Trying to gauge the `Fox Factor'

[CVX]

This is a political article. But it has to do with TV and American's getting their news from this source.

Critics slam Fox News for toeing White House line. But do Americans expect more spin with their news?



TIM HARPER

WASHINGTON”As U.S. and Iraqi fighters surrounded Moqtada al-Sadr in Najaf last week, Fox News viewers were given three takes on what the Americans should do next.

Or, as Fox likes to put it, what the "good guys" should do about the "bad guys."

Over the afternoon, the foreign policy debate went something like this:

Retired U.S. Army Col. David Hunt told the cable network al-Sadr should be brought out "on a plate."

Bernard Kerik, a former New York City police commissioner and an adviser to the Bush campaign, said: "I think it's time, he's got to be taken out."

Retired Maj.-Gen. Robert Scales: "He's simply got to go down."

Fox did bring on Michael O'Hanlon, a respected analyst at the non-partisan Brookings Institution to discuss al-Sadr and all interviewers did acknowledge that the U.S. military mustn't storm a holy shrine.

But was it the "Fair and Balanced" coverage that the Fox slogan promises?

More:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Conten ... 8394944443

[anastrophe]

the only difference between fox and other news outlets that i can see is that fox wears its more conservative bent on it's sleeve, rather than trying to hide their leanings as the other 'mainstream' news organizations do.

TV news is little more than information porn. it bears little resemblance to anything meaningful or genuinely informative.

[anastrophe]

well, thanks but no thanks. i'll take a flawed - but free - press, over a state-controlled press any time.

government run media will never fly in this country, thanks to the first amendment to our constitution.

[anastrophe]

The Day V wrote: The first amendment has nothing to do with the news media. The first amendment protects opinion, not facts, because facts need no protection, only presentation. It is the job of the media to bring the facts to the masses, not opinion. If the media does this, than it has nothing to do with freedom of speech, regardless of it being state-run or privately owned.



I should have elaborated earlier that the Canadian system is not just the CBC. It actually consists of the CBC and a bunch of private sector media groups, such as CTV and Canwest Global. That way, the public can hold the CBC accountable, but can still get the news from several different angles if they want.
i would recommend a rereading of the first amendment. i know, this isn't your country, and frankly i'm not likely to ever read canada's constitution (don't even know if it has one). but really, this is silly. here it is, in all it's incredibly simple glory:



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



and i also disagree with your premise - it is just as much the 'media's' job to bring us facts as it is to bring us opinions. actually, it's also their job to bring us the comics and the weekly lingerie ads from macy's. it's a multipurpose media, for a pluralistic nation.



again, thanks but no thanks on that state-controlled press idea.

[gmc]

Its state funded not state controlled. The BBC is funded by the licence fee and there is no commercial advertising. As part of its charter it has to be impartial in its broadcasting and it is the job of the board of governers to make sure it is. Far from being state controlled it consistently antagonises whatever party is in power be it tory or labour by reporting both sides of a debate and calling them liars when necessary (but in a nice way of course)which is why is has fallen foul of our current labour government by pointing out that the evidence for WMD in Iraq had been selectively doctored to make the case more plausible. We were conned pure and simple. Most rational people were amazed by the concluscions of the hutton report exonerating tony blair and downing street, anyone with half a brain can see what happened. Some polls show that more people in the UK trust the BBC before they will trust a politician.

Those who want it to change tend to be politicians who would like more control and our equivalent of fox corporation who dislike competition and want to control everything.

You don't have a free press when the bulk of the media is controlled by a handful of companies who use their clout to try and stop films and documentaries they don't like getting an airing and only allow reporting that gives their boy a favourable light by telling reporters what to report. The only people who benefit from a monopoly are those who control it. I would put it to you that a free press in the US is fighting for survival. It is here as well of course its not so much on the defensive yet.

[capt_buzzard]

gmc wrote: Its state funded not state controlled. The BBC is funded by the licence fee and there is no commercial advertising. As part of its charter it has to be impartial in its broadcasting and it is the job of the board of governers to make sure it is. Far from being state controlled it consistently antagonises whatever party is in power be it tory or labour by reporting both sides of a debate and calling them liars when necessary (but in a nice way of course)which is why is has fallen foul of our current labour government by pointing out that the evidence for WMD in Iraq had been selectively doctored to make the case more plausible. We were conned pure and simple. Most rational people were amazed by the concluscions of the hutton report exonerating tony blair and downing street, anyone with half a brain can see what happened. Some polls show that more people in the UK trust the BBC before they will trust a politician.

Those who want it to change tend to be politicians who would like more control and our equivalent of fox corporation who dislike competition and want to control everything.

You don't have a free press when the bulk of the media is controlled by a handful of companies who use their clout to try and stop films and documentaries they don't like getting an airing and only allow reporting that gives their boy a favourable light by telling reporters what to report. The only people who benefit from a monopoly are those who control it. I would put it to you that a free press in the US is fighting for survival. It is here as well of course its not so much on the defensive yet.


If you think that's bad try this http://www.rte.ie/ We like Auntie -BBC here, + ITV and SKY. But we have to folk out more euros for the privilege.

[anastrophe]

The Day V wrote: Just because the press is free does not mean that it's clear of corruption. A 'free' press can be bought and influenced.
as can the government and those in government. it happens regularly, here, there, and everywhere. just having the 'government' label on it doesn't make it somehow magically immune to influence peddlers.



