BRAVEONAWARPATH Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 This guy could just be a disgruntled former employee or....... Click on the link to read the rest. http://mediamatters.org/blog/201102100007 Asked what most viewers and observers of Fox News would be surprised to learn about the controversial cable channel, a former insider from the world of Rupert Murdoch was quick with a response: “I don’t think people would believe it’s as concocted as it is; that stuff is just made up.”Indeed, a former Fox News employee who recently agreed to talk with Media Matters confirmed what critics have been saying for years about Murdoch’s cable channel. Namely, that Fox News is run as a purely partisan operation, virtually every news story is actively spun by the staff, its primary goal is to prop up Republicans and knock down Democrats, and that staffers at Fox News routinely operate without the slightest regard for fairness or fact checking. “It is their M.O. to undermine the administration and to undermine Democrats,” says the source. “They’re a propaganda outfit but they call themselves news.” And that’s the word from inside Fox News. Note the story here isn’t that Fox News leans right. Everyone knows the channel pushes a conservative-friendly version of the news. Everyone who’s been paying attention has known that since the channel’s inception more than a decade ago. The real story, and the real danger posed by the cable outlet, is that over time Fox News stopped simply leaning to the right and instead became an open and active political player, sort of one-part character assassin and one-part propagandist, depending on which party was in power. And that the operation thrives on fabrications and falsehoods. “They say one thing and do another. They insist on maintaining this charade, this façade, that they’re balanced or that they’re not right-wing extreme propagandist,” says the source. But it’s all a well-orchestrated lie, according this former insider. It’s a lie that permeates the entire Fox News culture and one that staffers and producers have to learn quickly in order to survive professionally. “You have to work there for a while to understand the nods and the winks,” says the source. “And God help you if you don’t because sooner or later you’re going to get burned.” The source explains: “Like any news channel there’s lot of room for non-news content. The content that wasn’t ‘news,’ they didn’t care what we did with as long as it was amusing or quirky or entertaining; as along as it brought in eyeballs. But anything—anything--that was a news story you had to understand what the spin should be on it. If it was a big enough story it was explained to you in the morning [editorial] meeting. If it wasn’t explained, it was up to you to know the conservative take on it. There’s a conservative take on every story no matter what it is. So you either get told what it is or you better intuitively know what it is.” What if Fox News staffers aren’t instinctively conservative or don’t have an intuitive feeling for what the spin on a story should be? “My internal compass was to think like an intolerant meathead,” the source explains. “You could never error on the side of not being intolerant enough.” The source recalls how Fox News changed over time: “When I first got there back in the day, and I don’t know how they indoctrinate people now, but back in the day when they were “training” you, as it were, they would say, ‘Here’s how we’re different.’ They’d say if there is an execution of a condemned man at midnight and there are all the live truck outside the prison and all the lives shots. CNN would go, ‘Yes, tonight John Jackson, 25 of Mississippi, is going to die by lethal injection for the murder of two girls.’ MSNBC would say the same thing. “We would come out and say, ‘Tonight, John Jackson who kidnapped an innocent two year old, raped her, sawed her head off and threw it in the school yard, is going to get the punishment that a jury of his peers thought he should get.’ And they say that’s the way we do it here. And you’re going , alright, it’s a bit of an extreme example but it’s something to think about. It’s not unreasonable. "When you first get in they tell you we’re a bit of a counterpart to the screaming left wing lib media. So automatically you have to buy into the idea that the other media is howling left-wing. Don’t even start arguing that or you won’t even last your first day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 I've seen a couple examples of them "creating fiction" and selling it as news. I think it's much more common for them to slant, spin, and exaggerate. Some of my friends at the Press Club who work for FOX have privately told me the same thing, that they are instructed how to tell the story and some of them are very uncomfortable with it. What surprised me was learning how much scientists tend to dislike being interviewed by FOX. The ones I've talked to talk about being ambushed and edited to become much more controversial. To be fair, a lot of scientists shy from the limelight and are likely to be unhappy with how their research is watered down, but at least in three conversations this was something much worse. FOX really tries to create controversy and heat... even when there's none there. They live to create villains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polywog999 Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 This thread is crap....EVERYONE knows Fox is fair and balanced.... Fox does however, make LOTS of mistakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Remember "Terrorist fist bump" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Remember "Terrorist fist bump" Hey hey hey. You're not being fair and balanced. Nobody there ever said "Terrorist fist bump". ...It was "Terrorist fist jab". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 *GASP* Shocking! Who would've ever thunked it? Nice to have confirmation of what we all knew though. I realize who Faux News' target audience is. However what does surprise me is that otherwise intelligent people will rationalize its lies and propaganda with the old balancing the liberal media nonsense. Even if I bought that line, "balancing" a leftward media slant with lies and propaganda makes no sense if truth is what you're after. Oh, wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 So that's what, 1 for the Reps and 6 for the Dems? Anyone who wtaches TV news knows which side of the plate each broadcaster is swinging from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 eagerly awaiting the "fair and balanced" posts calling out the source. (I hate Fox, BTW) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 poly, those pics are hilarious. Love the one plugging "truth" and "reality" while claiming a Democrat's first name is "Joke". And I hadn't seen the effort to make THAT Michael Brown the head of FEMA. But my favorite is the $1.5B one of Bachmann with The Crazy in her eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 You think that's shocking, from what I understand bears actually do **** in the woods. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 I don't know if it was a conscious thing on Fox's part or not, but my impression was that when Obama won the election they went from simply conservative-leaning to completely off the deep-end. I used to cycle through both Fox and CNN when a big story broke to get several looks at the same story. Now it's not really even worth it. I get news through the conservative lens from other sources these days. Foxnews is capable of really great work. I think their election coverage in '04 and '08 was by far the best of all the cable news networks. But they have become largely unwatchable over the past few yeas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 So that's what, 1 for the Reps and 6 for the Dems?Anyone who wtaches TV news knows which side of the plate each broadcaster is swinging from. If only that were true. Propaganda has proven effective over history to reach large groups of the population who desperately want to believe the lies they're being told, and don't have enough brains in their head to recognize the difference. I know we all like to think we're smart, but when you see the obvious tripe being spouted alongside the ratings, something doesn't add up. They either don't know it's lies, or they don't care that it's lies. And even when they do know it, they condone it by stating that the other side does it too, as if that somehow makes it OK. RahRah, go team, by hook or by crook.. The people who watch Fox either know they're being lied to and don't care, or they believe it. Which do you think keeps them tuning in? In the last ten days or so we had two threads from Fox and rightwing darling Princess Palin in which she directly lies to a cheering crowd (they're coming for your guns!) and completely misrepresented a part of the SOTU speech to incorporate more lies into her dialogue,, and those threads went for DAYS while her defenders exhausted every method possible to try to prove they aren't lies, and she actually is competent. When I see that on such a regular basis, and then hear people tell me that they know they're being lied to... again, something isn't adding up. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 poly, those pics are hilarious. Love the one plugging "truth" and "reality" while claiming a Democrat's first name is "Joke". And I hadn't seen the effort to make THAT Michael Brown the head of FEMA. But my favorite is the $1.5B one of Bachmann with The Crazy in her eyes. Another reason to stop outsourcing. I bet those Interns come from the same crop that CNN and MSNBC use. ---------- Post added February-11th-2011 at 11:24 AM ---------- So that's what, 1 for the Reps and 6 for the Dems?Anyone who wtaches TV news knows which side of the plate each broadcaster is swinging from. Now dude, all liberals believe that the other media outlets ( Including Soros media-matters) spin and propagandize from the center. Or like the NY Times print what Fits their Agenda if not completely ignore stories that do not:rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 eagerly awaiting the "fair and balanced" posts calling out the source. (I hate Fox, BTW)Until you mentioned this, I had not thought about looking up the source. However, once you mentioned this it piqued my interest. From Media Matters' website:Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501©(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.In other words, it is a liberal spin machine dedicated to "correcting" what they deem to be conservative misinformation. Their homepage is literally a liberal center of anti-conservative anything! It is actually humorous! Imagine the reaction if a conservative poster, let's say honorary_hog, posted am article calling CNN a fictitious news organization and for proof he linked to the National Review? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejaydana Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 AH Mediamatters. What a reputable source that is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 You think that's shocking, from what I understand bears actually do **** in the woods.~Bang As usual Bang hits it ~Bang on the head. Seriously, I don't know how anyone can with any integrity whatsoever doubt the merits of this story and or the source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 As usual Bang hits it ~Bang on the head.Seriously, I don't know how anyone can with any integrity whatsoever doubt the merits of this story and or the source. Really?Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501©(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time. Using the website mediamatters.org as the principal vehicle for disseminating research and information, Media Matters posts rapid-response items as well as longer research and analytic reports documenting conservative misinformation throughout the media. Additionally, Media Matters works daily to notify activists, journalists, pundits, and the general public about instances of misinformation, providing them with the resources to rebut false claims and to take direct action against offending media institutions. This is no different than the National Review, except liberal. It is a spin sight. Go read the main page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 http://mediamatters.org/press/releases/201010200018 Soros announces FIRST ever contribution to Media Matters October 20, 2010 1:42 pm ET By first he apparently means first direct contribution done publicly instead of filtered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drtdrums Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Thank God we have an objective, agenda-less organization like mediamatters to keep the public informed. *chuckles* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Really?This is no different than the National Review, except liberal. It is a spin sight. Go read the main page. Popeman I know what Mediamatters is and for the record it's no different than Faux News. No one....and I repeat no one with a shred of integrity takes Faux News as a credible source for actual news...no one. Faux News is the political hack wing of the Republican party, they are the 24 hour propaganda machine for all things GOP and Conservative Right leaning politics and their second task is to stand in opposition to anything Moderate or Left. Again I repeat no one with any integrity takes them seriously...they are the Mad Magazine of journalism. Believing anything that Faux News reports is like believing in WWE wrassling as real wrestling. Trust them at your peril. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 As usual Bang hits it ~Bang on the head.Seriously, I don't know how anyone can with any integrity whatsoever doubt the merits of this story and or the source. A source with an agenda, using an "anonymous" source to "confirm" your preconceived notion? Yeah. You'd HAVE to be a fool to question that at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 A source with an agenda, using an "anonymous" source to "confirm" your preconceived notion?Yeah. You'd HAVE to be a fool to question that at all. What are you jealous that they are borrowing Faux's playbook? Funny how you defend Faux while attacking Media Matters for being the mirror of Faux, and yet don't attack Faux.....oddly hypocritical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 What are you jealous that they are borrowing Faux's playbook? Funny how you defend Faux while attacking Media Matters for being the mirror of Faux, and yet don't attack Faux.....oddly hypocritical. Says the guy who buys this lock, stock and barrell. I think there's a stick in your eye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 As usual Bang hits it ~Bang on the head.Seriously, I don't know how anyone can with any integrity whatsoever doubt the merits of this story and or the source. Media matter is a Soros funded front group. It's been a liberal funded group from the beginning. It's analysis should be viewed with scrutiny. I suppose if the rightys used WND as a legitimate unbiased source the leftys might have a beef with that. They always do. Media matters agenda is within it's mission statement. Went to wikipedia for some basic info and trhis is what caught my eye- Journalist Eric E. Burns has been MMfA's president since its founding in 2006. Eric used to work for Fox and was let go a few years back He hosted Fox news watch a show where guests, generally journalist from both side of the spectrum analyzed the "media's" coverage of current events to ascertain the level of bias,if any,or fair/unfair coverage. I'm just sure he has no ax to grind. But these media organization are free to put out there just about anything they want. It's been done before and will continue to be done and will only be corrected if and when their audiences go elsewhere. It's happens at EVERY news organization where one wants to admit it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Says the guy who buys this lock, stock and barrell.I think there's a stick in your eye. You didn't quite read my posts did you? I repeatedly ranked Media Matters with Faux...right with them. And I didn't need Media Matters or anyone else to tell me that Faux News is utter and near perfect journalistic fecal matter. I don't need the "un-named source", I don't need Soros, or MSNBC, or CNN or any other "lame stream media" network to tell me this...all I have to do is turn on Faux News and viola there it is in all its shining and perfect ineptitude. If a 2 year old came up to me and said "Faux News is full of crap" I'd gladly look down and say "Thanks Captain Obvious, and in other news the sky is blue..." which of course Faux News will gladly report as saying that the sky is indeed Red...as in Republican leaning. But feel free to continue defending that gargantuan pile of steaming refuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.