Forum Home | Login

CrispE

Join Date 05/2003

The Dangers of Being "Outfoxed"

OR: The Difference Between Editting and Reporting the News...

I attended a recent showing of "Outfoxed" which was billed by those that I had heard speak of it as a left wing attempt at bashing Rupert Murdoch and Foxnews for right wing bias in editting the news to fit the propoganda mechanism that is the current right wing administration. There were descriptions that included "poor quality filming and camera work" as well as "editting issues" that made the film in part unwatchable. However, the film raises several issues that should be considered regardless of your political persuasion because the issue of news reporting is central in a republic to the decision making process of the people.

Thomas Jefferson (who as President received criticsm quite often, sometimes very undeserved) said that the country was better off with a "free press and not a free government" than vice-versa. What Jefferson meant by a free press was that the media that reports the news should take a critical eye to what government did to ensure that the people were getting both sides of the argument the government would present.

Governments have their own information dissemanation methods including spokespeople to voice their own points of view as well as contacts within the "edittorial community" (the talking heads and pundits who bombard us with their opinions of what the personalities of politics are doing). The news organizations then must take pains to scrutinize the information provided as well as digging nto the issues that face us and present us with all sides.

The history of propoganda in the world is full of examples of when the press does not take on the aspect of presenting the public with a well rounded look at issues. Consider PRAVDA in the old Soviet Union. The purpose of PRAVDA was to tell the people that the Soviet Union was the best place in the world, everything was getting better and better and say problems were temporary and that sooner rather than later everyone would be living the good life. All people needed to do was what the government thought was best for them, not question, and accept that their sacrifice was worthwhile.

Is this the argument Outfoxed makes? It certainly takes Fox, fox reporters and producers and personalities (Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Brit Hume) to task for multiple occurences of bias in mixing opinion with news until the line between the two are so blurred that the viewer would be hard pressed to tell where one starts and the other ends. But further, it illustrates the connection between making money by all news organizations and content of broadcasts. This includes the major networks as well as CNN.

Many of you might think (as I did at one time) that CNN was the balance to Fox but this is now in question in my own mind because the methods of "spinning" that Fox is often accused of are widespread on CNN in an attempt to keep advertising dollars that might leave with lower ratings. So, does that mean that the advertisers are really in control of the news media and the ultimate determination of what we see and how we see it?

To answer this you have to ask yourself what the advertisers want you to see. Do they want you to question the government? Is uncertainty in the future to their advantage? Do you buy more stuff when you feel good or unsure?

Personally I think that the smoke and mirrors in the stock market may be the best indication of this. Consider the unemployment rate and the increases we have seen in inflation and unrest and the world and there does seem to be a disconnect between the reality and how the news is portrayed in the media. Questioning by all news sources is muted and we are constantly reminded that the new car, house, and job are just around the corner.

Remind you of anything?

politics

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-liberalmedia.htm

This article makes some of the same arguments you are currently making from that movie. Its scary stuff all around. And as I've come to learn over the past few months, presenting two sides does not a balanced story make.

Successfully updated karma reason!

historyishere:

At least we're talking about it. Most are blindly watching and assuming that it must be the truth if ______ says it is. But the "truth" is rarely simple. My favorite is the PRAVDA article of a Russian-American car race in the late 60's. PRAVDA reported the result as the American car finishing next to last and the Russian finishing 2nd. That's true..... BUT

Successfully updated karma reason!

Good points, the media (press) has a civic duty to it's viewers it abandoned a long time ago to pick up the ratings ball...

Successfully updated karma reason!

I actually bought the "Outfoxed" DVD and have been sharing it with friends. I found it edifying and, frankly, chilling. What really terrifies me is that Fox News still has a fanatical viewer support base that somehow sees past the slant.

More and more I feel the need for "meta-news" programs that enhance viewers' media literacy by revealing and explaining the tactics of the news media. Both the "Outfoxed" video and The Daily Show do this very well, sometimes just by running back to back clips from news media that show formulas and bias. Do I think such "meta-news" can or should be ideologically neutral? Well, that's probably not entirely possible. But even a biased analysis of the news can make us more aware of the taken-for-granted tactics of contemporary journalism.

Recently, The Daily Show did a piece that questioned the role of reporters' "objectivity" (specifically in regards to the Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth controversy). The central question was whether a reporter's objectivity involves assessing the facticity of claims independently or whether a journalist's objectivity is demonstrated by giving both/all sides equal opportunity to speak regardless of the truth-value of the claim. In other words, I can claim the President is a transvestite alien from Mars and, despite all the evidence to the contrary (seriously!), some folks view of unbiased journalism is that I get equal time to make my case. Seems like that is an incredible recipe for distraction and obfuscation.

Bottom line: I think FNC is bad but I am not sure that CNN and others are much better. They seem to refute the idea that the media balances itself . And yeah, I think the corporate influence on the news through advertising dollars is a problem.

Successfully updated karma reason!

An example of the "OutFoxed" effect is MSNBC hiring Joe Scarborough who is a copycat of Bill O'Reilly.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Draginol

Join Date 03/2001

+137

Do you WATCH Fox News?

O'Reilly, Hannity and Colmes are both editorial shows. I.e. OPINION shows.

Shawn Hannity is a far right conservative. Alan Colmes, the co-host is a liberal. They don't claim to be unbiased.

There is no evidence that the hard news portions of Fox News (which is the vast majority of the air time) has a partisan bent.

If you want to watch propaganda, watch some of the stuff on PBS or listen to NPR during the day.