Opinion has no place in the news. That is not to say that it has no place in the press or media in general. If you want opinion, than buy a special interest magazine or watch special interest programming. Those providing facts should not provide opinion; when people recieve the facts, they should generate their own opinion, not be given one. People, in general, are too impressionable for opinion to presented along with facts.
well, perhaps it's a different mentality elsewhere. here in the US, we don't think of our citizens as children, 'too impressionable for opinion to be presented along with facts'. that's for the people to decide. not the government.



i have absolutely no problem with the press in this country. people are free to choose which news sources they trust, and which ones they don't. there are so many 'facts' which are matters of opinion that i'm not willing to hand that decision over to government sponsors. you know, it's a 'fact' that no WMD's have been found in Iraq. lots of people extrapolate from that to the 'fact' that we were mislead by the president, which is a matter of opinion - but to many it is a 'fact'.



Regardless of what the news can do, providing facts only is what it should do. Then the press can do whatever it wants with the facts.
you're making circular arguments. the press should ONLY provide facts. but, the press can do whatever it wants with the facts, which means, present opinion. or did you mean 'the people' rather than 'the press'?



either way - the press is made up of people. just as we share opinions here, our press can share opinions. there is no monopoly on one viewpoint in the press, regardless of how dastardly you may believe fox news is. 'fox news is a tool of the right wing!'. well, just as easily, 'nbc is a tool of the left wing!'.

[gmc]

i have absolutely no problem with the press in this country. people are free to choose which news sources they trust, and which ones they don't.


Bear in mins all i know about the american media is the likes of cbc cnn and poking around web sites.

If your mass media is owned by a few who determine what gets played and reported then you do not have a choice but only an illusion of choice. State run/economic political cartel control, what's the difference?

We have monopoly laws to prevent our press and tv channels being concentrated in to a few hands-they have blocked a couple of takeovers recently. The large media companies hate it because they argue that competition should determine who owns what. our attitude is it's too important to be left to them to decide and having that kind of power in too few hands is a very bad thing. That's not to say they make objective decisions but at least the dabate is in the open.

state regulation rather than control. some things need to be regulated to prevent abuse. The debate goes to and fro.

there is a fundamantal difference in the way language is used either side of the atlantic. State control seems synonymous with totalitarian systems in the US mind. We on the other hand expect governments to control the excesses of big companies and make sure they behave themselves so far as health and safety, environmemt etc are concerned. The likes of rupert murdoch sky TV do give more choice but left entirely to him and his ilk our TV would be crap-sky news is reasonably good but then so is the competition so it has to be at least as good to get an audience.

[Bill Sikes]

gmc wrote: State control seems synonymous with totalitarian systems in the US mind.


Isn't the U.S.A. in fact a totalitarian system? State control seems to go very deep...

[anastrophe]

Bill Sikes wrote: Isn't the U.S.A. in fact a totalitarian system? State control seems to go very deep...
of course not. the US is a republic, we have a tripartate federal government, and similarly tripartate state governments. it bears no resemblance to a totalitarian system at all.

[anastrophe]

gmc wrote: If your mass media is owned by a few who determine what gets played and reported then you do not have a choice but only an illusion of choice. State run/economic political cartel control, what's the difference? some of our mass media are owned by conglomerates and near-monopolies, but not all. There is a massive amount of choice, even with the narrowing of choice due to some of the consolidations that have gone on.



Just go to amazon and have a look at all the political periodicals that are available, covering practically the entire spectrum of political leanings. there is no shortage of choices. if the main complaint i'm currently hearing is about fox news, then why are there no complaints about the left leaning NBC, CNN, etc? oh - wait - of course. left is right, right is wrong!





state regulation rather than control. some things need to be regulated to prevent abuse. The debate goes to and fro.i prefer self-regulation. the press watches itself, and the people watch the press. there are numerous watchdog groups out there. sadly, some of the watchdogs are openly biased, which rather defeats the purpose, for example, FAIR.



there is no shortage of dissent, dissent breeds skepticism, skepticism keeps the mind sharp, and keeps the watched, the watchdogs, and those watching the watchdogs honest.

[gmc]

i prefer self-regulation. the press watches itself, and the people watch the press. there are numerous watchdog groups out there. sadly, some of the watchdogs are openly biased, which rather defeats the purpose, for example, FAIR.


I think we agree in principle but express things differently. self regulation only works if there is some sanction to be used against those who need it. and some means of stopping a would be monopolist that is where the lawmakers come in. The behaviour of companies is regulated by the state at the behest of those who elect them that's why we have employment and health and safety laws as a sanction against those who would not bother about such things.

Things went to the dogs slightly when maggie thatcher allowed rupert murdoch too much control of satellite broadcasting to the detriment of our TV. Satellite tv is a rip off. Terrestial cable is now giving more choice but i suspect the majority in this country were opposed to him getting control in principle, viewing it as wrong that one company should control so much.

Self regulation but with a big stick that can be used if necessary.

some of our mass media are owned by conglomerates and near-monopolies, but not all. There is a massive amount of choice, even with the narrowing of choice due to some of the consolidations that have gone on.


Like I said I am not really in a position to comment. That is actually one of the attractions about this forum. I am curious.