Has your opinion of FOX and Rupert Murdoch changed based on the recent scandal

[mardi gras skin]

Still, I'm curious, aREDSKIN. What's your take on these scandals in Brittain?

aREDSKINS post is more relevant to my opinion of FOX news than the scandal in Britain.

[Burgold]

Yeah, but the point of this thread is how do the scandals in Brittain impact your view of FOX. It's right there in the OP. Heck, it's even in the title.

[mardi gras skin]

Sure, but aREDSKINS post relates directly to FOX news. The scandals in Britain don't. My only point is that aREDSKINS post the first thing in this thread that has altered my opinion about FOX news in any way.

Neither issue changes the fact that FOX news is terrible. Whoever they give money to, they're swill.

[Burgold]

Ah, but his post isn't about FOX News, but about Newscorp which includes FOX, the WSJ, but also FOX movies and FOX entertainment (the TV shows)... don't mistake one for the other. It's long been understood that the politics and the philosophy of the entertainment side is vastly different from the news side.

I would guess if they broke it down (and they may have, I didn't click the link) and showed that there was such an even split amongst the decison makers, producers, editors, and talent at FOX, WSJ, and the Post that it would be somewhat telling, but what he showed us may or may not be.

Edit: On the other hand, since the poll lists Newscorp in its questioning I may be overthinking it, but his report is not necessarily informative about what's going on in the News division (esp. amongst the people who form and deliver the news at FOX)

[mardi gras skin]

Burg, his article at least includes FOX news. What's going on in Britain doesn't have anything to do with FOX news. Or, to use the language of your original post: right now, there's no evidence that FOX news gives more money to Republicans than Democrats...does that change your opinion of FOX news?

Yes, aREDSKINS article does change my opinion. No, the scandals in Britain do not change my opinion. FOX is actually involved in the donations article, they are not involved in the scandal in Britain.

[Burgold]

November 05, 2010 4:11 pm ET by Eric Hananoki

Today, MSNBC suspended Keith Olbermann indefinitely for violating NBC News' policy and standards. As Politico first noted, Olbermann donated $2,400 apiece to three Democrats and "NBC has a rule against employees contributing to political campaigns."

While NBC News has a policy prohibiting employees from contributing to political campaigns, its cable news competitor Fox News apparently does not. Indeed, Fox News hosts such as Neil Cavuto, Sean Hannity, and Mike Huckabee have donated to political campaigns and organizations, and a Fox News executive previously said he would not prohibit the practice.

During the 2009-2010 election cycle, more than 30 Fox Newsers have endorsed, raised money, or campaigned for Republican candidates or organizations in more than 600 instances.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201011050034

---------- Post added July-20th-2011 at 07:33 AM ----------

In the end though you're probably right that aREDSKIN's defense of FOX is just as valid as any other thought in saying why his opinion has or hasn't changed based on what is happening in other parts of the corporation. I was just curious what his specific opinion was.

[mardi gras skin]

Mediamatters

Burg, you don't have to convince me FOX news sucks. I know it does. But Media Matters is just as bad as FOX if not worse. Trusting that site is no better than trusting old man Murdoch himself.

[Burgold]

Hey, it was the first one that came up on the google search :halo:

And while I agree with you that media matters has an axe to grind and does so willingly... comparing them to Murdoch... unless you mean Matt Murdoch, the blind attourney (aka Daredevil) is quite a low blow.

Okay, I need to stop hijacking my own thread.

[aREDSKIN]

November 05, 2010 4:11 pm ET by Eric Hananoki

Today, MSNBC suspended Keith Olbermann indefinitely for violating NBC News' policy and standards. As Politico first noted, Olbermann donated $2,400 apiece to three Democrats and "NBC has a rule against employees contributing to political campaigns."

While NBC News has a policy prohibiting employees from contributing to political campaigns, its cable news competitor Fox News apparently does not. Indeed, Fox News hosts such as Neil Cavuto, Sean Hannity, and Mike Huckabee have donated to political campaigns and organizations, and a Fox News executive previously said he would not prohibit the practice.

During the 2009-2010 election cycle, more than 30 Fox Newsers have endorsed, raised money, or campaigned for Republican candidates or organizations in more than 600 instances.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201011050034

---------- Post added July-20th-2011 at 07:33 AM ----------

In the end though you're probably right that aREDSKIN's defense of FOX is just as valid as any other thought in saying why his opinion has or hasn't changed based on what is happening in other parts of the corporation. I was just curious what his specific opinion was.

Media matter has been so marginalized it's really not worthy of using them as a source for anything. And my posting of the fox contributions is certainly not a defense of "Fox" but more of a slam against all the other media & news organizations whom IMO wouldn't come close to any "FAIR & BALANCED" distribution of political contributions. rim shot please. Personally, the most I watch of Fox is Fox sports.

