The official "Fox News Channel Needs to be Destroyed" thread

Well, it's got more news content and less bias, if that's what you mean. But I wouldn't want to indulge you and your strawman more than I have to, so let my official answer be no, I would not be more happy watching Al Jazeera. I refer you back to my original post in this thread, when I hailed the peerless comedy value of Fox News. I've never got quite the number of belly laughs out of Al Jazeera.

 

What in the world are you talking about? Freedom of the press?? I said that the politics on FOX anger me. The politics in the Guardian or the NY Times or wherever anger you.

I couldn't tell you on which side of the fence the reporters on the WSJ sit, and you're honestly the first person I've ever heard refer to liberal-leaning WSJ news pages. The noneditorial sections of the WSJ are, what, 90% business/financial? Am I missing obvious liberal bias in the reports about Scrushy's acquittal? Or the long profile of Bill Frist from a few days ago? Or the blurb about Blarrrrrghtech's third-quarter profits?

Of COURSE some of the editorials anger me! Do you really expect me to believe that, when you look at the Sunday Times, you think to yourself, "Oh, that silly Frank Rich! Heh heh, silly man. Now, let's have a look at the Sunday Styles page." Of course not. He makes your blood boil. And you're kidding yourself if you don't think that some (not all) of the writers on the WSJ's editorial page aren't writing with the same amount of vitriol.

I would hope that I was transparent: I stated what I thought clearly. FOX is idiotic.

I honestly don't get your position, Karl. You're the last person I'd expect to think that FOX is high-quality news, unless you were talking about the productional values and the impressively slick presenters the fill their prime time programs. Look, CNN and MSNBC suck too. They've all decided that the best way to improve ratings is to follow the FOX model and to hire cocky, Irish-American populists who love to yell. Even CNBC emphasizes angry loud-mouths (like that Kudlow guy) these days--something that I haven't seen on the five minutes of Bloomberg that I've watched, and something that PBS happily limits to McLaughlin for 30 minutes a week.

 

Yeh, the WSJ is really weird. The news pages are flippin' excellent, imo, perhaps better than any other US newspaper in the quality of material they produce. The editorial pages, otoh, have been a joke ever since Clinton's first term, their Vincent Foster coverage particularly being completely out to lunch.
Plus their current global warming stuff.

Well, except their coverage of the Aruba incident seems to have turned into a 'bash Aruba's legal system contest' on a nightly basis.

The Iraq coverage is pure comedy.

 

The bash Fox matra is getting old bojendyk... the liberals do this on a daily basis and frankly I'm getting a little tired responding to it...

You might do yourself a favor by citing an instance or two {evidence} of such bias as you cite...

Does it bother you that Fox News is favorable to the troops at war? Do you see this as bias? Perhaps it is because all the other networks run crappy stuff about the troops and deliberate unfavorable coverage of the Armed Forces that warps your understanding of Fox News when they show troops, soldiers, or war time favorable coverage....

I'm serious... cite an example or two of something you observed on Fox that you perceive as bias... frankly you and others continually carping about Fox without such evidence begs your sincerity....

 

Now really ITN, I can't imagine any straight thinking individual, right- or left-wing, taking Bill O'Reilly seriously. The man goes so far over the edge of journalistic decency, and half the time he is selling things he just pulled out of his ass as the holy gospel. This doesn't even have anything to do with your political stance. He hurts the image of the right in the same way that Moore hurts the image of the left.

 

Proof, evidence, or an example of such... without it you are simply pulling such allegations "out of your ass."

 

I was going to cite several things, like the Cavuto interview with Bush in which he suggests that the MSM have emphasized the Michael Jackon trial to distract the public from Bush's earnest attempt to fix Social Security, but it wouldn't have mattered anyway. Plus, I've got a lunch meeting to attend.

 

Okay, here goes.



Heather Mallick, Globe & Mail columnist had this sparring contest with Bill O'Reilly about his efforts to start an American boycott on Canada.

O'Reilly: then Americans are going to take action. Are you willing to accept that boycott which will hurt your economy, drastically.

MALLICK: I don't think for a moment such a boycott would take place because we are your biggest trading partners.

O'REILLY: No, it will take place, madam. In France ...

MALLICK: I don't think that your French boycott has done too well ...

O'REILLY: ...they've lost billions of dollars in France according to "The Paris Business Review."

MALLICK: I think that's nonsense

The U.S. and Canada are the two biggest trading partners in the world. As for The U.S. economic boycott of France... dispite O'Reilly's comments to the contrary since he jumped on that bandwagon two years ago; French/American trade actually went up. And the Paris Business Review O'Reilly quoted; to the best of our knowlege no such publication exists.



Clip of the exchange here

 

Sigh.

Inhales...

FOX news exec John Moody on 9-11 Commission:

"Do not turn this into Watergate"

Moody on George W. Bush:

"His political courage and tactical cunning ar[e] [wo]rth noting in our reporting through the day"

Moody on Sen. John Kerry:

"starting to feel the heat for his flip-flop voting record"

Moody on the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal:

[T]he pictures from Abu Graeb [sic] prison are disturbing. They have rightly provoked outrage. Today we have a picture -- aired on Al Arabiya -- of an American hostage being held with a scarf over his eyes, clearly against his will. Who's outraged on his behalf? It is important that we keep the Abu Graeb [sic] situation in perspective (5/5/04).

Moody on the war in Iraq:

As is often the case, the real news is [sic] Iraq is being obscured by temporary tragedy. The creation of a defense ministry, which will be run by Iraqis, is a major step forward in the country's redevelopment. Let's look at that, as well as the deaths of a US soldier in a roadside bombing (3/25/04).

Into Fallujah: It's called Operation Vigilant Resolve and it began Monday morning (NY time) with the US and Iraqi military surrounding Fallujah. We will cover this hour by hour today, explaining repeatedly why it is happening. It won't be long before some people start to decry the use of "excessive force". We won't be among that group (4/4/04).

The events in Iraq Tuesday are going to be the top story, unless and until something else (or worse) happens. Err on the side of doing too much Iraq rather than not enough. Do not fall into the easy trap of mourning the loss of US lives and asking out loud why are we there? The US is in Iraq to help a country brutalized for 30 years protect the gains made by Operation Iraqi Freedom and set it on the path to democracy. Some people in Iraq don't want that to happen. That is why American GIs are dying. And what we should remind our viewers (4/6/04).

If, as promised, the coalition decides to take Fallujah back by force, it will not be for lack of opportunities for the terrorists holed up there to negotiate. Let's not get lost in breast-beating about the sadness of the loss of life. They had a chance (4/22/04).

The continuing carnage in Iraq -- mostly the deaths of seven US troops in Sadr City -- is leaving the American military little choice but to punish perpetrators. When this happens, we should be ready to put in context the events that led to it. More than 600 US military dead, attacks on the UN headquarters last year, assassination of Iraqi officials who work with the coalition, the deaths of Spanish troops last fall, the outrage in Fallujah: whatever happens, it is richly deserved (4/4/04).

[L]et's refer to the US marines we see in the foreground [of pictures coming out of Fallujah] as "sharpshooters" not snipers, which carries a negative connotation (4/28/04).

Moody on abortion:

[Le]t's spend a good deal of time on the battle over judicial nominations, which [th]e President will address this morning. Nominees who both sides admit are [qu]alified are being held up because of their POSSIBLE, not demonstrated, views [on] one issue -- abortion. This should be a trademark issue for FNC today and in [th]e days to come (5/9/03).

Two style notes: [Eric Ru]dolph is charged with bombing an abortion clinic, not a "health clinic." ...[TO]DAY'S HEARING IS NOT AN ARRAIGNMENT. IT IS AN INITIAL HEARING (6/2/03).

Moody on Senator John Kerry (D-MA):

Kerry, starting to feel the heat for his flip-flop voting record, is in West Virginia. There's a near-meaningless primary in Illinois (3/16/04).

Ribbons or medals? Which did John Kerry throw away after he returned from Vietnam. This may become an issue for him today. His perceived disrespect for the military could be more damaging to the candidate than questions about his actions in uniform (4/26/04).

John Kerry may wish he'd taken off his microphone before trashing the GOP. Though he insists he meant republican [sic] "attack squads," his coarse description of his opponents has cast a lurid glow over the campaign (3/12/04).

Bill Clinton's book "My Life" may come out in time to let John Kerry have the spotlight by convention time. Then again, maybe it won't (4/27/04).

