Scott McLellan blows whistle loudest

[mykalberta]

Is this any different than the CBC giving the Liberals questions to ask.

Everyone knows that each party has its own media insiders that it feeds things to on both sides.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

This is huge news.

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

Who?

[Vulcan]

The thing that made me first equate Fox News with Pravda was it's outright lying and misleading of their news while being an organ for the Bush administration. At least Pravda made no bones about being the official organ of the Central Commitee so Russians and other comrades of the Communist states knew exactly where it was coming from. In it's news entertainment format it sucks in the people who want the flash, mostly the uneducated or naive who think they are actually getting the low down and don't differentiate between news and opinion and government fed propaganda. After all we grew up listening to Cronkite and others who we trusted. For those who think the electorate isn't uneducated and naive, they elected Bush twice and it isn't much if any better in Canada.
I do believe that we citizens deserve better reporting whether it comes from the left or the right. It seems these organizations no longer feel any responsibility and play fast and loose when ever it suits them and or it will bring better ratings.

[onetwo_threefour]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Judging by the ratings Fox news is reflecting the majority of the population.

Remember these talking point were allegedly given to the commentators not the news anchors. Hannity and Comes and the Spin Zone are not and never have presented themselves as the 6 o'clock news.

Are you contending that FOX News outdraws all the 'biased' media outlets combined? That's the only way you might make the argument that FOX reflects the majority.

BTW, Vulcan, my comment about Pravda was with regard to my earlier post. I think mine was the first post equating Pravda and FOX and my comment was about that so it wasn't directed at you.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

Are you contending that FOX News outdraws all the 'biased' media outlets combined? That's the only way you might make the argument that FOX reflects the majority.

Well, I don't know about 'recent' ratings, but Fox News was outdrawing every other news source during Bush's first term. I think it continued into the second term as well.

O'Rielly was one of the biggest reasons why. Hannity and Colmes was pretty popular too.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Well, I don't know about 'recent' ratings, but Fox News was outdrawing every other news source during Bush's first term. I think it continued into the second term as well.

O'Rielly was one of the biggest reasons why. Hannity and Colmes was pretty popular too.

Maybe, but what ottf is saying is that that's not the same as a "majority." That's some of that "new math" Calgaryborn is using in making that claim.

They may well have a "plurality" of viewers. But I'd be hesitant about concluding even that from ratings. Or that all of those viewers are ideologically in lock-step with Fox.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Maybe, but what ottf is saying is that that's not the same as a "majority." That's some of that "new math" Calgaryborn is using in making that claim.

They may well have a "plurality" of viewers. But I'd be hesitant about concluding even that from ratings. Or that all of those viewers are ideologically in lock-step with Fox.

Certainly not. I must have misunderstood what he was saying.

They had/have the highest ratings, but that doesn't represent the 'majority' of the people. You gotta remember that O'Rielly was so popular because he would say stuff that was over the top to draw an audience. Well, it worked.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Mike F

Let's see if this analogy brings it home.

If I wanted to write a paper on evolution I could:

(a) collect the writings of some researchers and authors whose views I agreed with and write my own report based on them in my own words, using my own narative, opinions and ideas, put my name on that and hand it in; or

(b) find one writing I like, copy it out word for word, put my name on it and hand it in.

Both have me forwarding the same ideas, but (b) is intellectually dishonest, and it is a big deal if I'm caught doing (b).

It's not a perfect analogy, but it gets the point across, IMO.

Great. As long as you realize that your book is going on a shelf with many other like-books.

And Rouge, I hear what you're saying. When they call themselves FOX NEWS, they should actually give the news. But you'd have to be an idiot not to see that Fox News is nothing more than a propaganda channel. It's like watching the E! channel. It's a bunch of crap. If you actually think the word NEWS means anything, then... well... OK.

I guess it's back to square one. I still don't consider this newsworthy because I don't trust any media outlet.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

BTW, Vulcan, my comment about Pravda was with regard to my earlier post. I think mine was the first post equating Pravda and FOX and my comment was about that so it wasn't directed at you.

It's good that we're like minded with Fox but this isn't the first thread where Fox has been equated to Pravda. I think this was the first post, dated almost a year ago. As they say 'there is nothing new under the sun'. Post #18

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...vda#post974644

[onetwo_threefour]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Great. As long as you realize that your book is going on a shelf with many other like-books.

And Rouge, I hear what you're saying. When they call themselves FOX NEWS, they should actually give the news. But you'd have to be an idiot not to see that Fox News is nothing more than a propaganda channel. It's like watching the E! channel. It's a bunch of crap. If you actually think the word NEWS means anything, then... well... OK.

I guess it's back to square one. I still don't consider this newsworthy because I don't trust any media outlet.

And why don't you trust media? Because of crap like this. Not only is this public acknowledgement of media bias newsworthy, it should start a major political discourse on the appropriate limits on relationships between media and political parties. Especially when a party is in power. (btw, this goes both ways.)

[4X4]

Well, I didn't mean to sound dramatic about 'not trusting media', but no, I don't. I guess it's because I grew up in Calgary where the newspapers slant right and the CBC slants left and basically, if you want to form your own opinion, you can't rely on one source. QR77, CBC1, Calgary Herald, Calgary Sun, CTV, G&M....

It happens everywhere. The fact that Fox News recites GOP propaganda is not a surprise. To me. The fact that it is now a fact is noteworthy, I suppose. I'm just surprised that anyone is surprised that Fox News is a GOP patsy. I guess we are close enough to the same point that I'll just shut up now.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by 4X4

And Rouge, I hear what you're saying. When they call themselves FOX NEWS, they should actually give the news. But you'd have to be an idiot not to see that Fox News is nothing more than a propaganda channel.

