"Outfoxed"-unfairly done

[krisy]

I was just watching something on Fox news about the "Outfoxed" movie saying Fox is to far to the right. When the maker of the movie had a press conference,they wouldn't answer half of Fox's questions. The film is so unfairly edited,you would have to be an idiot not to tell. They purposely cut things out and had reporters saying things that sounded biased. Also,from what it sounded like,our good friends at MoveOn. had something to do with the movie. Insane!!!! Here's a little info,but I'm trying to find a better link

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125762,00.html

 

[Annie]

I was just watching something on Fox news about the "Outfoxed" movie saying Fox is to far to the right. When the maker of the movie had a press conference,they wouldn't answer half of Fox's questions. The film is so unfairly edited,you would have to be an idiot not to tell. They purposely cut things out and had reporters saying things that sounded biased. Also,from what it sounded like,our good friends at MoveOn. had something to do with the movie. Insane!!!! Here's a little info,but I'm trying to find a better link

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125762,00.html

This might be of interest:

http://www.jimgilliam.com/2004/07/outfoxed_and_fair_use_in_tomorrows_nyt_magazine.php

 

[krisy]

This guy is nuts!!! From what I saw on Fox,they had a reporter at the press conference and the maker of the movie wouldn't answer his questions. I believe it was Eric Shawn(sp?). I don't see a problem with the higher ups at Fox saying what to report on more or whatever. There is no doubt in my mind that goes on in every network. They have a way they want to be thought of and viewed. This is nothing more than a feddding frenzy on Fox for being on top and not putting G.W. through the daily whiplashing that goes on at CBS,NBC,ABC,CNN,and MSNBC(if anyone is watching other than when Joe S. is on). Then on toop of the ridiculous very edited clips in this movie,Move On is involved?!!! And they are going to act like THEIR movie isn't biased?!!! I can't believe the hipocracy!!!

 

[insein]

I love it. Let the media hang themselves. This is the LMM simply telling the world, "yes we are biased and we're afraid of Fox's success by not being Far left. In fact it scares us that they are reporting news and not putting any spin on it to mold the ignorant minds of the people who don't know how to think for themselves. Imagine allowing people to decide for themselves what they think. Its appalling."

Continue to hang yourselves guys by allowing MoveOn and MM to do your dirty work and having you praise them as speaking for All of America.

Bush will win in a landslide.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with being biased and reporting from a certain point of view. However, if you are going to do that, don't use the slogan: "Fair and Balanced". I think it's clear to everyone on both sides of the aisle that FOX is pro-right.

 

[Merlin1047]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with being biased and reporting from a certain point of view. However, if you are going to do that, don't use the slogan: "Fair and Balanced". I think it's clear to everyone on both sides of the aisle that FOX is pro-right.

I disagree with your entire statement.

First, it is ABSOLUTELY wrong to be biased in "reporting". It is dishonest, and misleading. If a network is "reporting" the news, it should do just that - report the facts, ALL of the facts and do so without gratuitous opinion comments by reporters. If a network, or newspaper wants to express an opinion, that is called an "editorial". But these days, the leftist media has blurred the line between the two.

Your accusation of FOX being pro-right is totally unsupported. I believe that you are judging FOX based on the standard of CNN, NBC, CBS ABC and PBS. The slanted activities of these organizations makes anyone who simply reports the unbiased truth appear to be a right-winger.

 

[pegwinn]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with being biased and reporting from a certain point of view. However, if you are going to do that, don't use the slogan: "Fair and Balanced". I think it's clear to everyone on both sides of the aisle that FOX is pro-right.

Are you always this stupid, or is today a special occasion?
The ideal in reporting is to be unbiased, boring, just the facts ma'am.
Fox does a credible job in reporting the good, the bad, and the ugly. Problem is that most outlets only report the bad and the ugly, with a slant.

Did you understand that, or do I need to type a little slower?

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Yes I understand what the ideal in Journalism dictates. However, one does not have to adhere to those ideals when reporting. There is a difference between reporting and journalism. Many organizations, such as the magazines "The National Review" and "The American Prospect" which choose to do their reporting from the right and the left, respectively. As long as this is acknowledged, there is nothing wrong with it.

Neil Cavuto and Bill O'Reilly have both stated they are biased when talking about the war in Iraq. In summary they both say they want our side to win. Again, nothing wrong with that except the slogan of FOXNews is "Fair and Balanced". Murdoch, the owner of FOXNews is an admitted champion of Reagan and the Republicans. Nothing wrong with that either except I understand how the world works and the owner of a company has enormous influence on that company. Murdoch is not an idealist when it comes to journalism, he is an idealist when it comes to capitalism. And patriotism definitely sells in this country.

You are right there is an ideal in Journalism but you can choose not to adhere to it and when you do so you need to clarify for your audience.

Also, please refrain from personal attacks. They occur too often on these boards and are completely unnecessary and childish.

 

[Annie]

Yes I understand what the ideal in Journalism dictates. However, one does not have to adhere to those ideals when reporting. There is a difference between reporting and journalism. Many organizations, such as the magazines "The National Review" and "The American Prospect" which choose to do their reporting from the right and the left, respectively. As long as this is acknowledged, there is nothing wrong with it.

Neil Cavuto and Bill O'Reilly have both stated they are biased when talking about the war in Iraq. In summary they both say they want our side to win. Again, nothing wrong with that except the slogan of FOXNews is "Fair and Balanced". Murdoch, the owner of FOXNews is an admitted champion of Reagan and the Republicans. Nothing wrong with that either except I understand how the world works and the owner of a company has enormous influence on that company. Murdoch is not an idealist when it comes to journalism, he is an idealist when it comes to capitalism. And patriotism definitely sells in this country.

You are right there is an ideal in Journalism but you can choose not to adhere to it and when you do so you need to clarify for your audience.

Also, please refrain from personal attacks. They occur too often on these boards and are completely unnecessary and childish.

A news station like Fox carries 'news' which should and is 'fair and balanced.' On that station they may designate time for 'editorial programs' such as O'Reilly, Cavuto, or Hannity and Colmes. Anyone who's read a news paper understands the difference. Problem with the other news channels, there is little difference in the standards between the news and editorials. Same thing is happening in major newspapers, led by NYT. Check circulation numbers, ratings to see it the public is really as lame as assumed by the elites.

 

[dilloduck]

Just ask yourself this-----How many times do you see another "news" program allow a dissenting viewpoint?

 

[pegwinn]

Yes I understand what the ideal in Journalism dictates. However, one does not have to adhere to those ideals when reporting. There is a difference between reporting and journalism. Many organizations, such as the magazines "The National Review" and "The American Prospect" which choose to do their reporting from the right and the left, respectively. As long as this is acknowledged, there is nothing wrong with it. Acknowlegement is called commentary or OpEd. You are correct, there is nothing wrong with that. But your claim that one doesn't have to adhere to the ideals of journalism is nothing but hair splitting. You and I both know the standard, and those that violate it.

Neil Cavuto and Bill O'Reilly have both stated they are biased when talking about the war in Iraq. In summary they both say they want our side to win. Again, nothing wrong with that except the slogan of FOXNews is "Fair and Balanced". Murdoch, the owner of FOXNews is an admitted champion of Reagan and the Republicans. Nothing wrong with that either except I understand how the world works and the owner of a company has enormous influence on that company. Murdoch is not an idealist when it comes to journalism, he is an idealist when it comes to capitalism. And patriotism definitely sells in this country. I understand now. You are not truly stupid, merely blind. Fox is closer to the actual unvarnished truth than any other mainstream media. You are so used to hearing slanted stories, that when you see something that stands closer to vertical, you disbelieve the evidence of your eyes.

You are right there is an ideal in Journalism but you can choose not to adhere to it and when you do so you need to clarify for your audience. Your carefull wording has saved you from further thrashing. There is a place for slant, on the oped or commentary pages.

Also, please refrain from personal attacks. They occur too often on these boards and are completely unnecessary and childish.

Personal Attack? When and where did that happen? I'm sure it was just to the right of the normal liberal platitudes you are used to hearing. Sorry, but when you start your post with "theres absolutly nothing.....", etc. Get the picture.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

To my knowledge, the only primetime program that is not considered an opinion show is Special Report with Brit Hume. Let's make this distinction between opinion and news. I do not know of more than one (Colmes) slightly liberal opinion commentator on the entire network. Greta is moderate. If the channel was truly fair and balanced...which they say is the networks slogan, not just the news department, then they would have an even number of conservatives and liberals which is clearly not the case.

And Kathianne I really don't think most people can tell when the network is switching between opinion and news. In a newspaper it is very clear but not on FOXNews.

 

[dilloduck]

So I take it that you object to Fox using the words "fair and balanced".

Would you prefer "More fair and balanced" ?

 

[Annie]

To my knowledge, the only primetime program that is not considered an opinion show is Special Report with Brit Hume. Let's make this distinction between opinion and news. I do not know of more than one (Colmes) slightly liberal opinion commentator on the entire network. Greta is moderate. If the channel was truly fair and balanced...which they say is the networks slogan, not just the news department, then they would have an even number of conservatives and liberals which is clearly not the case.

And Kathianne I really don't think most people can tell when the network is switching between opinion and news. In a newspaper it is very clear but not on FOXNews.

MJDUNCAN I will type this very slowly, the 'opinion segments or programs' have titles that let the viewer recognize that news is a subset of the programming. You and 'most people', (well maybe not CNN's numbers are way down and falling), should be able to tell the difference between CNN news and Crossfire or Larry King. Duh'

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Sure, no problem with the phrase "more fair and balanced" because it is less absolute. You must admit that the phrase minus the qualitative "more" is a near impossible ideal for them to strive for and claim to achieve.

Kathianne, how does the title "The O'Reilly Factor" imply in an obvious way that what he is going to say is opinion?

 

[Annie]

Sure, no problem with the phrase "more fair and balanced" because it is less absolute. You must admit that the phrase minus the qualitative "more" is a near impossible ideal for them to strive for and claim to achieve.

Kathianne, how does the title "The O'Reilly Factor" imply in an obvious way that what he is going to say is opinion?

I'm beginning to think that Karl Rove sent you so that we might explain 'how to watch the news'. Ok, let's do this one more: It has his NAME on it. Ta da!!!!

Kinda like "Maureen Dowd" is not the NYT, she just thinks she is. Whoops, bad example, she does tend to spell out the slant there.

 

[pegwinn]

Sure, no problem with the phrase "more fair and balanced" because it is less absolute. You must admit that the phrase minus the qualitative "more" is a near impossible ideal for them to strive for and claim to achieve.

Kathianne, how does the title "The O'Reilly Factor" imply in an obvious way that what he is going to say is opinion?

Boy you are a glutton. Lets see "the OREILLY factor", kinda tells you who is in charge of the show for the next thirty minutes y'think? Kinda like "crossfire" used to warn me that it "might" be a tad confrontational.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

But the "Special Report with Brit Hume" is the news segment. It is at best a very fine line.

 

[Annie]

But the "Special Report with Brit Hume" is the news segment. It is at best a very fine line.

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :fifty:

You crack me up! :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

 

[Annie]

This may be slightly off the topic of 'television news' but I think it germaine to the issue of public trust in the media and the big media awakening to a real problem:

http://sisu.typepad.com/sisu/2004/07/media_man_meets_3.html