Moody on President George W. Bush:

[Th]e president is doing something that few of his predecessors dared undertake: [pu]tting the US case for mideast peace to an Arab summit. It's a distinctly [sk]eptical crowd that Bush faces. His political courage and tactical cunning ar[e] [wo]rth noting in our reporting through the day (6/3/03).

Moody on the 9/11 Commission:

The so-called 9/11 commission has already been meeting. In fact, this is its eighth session. The fact that former Clinton and both frmer [sic] and current Bush administration officials are testifying gives it a certain tension, but this is not "what did he know and when did he know it" stuff. Do not turn this into Watergate. Remember the fleeting sense of national unity that emerged from this tragedy. Let's not desecrate that (3/23/04).

Remember that while there are obvious political implications for Bush, the commission is looking at eight years of the Clinton Administration versus eight months (the time prior to 9/11 that Bush was in office) for the incumbent (3/24/04).

Moody on America's European "allies":

[At] the UN, Catherine Herridge will follow the US sponsored resolution calling [fo]r the lifting of sanctions against Iraq. Not surprisingly, we're facing [re]sistance from our erstwhile European buddies, the French and Germans (5/9/03).

[Bu]sh's G-8 trip is actually less important than his fledgling efforts to knock [t]ogether the Israeli and Palestinian PMs' heads. Let's keep in mind that the [G-]8 contains the most obstreperous dissidents against the war on terror. Bush [ha]s a long memory and new friends in Poland the rest of Eastern Europe (5/29/03).

Moody on what war footage to air and not air:

Five American GIs killed in Iraq in a bomb and an attack represent one of the grimmest days there in months. There is also footage of a mutilated body being dragged down a road which WE WILL NOT AIR UNTIL IT HAS BEEN CLEARED (3/31/04).

The pictures shown in the Times and NY Post today of the dead American contractors are exactly what we chose NOT to use yesterday. Please don't get sucked into this taste race to the bottom (4/1/04).

Moody on Bush's tax cut:

[Th]e tax cut passed last night by the Senate, though less than half what Bush [or]iginally proposed, contains some important victories for the administration. [Th]e DC crew will parse the bill and explain how it will fatten -- marginally - [yo]ur wallet (5/22/03).

Moody on rising gas prices:

Gas prices are at all time highs in the US. There are reasons for the surge, some economic, some mere business tactics. Remember: US prices, while they seem high to us, are a half or less the cost of gasoline elsewhere (3/16/04).

Moody on the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU):

For everyone's information, the hotel where our Baghdad bureau is housed was hit by some kind of explosive device overnight. ALL FOX PERSONNEL ARE OK. The incident is a reminder of the danger our colleagues in Baghdad face, day in and day out. Please offer a prayer of thanks for their safety to whatever God you revere (and let the ACLU stick it where the sun don't shine) (3/24/04).

More?

Only on Fox: FNC website declared "Court Rules Against Ten Commandments"

Fox News' Special Report parroted White House spin that Rove comments referred to two "philosophies," not two parties

Hannity Abu Ghraib abuse: no torture or rape, just "underwear on the head of one" prisoner

We could go on and on...

 

I''ll respond to the rest of your citations later as I see they all concern FOX news exec John Moody; you have a beef with him specifically so you bash entire network?

But for now, I'm curious what you find objectionable from this quote above? He reports news staff safe after hit by rocket, appeals to God(s), and issues rebuke to friggin ACLU... sounds reasonable...

 

First of all, how do you continue to ambulate with your ass handed to you so many times in one session, bot?

Secondly, I haven't cited nothing but Moody, buy Moody, being a news exec who shapes content, is the simplest and easiest target.

Thirdly, whether or not I "object" to Moody's biased manipulation of information is irrelevant to you having your ass handed to you again; you asked for incidents of bias. You've been handed them, along with your ass...again.

 

I could come up with longer lists for any network; the incidents of liberal bias at PBS would be pages long... up yours!

I asked for incidents of bias on air... which you neglected to cite... I asked for some example of something/anything which would paint Fox as somehow biased, not your personal ramblings against some exec at Fox that you twist to serve your own ends....

You have anyting at all Mel? Put down the marijuana joint before you answer this time! Handing out asses indeed! You guys rail against Fox every day but stay home and watch the Daily Show for news! You guys are morons!

 

Bot, put it on the line...demonstrative bias from Fox = you not posting on BS for six months...deal?

 

Just because your political point of view makes you think that something is not "fair and balance" does not make it so...