That's painting an awful lot of people an "idiot".

I always did consider them a Republican mouthpiece, but I didn't actually think they literally were repeating exactly what the government told them to say. I did give them the credit of coming to their own conclusions, as wrong as I thought those conclusions might be.

You don't seem to think this is newsworthy, like it's run of the mill stuff, but it isn't run of the mill. The reason this revelation makes the news is because it is news. This kind of thing is not supposed to happen. We can bitch and moan that they all have their agendas and political leanings, but they are not supposed to do this kind of thing and they normally do not do it.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Well, I didn't mean to sound dramatic about 'not trusting media', but no, I don't. I guess it's because I grew up in Calgary where the newspapers slant right and the CBC slants left and basically, if you want to form your own opinion, you can't rely on one source. QR77, CBC1, Calgary Herald, Calgary Sun, CTV, G&M....

It happens everywhere. The fact that Fox News recites GOP propaganda is not a surprise. To me. The fact that it is now a fact is noteworthy, I suppose. I'm just surprised that anyone is surprised that Fox News is a GOP patsy. I guess we are close enough to the same point that I'll just shut up now.

When I grew up in Vancouver the Sun was Liberal and the Province was Conservative and they both hated the NDP. Pretty much the same when I came to Calgary. The Herald [same publisher as the Vancouver Sun] was Liberal and the Albertan was Conservative but they didn't hate the NDP as much as they weren't as much of a threat. The Calgary Sun took over the Albertan and put their own way out brand of conservativeness on it and after a few years, it didn't seem that crazy anymore although it was still nutso. The readers without realizing it had shifted right and the Herald had to shift with the city, so now you have two right wing papers. Fox News has been doing the same thing to the States and now even their left is right and they're tripping over their own feet.

It isn't so much that Fox is a spokesman for neo-cons it's that they have become an arm of this government, no pretense of reporting the news, just flat out lies and knowing misinterpretations for what ever suits their purpose, whether it's brainwashing the people or getting ratings for maximum advertizing revenue.
Must be great to, for all intents and purposes, own your own News station so you don't have to woo it but merely tell it what to do.
What I'm trying to get at is that this goes far beyond bias. At one time political candidates used to woo the media for their endorsement as it meant something, now it just means that you own the media. There has to be a separation of state and the media or it's not a democracy.

[Flash Walken]

What kind of benefit is Fox News receiving out of this? Exclusivity? Is there more backroom dealing than we know about?

They've got to be getting something more out of this.

News Corp has done a lot of expanding during the last 8 years...

This new information brings those questions to light.

[HOZ]

Was this about Foxnews or about the overblown windbags called O'Reilly and Hannity getting talking points from the administration?

O'Reilly and Hannity are not the news. And he (1:44) did say "I would separate the journalists because the journalists that I worked with tried to report the news just like the rest of the White House press corp. that were just trying to report the news"

But what do I know? I have only watched Foxnews 6 times in my life.

[onetwo_threefour]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Was this about Foxnews or about the overblown windbags called O'Reilly and Hannity getting talking points from the administration?

O'Reilly and Hannity are not the news. And he (1:44) did say "I would separate the journalists because the journalists that I worked with tried to report the news just like the rest of the White House press corp. that were just trying to report the news"

But what do I know? I have only watched Foxnews 6 times in my life.

That's a legitimate point. However it still reeks when even a news commentary show takes this approach, especially on the network that explicitly sold itself as an alternative to traditional 'biased' sources. I guess substitung one bias for another is an 'alternative' but it's kind of like the US government's case for the Iraq war, it's not what was advertised, and everybody who didn't trust it turned out to be right.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Alright, I'll concede defeat in this debate if the question is whether anybody has ever admitted that CBC actually regurgitates word-for-word from the Liberal horse's mouth.

No need to concede defeat at all. The relationship between the Liberal Party and the CBC is very much not on the up and up and raises the same issues of impartiality of that particular news organization just as much or more so than FOX news.

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=253554

[HotHotHeat]

I just added Fox News to my channel subscriptions . I need to see first hand what all this is about.

EDIT: So far I've laughed out loud 3 times in about 20 minutes. The bit on Trump's hair was great...Such important news.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

I just added Fox News to my channel subscriptions . I need to see first hand what all this is about.

EDIT: So far I've laughed out loud 3 times in about 20 minutes. The bit on Trump's hair was great...Such important news.

My parents are news junkies. When I came back to Canada last year, I lived at home for a few months until I found a place. Every day the TV would be left on some news channel, so I've seen my fair share of the ridiculous things they "cover" on Fox. Like Anna Nicole Smith. Such important news. And that loser with the bow tie - I want to punch him in the face.
I don't know how anyone can take that channel seriously. I can't believe my parents pay for it.
Of course, CNN isn't much better. They're just as annoyingly one dimensional. Whatever is the topic of the day, they drone on and on about it. OMG! Britney cut her hair!!1! Lindsay got drunk in public and flashed her cootch!!1! Paris made another sex tape!!1!!

I remember in 94 during the OJ trial my dad just left the tv on CNN 24/7 so that whenever he walked by or sat down to watch a little telly, the tv was already yapping as he walked in the room. I think that is why I'm not a tv watcher. And why I moved out about 13 seconds after high school.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

That's a legitimate point. However it still reeks when even a news commentary show takes this approach, especially on the network that explicitly sold itself as an alternative to traditional 'biased' sources. I guess substitung one bias for another is an 'alternative' but it's kind of like the US government's case for the Iraq war, it's not what was advertised, and everybody who didn't trust it turned out to be right.

Wanna put money down on Olbermann getting some of his talking points from the Democratic Party?