumbles, he's probably got several other ventures on the boil which he can turn to & expand his business interests (although, since he's getting on in years, it may be his dynasty that ends up doing that)...


Murdoch does not have a monopoly on anything. Does he control all of the news in any country? The fact that he owns many news outlets in several countries is not the same as a monopoly. In the U.S., yes, he has Fox News and Fox Business and the Wall Street Journal (I don't know what else). But last I checked, that still left ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc. So he is outcompeting the competition in the cable news outlet. I have watched the other networks - there is no wonder.

The problem that you all fail to realize is that nobody can control the news anymore. Just ask the leaders in Iran or Syria. There was a time when an entity could control the information people received, but now you have dissidents in Iran with access to Facebook and YouTube. Information leaks out. Ask Anthony Weiner how easy it is to control what information people have. Perhaps back in the day of William Randolph Hearst you could have an individual with such awesome power. But not anymore. Now, if you have Dan Rather waving fake documents on the air about George W. Bush's National Guard service, people can fact-check it for themselves. And those who are caught feeding false information are dealt with fairly swiftly.


----------



## World Violist

presto said:


> Murdoch was getting too big, powerful and arrogant I'm glad to see his downfall.


He owns way too many things other than the whatchamcallit tabloids for this to be called a downfall. It looks to me like this scandal, to him, is just a minor inconvenience.


----------



## Aksel

DrMike said:


> Murdoch does not have a monopoly on anything. Does he control all of the news in any country? The fact that he owns many news outlets in several countries is not the same as a monopoly. *In the U.S., yes, he has Fox News and Fox Business and the Wall Street Journal (I don't know what else). *But last I checked, that still left ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc. So he is outcompeting the competition in the cable news outlet. I have watched the other networks - there is no wonder.


Here is a list of what Rupert Murdoch owns. And I won't argue about him being damned good at doing business, because he very clearly is, but don't you find it rather worrying that one man can own such a large chunk of international media?


----------



## Guest

Aksel said:


> Here is a list of what Rupert Murdoch owns. And I won't argue about him being damned good at doing business, because he very clearly is, but don't you find it rather worrying that one man can own such a large chunk of international media?


I believe the BBC is the largest broadcaster in the world, and it is propped up by the British Government. Does that worry you?

I have been listening/reading now for the last couple of years about how wonderful it is when a government takes over control of all healthcare in a country - essentially a monopoly. Murdoch has nothing close to a monopoly, and yet it is troubling.

If Murdoch is engaging in unfair business practices, then yes, it should be worrying. If there is evidence of widespread, top-down plans to illegally obtain information (such as the case with NOTW in the UK), or that they are knowingly spreading falsehoods (but then that doesn't seem to have been a problem in the past, referring to my comments earlier on the New York Times' Duranty and his Pullitzer-winning work on how there were no famines in the Ukraine under Stalin), then they should suffer for such. But I honestly believe that most of the criticism of Murdoch is ideologically driven. Were he not responsible for Fox News, I doubt much of this criticism would be heard.


----------



## science

Dr. Mike, I wonder whether you're suggesting that liberals don't have a problem with someone reporting that there were no famines in the Ukraine. If so, I don't think that's accurate.


----------



## Guest

science said:


> Dr. Mike, I wonder whether you're suggesting that liberals don't have a problem with someone reporting that there were no famines in the Ukraine. If so, I don't think that's accurate.


No, I am suggesting that, at least in the past, glaringly false reporting not only did not sink a news empire, it didn't even result in the rescinding of a Pullitzer prize. When Dan Rather did the piece on Bush's National Guard service using the falsified documents, it didn't result in the destruction of CBS News, just the canning of Rather.

I pointed no fingers at liberals in my comment. I merely made the point that, in the past, publishing falsehoods has not necessarily had a detrimental impact on the survival of a company.


----------



## science

DrMike said:


> No, I am suggesting that, at least in the past, glaringly false reporting not only did not sink a news empire, it didn't even result in the rescinding of a Pullitzer prize. When Dan Rather did the piece on Bush's National Guard service using the falsified documents, it didn't result in the destruction of CBS News, just the canning of Rather.
> 
> I pointed no fingers at liberals in my comment. I merely made the point that, in the past, publishing falsehoods has not necessarily had a detrimental impact on the survival of a company.


Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## science

Tangentially, I'd like some clarification. 

A - Is Murdoch in any legal trouble in the USA? As far as I can tell, he is not.
B - Is Fox News in any trouble? As far as I can tell, it is not. 
C - Does Fox News operate in Britain? As far as I can tell, not directly. It seems to be a US operation. 

If all of these things are true, then things seem just fine for Fox News.


----------



## Guest

science said:


> Tangentially, I'd like some clarification.
> 
> A - Is Murdoch in any legal trouble in the USA? As far as I can tell, he is not.
> B - Is Fox News in any trouble? As far as I can tell, it is not.
> C - Does Fox News operate in Britain? As far as I can tell, not directly. It seems to be a US operation.
> 
> If all of these things are true, then things seem just fine for Fox News.


Your assessment is correct. However, there are some Democrat congressmen making rumblings about an investigation of News Corp. activities in the U.S., trying to capitalize on the scandal in the UK. Trying to gin up the idea that this was not an isolated incident, and we need to investigate for the safety and integrity of our news media. I suppose Congress is not currently busy investigating steroid use in major league baseball (amazing how much money they expended to investigate what is blatantly obvious to the rest of us).


----------



## science

Democrat_ic_. The abbreviation is intended to be insulting.


----------



## mmsbls

I would say that there are US politicians asking the FBI to investigate News Corp possibly tapping into phones of 9/11 victims. It's true that there are Democratic congressmen asking for an investigation, but Republican Congressman Peter King is also pushing for an investigation. Apparently both the Democrats and the Republicans are trying to capitalize on the scandal.


----------



## science

I doubt that our regulatory anti-corruption instincts are strong enough. We all know that the phone companies cooperated in wire-tapping without warrants, and we evidently don't care enough to do anything about it. If The News of the World were in the USA, it would not be in significant trouble.


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> I merely made the point that, in the past, publishing falsehoods has not necessarily had a detrimental impact on the survival of a company.


 You're right about this. That's what Fox News does routinely and daily, and they're still thriving.


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> You're right about this. That's what Fox News does routinely and daily, and they're still thriving.



And you have evidence you can cite that supports this claim?

As opposed to CBS that lets Dan Rather run a story on a sitting president using documents that they knew he didn't verify?

Or what about Newsweek's story of Korans being flushed down toilets that proved to be false, but sparked riots in Pakistan?

How many news outlets ran doctored photos of Israeli air attacks?

Jayson Blair and the New York Times? Promoted despite warnings that he shouldn't be? And he then goes on to plagiarize stories?

CNN admitting that prior to the Iraq War, they had sugarcoated stories coming out of Iraq to ensure they could stay in the country.

Jack Kelley at USA Today caught fabricating stories, with several top people receiving warnings about his actions and not acting.

The 2008 story published in the New York Times suggesting that John McCain had an inappropriate relationship with a lobbyist with little or no evidence to substantiate the claim.

And then there is the story of Walter Duranty and the New York Times, which I have already recounted.

Or Rick Sanchez on CNN railing about the influence of the Jews.

Or Ed Schultz, from MSNBC, on his radio show calling Laura Ingraham a *****.

Or Keith Olbermann, formerly of MSNBC, now on Current TV, suggesting that conservative commentator S.E. Cupp's parents should have used Planned Parenthood's services before her birth - implying either they should have aborted her, or used birth control so that she never would have born.

CNN employed disgraced former New York governor Eliot Spitzer.


----------



## science

DrMike said:


> And you have evidence you can cite that supports this claim?
> 
> As opposed to CBS that lets Dan Rather run a story on a sitting president using documents that they knew he didn't verify?
> 
> Or what about Newsweek's story of Korans being flushed down toilets that proved to be false, but sparked riots in Pakistan?
> 
> How many news outlets ran doctored photos of Israeli air attacks?
> 
> Jayson Blair and the New York Times? Promoted despite warnings that he shouldn't be? And he then goes on to plagiarize stories?
> 
> CNN admitting that prior to the Iraq War, they had sugarcoated stories coming out of Iraq to ensure they could stay in the country.
> 
> Jack Kelley at USA Today caught fabricating stories, with several top people receiving warnings about his actions and not acting.
> 
> The 2008 story published in the New York Times suggesting that John McCain had an inappropriate relationship with a lobbyist with little or no evidence to substantiate the claim.
> 
> And then there is the story of Walter Duranty and the New York Times, which I have already recounted.
> 
> Or Rick Sanchez on CNN railing about the influence of the Jews.
> 
> Or Ed Schultz, from MSNBC, on his radio show calling Laura Ingraham a *****.
> 
> Or Keith Olbermann, formerly of MSNBC, now on Current TV, suggesting that conservative commentator S.E. Cupp's parents should have used Planned Parenthood's services before her birth - implying either they should have aborted her, or used birth control so that she never would have born.
> 
> CNN employed disgraced former New York governor Eliot Spitzer.


In any of those cases, was either the network or the journalist punished? Did anyone issue an apology, or a retraction, or lose a job?

I remember when for legal reasons VenomFangX was forced to apologize publically to ThunderFoot. Liberals 1, Conservatives 0.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

All you guys bashing poor old Rupert, just admit it that you are utterly jealous that an 80 year old geezer has such a glamorous looking lady as his wife ...


----------



## Guest

science said:


> In any of those cases, was either the network or the journalist punished? Did anyone issue an apology, or a retraction, or lose a job?
> 
> I remember when for legal reasons VenomFangX was forced to apologize publically to ThunderFoot. Liberals 1, Conservatives 0.


And I believe the entire News of the World was shut down.

But regarding what I was replying to, what are the journalistic breaches that specifically Fox News has committed?


----------



## science

DrMike said:


> And I believe the entire News of the World was shut down.
> 
> But regarding what I was replying to, what are the journalistic breaches that specifically Fox News has committed?


Who shut down News of the World? I thought the Murdochs themselves made that decision, not that it was forced on them. Maybe I misunderstood that.

Anyway, your implication was that this is unfair since the other side isn't punished.

Following your lead in changing the subject: If you're as well-informed about the media as you seem to be, but until now you remain unaware of Fox New's mistakes, it's probably by choice (conscious or unconscious, simple confirmation bias). So I won't try to list them for you. If you're honestly unaware and curious, google it. If not, just satisfy yourself that as far as I'm concerned, you win this argument. I surrender.


----------



## science

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> All you guys bashing poor old Rupert, just admit it that you are utterly jealous that an 80 year old geezer has such a glamorous looking lady as his wife ...


If that's all it is, I need to start bashing Hugh Hefner. When I'mr retired, I hope I have my own set of triplets.


----------



## Guest

science said:


> Who shut down News of the World? I thought the Murdochs themselves made that decision, not that it was forced on them. Maybe I misunderstood that.
> 
> Anyway, your implication was that this is unfair since the other side isn't punished.
> 
> Following your lead in changing the subject: If you're as well-informed about the media as you seem to be, but until now you remain unaware of Fox New's mistakes, it's probably by choice (conscious or unconscious, simple confirmation bias). So I won't try to list them for you. If you're honestly unaware and curious, google it. If not, just satisfy yourself that as far as I'm concerned, you win this argument. I surrender.


Yes, you really are misunderstanding my points.

Alma made a claim about Fox News. I asked him to back up his assertion. I then cited instances of other news agencies making serious mistakes. I'm not claiming that Fox News is a perfect angel - I'm just suggesting they are no worse than any other channel you can turn to for news. Why do they get so much more attention, even though MSNBC employs some extremely vitriolic people (Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz, up until recently Keith Olbermann, Cenk Uygur)? Well, I suppose one reason is that Fox News blows MSNBC out of the water. But also because Fox News employs conservative commentators - something unheard of up until it came into existence. The Democrats already have so many networks that are their effective cheerleaders. Republicans have two - Fox News and Fox Business. And that drives liberals insane. What also drives them insane is that it seems that conservative media - cable news, talk radio - is profitable and thrives. Liberal media flounders. Need I mention Air America? Or how MSNBC flounders in the ratings? Or could we ask how long NPR would survive without federal assistance?

Yes - the Murdochs shut down News of the World. When it was revealed the level of criminal activity that occurred there, they shut it down. But ask yourself honestly - with as massive as News Corp. is, do you really believe that Rupert Murdoch was busy micromanaging every one of the entities he owned?


----------



## TxllxT

DrMike said:


> Yes, you really are misunderstanding my points.
> 
> Alma made a claim about Fox News. I asked him to back up his assertion. I then cited instances of other news agencies making serious mistakes. I'm not claiming that Fox News is a perfect angel - I'm just suggesting they are no worse than any other channel you can turn to for news. Why do they get so much more attention, even though MSNBC employs some extremely vitriolic people (Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz, up until recently Keith Olbermann, Cenk Uygur)? Well, I suppose one reason is that Fox News blows MSNBC out of the water. But also because Fox News employs conservative commentators - something unheard of up until it came into existence. The Democrats already have so many networks that are their effective cheerleaders. Republicans have two - Fox News and Fox Business. And that drives liberals insane. What also drives them insane is that it seems that conservative media - cable news, talk radio - is profitable and thrives. Liberal media flounders. Need I mention Air America? Or how MSNBC flounders in the ratings? Or could we ask how long NPR would survive without federal assistance?
> 
> Yes - the Murdochs shut down News of the World. When it was revealed the level of criminal activity that occurred there, they shut it down. But ask yourself honestly - with as massive as News Corp. is, do you really believe that Rupert Murdoch was busy micromanaging every one of the entities he owned?


News Corp. is being run as a family business I have understood. It means you have family who you trust and close friends who you trust as if they are family. Mrs. Brooks belonged to that category. She knew everything and Murdoch trusted her to know everything. So the top down 'control' is trust-trust-trust. In practice this means that Murdoch has left the micromanaging in mrs. Brooks' control. But.... As soon as we come to fringe-activities (like phone-hacking) where you get on the legal-illegal borderline I think that mrs. Brooks did get in touch with her boss. Just to be covered and for the sake of being sure. Murdoch is the godfather of News Corp.


----------



## mmsbls

DrMike said:


> Alma made a claim about Fox News. I asked him to back up his assertion. I then cited instances of other news agencies making serious mistakes. I'm not claiming that Fox News is a perfect angel - I'm just suggesting they are no worse than any other channel you can turn to for news. Why do they get so much more attention, even though MSNBC employs some extremely vitriolic people (Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz, up until recently Keith Olbermann, Cenk Uygur)? Well, I suppose one reason is that Fox News blows MSNBC out of the water. But also because Fox News employs conservative commentators - something unheard of up until it came into existence. The Democrats already have so many networks that are their effective cheerleaders. Republicans have two - Fox News and Fox Business. And that drives liberals insane. What also drives them insane is that it seems that conservative media - cable news, talk radio - is profitable and thrives. Liberal media flounders. Need I mention Air America? Or how MSNBC flounders in the ratings? Or could we ask how long NPR would survive without federal assistance?