I am amazed at the number of left-wingers who want to trash the first amendment just because they disagree with the content of a particular news station. Is CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNBC, NYTIMES, WASH POST, LA TIMES, SF CHronicle, ST PETE Times etc etc etc not enough...

No, we MUST KILL FOX for putting out something to the right of liberal...

Why do you hate our freedoms?

 

Mosto f those you've listed are continuous megaphones for and stenographers to power. Fox, OTOH, is the current neofascist expression of what America can be, unabashed. I like it out there. It's better than this discredited thinking being hidden and unrefuted, lurking in homes, indoctrinating sons who have no ability to, for example, get online and get critique of what dad says Fox says Bush says is right for America and the world...

Keep them on the air; but let's not tell lies that it's not biased. Of course it is. Anyone who says any different is lying or is too stupid to participate in the discussion, or a trolling bot.

 

That's because you live in Liverpool.

 

To quote Jon Stewart from the daily show...anytime you compare anything to Hitler...you lose ALL credibility!

But hate Jon Stewart...(or Grand Master Flash and the Furious Five for that matter) but not me, for bringing you "the message!"

 

And they shouldn't be. Why should we be restricted by this 30 years out-dated obsolete so called Godwin's law? Let's call a pig a pig. Let's be truthful to the facts.

 

I'm comparing this cabal to nothing other than the accepted definition of "neofascist," which is a person or group that displays signficant elements of fascism or clerical fascism. Fact: they do display such elements, significantly.

Lawrence Britt, OTOH, in comparing and contrasting the current cabal with fascist regimes that have gone before, considers the following regimes: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, Papadopoulos’s Greece, Pinochet’s Chile, and Suharto’s Indonesia.

Britt's analysis of these seven regimes reveals fourteen common threads that link them in recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of power. These basic characteristics, according to Britt, are more prevalent and intense in some regimes than in others, but they all share at least some level of similarity.

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.

7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

"Does any of this ring alarm bells," Britt asks? "Of course not. After all, this is America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on guard against evils..."

 

Let's wait to see what ITN will say...

 

On May 25th, Fox news anchor David Asman interviewed Trent Lott on Fox News Live about the nuclear option over Bush's judicial picks. Here's part of the interview - now remember according to ItN, Fox is not biased, therefore whatever about op-ed guys like Hannity and O'Reilly, the news anchors most definitely work under a no-bias-we-report-you-decide mantra. Anyway part of the interview:

ASMAN: You're the chairman of the rules committee. Did Senator Frist have the votes to end the filibuster?

LOTT: I believe that he did. It would have been very close. We would have probably gotten a 50-50 tie vote, with the vice president breaking the tie. Perhaps we'd have had 51 before it was over. I do think it's a rule that should be in place because what the Democrats have been doing is not, you know, protecting a rule, they have been causing something different. The filibusters on a serial basis, federal judicial nominees to the appellate courts, was unprecedented for 214 years. So, to put that rule in place saying that it only takes 51 votes to confirm these judges was something I thought we should do. Remember now --

ASMAN: So, Senator, if we should have done it and if we had the votes to do it in the Senate -- if you guys in the Republican Party did -- then why did you need a compromise?

LOTT: Well, you know, I would argue that we probably should have gone forward with the vote, all things considered.

So let me see, a news anchor can interview a senior member of a political party and speak in terms of we when it comes to political positions? He may well have corrected himself, but that only emphasizes Asman's and Fox's bias.

QED, I believe..........

 

Yes let's be! Facts. Not conjecture, assumed bias, or alleged innuendo. Facts. Most of the liberal crap surfaced in the other networks go unchallenged day after day, yet Fox is challenged on its reporting every broadcast. Why do you think that is? Why do you think Fox has blown the other cable stations away in ratings? Facts.

 

So you don't like FNC & want it off the air. Then stop watching it.
I don't like CNBC, C-Span, FX, H&G, MTV & any network that broadcasts Jerry Springer or Fear Factor. I don't watch them.
Get down off your high horse. Not everyone agrees with you. FWIW, the ratings indicate FNC is popular. You want to censor a network which may have a philosophy that you disagree with. Mighty tolerant.

 

Fox often uses characters in shows like 'Simpsons', 'King of the Hill' to spout rightwing soundbytes.

Disgusting.

 

Surely you jest?