Conservative FOX NEWS Strikes Again

[New2u]

Bush or bust: After MMFA analysis, FOX's Big Story stopped airing viewer comments entirely

http://mediamatters.org/items/200409270008

In the two weeks since a Media Matters for America analysis revealed that every piece of viewer e-mail posted on FOX News Channel's The Big Story with John Gibson during the week of September 6 was either a negative statement about Senator John Kerry or a positive comment about President George W. Bush, all viewer e-mail has vanished from the show. Prior to the MMFA analysis, viewer e-mail was a regular fixture on The Big Story.

[Krokus]

what else is new? this is by far the most slanted, right-wing news organization in the history of the media. The communists had pravda...republicans have FOX.

[New2u]

Of course, JimBlast and Buggs see it as "balanced" news reporting...like the difference between a 400 lb. block of Lead (conservative) and a feather (liberal). After all, conservatives are never biased...NOT!!!

[babinsky]

:zzzzz:

....Ok..Lets take a count..The 3 mainstream networks, The LA and New York Times, Newsweek and Time magazine, at least CNN and possibly
MSNBC are liberal especially CBS, and you guys are jumpin' up and down about Fox bein' conservative ? I'm getting ready to tear-up my
liberal I.D. card...

[New2u]

Babinsky, the problem here is that Conservatives tend to "rave & rant" about the alleged "Liberal" media, alluding that they are all "biased against Conservatives whereas, FOX NEWS is a totally "Balanced" news network which allegedly presents "both sides" of the issues. I have watched FOX NEWS several times and I can see why conservatives like it. It tends to presents mostly positive news about republicans and conservatives and mostly negative news about Democrats and liberals. At least the alleged "liberal" media presents both the conservative and liberal side to the issues, but what conservatives want is to show ONLY the conservative side with no opposing views, much like in the style of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly. That is the conservative idea of "balance".

[Xodlirv]

Personally, my biggest problem with Fox isn't so much that they're nothing more or less than the broadcast arm of the Bush administration, but that they insult our intelligence by lying about it and expecting us to swallow it.

"Fair and balanced" my ass. My cat was more balanced when I let him out of the dryer....

[Jimblast]

Fox presents both sides. Either you people aren't watching Fox News or you're jumping on the liberal bandwagon because all you want to see is the liberal point of view. Shows that I watch are with Brit Hume, Hannity and Colms, and Bill O'Reilly. John Gibson is more conservative and readily admits it. He still has numerous left wingers as guests on his show. The email that Bill O'Reilly shows practically every night has some Conservative admonishing him for being a liberal and some Liberal admonishing him for being a conservative. The reason why I know the liberal point of view on so many issues is because of Fox News. Make all the snide remarks you want about Fox News, but it IS fair and balanced. You all just want to censor any news show that even remotely shows a conservative point of view as well as a liberal one. Watch Hannity and Colms and tell me that show doesn't show both sides. Next show me any other News Media programming that will show both sides of any issue regularly except for possibly some political news shows on Sundays. Rather than gripe about it, embrace both sides and watch it. You've had over 3 decades of liberally dominated news media by the 'big 3' networks AND the major newspapers in America. Now that Fox News is showing both sides, you just can't stand it! LOL!

Guests on Fox News shows have included heads of the DNC, Michael Moore, Ben Afleck, Alec Baldwin, Bill Mayer, top reporters for the NY Times, Canadian Journalists who admonished O'Reilly for his anti Canadian sentiment, James Carville, Al Sharpton, top Dem Senators and Congressmen,.....the list goes on and on. These are all guests that have been guests in the last 3 months, many as repeat guests. I don't see many conservative leaders EVER interviewed on the big 3 networks. Fox News is clearly fair and balanced, you just aren't watching it or you wouldn't make those comments. Bill O'Reilly is an independent. How many conservatives do you know that are FOR abortion, FOR gay marriage, and FOR legalizing pot as O'Reilly is? Again, Fox News shows both sides. Quit going to your liberal internet websights and just watch it. I can guarantee that your point of view of any issue is covered at one point or another.

:sowrong:

[BOFH666]

Fox news... well I've spoken on that issue before and run into the usual "no no, it's only because the rest of the media is a bunch of leftie hippie commie that it SEEMS biased" arguments. Utter rubbish of course, take this argument from today's Asman Observer:


For personal reasons I was stuck in London (search) for about a month. Now, London’s not a bad place to be stuck, but it is very expensive. From food to clothing to bus fares to real estate... everything in London is about twice as expensive as pricey New York City (search).

When I scoffed at paying over $30 to wash and dry just one load of clothes, the Laundromat owner laughed and dared me to find a better price. I didn’t.

On top of these high prices, Londoners make less than we do. I met folks from all classes — doctors and nurses, plumbers and electricians, and everyone was making about 30 percent less than American workers.

Now the funny thing is that Brits don’t seem to realize how bad off they are compared to us. In fact, while I was there, the BBC (search) repeatedly droned on about America’s growing poverty rate, making the ridiculous suggestion that life in the states was tougher than life in Britain.

Chances are, if Brits knew the truth about how poorly they’re living compared to their American cousins, the first thing they’d demand is that their tax money stop being used for BBC blather about how lousy things are in America.