Based on the research I have read it seems to be true that most journalists are liberal and there is a slight social bias to many TV stations. On the other hand the vast majority of media outlets are conservative fiscally. The only one I know that is not is MSNBC.

I've heard conservatives call NPR liberal. The only NPR show I watch is the Newshour, and I have never felt a bias. DrMike, do you believe the Newshour is liberal?



DrMike said:


> Yes - the Murdochs shut down News of the World. When it was revealed the level of criminal activity that occurred there, they shut it down. But ask yourself honestly - with as massive as News Corp. is, do you really believe that Rupert Murdoch was busy micromanaging every one of the entities he owned?


There seems to be evidence that he quite regularly kept track of the goings on at his newspapers if not micromanaging. He apparently called many editors every week and asked detailed questions. He got his start in newspapers, and I guess many feel he loves to be involved still.


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> Based on the research I have read it seems to be true that most journalists are liberal and there is a slight social bias to many TV stations. On the other hand the vast majority of media outlets are conservative fiscally. The only one I know that is not is MSNBC.
> 
> I've heard conservatives call NPR liberal. The only NPR show I watch is the Newshour, and I have never felt a bias. DrMike, do you believe the Newshour is liberal?
> 
> There seems to be evidence that he quite regularly kept track of the goings on at his newspapers if not micromanaging. He apparently called many editors every week and asked detailed questions. He got his start in newspapers, and I guess many feel he loves to be involved still.


Newshour is actually on PBS, not NPR. NPR is radio. PBS is TV. I don't watch the Newshour, honestly, so I can't comment there. I have listened to NPR, as in my current location, I have only two talk radio stations - a generally conservative station, and then NPR. I actually do listen to both sides. Believe it or not, I watch MSNBC quite frequently. I do think NPR is liberal - I think that generally it is a more polite place for conservative opinions than most other news sources that have a liberal slant. The debate there tends to be more civil, and at least they do try to bring in conservative guests.

My take on the micromanaging at News Corp. is the opposite of what others are saying here. Given the level of things going on at NOTW, it seems that the people involved wouldn't really be trumpeting around what all they were up to. More than likely, they stayed hush about it all - if for no other reason than to protect those higher up.


----------



## mmsbls

DrMike said:


> Newshour is actually on PBS, not NPR. NPR is radio. PBS is TV. I don't watch the Newshour, honestly, so I can't comment there. I have listened to NPR, as in my current location, I have only two talk radio stations - a generally conservative station, and then NPR. I actually do listen to both sides. Believe it or not, I watch MSNBC quite frequently. I do think NPR is liberal - I think that generally it is a more polite place for conservative opinions than most other news sources that have a liberal slant. The debate there tends to be more civil, and at least they do try to bring in conservative guests.


Yes, your right - Newshour is PBS. I do believe NPR has a slight liberal bent. I do not think the Newhour leans either way. For me it is one of the best places (on TV) to learn about issues since it devotes considerably more time to them than most other outlets.


----------



## science

DrMike said:


> Yes, you really are misunderstanding my points.


Imagine that.

If only I could do it consistently, we'd be well matched.

The argument boils down to, "It's ok for our side to do it if the other side does it - and even if they don't get away with it, we should." Conservatives make this argument all the time.


----------



## Guest

science said:


> Imagine that.
> 
> If only I could do it consistently, we'd be well matched.
> 
> The argument boils down to, "It's ok for our side to do it if the other side does it - and even if they don't get away with it, we should." Conservatives make this argument all the time.


No - I think everybody should be held equally accountable for their actions. But who has gotten away with anything here? I believe NOTW has been shut down. I believe several people have been fired/resigned, and others have been arrested. I have never argued that anybody responsible for this should get away with it. But I have rejected this notion that all of News Corp. should go down based on the actions of one subsidiary - especially since there is currently zero evidence that any other News Corp. entity outside of NOTW has engaged in these activities.


----------



## mmsbls

DrMike said:


> No - I think everybody should be held equally accountable for their actions. But who has gotten away with anything here? I believe NOTW has been shut down. I believe several people have been fired/resigned, and others have been arrested. I have never argued that anybody responsible for this should get away with it. But I have rejected this notion that all of News Corp. should go down based on the actions of one subsidiary - especially since there is currently zero evidence that any other News Corp. entity outside of NOTW has engaged in these activities.


I agree with this assessment. I think both the US and UK should investigate where there is reason to investigate to ensure that those responsible are held accountable.


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> And you have evidence you can cite that supports this claim?


 *February*

*Fearmongering Over Health Care Reconciliation. *Reacting to reports that Senate Democrats were considering using the budget reconciliation process to pass the health care reform bill and circumvent a Republican filibuster, Fox News adopted the GOP framing of reconciliation as a violation of Senate rules, undemocratic, and contrary to thewill of the people. Fox also falsely characterized reconciliation as the "nuclear option" to wrongly accuse Democrats of hypocrisy.
*March*

*Open Activism Against Health Care Reform. *As the health care reform bill moved toward passage, Fox News' opinion and news personalities engaged in open opposition to the bill. Fox news anchors agreed that the bill was unconstitutional and said they would vote against it, while the network's opinion-makers lobbied for the bill's defeat. Commentators like Dick Morris, Glenn Beck, and Mike Huckabee encouraged viewers to contact members of Congress and urge them to oppose the bill, and the network helped to publicize anti-health reform rallies.
Fearmongering was rampant as Fox News compared the bill to a tumor and a nuclear weapon. Fox News also pushed misinformation and falsehoods about health care reform, falsely claiming the bill provided increased federal funding for abortion, promoting a non-scientific "survey" of doctors claiming they would leave medicine if reform passed, accusing Democrats of making "special deals" and offering "bribes" to ensure passage, andattacking the Congressional Budget Office's scoring of the bill.
*Glenn Beck's Fiascoes Multiply. *Beck devoted his entire March 9 program to an interview with former Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) after Massa claimed -- without any evidence -- that the Democrats had forced him out of the House because he refused to vote for health care reform. The hour-long interview did not produce any evidence of Democratic wrongdoing -- instead, Massa acknowledged that he resigned under allegations of sexual harassment. Beck concluded the program by apologizing to his viewers: "I have wasted an hour of your time."
Later in the month, Beck went on a tirade against Democratic leaders, like Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), who "wanted to compare themselves to the civil rights activists" as they walked arm-in-arm to the House health care vote. Beck screamed at them: "How dare you!" Lewis is, of course, an icon of the civil rights movement who marched, arm-in-arm, with a group including Martin Luther King Jr. at the Selma Civil Rights March.
*April*

*Hannity's Tea Party Appearance Canceled. *Of the many Fox News personalities appearing at tea party events coinciding with Tax Day, Sean Hannity drew additional scrutiny for the fact that he was set to tape an episode of his Fox News program at an April 15 Cincinnati Tea Party event and charge audience members for tickets, with proceeds going to the tea party group. Hannity's plan was criticized by veteran journalists as crossing ethical lines, and reportedly "furious" Fox News executives yanked Hannity from the event at the last minute. Earlier in the month, Rupert Murdoch, chairman of Fox News parent company News Corp., said that Fox News "shouldn't be supporting the Tea Party."
*O'Reilly's Fox News Defense Fails Spectacularly. *Responding to Sen. Tom Coburn's (R-OK) suggestion that Fox News perpetuated the falsehood that individuals without health insurance can be sent to prison under the new health care reform legislation, Bill O'Reilly said on April 13: "[W]e researched to find out if anybody had ever said you are going to jail if you don't buy health insurance. Nobody has ever said it. What it seems to me is you used Fox News as a whipping boy when we didn't qualify there." In fact, that very falsehood had been repeated countless times across Fox News' many platforms, including on O'Reilly's own show.
*Dick Morris Invents, And Then Retracts, Clinton-Reno-Waco Story.* On the April 19 edition of _Hannity_, Dick Morris claimed that Bill Clinton had told him that he had retained Janet Reno as attorney general because she threatened to "tell the truth about Waco." Morris explained that this story "had never been said before." The next day, Rush Limbaugh picked up Morris' story, claiming that "Reno's appointment to a second term as attorney general was to keep her quiet about the Waco invasion." One day later, Morris appeared on _Fox & Friends_ to walk back the false story, claiming to separate "the facts" from his "conjecture based on the facts."
*May*

*John Stossel Calls For Repeal Of Civil Rights Legislation. *Echoing comments made by Senate candidate Rand Paul (R-KY), Fox News' John Stossel argued against the public accommodations section of the Civil Rights Act, which ended lunch-counter discrimination, saying that "private businesses ought to get to discriminate." According to Stossel: "I would go further than [Paul] was willing to go ... and say it's time now to repeal that part of the law." Stossel repeated his argument several times throughout the month, while Fox News' media criticism and news programs steadfastly ignored the controversy surrounding Stossel's comments.
*Crusading Against Justice Kagan.* Not long after President Obama nominated Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, Fox News began their assault on Kagan, dredging up a 30-year-old college quote to claim she has "written derisively about conservatives." From there, the attacks grew only more strident, with Sean Hannity leading the charge, suggesting Kagan was "just another radical," lying about Kagan's experience and suggesting she's a socialist, and falsely claiming she "kick[ed] military recruiters off of campus" at Harvard.
*Calling For Impeachment Over Sestak Non-Scandal.* Reacting to news reports that the White House had offered Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) an unpaid position on a presidential panel if he chose not to seek the Democratic nomination for Senate in Pennsylvania, Fox News personalities falsely claimed that the White House had broken the law and "bribed" Sestak. Even though legal experts across the ideological spectrum rejected such claims, Fox News commentators suggested that the White House committed a "crime" that rose to the level of an "impeachable offense."
*June*

*Giving Land Back To Mexico.* On June 15, Fox News reported that a "massive stretch of Arizona [is] now off limits to Americans. Critics say the administration is, in effect, giving a major strip of the Southwest back to Mexico." The next day, Fox Nation reported: "Obama Gives Back Major Strip of AZ to Mexico." The claim was completely false -- the strip of land in question is part of a national wildlife refuge that, according to refuge officials, was closed to the public in 2006 -- two years before Obama was elected -- and is still very much under the control of the U.S. Border Patrol. Even after the story was debunked, Fox News continued to mislead, reporting that the land had been "quietly surrendered" to "Mexican drug gangs and illegals."
*Standing Up For BP.* As the Gulf oil spill grew worse, Fox News led the conservative media in defending BP, attacking the Obama administration for "demonizing" the company. Many of the attacks were centered on a $20 billion escrow account BP set up, at the urging of the White House, to pay damage claims from Gulf residents. Monica Crowley attacked Obama for "continuing to villainize" the oil company. On _Hannity_, Newt Gingrich claimedObama was "directly engaged in extorting money" from BP. Stuart Varney called the account a "political slush fund" that was "Hugo Chavez-like."
*July*

*Fox Hypes Phony New Black Panthers Scandal*. A _Media Matters_ report found that in more than 100 instances between June 30 and July 17, Fox News hyped the manufactured scandal that President Obama's Justice Department engaged in racially charged "corruption" in the New Black Panther Party case. The phony allegations, made by GOP activist J. Christian Adams, were largely promoted by _America Live_ anchor Megyn Kelly and, following a familiar pattern, were picked up by non-Fox media outlets. Still, numerous media and political figures, including Fox News contributors and Republicans, have dismissed the phony scandal.
*Fox Assists Breitbart's Smears of Shirley Sherrod As Racist.* On July 19, Andrew Breitbart posted a deceptively edited clip of then-USDA official Shirley Sherrod and accused her of racism. Following Breitbart's post, FoxNews.comran an article headlined "Video Shows USDA Official Saying She Didn't Give 'Full Force' of Help to White Farmer," before the USDA announced Sherrod's resignation on July 19. Following her resignation, Fox News programs amplified attacks against Sherrod. Fox News Senior Vice President Michael Clemente later admitted that a "breakdown" allowed FoxNews.com to run the story about Sherrod's comments. Prior to Clemente's admission, however, Fox aggressively claimed it did not cover the story prior to her resignation. 
*August*

*Fox Provides Megaphone To Park51 Opponents. *A Media Matters review of Fox News' evening coverage of the planned Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero found that between May and August 13, the shows hosted at least 47 guests to discuss the project, nearly 75 percent of whom opposed the center. Over the summer, Fox News routinely used anti-Muslim rhetoric and dubious arguments to attack the proposed center. 
*8-28 "Restoring Honor": Glenn Beck Honors Glenn Beck. *On August 28, Glenn Beck hosted his heavily promoted "Restoring Honor" weekend in Washington, D.C. Beck's event was focused on one thing: Glenn Beck. Beck introduced a Beck-sanctioned clergy group that he claimed represented "180 million people," comically associated himself with Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement, made outlandish claims about the impact of the events, and was praised as "one of America's most trusted and honored citizens." Beck's "non-political" rally was also steeped in politics. 
*September*

*Glenn Beck And Fox News' Anti-Semitism Problem. *Following a pattern, Glenn Beck promoted a book by Eustace Mullins, who has been described as an "anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist" and a "nationally known white supremacist"; the ADL called the book "a re-hash of Mullins' anti-Semitic theories about the origins of the Federal Reserve." In October and November, Beck repeatedly attacked financier and philanthropist George Soros with anti-Semitic stereotypes, referring to Soros as a "puppet master" and accusing him of controlling the media, the political process, and the global economy.
*Fox Calls For Repeal Of The 20th Century. *In September, _Media Matters_ documented that since President Obama's election, Fox personalities have expressed opposition to or called for the repeal of virtually every progressive achievement of the 20th century, including Social Security, Medicare, the Americans with Disabilities Act, portions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the 16th and 17th Amendments to the Constitution.
*Fox News' Christine O'Donnell Problem*. Following Christine O'Donnell's surprise victory in the Delaware Republican Senate primary, many Fox media figures coalesced around O'Donnell and took to bullying other Republicans -- including Fox News' Karl Rove -- into supporting her. O'Donnell, who was told by Sarah Palin to "speak through Fox News," reportedly said she had Hannity "in her back pocket" and a Fox source told _Media Matters_ that O'Donnell appeared on _Hannity_ after canceling on _Fox News Sunday_ in order to "get a certain kind of treatment."
*October*

*Kilmeade "Misspoke" About "All Terrorists" Being "Muslims" -- Twice. *On the October 15 edition of _Fox & Friends_, co-host Brian Kilmeade claimed that "[n]ot all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims." Later that day on his radio program, Kilmeade asserted that it's a "fact" that "every terrorist is a Muslim" and questioned whether "moderate Muslims" need to prove "you're not one of them." Kilmeade -- who, like his Fox News colleagues, has a history of bigoted and anti-Muslim statements -- later "clarif[ied]" that he "misspoke." 
*Glenn Beck's Violent Rhetoric -- And Its Consequences. *In October, nearly three months after Byron Williams was arrested on his way to kill "people of importance at the Tides Foundation and ACLU," _Media Matters_ released "Progressive Hunter," a report from journalist John Hamilton, who spoke with Williams at the California jail where he currently awaits trial. In his interviews with Hamilton, Williams described Beck as "a schoolteacher" and said "it was the things [Beck] exposed that blew my mind." Beck has a long history of using violent rhetoric to attack progressives and Democrats.
*November*

*How Fox News Won The Elections*. Throughout the 2010 election cycle, _Media Matters_ documented how Fox News, its employees, and its parent company engaged in an unprecedented campaign in support of the Republican Party. The network served as the communications and fundraising wing of the GOP while fervently promoting -- and sometimes creating -- the party's candidates. Specifically:


*Fox Parent Company Donates $2.25 Million To GOP-Linked Groups.* On September 30, _Politico_ reported that News Corp. had donated $1 million to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Following the donation, Fox offered little in the way of disclosure. On August 16, Bloomberg reported that News Corp. gave the Republican Governors Association (RGA) "$1 million in June" and that News Corp. was "[t]he Republicans' biggest corporate donor" for 2010. _The New York Times_ further reported on August 17 that the donation "is one of the biggest ever given by a media organization, campaign finance experts said." On October 15, _The New York Times_ reported that News Corp. donated an additional $250,000 to the RGA in July. In the weeks that followed, Fox often neglected to disclose the donation while reporting and discussing gubernatorial races.
*FoxPAC: Fox News Figures Raise Big Bucks For GOP.* Fox News contributors Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, and Rick Santorum all raised tens of millions combined for Republican causes. Contributor Karl Rove ran a shadow Republican National Committee during the election that directed tens of millions to Republican causes and ran tens of thousands of TV ads. And contributor Dick Morris served as a one-man campaign for the Republican Party.
*GOP Candidates "Speak Through Fox News." *Republican candidates took the advice of Sarah Palin, who advised Christine O'Donnell to "speak through Fox News," and participated in numerous softball interviews and fundraising pushes on the network.
*Fox News Builds Conservative Movement, Creates 2010 Candidates. *_Media Matters_ documented how Fox News engaged in conservative movement-building by heavily promoting and taking ownership of the tea parties and guiding them toward the Republican Party. The election also featured Republican candidates who were previously employed by, or inspired by, Fox News.
*More Than 30 Fox Newsers Support GOP In 600-Plus Instances During Midterms. *During the election cycle, more than 30 Fox News personalities endorsed, raised money, or campaigned for Republican candidates or organizations in more than 600 instances. The Republican support was given to more than 300 different races or party organizations in at least 47 states._ Media Matters_ found that Republicans routinely tout the Fox News affiliations of their supporters.
 *Fox News' "Nazi" And "Socialism" Rhetoric Comes Straight From The Top. *In a November interview, Fox News chairman Roger Ailes referred to National Public Radio executives as "Nazis" with a "Nazi attitude" and claimed that "[t]hey are the left wing of Nazism." As _Media Matters_ documented, Ailes' employees at Fox News, particularly Glenn Beck, have also used Nazi and Holocaust imagery to smear President Obama, Democrats, and progressives. Ailes also referred to Obama's policies as "socialism." Ailes' opinion is shared by his Fox News employees, who regularly characterize Obama and his administration as "socialist."
*Lou Dobbs Joins Fox Birther Network. *In November, Fox Business Network hired Lou Dobbs. While with CNN, Dobbs repeatedly advanced false conspiracy theories about President Obama's birth certificate. Dobbs has company at Fox, as his new colleagues have a history of embracing birtherism. In December, _The Washington Post_ noted that Fox is the "second-chance employer" for those who "ran afoul" of liberals, such as Don Imus and former WJLA (DC) anchor Doug McKelway. 
*Andrew Napolitano Pushes 9-11 Conspiracy Theories -- Fox Is Hypocritically Silent. *On November 23, Fox News' Andrew Napolitano told 9-11 conspiracy theory leader Alex Jones that it's "hard for me to believe that" World Trade Center Building 7 "came down by itself" -- a central tenet of 9-11 conspiracy theories -- and claimed that "twenty years from now, people will look at 9-11 the way we look at the assassination of JFK today. It couldn't possibly have been done the way the government told us." Napolitano made similar remarks in May on a separate radio program. Despite criticizing 9-11 conspiracy theorists in the past, Fox News was silent about Napolitano's remarks.
*Fox News' 2012 Presidential Roster. *In November, _Media Matters_ released a report estimating that between January 1 and October 31 of this year, five potential Republican presidential candidates who also serve as Fox News contributors or hosts -- Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, John Bolton, and Rick Santorum -- had appeared on the network for a combined total of nearly 66 hours. _Media Matters _estimates this time to be worth at least $40 million in advertising costs. Figures both within and outside Fox News -- including some of the potential candidates -- have praised Fox News as a helpful vehicle for a potential run for the Republican nomination.
*December*

*Fox News Vs. The DREAM Act. *According to a _Media Matters _analysis, Fox News gave guests who oppose the DREAM Act, a bill that would provide a path to legal status for certain immigrants who came to the United States as children, more than 40 minutes of airtime from November 23 through December 6, but only about 7 minutes to supporters during that same period. In November and December, Fox News regularly resorted to inflammatory rhetoric and false claims to attack the legislation.
*Fox Washington Managing Editor Bill Sammon Caught Slanting News Reporting.* _Media Matters _released emails showing Washington managing editor Bill Sammon directing staff not to use the phrase "public option" when discussing health care reform legislation. The emails, which were sent during the height of the health care debate, echoed Republican pollster Frank Luntz's appearance on _Hannity_ in which he encouraged host Sean Hannity not to say "public option," but instead use the term "government option," because "if you call it the 'government option,' the public is overwhelmingly against it." 
_Media Matters_ also obtained emails from Sammon in which he instructed news staff to "refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question." This directive was issued less than 15 minutes after Fox correspondent Wendell Goler accurately reported on-air that the United Nations' World Meteorological Organization announced that 2000-2009 was "on track to be the warmest [decade] on record." Sammon's email was sent as the network heavily promoted the fabricated "Climategate" scandal.
_Media Matters _previously reported that sources with knowledge of the situation had raised concerns about the direction of Fox's Washington bureau under Sammon, who took over as managing editor in February 2009.

*************

PS: This is just part of 2009. I had to stop because I reached the limit of 30,000 characters. If you click on the links, each event is extensively researched and documented.


----------



## Elgarian

Saturated as I am with images from the last few days of the phonehacking scandal, I've been completely hooked by this brilliant parody:






Hogarth, Gillray and Rowlandson would have loved this.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Almaviva said:


> This is just part of 2009. I had to stop because I reached the limit of 30,000 characters. If you click on the links, each event is extensively researched and documented.


Hmmm...

A "copy/paste" from "Media Matters." On the "objectivity/subjectivity" continuum, they're about on the same plane as an Al Franken tome.

A quick review of the above shows not a whole lot of distinction between logistical misstep, commentary with which they disagree, and actual inaccuracy.


----------



## Guest

CTP beat me to the punch. And I thought we were talking about spreading falsehoods. I didn't click on every link there, but all the ones I did check out were just instances where opinionators and guest commentators said something that the far left Media Matters didn't like.


----------



## science

Yup. Disagree with Fox News and it _must_ be that you're far left.

Dialogue is no longer productive. Of course it probably never was.


----------



## Guest

science said:


> Yup. Disagree with Fox News and it _must_ be that you're far left.
> 
> Dialogue is no longer productive. Of course it probably never was.


Do you know anything of Media Matters? Their sole purpose is to monitor every move that Fox News makes. And yes, they are pretty much leftists. I don't know whether there are nonpartisan groups that also monitor Fox News - although as a nonpartisan group, you would think they monitored all news outlets equally.


----------



## mmsbls

DrMike said:


> Do you know anything of Media Matters? Their sole purpose is to monitor every move that Fox News makes. And yes, they are pretty much leftists. I don't know whether there are nonpartisan groups that also monitor Fox News - although as a nonpartisan group, you would think they monitored all news outlets equally.


As best as I can tell, this is essentially correct. On their website they give this description of themselves:

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.

The information they give on various issues is often reasonable, but they are clearly biased.


----------



## science

One thing to describe them; another to dismiss anything they say because of that description. 

But hey, i can do it: DrMike is clearly an extreme conservative. Therefore I will no longer respect his opinion. 

Fair is fair. It's the old "They do it so it's ok for us too" argument. I grew up conservative. I can roll this way.


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> CTP beat me to the punch. And I thought we were talking about spreading falsehoods. I didn't click on every link there, but all the ones I did check out were just instances where opinionators and guest commentators said something that the far left Media Matters didn't like.


 Sure, guys. Everything that the "liberal media" say about Fox News is a bunch of conspiracy-driven lies.

You asked me for evidence, Dr. Mike. I have provided it. Are you seriously telling me that Fox News doesn't lie? Remember the "Death Panels?" Come on?


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> Sure, guys. Everything that the "liberal media" say about Fox News is a bunch of conspiracy-driven lies.
> 
> You asked me for evidence, Dr. Mike. I have provided it. Are you seriously telling me that Fox News doesn't lie? Remember the "Death Panels?" Come on?


Alma - asking me to accept wholeheartedly evidence you present me on Fox News' malfeasance reported by Media Matters is like accepting Palestinian complaints about Israel. You take it with a grain of salt. That doesn't mean that everything they claim is false, but it does make me suspect.

Case in point - at the last place I worked, we studied chimpanzees that were housed at a separate facility in another state. The Humane Society got an undercover person to get a job there and use a hidden camera to supposedly gain footage of inhumane treatment of animals. They used heavily edited footage and outrageous claims to prove their contention - except it wasn't true. We had visited the facility numerous times and observed their practices. We invested hundreds of thousands of dollars for every animal we studied - if they were treating the animals poorly, we would have been the first ones to rip them a new one. And besides, much of what the Humane Society reported as being inhumane was actually perfectly acceptable practice according to standard veterinary protocols. But they were a biased source, and they blew numerous things out of proportion. Does that mean everything the Humane Society reports on animal cruelty is false? No - but you would have to be naive to not see that they had an agenda driving their motives and skewing their reporting.


----------



## Guest

science said:


> One thing to describe them; another to dismiss anything they say because of that description.
> 
> *But hey, i can do it: DrMike is clearly an extreme conservative. Therefore I will no longer respect his opinion. *
> Fair is fair. It's the old "They do it so it's ok for us too" argument. I grew up conservative. I can roll this way.


And that is completely within your rights. I've never told you to respect my opinion. I don't automatically respect other peoples' opinions. I listen to them, but respect is something that is earned, not automatically granted. To each their own.


----------



## science

Intellectual dishonesty is within my rights, without a doubt.


----------



## Almaviva

Dr. Mike, one thing would be to say: "let me debunk one by one each of these accusations by Media Matters." And then you'd proceed to disprove what they claim, and then conclude that no, Fox News doesn't lie.

Another thing is to do what you did: "Oh, they are biased, therefore I can't accept anything that they say, therefore Fox News doesn't lie."

Sorry, but now the ball is in your camp. You asked for evidence. I have provided it. Either you are able to debunk and disprove the evidence I have provided, or you aren't. If you aren't, just saying that they are biased doesn't prove your case.

See, I'm biased against the George W. Bush administration. If I then go and say "Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction" you can't dismiss what I'm saying merely by affirming "Alma is biased against the George W. Bush administration therefore Iraq must have had weapons of mass destruction." Sorry, but the only way to disprove my claim is to show strong and undeniable evidence that Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction. My being biased is not sufficient to disprove my claim. You can't find WMDs in Iraq? Yep, I didn't think so. Biased or not, I'm right about it.

By the way, if we were to follow your line of reasoning, then we wouldn't be able to accept ANYTHING that Fox News says, since I don't think even you would dispute that they are also biased.


----------



## Almaviva

science said:


> One thing to describe them; another to dismiss anything they say because of that description.
> 
> But hey, i can do it: DrMike is clearly an extreme conservative. Therefore I will no longer respect his opinion.
> 
> Fair is fair. It's the old "They do it so it's ok for us too" argument. I grew up conservative. I can roll this way.


Science, I'll repeat here what I said (it's a copy and paste) before in the Triple A Status thread:

"I really don't see a reason why we shouldn't be able to maintain the civilized tone. We're all well educated, cultured, polite, mature, and friendly folks. These discussions are interesting, they improve my understanding of several issues, thanks to very good points made by many on one side, and by brave and solitary Dr. Mike on the other side.

I think if people routinely participate in these discussions, it's because they see some value and some interest in them. Sincerely, I think that these discussions only thrive because of Dr. Mike here (and in rare occasions, CTP). If we didn't have these conservative members, we wouldn't have the discussions, because it would be a bunch of people preaching to the choir (not fun).

So, I do encourage you all to treat our good Dr. Mike nicely. He's kind of an essential part of this. Seriously. You all know that I'm almost at the mirror opposite point of the political spectrum from Dr. Mike's point, but I respect his willingness to debate these points with us, and come on, guys, it's not an easy position for him and it must be frustrating for him to have to fend off some stones coming from multiple directions at certain times.

So, as long as we can all agree to treat our good Dr. Mike with the respect that all members here deserve, these discussions will proceed nicely.

All right, a moderator shouldn't take sides. But in this case that often ends up by something like ten against one, it is fair to take that one's side."


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> Dr. Mike, one thing would be to say: "let me debunk one by one each of these accusations by Media Matters." And then you'd proceed to disprove what they claim, and then conclude that no, Fox News doesn't lie.
> 
> Another thing is to do what you did: "Oh, they are biased, therefore I can't accept anything that they say, therefore Fox News doesn't lie."
> 
> Sorry, but now the ball is in your camp. You asked for evidence. I have provided it. Either you are able to debunk and disprove the evidence I have provided, or you aren't. If you aren't, just saying that they are biased doesn't prove your case.
> 
> See, I'm biased against the George W. Bush administration. If I then go and say "Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction" you can't dismiss what I'm saying merely by affirming "Alma is biased against the George W. Bush administration therefore Iraq must have had weapons of mass destruction." Sorry, but the only way to disprove my claim is to show strong and undeniable evidence that Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction. My being biased is not sufficient to disprove my claim. You can't find WMDs in Iraq? Yep, I didn't think so. Biased or not, I'm right about it.
> 
> By the way, if we were to follow your line of reasoning, then we wouldn't be able to accept ANYTHING that Fox News says, since I don't think even you would dispute that they are also biased.


But Alma, did you read that section you cut and pasted in? Most of it is Media Matters complaining that Fox News happened to cover some news more than other networks. Other complaints are that guest commentators came in and gave biased opinions. Then there are instances where opinionators on Fox News voiced their opinions - which they are paid to do. Yes, Fox News has made mistakes before, and possibly even transmitted lies. But most of what you cite as evidence is merely a matter of you having a different opinion than Fox News. That does not a scandal make. I have never said that Fox News is perfect. But most of what Media Matters does is serve up red meat to individuals who already have it in for Fox News. They see every misstep as proof of some nefarious conspiracy to undermine everything liberals have worked so hard to enact.

I watch MSNBC quite regularly, and listen to Chris Matthews and various guests on his show, or on Morning Joe, or on the Ed Schultz show, describe Tea Party members and conservatives as terrorists, as hostage takers, as racists. They perpetuate lies like the one that all opposition to Obama's policies are inherently racist. They blasted conservatives for violent rhetoric that supposedly led to the shooting of a congresswoman in Arizona. And now they talk about conservatives as terrorists, hostage takers, holding a gun to the head of the American people, etc. And you wonder why conservatives are flocking to watch Fox News? And I find it funny now how much credence liberals now put in David Brock's "Media Matters." I assume you all know how Brock made his name? As a writer for the conservative magazine "The American Spectator," run by R. Emmett Tyrrell. He did that famous article, investigating the claims of Bill Clinton's numerous rendezvous with women, and using Arkansas state troopers to assist him with these trysts and covering them up. Yes, that same David Brock. He also wrote the book "The Real Anita Hill" that attacked Anita Hill.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

DrMike said:


> I watch MSNBC quite regularly, and listen to Chris Matthews and various guests on his show, or on Morning Joe, or on the Ed Schultz show, describe Tea Party members and conservatives as terrorists, as hostage takers, as racists.


Dale Robertson:


----------



## Guest

Fsharpmajor said:


> Dale Robertson:
> 
> View attachment 2227


And who is Dale Robertson? Are you going to take this single picture and extrapolate to all conservatives?


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Almaviva said:


> Sorry, but now the ball is in your camp. You asked for evidence. I have provided it. Either you are able to debunk and disprove the evidence I have provided, or you aren't. If you aren't, just saying that they are biased doesn't prove your case.


This is an invitation to go chasing after an infinitely moveable target. For me, it is sufficient to say that Media Matters has serious problems in the "witness credibility test" department.

Interestingly enough, this has a rough parallel in Al Franken's cataloging of Ann Coulter's "lies." Well, Ann wrote a point-by-point response to each one of nineteen so-called "lies." She has more time to do this than we do- like Al Franken *and Media Matters*, she gets paid to do this kind of thing. (Dr. Mike doesn't. It would be a fair contest if Mike had Media Matters' budget for this sort of thing.) Well, anyway, what was Al Franken's response after this answer? Why, it was another round of revealed "lies." Finally, even someone who has enough time for writing as Ann Coulter recognized the fruitlessness of further discussion. She spurned the gambit by saying something to the effect of "if the first 19 'lies' are characteristic of the general run of the accusations, I don't think I need to lose sleep over the revelation of 'lies' 20 and beyond.":lol:


----------



## mmsbls

I do not watch Fox news much. Most of my information about Fox comes from places like MSNBC, Media Matters, or the Daily Show and Colbert Report (my favorites). Fox is conservative, and obviously it shows (as one would expect). I do believe they deliberately mislead at times to turn conservatives against certain policies (death panels are one example). One of my favorite examples (minor but hilarious) was a clip of Obama and his wife doing a fist bump. The commentator simply asked, "Is this a terrorist fist bump?" They didn't lie; they just asked a question. A ridiculous question that would have taken incredible guts for the normal person to say on national TV.

I used to watch much more MSNBC (Olbermann, Maddow, and occasional others). I have vastly reduced this because they too often make a big deal of what I think is trivial. They will complain strongly about things that I think are quite reasonable. I don't know that they mislead as much as Fox (can't say since I don't watch enough). I personally have not seen examples on MSNBC of such blatant misleading reporting. I do watch The Last Word (Lawrence O'Donnell) because I think he is incredibly knowledgeable about the legislative process. He has actually played a clip of Obama talking about the debt ceiling and government policy and said, "There is no way President Obama believes what he is saying." He goes on to explain the politics behind it.

Mostly I'm disappointed with the media. I think they do a poor job of informing people about issues. Admittedly, proper information would require educating many of us about economic research, difficult tradeoffs in policy, details of budgets and other legislation, and other things that most of the public simply doesn't have the time for or interest in.


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> I do not watch Fox news much. Most of my information about Fox comes from places like MSNBC, Media Matters, or the Daily Show and Colbert Report (my favorites). Fox is conservative, and obviously it shows (as one would expect). I do believe they deliberately mislead at times to turn conservatives against certain policies (death panels are one example). One of my favorite examples (minor but hilarious) was a clip of Obama and his wife doing a fist bump. The commentator simply asked, "Is this a terrorist fist bump?" They didn't lie; they just asked a question. A ridiculous question that would have taken incredible guts for the normal person to say on national TV.
> 
> I used to watch much more MSNBC (Olbermann, Maddow, and occasional others). I have vastly reduced this because they too often make a big deal of what I think is trivial. They will complain strongly about things that I think are quite reasonable. I don't know that they mislead as much as Fox (can't say since I don't watch enough). I personally have not seen examples on MSNBC of such blatant misleading reporting. I do watch The Last Word (Lawrence O'Donnell) because I think he is incredibly knowledgeable about the legislative process. He has actually played a clip of Obama talking about the debt ceiling and government policy and said, "There is no way President Obama believes what he is saying." He goes on to explain the politics behind it.
> 
> Mostly I'm disappointed with the media. I think they do a poor job of informing people about issues. Admittedly, proper information would require educating many of us about economic research, difficult tradeoffs in policy, details of budgets and other legislation, and other things that most of the public simply doesn't have the time for or interest in.


MSNBC doesn't mislead? I believe they are the network that promoted the idea that Jared Loughner, the man who shot Congresswoman Giffords, was inspired by Sarah Palin and some political ads she had run. Even after it was shown that Loughner was deranged, a Bush hater, a 9/11 Truther, and enjoyed joking about abortion. And then, despite laying the blame at the feet of Republicans for employing "violent rhetoric" they now talk about Republicans as being terrorists and hostage takers on their shows (including Hardball with Chris Matthews and Morning Joe).

Then there was the incident where, at an Obama rally, MSNBC reported video footage of a man there carrying a rifle, and then discussing the racist overtones, with a black president and white men showing up with guns. They neglected to mention that the man they showed in their footage was black. And their commentators (Contessa Brewer, Dylan Rattigan, and one other individual whose name escapes me) then go on to discuss that they believe with these "hate groups" (i.e. Tea Party) around, it is not a question of if, but a question of when there will be some kind of attack on the president. How is that for misleading?

Then you have Chris Matthews openly stating that he wants to do everything he can to make President Obama's administration work. I don't remember a similar pledge to help the Bush administration.