[TimmySmith]

Political donations by News Corp., its employees and their families were evenly split between Democrats and Republicans, with President Obama the all-time leading recipient, according to a report from the Sunlight Foundation.

Whoa! Are you implying that Billionaire Murdoch is a capitalist they plays the extremists on both sides?

[DRSmith]

November 05, 2010 4:11 pm ET by Eric Hananoki

Today, MSNBC suspended Keith Olbermann indefinitely for violating NBC News' policy and standards. As Politico first noted, Olbermann donated $2,400 apiece to three Democrats and "NBC has a rule against employees contributing to political campaigns."

While NBC News has a policy prohibiting employees from contributing to political campaigns, its cable news competitor Fox News apparently does not. Indeed, Fox News hosts such as Neil Cavuto, Sean Hannity, and Mike Huckabee have donated to political campaigns and organizations, and a Fox News executive previously said he would not prohibit the practice.

During the 2009-2010 election cycle, more than 30 Fox Newsers have endorsed, raised money, or campaigned for Republican candidates or organizations in more than 600 instances.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201011050034

---------- Post added July-20th-2011 at 07:33 AM ----------

In the end though you're probably right that aREDSKIN's defense of FOX is just as valid as any other thought in saying why his opinion has or hasn't changed based on what is happening in other parts of the corporation. I was just curious what his specific opinion was.

As the revelations have come out on how Murdoch was abe to use his media empire to influence the public and weigh in on elections, I thought that it was a good thing that MSNBC had that policey with their staff.

When you have a person on your show whom you give money to you do not want that money wasted so you will cover over their flaws and demonize their opponets. There is no integrety in that.

I also have to wonder what happened when Obama met with Murdoch what was said to him that has had him do a 180 from the positions he had while running,this man had politicians in Britain afraid of him.

[Fred Jones]

I feel bad for the people that have actually changed their opinion of this person. To not see what he has been doing and the fear and hate that comes out of his news organizations is kind of disappointing.

And yes, left leaning organizations that spew their rhetoric are just as bad.

Unfortunate that more individuals such as Murdoch have not been exposed.

[zoony]

I guess I just don't understand what the big deal is here. I EXPECT news organizations to do whatever it takes to get the story up to and including bribery.

This entire story is BS. You want to be mad at someone be mad at the officials accepting the bribes. Don't blame a news organziation for doing whatever it takes to get the story. You would hope that they would operate that way.

[Larry]

Mediamatters

Burg, you don't have to convince me FOX news sucks. I know it does. But Media Matters is just as bad as FOX if not worse. Trusting that site is no better than trusting old man Murdoch himself.

And yet, I don't recall EVER seeing one single post in which anyone has EVER caught MM saying anything false.

Instead, whenever they're cited, people simply attack them for not liking Fox.

---------- Post added July-20th-2011 at 09:46 AM ----------

I guess I just don't understand what the big deal is here. I EXPECT news organizations to do whatever it takes to get the story up to and including bribery.

This entire story is BS. You want to be mad at someone be mad at the officials accepting the bribes. Don't blame a news organziation for doing whatever it takes to get the story. You would hope that they would operate that way.

Anything goes? Laws don't apply to us?

I'll admit that there's at least some grey there. I've pointed out about 60 Minutes sending people to go apply for jobs using fake IDs, for example. I think all of us would agree that there exist some cases where the press is permitted to commit a crime to Get The Story.

There seems to be a pretty strong consensus that some of these weren't acceptable cases, though.

[mardi gras skin]

And yet, I don't recall EVER seeing one single post in which anyone has EVER caught MM saying anything false.

Instead, whenever they're cited, people simply attack them for not liking Fox.

Half the truth isn't the truth. You want to cite a legitimate watchdog group, look to politifact.org, factcheck.org, etc.

Talk up mediamaters all day, Larry, it will fall on deaf ears.

edit: Throw in some EVER, EVER's somewhere in my response if that helps make my point.

[Larry]

Half the truth isn't the truth. You want to cite a legitimate watchdog group, look to politifact.org, factcheck.org, etc.

Talk up mediamaters all day, Larry, it will fall on deaf ears.

edit: Throw in some EVER, EVER's somewhere in my response if that helps make my point.

Nope. I'll simply point out that when it's pointed out that the site you're attacking tells the truth, you agree with me, continue to attack them for telling the truth, and attack my punctuation.

Me, I think that telling the truth is kind of important.

[mardi gras skin]

Larry, I don't have a problem with your punctuation. I'm just trying to KEEP UP with your intonation indicators.