And that’s the Observer.


Now I have to say that anyone who pays $30 for laundry is a farking idiot, it should be about £3, or $4.50, so if it was one of my fellow londoners that took this shill for a ride let me just say congrats! But the fact is this jackass is basing his opinion on being in London AS A TOURIST! What he seems to fail to realise is that what we Brits are worried about with American poverty is that, for example,

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6354776

Health insurance premiums for workers are rising around three times faster than their wages, and health costs eat up a quarter of earnings for more than 14 million Americans, according to a survey on Tuesday.

While benefits are being cut, health insurance premiums are rising, the report from the nonprofit Families USA found.

"Working families were squeezed by runaway health care costs over the past four years," said Families USA executive director Ron Pollack.

"As a result, workers are paying much more in premiums but are receiving less health coverage, wages are being depressed; and millions of people have lost health coverage entirely."

The cost of health insurance premiums rose by nearly 36 percent on average from 2000 to 2004 in 35 states, said the group, which bills itself as a nonpartisan watchdog on health care issues. Average earnings rose just 12 percent over the same time.

The Families USA report found that health insurance plans provided by employers are covering fewer health services and workers are paying higher deductibles and copayments.

"Family health premiums paid by employers and workers rose from $7,028 in 2000 to $9,320 in 2004. The average amount paid by workers for this coverage rose from $1,433 to $1,947 during that period -- an increase of 35.9 percent," the group said in a statement.

"And, the number of Americans who had total health costs that consumed more than one-quarter of their earnings rose from 11.6 million in 2000 to 14.3 million in 2004 -- an increase of almost 23 percent. The overwhelming majority of these people (10.7 million) had health insurance."

More than 60 percent of Americans get their health insurance through an employer, according to Census Bureau statistics. But the number of people without insurance rose last year from 43 million to 45 million and some experts say rising insurance costs are in part to blame.

Families USA said it found 85.2 million people went without health insurance for some time during 2003 and 2004.


The NHS might not be the best system in the world but, regardless of whether you're a doctor or a McDonalds employee you are entitled to use it. This alone accounts for a BIG chunk of that cash discrepency.

There's a whole load of ways you could tear this down but lets skip to the money shot, Fox using this as ANOTHER club against a news organisation that actually IS fair and balanced and runs a news reporting service, not a news analysis one. It's a trademark of Fox's 'journalism', they rip and tear at anything that seems an easy, non-american target specificaly because they know it'll get them ratings. They've been bitch slapped by Ofcom for attacking the BBC, specificaly:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/bulletins/prog_cb/pcb_11/upheld_cases?a=87101

a) that the BBC had “a frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Americanism that was obsessive, irrational and dishonest”;
b) that the BBC “felt entitled to lie and, when caught lying, felt entitled to defend its lying reporters and executives”;
c) that the BBC reporter, Andrew Gilligan, in Baghdad during the American invasion, had “insisted on air that the Iraqi Army was heroically repulsing an incompetent American Military”;
d) that “the BBC, far from blaming itself, insisted its reporter had a right to lie – exaggerate – because, well, the BBC knew that the war was wrong, and anything they could say to underscore that point had to be right”.

a) Ofcom does not accept that Fox News’s claim that an appointment of a monitor to detect ‘pro-Arab’ bias is proof of an “anti-Americanism that was obsessive, irrational and dishonest” within the BBC. Similarly, we do not believe that a simple Internet search for the words “BBC” and “anti-American” is sufficient evidence to back-up such a statement. (An Internet search will only identify those sites which contain those words, it will not make any editorial judgement over how those words are used). Fox News stated that the BBC’s approach was “irrational” and “dishonest”. However, it did not provide any evidence other than to say the BBC bashed American policy; or that it ridiculed the US President without any analysis; and that it persecuted Tony Blair.

b) We do not accept that the Hutton Inquiry supported the statement that the “BBC felt entitled to lie and when caught lying, felt entitled to defend its lying”. The Inquiry stated that BBC editorial system was “defective”. At no stage did Hutton accuse the BBC management of lying.
c) Fox News argue that the presenter was not directly quoting Gilligan when he claimed that the reporter “insisted on air that the Iraqi Army was heroically repulsing an incompetent American Military”. However, the manner in which John Gibson delivered these lines and the fact that he indicated that Gilligan said it “on-air” gave the distinct impression that he was quoting Gilligan directly. It did not appear that he was summarising Gilligan’s reporting. Furthermore, Fox News failed to provide any evidence, except that it felt that Gilligan’s reporting of the US advance into Baghdad was incorrect, that supported this statement.

d) As previously stated the Hutton Inquiry concluded that the BBC editorial system was “defective”. There is no evidence, and Fox News did not provide any, that the BBC “insisted its reporter had a right to lie”. Fox News argue that from its “study of BBC reporting” it could claim that the “BBC knew that the war was wrong”. Fox News’s “study” appears to be based on its own viewing and listening of BBC services. It could provide nothing more than this statement to back up this assertion.

We recognise how important freedom of expression is within the media. This item was part of a well-established spot, in which the presenter put forwards his own opinion in an uncompromising manner. However, such items should not make false statements by undermining facts. Fox News was unable to provide any substantial evidence to support the overall allegation that the BBC management had lied and the BBC had an anti-American obsession. It had also incorrectly attributed quotes to the reporter Andrew Gilligan.

Even taking into account that this was a ‘personal view’ item, the strength and number of allegations that John Gibson made against the BBC meant that Fox News should have offered the BBC an opportunity to respond.

Fox News was therefore in breach of Sections 2.1 (respect for truth), 2.7 (opportunity to take part), and 3.5(b) (personal view programmes - opinions expressed must not rest upon false evidence) of the Programme Code.


This isn't news reporting, this is the news equivalent of American Idol, simple entertainment for simple minds.

But I'd like to offer up this challenge. Anyone who's going to post here on the "liberal media" PROVE YOUR CLAIMS! I've asked this before and no-one's even tried to do so without resorting to "everyone KNOWS" arguments. And no, political preferences of journalists do not make a source 'liberal' as they don't control what goes out on the air. Give examples of a network that, for example, bashed Bush without factual basis in the year after 9/11. Show me a network that waved the flag for Gore in 2000 instead of spreading lies about him claiming to have "invented the internet" (not true if you were wondering). Explain how the New York Times published a fake picture of John Kerry on stage with Jane Fonda in the early 70's fits with them being a 'liberal' paper. Not that I'm expecting any sort of rational debate on this, more a collection of Free Republic fantasies but we'll see.

[MrMacphisto]

The funniest thing about Mr. Assman's observations are that I'm sure many Canadians would feel the same way about America that he feels about England. Compare Toronto to Detroit... Compare Montreal to NYC... I'm quite certain that Toronto and Montreal are a lot safer to live in than Detroit or NYC. They're probably a lot cleaner, and I hear that the people are friendlier in Toronto as well. (I'm not so sure about friendliness in Montreal, unless you can speak French.) Granted, those of us that live in America by choice (rather than because of not being able to afford to move to Canada) probably focus more on how we're supposedly better paid (although I can guarantee you this isn't true in my area of NC) or how the job market is better here (once again, this isn't necessarily true of NC either). Whatever the case, Assman and Fox seem to thrive on their displays of ignorance and lack of worldliness, but as they say, "whatever floats your boat." If you enjoy being a living embodiment of the fat, arrogant American stereotype, then go right ahead and continue listening to Fox. Otherwise, you might want a glimpse of what the rest of the world thinks of us by watching the BBC, NPR, and various other news organizations with a decidedly more "global" perspective.

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by Jimblast
The reason why I know the liberal point of view on so many issues is because of Fox News.


THAT explains a lot.... O'Reilly is a republican by the way, not an independent:


O'REILLY: All right. You should be a Republican? You know why?

P DIDDY: No. Why should I be a Republican?

O'REILLY: Because you're self-made. Did anybody ever give you anything?

P DIDDY: I mean, what I should do is inspire young people to --

O'REILLY: But did anybody ever give you anything? The government ever give you anything?

P DIDDY: No, I can't really say anybody ever gave me anything.

O'REILLY: All right, so you made it on your own, right?

P DIDDY: Yes, I did.

O'REILLY: All right, so you made it on your own, right?

P DIDDY: Yes, I did.

O'REILLY: You're like me.



And who the HELL said they want to censor Fox news? All that's required is they admit to being a right wing station and drop the "fair and balanced" tag line.

http://www.fair.org/extra/0108/fox-main.html

http://www.fair.org/extra/0312/fox-pipa.html

http://www.fair.org/extra/0108/sources.html

http://www.fair.org/activism/fox-commission.html

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Fox_News

http://mediamatters.org/items/200407140002

http://mediamatters.org/items/200409280005

http://mediamatters.org/items/200409240006

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=12104

[Krokus]

yes, they really shouldn't be able to use the "fair and balanced" line, as it's rubbish. I watch foxnews everyday and am astonished at how conservative the network is. With the exception of Alan Colmes (who is always being mocked and made fun of by the others on the channel) ever other reporter on foxnews is a republican. Every single one. Cavuto, o'reilly, hannity, hume, fred barnes, mort kondracke, oliver north, all of them.

[Jimblast]

if Bill O'Reilly is Republican. He has stated over and over again that he's an independent. As for the others you list, can you tell me ONE news anchor or major journalist of the 'big 3' networks or CNN or MSNBC who is NOT a liberal or Democrat? I think you will see that it is sadly skewed to the left. Regardless, Fox presents both sides and you all cannot stand it. I don't see any posts arguing the guests' affiliations that I mentioned before. I WISH Fox News was a conservative news media source, unfortunately it is not. The more I watch Fox, the more liberal it seems to be. But it does present both sides while ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC do not. If you are liberal, you have PLENTY of other sources dominating the airwaves. You have had that for 3 decades. I'm not sure why you're complaining about Fox News. Maybe it's because they are finally showing us BOTH the conservative and liberal points of view? You all merely want ONLY the liberal point of view.

[Krokus]

you make a good point. however, foxnews is fast becoming THE news network as far as ratings go....and I thik that if your going to be no 1, you should have more from the left to really balance things out. Because it's my opinion that people who only watch FOX are only getting one side of it, and when they get the other it's always in a bad light. Only my opinion, of course :cool: also, I'd say that Lou Dobbs on CNN is a conservative.

[Strider]

All news is biased.

[Jimblast]

..currently, Bill O'Reilly is in the midst of a 4 part interview with George Bush. I suggest anyone who doesn't feel Fox News or Bill O'Reilly are fair and balanced, that they view this series. He asks very good questions. It is not scripted and Bush allowed him to talk about ANY subject and was able to ask any question. Afterwards, O'Reilly has two liberals rate his interview and discuss their views on Bush's answers. One is Alan Colms and the other is some woman whose a Democratic strategists (can't remember her name...I think she's an idiot but I'm sure many of you will love her). I would like for you all to view this and tell me if it's not fair and balanced and why you feel that way if you disagree with me.

Additionally, rather than banter back and forth, I ask that any of you watch two back to back episodes of Hannity and Colms and Bill O'Reilly. I think you'll get my point. My view is that Fox News shows both sides and clearly has guests from both sides on practically every show. I watch those shows because I WANT to know the liberal point of view! I get plenty of the liberal side from Fox News. By the way, O'Reilly has invited Kerry on for an interview. Kerry would be a moron for not doing so and I expect that he will be interviewed by O'Reilly.

Krokus, Fox News is fast becoming THE news network for a reason. We get the opportunity to hear both points of view on the major issues. I could only hope the other News networks take note and start immulating what Fox is doing.

[ShiningIce]

If Fox News is fair and balanced then Michael Moore's a Republican. :rolleyes:


http://mediamatters.org/static/video/oreilly-20040928.wmv

[BOFH666]

*sigh* I really wish people would realise what bias actually MEANS in context of a news network. It's not just who they have on (though for the record Fox's 'liberal' guests are usually waaaay down the chain and put up against much more, uh, forceful conservatives, see Hannity and Colmes for example) it's what stories are covered and how 'facts' are presented. O'Reilly is a liar plain and simple, most of his 'facts' are presented in such a way to seem totaly reasonable but rarely stand up to examination. But to give an example of what I mean about story presentation being a good example of bias, have a look at this:


In what has been billed as an, "exclusive interview," the hunting magazine Outdoor Life (search) quotes John Kerry as saying, "I don't own [my favorite gun from Vietnam], but one of my reminders of my service is a Communist Chinese assault rifle."

Thing is, according to gun advocacy groups, owning such a gun is illegal. And a Kerry campaign spokesman insists Kerry only has two guns: a 12-gauge shotgun and a single-bolt-action military rifle, neither of which is a Communist Chinese assault rifle.

So why is Kerry quoted as saying he does? Well, it turns out Outdoor Life never actually interviewed Kerry, his staff wrote and submitted answers to a questionnaire from the magazine for him. And, they claim, it was the staff not the senator who got things wrong.


Seems reasonable right? Well no, not really. The second and third paragraphs are in the wrong order. They SHOULD immediately make it clear that Kerry has been misquoted and then put in the blurb about such a gun being illegal (which is questionable anyway if he owned such a gun from the Vietnam era wouldn't it be legal to keep it but not to sell it?). By phrasing the story this way it increases the chances of someone reading the opening, finding it fits with their worldview and taking it as fact.

Strider's right though, no media is unbiased, especially when there are commercial interests at stake. It just happens that the 'liberal media' bias that is claimed by the right doesn't seem to be based on any actual FACT and the slight RIGHT leaning of all the major networks is simply down to the fact they don't want to loose advertisment fees. But thanks to years of "IT'S THE LIBERAL MEDIA!" yelling by freepers it's been acepted as fact with very little evidence to support the claim.

[Jimblast]

Why would it matter if the show were called Hannity and Colms or Colms and Hannity? One is a well spoken conservative and the other is a well spoken and respected liberal. I would watch it either way. Your assessment that the show pits higher powered conservatives against liberals who are lower on the food chain is false. Go back and look at the list of democratic or liberal guests presented on these talk shows. Typically, during any election coverage, you will find top advisors of both campaigns on at the same time. I challenge you all to watch back to back episodes of both Hannity and Colms, or Bill O'Reilly, or Brit Hume's show and prove to me that they are not fair and balanced based upon the guests and the discussion of issues. BOF, by your assessment, then ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN are all liberal. Actually, I agree with you there. This bashing of Fox News in terms of it being unfair or unbalanced is a false accusation. I'd be willing to bet I know as much about the liberal side of any issue as anyone else in here, and it's because of the liberal side shown on Fox. Again, it's like green eggs and ham Sam I Am....watch it, you'll like it! LOL! Quit reading the 527's spin and what everyone else is saying, watch two episodes of any one of these shows, THEN tell me what you think. I think you will likely change your tune. This hatred of Bill O'Reilly bothers me because on a number of issues he is VERY liberal. Those 'shutups' I saw in the other post were taken out of context. Typically, he has a crusade going against these liberal judges who change the laws to favor their own philosophy which includes letting off child molestors, rapists, and murderers with probation or a very light sentence. Whether you're liberal or conservative, you have to applaud his point of view there. Any a few of those 'shutups' were at those defending the child rapists, molestors, and murderers. Oh, and one of the daily Fox News Shows (Brit Hume) addressed the Kerry gun issue with Outdoor life and said exactly what you are saying. Bill O'Reilly wants to get rid of all 527's. Again, if you guys watched more of these shows you would be better informed as to make a decision whether or not they are fair and balanced.

[BOFH666]

Great, I ask for proof, get ranting. But as you asked for an example where O'Reilly LIED through his teeth.

Earlier this month, O'Reilly quoted a poll that stated 42% of Americans apparently said they view France as unfriendly to the US.

O'Reilly doesn't tell us what the actual poll question is. Is he concerned that, in context, his anti-French opinions might be weakened? Well of course. Go here (http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=491) - the question is actually more nuanced (with 4 possible answers rather than a convenient friendly versus unfriendly distinction). Actually only 10% of Americans regard the French as unfriendly towards the US. 32% are neutral (not friendly/not an enemy), 35% regard the French as friendly, and 15% regard France as a close ally (8% undecided). So not only has Bill taken the question out of context, but he has misrepresented the results - at least 50% of Americans actually regard the French as friendly. And you know what, France is up a place from 18th to 17th in the list of close allies from 2003. Seems like that boycott is working a treat.

I can see how Bill got his 42% number, but anyone with an IQ north of 60 would accept the logic that the 32% "not friendly/not an enemy opinion" + 10% "unfriendly opinion" does not equal 42% of people with "unfriendly opinion". I think it is a shame that Harris feel okay doing the aggregation, but then you'd think the No Spin Zone would point out this sort of thing.

Want to try again about O'Reilly being "fair" and "balanced"? It's not about the "shut up" although that's bloody awful for an interviewer, it's about the fact he blatantly twists the truth in what is billed as a "no spin zone". As for the "oh but they've got LIBERALS on" rubbish... it's a great laundry list but, for example, how many times has Michael Moore been on the network compared to Ann Coulter?

http://www.fair.org/extra/0108/fox-main.html


Fox's founder and president, Roger Ailes, was for decades one of the savviest and most pugnacious Republican political operatives in Washington, a veteran of the Nixon and Reagan campaigns. Ailes is most famous for his role in crafting the elder Bush's media strategy in the bruising 1988 presidential race. With Ailes' help, Bush turned a double-digit deficit in the polls into a resounding win by targeting the GOP's base of white male voters in the South and West, using red-meat themes like Michael Dukakis' "card-carrying" membership in the ACLU, his laissez-faire attitude toward flag-burning, his alleged indifference to the pledge of allegiance--and, of course, paroled felon Willie Horton.

Described by fellow Bush aide Lee Atwater as having "two speeds--attack and destroy," Ailes once jocularly told a Time reporter (8/22/88): "The only question is whether we depict Willie Horton with a knife in his hand or without it." Later, as a producer for Rush Limbaugh's short-lived TV show, he was fond of calling Bill Clinton the "hippie president" and lashing out at "liberal bigots" (Washington Times, 5/11/93). It is these two sensibilities above all--right-wing talk radio and below-the-belt political campaigning--that Ailes brought with him to Fox, and his stamp is evident in all aspects of the network's programming.


Oh, and as for the rest being Liberal Media... ahem:


In an outrageous politicization of journalism, CBS announced it would not air a report on forged documents that the Bush administration used to sell the Iraq war until after the November 2 election (New York Times, 9/25/04). A network spokesperson issued a statement declaring, "We now believe it would be inappropriate to air the report so close to the presidential election."

The 60 Minutes segment was ready to air on September 8, but was bumped in favor of the now infamous report that relied on supposed National Guard memos whose authenticity CBS now says it cannot confirm. The furor over the Guard memos has created a situation where CBS executives say "the network can now not credibly air a report questioning how the Bush administration could have gotten taken in by phony documents" (Newsweek online, 9/22/04).

Of course, what's really inappropriate here is CBS allowing its PR problems to suppress a news report on an important issue until after it no longer matters. The shelved 60 Minutes story deals with the origins of documents purportedly showing that Iraq under Saddam Hussein tried to obtain uranium from Niger-- documents that turned out to be forgeries. The story, according to the Newsweek online report, asks "tough questions about how the White House came to embrace the fraudulent documents and why administration officials chose to include a 16-word reference to the questionable uranium purchase in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech."

Though such questions are clearly relevant to a presidential campaign that largely revolves around Bush's decision to invade Iraq, CBS intends to keep the answers to itself until the election has passed. Could there be more than the embarrassment over the Guard story behind this decision?

Sumner Redstone, CEO of CBS's parent company Viacom, made an unusual political statement at a gathering of corporate leaders in Hong Kong (Asian Wall Street Journal, 9/24/04):

"I don't want to denigrate Kerry... but from a Viacom standpoint, the election of a Republican administration is a better deal. Because the Republican administration has stood for many things we believe in, deregulation and so on. The Democrats are not bad people.... But from a Viacom standpoint, we believe the election of a Republican administration is better for our company."

Redstone repeated these sentiments in an interview with Time (10/4/04):

"There has been comment upon my contribution to Democrats like Senator Kerry. Senator Kerry is a good man. I've known him for many years. But it happens that I vote for Viacom. Viacom is my life, and I do believe that a Republican administration is better for media companies than a Democratic one."

According to a write-up by Forbes (9/23/04)-- the sponsor of the conference where Redstone issued his endorsement of Bush-- the CEO asserted that "he never gets involved in any aspects of the network's news coverage." But that claim, hard to believe when made by any media industry chief executive, seems particularly dubious given Forbes' report that ''Redstone said he has been talking daily to top CBS officials and to Viacom board members about the controversy'' over the Guard memos.

It is journalistically indefensible for CBS to withhold a story due to embarrassment incurred by another, unrelated piece. It is particularly unacceptable when the shelving of a story benefits a candidate that CBS's boss has just publicly endorsed. If CBS wants to restore trust in its news judgment, it can begin by applying journalistic standards, not political calculations, to the decision on when to air its report on the origin of the forged Niger documents.


Yeah, real Liberal :rolleyes:

And here's an idea, if you REALLY want to know the liberal viewpoint why not go and look at a SECOND source of information that actually is liberal rather than nodding meekly when they tell you "and here's what the other side thinks".

[Jimblast]

Bill O'Reilly has asked Michael Moore numerous times to go on his show. I have no doubt that he's always welcome. I'm not sure what the polls say, but I'm convinced that Americans absolutely as a whole are not happy with France these days. It upsets me because I love going to France and my own mother is French. I think after the 'Oil for Food' program investigation runs it's course, France among others will be implicated. However, getting back to the subject at hand, O'Reilly has also invited Kerry to his program as well.

Here's another prediction. I'm predicting that more people will watch FoxNews's coverage of tomorrow's debate than any other news channel. Sorry, but I cannot help but think you all do not want to see any conservative point of view as well. The 'laundry list' of guests isn't just a list, it's a fact. Now let's see your favorite news channel have guests equally from both sides on every issue. FNC beat all cable news shows combined last quarter. I've got news for you, Fox is the wave of the future, fair and balanced, like it or not. I don't think they have to apologize for not being as liberal as the other news sources. I'm curious BOF, where is it on any issue that you DISAGREE with O'Reilly? I think you'll be amazed at how much you agree with him on practically every issue.

[tactillianlover]

If your cable bill is paid, Watch the debate on
C-SPAN! No commentators! Only your own mind can twist
a spin! There is an announcer- voice over. He or she
will say "And now coverage of the 2004 Presidential
debate".

Next, they show the debate.

And, finally, we hear the annoucer- voice over say,
"This concludes coverage of the 2004 presidential debate.

Think of C-SPAN as the best 'coverage' the U.S.A. can muster.

Then go enjoy the talking heads of your choice! It can
be one's own private afterparty.

[BOFH666]

*sigh* Okay, fine, hang on while I dig out my teachers hat again...

Right, Bias 101. Imagine this seesaw is the political leaning of fox news, okay?

http://members.aol.com/moderndogs/seesaw.jpg

Now, let us asume that all political views carry equal weight and only affect the balance depending on where they are on the political spectrum. Michael Moore appears on Fox once this year, so the balance shifts left. Now if Ann Coulter appears ten times in the same year that's ten times Moore's political weight on the other end of our seesaw so it's biased to the right. Bias does NOT mean that a station is exclusivley right or left wing but that it gives a greater percentage of its air time to one viewpoint over another. Take Hannity and Colmes for example. Colmes is a self described Moderate, Hannity is heavily right wing. On our seesaw that puts Hannity far over on the right and Colmes slightly left of the middle. Can you guess what that does to the balance? Add in the fact that ALL of Fox's main commentators (O'Reilly, Humes, Gibson, Asman, etc) are right wingers (and before you bang on about O'Reilly being independent, look up a couple of posts, he's said he's a republican and was a registered Republican voter until a few days before a newspaper ran an article exposing his lie). The guy running the station was given the job not because of his journalistic experience (doesn't have any) but because ran Bush 41's media campaign, is reported to employ people based on whether or not they're a 'liberal' (and you can guess which answer is the wrong one if you want a job) and you STILL want to claim Fox is fair and balanced?

This of course is a very basic example, there's a LOT more you can do to shift the bias to the right and Fox has done pretty much all of it, but I see it'd be a waste of time explaining it as you can't seem to grasp the simple fact that making shit up is called lying. O'Reilly is justified in saying that 42% of Ameicans consider the French their enemy based on a survey that doesn't actually say that at all because "everyone knows that's true"? I think you just disqualified yourself from any sort of rational position on this or any other issue. Presented to you is a clear example of someone lying their ass off while pretending to be supported by the facts yet you accept the outright lie as the truth because it fits your world view? Why are you even on here if you're totally unwilling to accept a simple fact when it's laid out, in detail, before you simply because you don't want to believe it? Not much of a discussion if you stick your fingers in your ears and start going "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" every time something factual is presented is it? I'll say it one more time, provide FACTS to back up your position. not just your opinion.

Tan chi bodlon o cyfranogi mewn trafodaeth yn hytrach na banllef ymrysonfa teimlo rhydd a tro cerdded a puteinio i ffwrdd

The Asman Observer is always a good bet for a lttle biased Fox reporting and this one's a doozy.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133930,00.html

Former President Jimmy Carter has made a second career monitoring elections around the world. So it wasn't all that surprising to see him talking this week about "fraudulent and biased electoral practices" in an upcoming election. But it was surprising to discover that he was talking about the November elections here in the U.S., and not in some third world backwater.

Not that President Carter has stopped monitoring elections abroad. Last month he was in Venezuela, monitoring a recall vote against President Hugo Chavez, whose violent tactics against opponents were developed in consultation with his friend and adviser, Fidel Castro.

Despite cries of foul by the opposition, Jimmy Carter certified that Mr. Chavez won the recall fair and square. Since the recall, President Chavez has been on a tear, threatening his opponents and also threatening his Colombian neighbors. He's reportedly ordering new Russian MiG fighters and radar-guided missiles, a move that is of great concern to Colombians. But Mr. Carter's concerns apparently lie elsewhere. He is now charging that Florida Gov. Jeb Bush is maintaining faulty electoral processes in Florida because he is "naturally a strong supporter of his brother."

Charging the governor of Florida of voter fraud while quickly exonerating a Latin thug who is now threatening the region? In this light, it's a bit easier to understand why Nicaragua went to the Sandinistas and Iran went to the Ayatollahs under President Carter's watch.


Right, so let's take a look at this. Carter certifies that an election was fair and then GETS BLAMED FOR THE SUBSEQUENT ACTIONS OF THE WINNER! What planet is this hack on? If the election was fair and it produces a candidate you don't like that's just tough luck. Cuba is mentioned here and it's a good example as the majority of the population actually seem to be okay with having Castro as their leader. Note, I said a majority not all and guess what, that's how a democracy works, will of the majority carries the day. Note also the lack of ANY supporting evidence to back up what is being said, was Carter in charge of these elections, what was his exact role, what are the controversies? Oh, that's right, we don't know because we're expected to believe the nice reporter with the sensible suit even as he's pinning the blame for the actions of President Chavez on someone else. Riiiiight. For that mater, how can you talk about elections with contested outcomes when the Secretary of Defense, and architect of the biggest military balls-up since Vietnam, has said that elections in Iraq will go ahead if only 75% of the people can vote? Ah, but again, that's criticising their boses on a factual basis so we'll gloss over that. Actually, now that I think about it, did anyone ask the CEO of RummyWorld exactly what he meant by 75%? Is that population or land area, because Iraq has a whole butload of land that isn't exactly swarming metropolis...

So why blame Carter for Nicaragua and Iran? Well simple, he's saying things that go against the Republican playbook that he can actually back up with FACTS! It is therefore imperitive that Fox use other means to hammer him down and make the sheep believe he's the most evil man since Hitler. And here lies the big big problem with Fox. Go and read that story again and pay close attention. NOWHERE is there any discussion of the facts, nowhere are the actual issues mentioned and there is no attempt to even start adressing what Carter has said. I would call this attack journalism but that implies they're actually addressing the issue, which they're not. This isn't reporting the news, this is propaganda plain and simple. If it WAS reporting the news it would have shown the problems that happened last time round in Florida are happening again this year, and that the corruption has now spread to Ohio as well. Oddly, both have Republicans overseeing the elections.

Oh, and ANOTHER nail in the coffin of the "LIBERAL MEDIA" myth

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=18049&mode=nested&order=0

L.A. Weekly has learned that CBS, NBC and ABC all refused Fahrenheit 9/11 DVD advertising during any of the networks' news programming. Executives at Sony Pictures, the distributor of the movie for the home-entertainment market, were stunned. And even more shocked when the three networks explained why.



"They said explicitly they were reluctant because of the closeness of the release to the election. All three networks said no," one Sony insider explains. "It was certainly a judgment that Sony disagrees with and is in the process of protesting."

And protest Sony did. (Michael Lynton, the onetime Pearson publishing executive who is now chairman and CEO of Sony Pictures Entertainment, has privately told people he hasn't seen anything like this since his Penguin Group published Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses.) What especially galled the Sony suits was this: The networks had no problem having the DVD ads appear on their entertainment shows so long as the guidelines for R-rated content like Fahrenheit 9/11 were followed. However, Sony executives told L.A. Weekly they wanted only to market the movie's DVD on CBS's, NBC's and ABC's news shows. "But all three networks said no to straight news," one Sony exec explained. "Then, suddenly, the networks were extending the definition of news programming to include the news magazines and the morning news shows and restricting access to those as well. That becomes very problematic to any advertiser trying to reach an adult audience."

Finally, this week, Sony's protests started having an effect. "We're now getting movement," a Sony suit told L.A. Weekly Monday night. Sony corporate senior vice president Susan Tick claimed Tuesday that the initial ban on the morning news shows was lifted, and time on an NBC Dateline had been made available. But she also confirmed that the early-evening news shows are still verboten, and ABC still remains adamant that the DVD can't be advertised on its PrimeTime Live. Meanwhile, the DVD ads' status on the other network news shows is murky at best. (Sony execs emphasize that Fox was not part of this cabal Å apparently because no Fahrenheit 9/11 DVD ads were planned there.)