----------



## mmsbls

DrMike said:


> MSNBC doesn't mislead? I believe they are the network that promoted the idea that Jared Loughner, the man who shot Congresswoman Giffords, was inspired by Sarah Palin and some political ads she had run. Even after it was shown that Loughner was deranged, a Bush hater, a 9/11 Truther, and enjoyed joking about abortion. And then, despite laying the blame at the feet of Republicans for employing "violent rhetoric" they now talk about Republicans as being terrorists and hostage takers on their shows (including Hardball with Chris Matthews and Morning Joe).
> 
> Then there was the incident where, at an Obama rally, MSNBC reported video footage of a man there carrying a rifle, and then discussing the racist overtones, with a black president and white men showing up with guns. They neglected to mention that the man they showed in their footage was black. And their commentators (Contessa Brewer, Dylan Rattigan, and one other individual whose name escapes me) then go on to discuss that they believe with these "hate groups" (i.e. Tea Party) around, it is not a question of if, but a question of when there will be some kind of attack on the president. How is that for misleading?
> 
> Then you have Chris Matthews openly stating that he wants to do everything he can to make President Obama's administration work. I don't remember a similar pledge to help the Bush administration.


You certainly may be correct with all of this. All I said is that I'm not so happy with the media and that I don't know who misleads more. Perhaps you read more into my post than was there.


----------



## science

Almaviva said:


> Science, I'll repeat here what I said (it's a copy and paste) before in the Triple A Status thread:
> 
> "I really don't see a reason why we shouldn't be able to maintain the civilized tone. We're all well educated, cultured, polite, mature, and friendly folks. These discussions are interesting, they improve my understanding of several issues, thanks to very good points made by many on one side, and by brave and solitary Dr. Mike on the other side.
> 
> I think if people routinely participate in these discussions, it's because they see some value and some interest in them. Sincerely, I think that these discussions only thrive because of Dr. Mike here (and in rare occasions, CTP). If we didn't have these conservative members, we wouldn't have the discussions, because it would be a bunch of people preaching to the choir (not fun).
> 
> So, I do encourage you all to treat our good Dr. Mike nicely. He's kind of an essential part of this. Seriously. You all know that I'm almost at the mirror opposite point of the political spectrum from Dr. Mike's point, but I respect his willingness to debate these points with us, and come on, guys, it's not an easy position for him and it must be frustrating for him to have to fend off some stones coming from multiple directions at certain times.
> 
> So, as long as we can all agree to treat our good Dr. Mike with the respect that all members here deserve, these discussions will proceed nicely.
> 
> All right, a moderator shouldn't take sides. But in this case that often ends up by something like ten against one, it is fair to take that one's side."


I thought it was obviously an example of a hypothetical and wrong attitude, not a manifesto of my actual attitude. But, to state my actual attitude, if Dr. Mike makes a thought-provoking post, I will think about it. I do not dismiss everything he says simply because he is the one who says it. I would consider that intellectually dishonest.

So the discussion followed logically: Dr. Mike's response to my post was that I would be within my rights (I suppose this refers to legal rights) to dismiss things just because he's the person saying them (obviously by implication defending his right to have that attitude with regard to Media Matters; although he aslo said that he'd never "told" me to respect his opinion, I could not understand what his point was with that comment) and I responded that it may be within our rights - whether it is within rights is completely beside the point - because the real point is that it is intellectually dishonest.

As far as I know, that's where the discussion stands now.


----------



## science

Here is something to keep the conservative accusations against MSNBC in perspective.


----------



## Almaviva

science said:


> I thought it was obviously an example of a hypothetical and wrong attitude, not a manifesto of my actual attitude. But, to state my actual attitude, if Dr. Mike makes a thought-provoking post, I will think about it. I do not dismiss everything he says simply because he is the one who says it. I would consider that intellectually dishonest.
> 
> So the discussion followed logically: Dr. Mike's response to my post was that I would be within my rights (I suppose this refers to legal rights) to dismiss things just because he's the person saying them (obviously by implication defending his right to have that attitude with regard to Media Matters; although he aslo said that he'd never "told" me to respect his opinion, I could not understand what his point was with that comment) and I responded that it may be within our rights - whether it is within rights is completely beside the point - because the real point is that it is intellectually dishonest.
> 
> As far as I know, that's where the discussion stands now.


Sure, but I was being proactive. Sometimes, hypothetical examples are the starting points for slippery slopes.


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> But Alma, did you read that section you cut and pasted in? Most of it is Media Matters complaining that Fox News happened to cover some news more than other networks. Other complaints are that guest commentators came in and gave biased opinions. Then there are instances where opinionators on Fox News voiced their opinions - which they are paid to do. Yes, Fox News has made mistakes before, and possibly even transmitted lies. But most of what you cite as evidence is merely a matter of you having a different opinion than Fox News. That does not a scandal make. I have never said that Fox News is perfect. But most of what Media Matters does is serve up red meat to individuals who already have it in for Fox News. They see every misstep as proof of some nefarious conspiracy to undermine everything liberals have worked so hard to enact.
> 
> I watch MSNBC quite regularly, and listen to Chris Matthews and various guests on his show, or on Morning Joe, or on the Ed Schultz show, describe Tea Party members and conservatives as terrorists, as hostage takers, as racists. They perpetuate lies like the one that all opposition to Obama's policies are inherently racist. They blasted conservatives for violent rhetoric that supposedly led to the shooting of a congresswoman in Arizona. And now they talk about conservatives as terrorists, hostage takers, holding a gun to the head of the American people, etc. And you wonder why conservatives are flocking to watch Fox News? And I find it funny now how much credence liberals now put in David Brock's "Media Matters." I assume you all know how Brock made his name? As a writer for the conservative magazine "The American Spectator," run by R. Emmett Tyrrell. He did that famous article, investigating the claims of Bill Clinton's numerous rendezvous with women, and using Arkansas state troopers to assist him with these trysts and covering them up. Yes, that same David Brock. He also wrote the book "The Real Anita Hill" that attacked Anita Hill.


Yes, the session I copied and pasted did have numerous instances of complaints about biased reporting, but *also* had incidents of big fat lies.

Anyway, the bottom line is that BOTH conservative and liberal media lie.

What is sad, is that these days we have news-made-to-order. Instead of journalistic integrity, people just seek the channels and talk shows that will tell them what they want to hear. It's a shame, and in great part responsible for the insurmountable polarization of our political life.

I wish we could all watch truthful news reporting, have networks that clearly separated news from opinion, and more media that opened their microphones to both sides.


----------



## science

Almaviva said:


> Sure, but I was being proactive. Sometimes, hypothetical examples are the starting points for slippery slopes.


Thanks. I just wanted to make sure that you understood I didn't intend to break the TOS or anything. I'm a good boy.

Well. I'm ok. Not bad. Maybe only a little bad. Somewhat bad. Fairly bad. Pretty bad. No good. Bad. Horrible. Awful.


----------



## Guest

science said:


> Here is something to keep the conservative accusations against MSNBC in perspective.


I actually watched that long-winded, rambling explanation that he gave earlier, before you posted it here. I believe that he claimed they didn't like his tone toward the administration (and some bizarre thing about his hand movements). But just because he would criticize the Obama administration doesn't mean he was a conservative voice. I think it still keeps within the consistent pattern of MSNBC being a shill for the Obama administration - what with Chris Matthews doing everything he can to help the administration be successful


----------



## science

Of course I didn't mean to imply that he was a conservative voice. He says repeatedly that he's progressive. I'm a huge fan of Mr. Uygur.


----------



## Almaviva

science said:


> Well. I'm ok. Not bad. Maybe only a little bad. Somewhat bad. Fairly bad. Pretty bad. No good. Bad. Horrible. Awful.


I'm happy that you're showing growing insight. If the trend continues, soon enough you'll be close to actually seeing how bad you are.

Just kidding. You're a good guy. It's just that at times you become part of the nightmares that we poor moderators have to face. But not as bad as some others. Oh maybe almost as bad as some others, when you're not being just as bad or even worse than others. Or much worse. Or the worst one. Or... :lol:


----------