[Fred Jones]

I guess I just don't understand what the big deal is here. I EXPECT news organizations to do whatever it takes to get the story up to and including bribery.

This entire story is BS. You want to be mad at someone be mad at the officials accepting the bribes. Don't blame a news organziation for doing whatever it takes to get the story. You would hope that they would operate that way.

Not being critical of you specifically, but accepting the news organizations actions just means you are accepting their corruption and accepting a new moral standard.

Of course the officials are wrong and should be held accountable, but they won't.

I hold both accountable for their actions, not that makes a difference. I guess I have a different standard than other people, and I find it hard to watch the news now because of it, especially extreme organizations on the right and left.

[mardi gras skin]

Not being critical of you specifically, but accepting the news organizations actions just means you are accepting their corruption and accepting a new moral standard.

Of course the officials are wrong and should be held accountable, but they won't.

I hold both accountable for their actions, not that makes a difference. I guess I have a different standard than other people, and I find it hard to watch the news now because of it, especially extreme organizations on the right and left.

I'm with Zoony. If officials are willing to take bribes, it kind of makes sense for a news organization to pay bribes.

[zoony]

And yet, I don't recall EVER seeing one single post in which anyone has EVER caught MM saying anything false.

Instead, whenever they're cited, people simply attack them for not liking Fox.

---------- Post added July-20th-2011 at 09:46 AM ----------

Anything goes? Laws don't apply to us?

I'll admit that there's at least some grey there. I've pointed out about 60 Minutes sending people to go apply for jobs using fake IDs, for example. I think all of us would agree that there exist some cases where the press is permitted to commit a crime to Get The Story.

There seems to be a pretty strong consensus that some of these weren't acceptable cases, though.

Not being critical of you specifically, but accepting the news organizations actions just means you are accepting their corruption and accepting a new moral standard.

Of course the officials are wrong and should be held accountable, but they won't.

I hold both accountable for their actions, not that makes a difference. I guess I have a different standard than other people, and I find it hard to watch the news now because of it, especially extreme organizations on the right and left.

In Germany, bribes to foreign officials (made by businesses) are tax-deductible. In the United States they are illegal.

The only thing here that is inherently unethical is the actions of the gov't officials, imo.

[Larry]

Larry, I don't have a problem with your punctuation. I'm just trying to KEEP UP with your intonation indicators.

If you must know, I'm at Disney (leaving in an hour or so), typing on an iPhone, and underlining is a serious pain.

---------- Post added July-20th-2011 at 10:26 AM ----------

I'm with Zoony. If officials are willing to take bribes, it kind of makes sense for a news organization to pay bribes.

In the converse (inverse? I used to remember the difference.) also true? If people are willing to pay bribes, then is taking them moral?

Or how about a different spin? If people are willing to buy drugs, then is selling them moral?

[Fred Jones]

In Germany, bribes to foreign officials (made by businesses) are tax-deductible. In the United States they are illegal.

The only thing here that is inherently unethical is the actions of the gov't officials, imo.

At what point in time do you draw the line? Clearly, the news organizations will simply continue to push moral and ethical boundaries. To me they have already crossed the line. I am just wondering when the general public will care.

If the current behavior and methods continue they will simply become accepted as common practice and the standard will have dropped.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

It pretty much confirmed all of my worst paranoid thoughts about them.

It's always amazing when people or organizations turn out to be just as bad as you assume they were.

[Larry]

In Germany, bribes to foreign officials (made by businesses) are tax-deductible. In the United States they are illegal.

The only thing here that is inherently unethical is the actions of the gov't officials, imo.

Hey, there's a thought.

You think that if we made bribing a government official tax deductible, then American businesses would document every official who took the money?

[Burgold]

Interesting set of responses.

I agree that the lines reporters can and should use to get a story can be cloudy. Bribes? Maybe. Maybe not. Knowingly taking classified info that you know the leaker shouldn't be giving you. Maybe. Maybe not. At least in this country taping someone without their knowledge is illegal, hacking someone's phone line or breaking into their computer seems a little over the top. Mind you, Lois Lane did that in almost every episode of Superman as she would rifle someone's files the moment they turned their back. So, I guess where it falls is... the gray needs to countermeasured by the extent that the reporter's wrongdoing serves a public good. Does a paparazzi breaking into a celebrity's home or digging through their trash really help anybody? Does hacking the phone line of a murder victim help?

Is dicovering when a huge drug shipment is coming into the country or if a politician is open to bribery worth a bribe? I think you tolerate more rule bending when the outcome is truly important or useful to the public. I don't think it's so much our guy versus their guy although undoubtedly that plays into some of it, but why, when, and how it's done. :2cents: