Scott McLellan blows whistle loudest - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

AnarChrist · 07-26-2008, 08:25 AM

I'm not good at starting threads so I hope I embed this right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-OpIXfXKO8

For a long time there has been rumors of bias at Fox and them receiving talking points from the Republican party but now the former press secretary comes forward to admit that they not only favored Fox but gave them talking points which were regularly used in framing their stories. Does this make people change their views of Fox and their commentators? Does fair and balanced go out the window and replaced with partisan and scripted?

Azure · 07-26-2008, 08:32 AM

Is this new? I've know this for a long time, which is why I ignore Fox News.

Iowa_Flames_Fan · 07-26-2008, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azure

Is this new? I've know this for a long time, which is why I ignore Fox News.

There are many who don't realize this, and watch Hannity, O'Reilly and their ilk thinking that these guys are actually arriving at their own opinions about this stuff. Now we know for sure that they're just parroting White House talking points.

Though it's no surprise, it's nice to have it on record from someone who knows.

AnarChrist · 07-26-2008, 08:57 AM

Is the uncovering of and admission to participation in a propaganda campaign by one of the largest media bodies news? In most countries it is.

CaramonLS · 07-26-2008, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azure

Is this new? I've know this for a long time, which is why I ignore Fox News.

This is huge news.

There are even some on this site who have defended FOX for being fair/balanced.

onetwo_threefour · 07-26-2008, 09:56 AM

Yep FOX=PRAVDA. I bet conservatives would love that comparison...

It's pretty amazing the stuff that Scott McLelland has been admitting lately. Strangely enough, the White House is so arrogant they erven bother to deny his claims.

Azure · 07-26-2008, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

There are many who don't realize this, and watch Hannity, O'Reilly and their ilk thinking that these guys are actually arriving at their own opinions about this stuff. Now we know for sure that they're just parroting White House talking points.

Though it's no surprise, it's nice to have it on record from someone who knows.

Are Hannity and O'Rielly some sort of government robot programmed to repeat whatever Bush and his 'cronies' tell them too?

Come on. They can very much have their own opinion. Just because someone agrees with Bush on something doesn't mean he's reading off talking points from the Whitehouse. Because if you want to make that claim, wait until Obama is President, and we'll see how 'fair and balanced' some of the media is in regards to the decisions he makes.

EDIT: This is not to say that Fox News isn't biased or anything, but I'm sure any politician will go to a media outlet that will paint them in a good light.

CaramonLS · 07-26-2008, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HOZ

I know it is seen as the height if intellectualism by some on this board to belittle FoxNews (with juvy names now). To come on and say that "I never watch FoxNews" yet wax poetically about how bad the news is from Fox. Hmmmm....

It seems that slashing FoxNews is a way to get your intellectual stripes in this forum. Ad hominem attacks on sources and especially people disagreeable to your position is the obvious path to intelectual superiority.

Of the six times I have watched Foxnews in my lifetime I have never seen anything that would make believe that it is a bad news source. No worse or better than CNN and BBC which I watch daily or the NYT and Reuters which I read daily. They have plenty of excellent veteran new reporters, news chiefs, and news casters on their payroll.

Now the point of this thread....which I again am amazed that I need to explain. NYT and the BBC have been under criticism for some time now. NYT for, wrongly IMO, exposing a LEGAL covert-op bank surveilance. The BBC, much like the CBC, for not representing the views of the majority. NYT have since day one been backpedalling and now this from their ombudsman. BBC as well getting exposed for their biases.

I know, I know...I am part of the great NEO-con conspiracy to cover GW's complicity in whatever world domination scheme Dole has thought of this week.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Fox news is not blindly ideological.

Fox News makes the G&M look like a carefully thought though balanced approach to news and politics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by White Doors

Ahh.. more insults from Lanny.
just another day at Calgarypuck.
Are they to the right of CNN and NYT, for sure.

Blindly ideological, no, not in my opinion.

oh, btw - too bad about the 'almost'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HOZ

This "hate Fox" because they aren't socialist enough is going a bit far.

Just some CP quotes I dug up in about 2 minutes. I'm sure there is much worse.

Iowa_Flames_Fan · 07-26-2008, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azure

Are Hannity and O'Rielly some sort of government robot programmed to repeat whatever Bush and his 'cronies' tell them too?

Come on. They can very much have their own opinion. Just because someone agrees with Bush on something doesn't mean he's reading off talking points from the Whitehouse. Because if you want to make that claim, wait until Obama is President, and we'll see how 'fair and balanced' some of the media is in regards to the decisions he makes.

EDIT: This is not to say that Fox News isn't biased or anything, but I'm sure any politician will go to a media outlet that will paint them in a good light.

This isn't actually about "bias" per se. Plenty of media pundits are biased--in some sense all of them are. This is about repeating, by rote, talking points that were given to them by the Bush White House, and pretending they were original opinions. It really is pretty scandalous--and a sad day for journalism when that passes for news commentary. It's concrete evidence that Fox really is--not nominally, as we all knew, but officially, as many of us suspected--the Bush administration's PRAVDA. And that's pretty shocking.

Ruttiger · 07-26-2008, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

This isn't actually about "bias" per se. Plenty of media pundits are biased--in some sense all of them are. This is about repeating, by rote, talking points that were given to them by the Bush White House, and pretending they were original opinions. It really is pretty scandalous--and a sad day for journalism when that passes for news commentary. It's concrete evidence that Fox really is--not nominally, as we all knew, but officially, as many of us suspected--the Bush administration's PRAVDA. And that's pretty shocking.

How is it shocking if you suspected it?

Azure · 07-26-2008, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ruttiger

How is it shocking if you suspected it?

Thats what I don't get either.

People are acting like this is something 'new.'

onetwo_threefour · 07-26-2008, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azure

Thats what I don't get either.

People are acting like this is something 'new.'

Probably because:

a) ever since FOX News went on the air and people voiced the opinion that the White House was feeding FOX it's lines like Cyrano, conservatives have figuratively, (and literally on TV) rolled their eyes, called us the liberal tinfoil hat brigade, and generally all implied that we're paranoid delusionals. As Kurt Cobain (and others) said "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you"

b) how many times in your lifetime has a former press secretary (or equivalent) for a democratic government come out while that government is still in power and publically confirm that part of the fifth estate has been corrupted by government. If people don't see that as shocking, I think that reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how a liberal democracy is supposed to work. For that country to be the US is doubly damning since that country essentially created the idea of an independent press. Shocking is the right word for having this confirmation straight from the horse's mouth.

4X4 · 07-26-2008, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azure

Thats what I don't get either.

People are acting like this is something 'new.'

No sh1t. At least Fox News is a cable channel that you have to pay for if you want to hear their garbage. Not like the CBC which is just as biased for the Liberal Party of Canada, but we taxpayers fund it and it's found on the TV and on the radio.

4X4 · 07-26-2008, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

Probably because:

a) ever since FOX News went on the air and people voiced the opinion that the White House was feeding FOX it's lines like Cyrano, conservatives have figuratively, (and literally on TV) rolled their eyes, called us the liberal tinfoil hat brigade, and generally all implied that we're paranoid delusionals. As Kurt Cobain (and others) said "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you"

b) how many times in your lifetime has a former press secretary (or equivalent) for a democratic government come out while that government is still in power and publically confirm that part of the fifth estate has been corrupted by government. If people don't see that as shocking, I think that reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how a liberal democracy is supposed to work. For that country to be the US is doubly damning since that country essentially created the idea of an independent press. Shocking is the right word for having this confirmation straight from the horse's mouth.

LOL. "Part of the fifth estate has been corrupted by the government". "A fundamental misunderstanding of how a democracy is supposed to work".

I think you're the one that misunderstands democracy. In a democracy, organizations can say and do pretty much whatever they want within the confines of the law. Last I checked, it wasn't illegal to have opinions or to convey the messages of others pretending that it is your opinion.

Where is the outrage exactly? How is Fox News any different than a member of parliament towing the party line whether or not he agrees with it? Jean Chretien booted people out of the Liberal party for not towing the party line. I'm sure Harper has to, I just haven't been keeping up with politics much lately.

And for that matter, how is it any different than the people we send to Ottawa to represent us speaking on our behalf and saying what we program them to say?

You guys are funny, getting all riled up about this. As Azure said, it's nothing new. Media outlets have had a slant as long as there has been media. And they've been directly influenced by government since there has been government.

If this is the first time you've ever found out that a government did this, brace yourself. It's like that everywhere. Heh. The prime minister of Italy, Silvio Berlusconi, owns half the TV channels in Italy.

Ice · 07-26-2008, 11:22 AM

FOX News has always been clearly on the side of conservatives. I never thought of FOX as fair and balanced in their reporting, even though that's their claim. I do appreciate that they are the one channel that offsets all the more liberal biased networks out there. Before Fox, my party candidates never received the same attention and representation on television. It would be naive to think that because of their tagline, they weren't just like all the other stations. There is no such thing as neutral journalism anymore.

jammies · 07-26-2008, 11:36 AM

So freedom of the press is not compromised by a government using a supposedly independent news organization as a directly controlled propaganda mouthpiece? It might not be illegal, but it certainly is immoral and anti-democratic. A free press is one of the fundamentals of working democracy - without it, you cannot know what your government is doing other than what they choose to tell you.

I agree that this IS a big story - it has nothing to do with whether or not people know FOX is biased, but is rather a question of journalistic ethics. To downplay it by saying it happens all the time is equivalent to accepting it - and it is not acceptable.

4X4 · 07-26-2008, 11:39 AM

If a media outlet wanted to be unbiased, they can be. I don't know for sure, but I highly doubt Fox is doing this under duress.

Azure · 07-26-2008, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jammies

So freedom of the press is not compromised by a government using a supposedly independent news organization as a directly controlled propaganda mouthpiece?

Directly controlled? Really? Fox News only did what the government told them to do?

Calgaryborn · 07-26-2008, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ice

FOX News has always been clearly on the side of conservatives. I never thought of FOX as fair and balanced in their reporting, even though that's their claim. I do appreciate that they are the one channel that offsets all the more liberal biased networks out there. Before Fox, my party candidates never received the same attention and representation on television. It would be naive to think that because of their tagline, they weren't just like all the other stations. There is no such thing as neutral journalism anymore.

I agree. Well said.

Calgaryborn · 07-26-2008, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jammies

So freedom of the press is not compromised by a government using a supposedly independent news organization as a directly controlled propaganda mouthpiece? It might not be illegal, but it certainly is immoral and anti-democratic.

If Fox's relationship with the Whitehouse and the Republican party is voluntary than it is fair and democratic.

Fox has the distinction of being the only network not taking their directions from the Democratic party. That is why the internet is taking over as the preferred news source. It's kind of ironic really. TV has become the avenue for reality shows and unreliable news.