Outfoxed - Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism

[Questioninggeller]

This looks interesting:

Outfoxed - Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism

Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism uses the inflammatory tactics of the Fox News Channel to demonstrate the conservative bias that's handed down by Fox's owner, media mogul Rupert Murdoch. The documentary gathers interviews from media watchdogs and former Fox employees (including a former anchor, Jon Du Pre, who describes his flailing efforts to create a celebration for Reagan's birthday when the one he was sent to cover never materialized), but their overwhelming condemnation of Fox's skewed news practices isn't half as effective as footage taken directly from Fox itself--an appalling montage of pundit Bill O'Reilly telling guests to shut up; repeated efforts to paint Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry as weak and waffling, while President Bush is captured in respectful, reverent images; and management memos dictating language, subject matter, and point of view. Outfoxed is unlikely to persuade Fox News fans to change their views, but it may spur outraged liberals to take action. --Bret Fetzer

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/A...65855/sr=11-1/ref=sr_11_1/102-0065485-1236169

 

[crimresearch]

OK, I really am confused...wasn't it one of Rupert Murdoch's other news outlets that faked a bunch of pictures of British squaddies 'torturing' some prisoner?

How does that fit into the 'the media is a puppet of the White House/conservative agenda' labelling?

 

[evilgoldtoesock]

All major media outlets are part of a major conspiracy to obtain ratings. They are inherently biased towards creating news that interests an American audience with a short attention span.

Second point, is that there is indeed a liberal bias in the media. That's because supposedly "hard-right" pundits like Bill O'Reilly are actually neo-liberal, not neo-conservative. Why would I say O'Reilly is neo-liberal? He favors the expansion of the federal government into the private sector (is anti-free market,) and is decidedly pro-empire. For example, O'Reilly would like to see the government provide money to the solar power industry to boost its development. He aggresively supports "nation-building," such as our invasion of Iraq, as well...Since when is expanding the role of government part of the conservative agenda???

I would argue that what we have is neo-liberal vs. moderate-liberal debates on Fox news and other media outlets...with an occasional conservative and an occasional progressive opinion voiced. No-wonder nearly 50% of the population doesn't vote, there's little difference between the two sides.

I'm voting for Kerry, simply because I despise Bush so badly and because I am impressed by his environmental record. However, I am painfully aware of similarity between both of the candidate's platforms. Next presidential election, I will certainly vote independent.

 

[crimresearch]

Next election will probably be Al Gore-Hillary Clinton versus John Ashcroft-Jeb Bush...with the Libertarians merging wth the Larouchies and the Greens running the Politician Formerly Known as Nader.

At least that's the way it is in my nightmare...

 

[Darat]

OK, I really am confused...wasn't it one of Rupert Murdoch's other news outlets that faked a bunch of pictures of British squaddies 'torturing' some prisoner?

How does that fit into the 'the media is a puppet of the White House/conservative agenda' labelling?

I think you are referring to tabloid newspaper, "The Mirror", which is considered to be the Sun's (Murdoch's best selling UK tabloid) closest rival.

 

[crimresearch]

OK, so how does Robert Maxwell's paper faking pictures fit into the 'the media is a pawn of the White House' mantra?

 

[RandFan]

...repeated efforts to paint Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry as weak and waffling, while President Bush is captured in respectful, reverent images...

And Dan Rather throwing soft balls to Clinton while grilling Bush are not proof of any liberal bias.

I think Fox is biased. I think it shows more bias than any other chanel left or right. It would be nice if folks could however fess up that there is a left slanted bias on all of the major networks.

 

[Nie Trink Wasser]

All major media outlets are part of a major conspiracy to obtain ratings. They are inherently biased towards creating news that interests an American audience with a short attention span.

CHOMSKY CLONES !!!!

 

[Mr Manifesto]

OK, so how does Robert Maxwell's paper faking pictures fit into the 'the media is a pawn of the White House' mantra?

I'm curious... Do you have any idea how long Cap'n Bob's been dead for?

 

[crimresearch]

"Maxwell had long hoped he would be able to take over a national newspaper, but had twice lost out to Rupert Murdoch, who succeeded in taking over the Sun and the News of the World.

He got his chance to run a national newspaper when he bought Mirror Group Newspapers in 1984 from Reed International"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1249739.stm


If you are implying that he was dead back in 1984, you really need to come up with some proof to counter the prevailing wisdom..

Oh wait a minute, you're the one who 'doesn't have to show us no stinking proof', right?

But I suspect you are happy enough to have started derailing a thread on whether any of the major media conglomerates are controlled by the White House.

 

[Rob Lister]

This looks interesting:

Outfoxed - Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism



http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/A...65855/sr=11-1/ref=sr_11_1/102-0065485-1236169

 

[corplinx]

Perhaps someone could explain why the COO of Newscorp was stumping at an economic forum for John Kerry yesterday if the accusations "Outfoxed" makes are true?

 

[Darat]

OK, so how does Robert Maxwell's paper faking pictures fit into the 'the media is a pawn of the White House' mantra?

Robert Maxwell died in 1991.

 

[crimresearch]

Nice dodge of the question...too bad we don't have anyone here willing to deal with the question honestly...How do the actions of the paper that Maxwell, not Murdoch, bought in 1984, when he was very much alive, thus giving it the identity as Maxwell's Mirror, instead of '[3i's Mirror', support the claim that the media is part of the 'vast right wing conspiracy', or are otherwise controlled by the White House, the conservative agenda, etc?

 

[Rob Lister]

Nice dodge of the question...too bad we don't have anyone here willing to deal with the question honestly...

I did.

 

[crimresearch]

Yes, you and EGTS et al. did, and I apologize to you for my statement.

That I was falling for the derailer's tactics and ignoring the exceptions is an insufficient excuse.

I should have specified Darat and MM.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Yes, you and EGTS et al. did, and I apologize to you for my statement.

That I was falling for the derailer's tactics and ignoring the exceptions is an insufficient excuse.

I should have specified Darat and MM.

Let's see...

The topic is, essentially, "Murdoch's media are a pawn of the White House".

You, not knowing your papers, tried to counter this by pointing out that the Mirror (owned by the Mirror Group (not sure who the majority shareholder is, but I can safely say it isn't Murdoch)), published faked photos of British squaddies 'torturing' some prisoners.

Darat pointed out to you that Murdoch doesn't own the Mirror.

Not realising that this, therefore, makes your original point irrelevant, you bravely continued on this line by saying, "What does Robert Maxwell's paper..." etc, etc.

I then pointed out to you that Maxwell has been dead for some time. It isn't his paper any more. I seriously doubt anyone in his family even has shares in it, though I'm happy to be corrected on this point. I say this because there's a lot of bad blood over the fact that, after his death, it was discovered that Cap'n Bob syphoned off a considerable amount of Mirror staff members' pension funds. But I digress.

You, thick-head that you are, continue with the 'How do the actions of the paper that Maxwell, not Murdoch, bought in 1984, when he was very much alive, thus giving it the identity as Maxwell's Mirror, instead of '[3i's Mirror', support the claim that the media is part of the 'vast right wing conspiracy', or are otherwise controlled by the White House, the conservative agenda, etc?', before accusing Darat and I of 'derailing'. Irony at its most sublime. Look at the OP again, dopey.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

OK, I really am confused...wasn't it one of Rupert Murdoch's other news outlets that faked a bunch of pictures of British squaddies 'torturing' some prisoner?

How does that fit into the 'the media is a puppet of the White House/conservative agenda' labelling?

My,My You do get confused a lot don't You? You were confused on the other thread we exchanged words on. OK let's see.

Questioninggeller "This looks interesting: "

nothing in the post or the posted article say anything about white-house puppet blabla.

Crime :"OK, so how does Robert Maxwell's paper faking pictures fit into the 'the media is a pawn of the White House' mantra?"
Hmmm, again no one said anything about pawns or mantras.

Crime :"But I suspect you are happy enough to have started derailing a thread on whether any of the major media conglomerates are controlled by the White House."
Again I see nothing that resembles your remarks as a rebuttal to any post. ( or an attempt at derailing the thread) Nor does the topic of the thread resemble the weighted response You attribute it to.

Crime :"Nice dodge of the question...too bad we don't have anyone here willing to deal with the question honestly...How do the actions of the paper that Maxwell, not Murdoch, bought in 1984, when he was very much alive, thus giving it the identity as Maxwell's Mirror, instead of '[3i's Mirror', support the claim that the media is part of the 'vast right wing conspiracy', or are otherwise controlled by the White House, the conservative agenda, etc?"

Once more you are arguing issues and statements that are not on the forum , nor on the link provided, I can only guess that you are parroting some editorializing , either from a link or a review, that was not expressed in the thread. If this the case in the future please remember to post links to your sources and don't respond to issues not raised in the thread.

 

[Darat]

Yes, you and EGTS et al. did, and I apologize to you for my statement.

That I was falling for the derailer's tactics and ignoring the exceptions is an insufficient excuse.

I should have specified Darat and MM.

I was just pointing out a factual error that seemed a critical point in your counter point to the opening post:

"OK, I really am confused...wasn't it one of Rupert Murdoch's other news outlets that faked a bunch of pictures of British squaddies 'torturing' some prisoner?"

Following on from the opening post it read to me that you were trying to show how this alleged bias of Murdoch's could be refuted because one of his papers had published this “anti-war” story.


(Edited for a point.)

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Let's see if CR can ignore three refutations in a row.