(snip)

Once upon a time, large corporations and their executives typically avoided any public discussion of their politics because partisan positions alienated customers and employees. But all of that changed after GE bought NBC in 1986. The NBC peacock was literally flipped from left to right. As the story goes, this was done so the bird was looking forward, not back. Yeah, right. Maybe we should applaud Viacom's Redstone for being aboveboard about his loyalties. So is News Corp.'s Murdoch. (Forget the little fact that Murdoch's No. 2, Peter Chernin, has endorsed Kerry, or that Redstone's co-president, Les Moonves, is an avowed Democrat. It's meaningless because Murdoch and Redstone are media owners, not renters.)

And Time Warner's chairman and CEO, Dick Parsons, doesn't need to articulate his politics since he's a Republican insider from way back. After Parsons nailed the top score on the New York state bar exam, he caught the eye of the late Nelson A. Rockefeller and even lived in Rockefeller's compound for a time, eventually becoming a trustee of the former vice president's estate after Rockefeller's death in 1979. Parsons also is a former law partner of Rudy Giuliani and even managed Giuliani's transition into the NYC Mayor's Office. Who better to have at Time Warner's helm than a GOP insider when the SEC is investigating your company?

Officially, GE (NBC's parent company) chairman and CEO Jeffrey Immelt has yet to publicly declare himself politically. But anyone who spends time with him knows which way he blows. "He's as right-wing as they come," an insider tells L.A. Weekly. "Just as bad as Bob Wright."

Wright, now GE's vice chairman but also NBC's long-term boss, never tried to hide his Republican partisanship because he never had to. For seemingly eons, his mentor and Immelt's predecessor, Jack Welch, was a rabid right-winger. Welch used to boast openly about helping turn former liberals Chris Matthews and Tim Russert into neocons. And Los Angeles Representative Henry Waxman is still waiting for GE to turn over those in-house tapes that would prove once and for all whether Welch in 2000 ordered his network and cable stations to reverse course and call the election for Bush instead of Gore that election night.

As for Immelt, he uses all the Republican buzzwords with obvious ease. Complain about GE's job outsourcing and he labels it "class warfare." And he declared to Fox News' business anchor, Neil Cavuto, that he wished his own network's MSNBC talk TV could be "as interesting and edgy as you guys are. I think the standard right now is Fox." MSNBC and increasingly CNBC as well are Fox News clones.

In return, Immelt is beginning to bag Republican perks, like appointment to President Bush's Commission on Social Security. Besides all those lucrative U.S. defense contracts, his GE has snagged $450 million of orders in Iraq alone in 2003, and an apparent $3 billion more over the next few years. Plus, more than half of Iraq's power grid is GE technology. Even before the fighting there started, Immelt told CNBC it was a GE business opportunity. "We built about a billion-dollar security business that's going to be growing by 20 percent a year, so we've been able to play into that."

Nor does it hurt that GE recently installed Anna Perez, a former Bush adviser to W and Condi who also served as press secretary to former first lady Barbara Bush, as NBC Universal's executive vice president of communications.

Then there's Disney's Michael Eisner. As the longtime chairman and CEO, Eisner was never in the league of MCA/Universal's Lew Wasserman, inarguably the most active Democratic activist of the media-mogul crowd. In contrast to Wasserman's huge effort to get Hollywood-wide support for Jimmy Carter back in 1976, Eisner, while a Democrat, made just a small personal effort on behalf of the primary campaigns for his buddies Bob Kerry and Bill Bradley.

But that was then and this is now. Disney has turned most of ABC's extensive radio network and owned-and-operated stations into a 24/7 orgy of right-wing talk. Disney's chief lobbyist, Preston Padden, is not only one of Washington, D.C.'s most infamous Republican lobbyists, but he used to work for Rupert Murdoch. And Padden was set to use all of his considerable influence in Congress and the White House on Disney's behalf if that big bad Goliath, Comcast, really tried to gobble up the Mouse House. As a result, no one thought it just coincidental when W pleaded just days after 9/11 for Americans "to return to the kind of lives we were leading before [that], especially air travel. Get on board. Do your business around the country. Fly and enjoy America's great destination spots. Go down to Disney World in Florida; take your families and enjoy life the way we want it to be enjoyed." It was as close to a White House commercial for Disney as any corporation could dare hope.

Then Bush followed that up weeks later with a PR visit to Orlando, Florida, where the Magic Kingdom had suffered a 25 percent drop in ticket sales, where a national photo showed the theme park's deserted entrance. And since then, in addition to the usual tax breaks from W's brother, Jeb, Disney World has benefited from special security measures, including extra protection and a federally declared "no flyover zone."

Given all of the above, when Eisner was replaced as chairman by former Democratic Senator George Mitchell, nobody seemed perturbed, not even when Mitchell sounded off in Kerry's corner during the Boston convention this summer. And why should they since Mitchell is at best a short-timer? And let's not forget that Eisner had already given the Bushies the biggest gift of all: pulling the distribution plug on Fahrenheit 9/11 even though stockholders were starving for movie-division profits after everything else on Disney's slate in the first half of 2004 fell flat.

Apparently, Eisner didn't care that this beleaguered company would miss out on one of the most lucrative films all year. But it certainly made Disney watchers sick to their stomachs. Perhaps Big Media's advertisers have a cream or ointment or pill to cure that. Not to worry: We hear Moore's next movie is Sicko, about the health-care industry.

[MrMacphisto]

Tactillian's got the right idea....