Successfully updated karma reason!

cactoblasta

Join Date 04/2004

+48

In Australia we have a media program called MediaWatch that has a sort of oversight role. It tends to pick on the Murdoch press more than anyone else, but then again Murdoch news tends to have a greater tendency towards newstainment than anyone else. Everyone who's anyone in the media or the government watches it, because nearly always it's the show that breaks the big stories of media perversion. It's only 15 minutes, but it has a significant role in defining the critical rankings of programs. Of course the average person doesn't watch it, but those who do can see the biases, inaccuracies and outright lies that are often the norm for the media. They have a special talent for getting leaked internal memos which can be quite funny at times.

Successfully updated karma reason!

If you want to watch propaganda, watch some of the stuff on PBS or listen to NPR during the day.

By propaganda you mean conservative, right? NPR is a conservative media outlet too. A study by FAIR discovered that Republican on-air consultants outnumbered Democrats nearly 3:2.
See Link

Successfully updated karma reason!

Draginol

Join Date 03/2001

+137

If you think NPR is a conservative media outlet then you must be soooooo soooooo left wing that Democrats and socialists probably seem conservative to you.

Oh wait, you think FAIR is a non-partisan group don't you? Yes, FAIR is non partisan in the same sense that Michael Moore is.

If you read other FAIR "studies", CBS, CNN, ABC, and of course FOX are all against the Democrats.

I'll say it again: Do you WATCH these shows? Or listen to them in the case of NPR? I do every day. I can tell you the line up of NPR or FoxNews or MSNBC off the top of my head. I can tell you which hosts are conservative, which ones are moderate and which ones are liberal. None of them are particularly partisan. But NPR is more left than FoxNews is right.

Successfully updated karma reason!

It's good that we have media watchdog groups, but not if they're as biased as the outlets they watch supposedly are. Who will police the police?

Successfully updated karma reason!

If you read other FAIR "studies", CBS, CNN, ABC, and of course FOX are all against the Democrats

Spin, spin, spin. Not "against the Democrats," but conservative.

Draginol, I have continually read your posts and have discovered that you refuse to accept facts that don't support your case.

I can tell you which hosts are conservative, which ones are moderate and which ones are liberal

The issue is not whether the hosts are conservative, it's the contributing commentators, professional experts and guests. NPR was created as an alternative to commercially-driven mainstream media--however if you examine who is contributing on-air to NPR it is comprised principally of mainstream journalists, pundits and reporters (NY Times, Washington Post, etc.).

Do you WATCH these shows? Or listen to them in the case of NPR? I do every day. I can tell you the line up of NPR or FoxNews or MSNBC off the top of my head

Good lord! Please, get out of the house more often. Take a walk. Read a book.
For fair and balanced, watch FoxNews (on the right), then follow it with some DemocracyNow! (left) www.democracynow.org
Have a nice day!

Successfully updated karma reason!

Spin, spin, spin. Not "against the Democrats," but conservative.

Yes, they are conservative to a liberal media watch group.

For fair and balanced, watch FoxNews (on the right), then follow it with some DemocracyNow! (left)

Is FOX News really as shamelessly conservative as DemocracyNow! is shamelessly liberal?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Draginol:

First, yes, I watch Fox as well as the others. One of the things that I do as a stockmarket analyzer is watch news (most of the day, in fact), My impression is that Fox is conservative in it's spin all day. The morning team there is especially reverent to the President and most of the day is spent deadpanning that democrats are evil and need "stopping".

NPR, on the other hand, has no advertising needs since it is publickly and government supported. What I am trying to point out is that ratings sell products, the Fox model of reporting is successful, therefore it is being adopted by many networks and programs. Why would the advertisers ever want you to think things are bad?

If you, as director of Joeuser were having problems with the site and were in danger of losing it, would you tell us? To what purpose?

I'm not about liberal and conservative. I'm about spinning the news and blurring the line between opinion and facts. If there is a blur (and that is what is becoming the norm) we are all losers because truth is blurred by spin.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Daiwa

Join Date 07/2001

+351

Frankly, I don't think the problem, as it were, is quite as you state it.

Before Fox, the media were liberally biased while pretending not to be. Although, I haven't seen Outfoxed, I have watched a lot of O'Reilly, H&C and Hume. I'm sure any dolt could do a cut & paste hatchet job on any news organization & make it look foolish (F9/11 did the political equivalent), so the notion that Outfoxed is somehow insightful or enlightening seems a bit overdone. But I digress.

For reporting to be biased, by definition it has to be presented in such a way as to make one or the other side of an issue look bad, while maintaining a facade of neutrality of the part of the reporter (or news organization). There is no such facade with Fox News - any viewer who doesn't understand the conservative leanings of most of the opinion show hosts just isn't paying attention since they are pretty explicit about it. No facade, by definition no "bias." Bias is the wrong word, but the one we're stuck with.

O'Reilly pisses off the right almost as much as he pisses off the left, so he can't be fairly classified a far right-winger. I'll also give Colmes points for doing a pretty good job lately of holding some conservatives' nuts to the fire. And having to listen to Juan Williams, for crying out loud. So to say that the Fox News opinion shows are strictly far right is stretching the point. Do they lean that way? No question. But I think they've given viewers advocates for political points of view that went largely unrepresented in "mainstream" media before (except perhaps for Bill Buckley's show - wouldn't it be great if he still had his hand in?) and many people seem to have responded by watching. If that sells more Miller Light, so be it.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Successfully updated karma reason!

I think if Bill Buckley was still kicking around the tube, I doubt most of these other pundits wouldn't be around... I mean, how could they compete with him... he was an oratorical master.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I watch the O'Reily Factor at least once a week and I read his first book. From my experience watching it, it is a very conservative show. Here are the topics he's gone through...

•Koch: I'm Voting for Bush
-A former Democrat blasts Kerry and the Dems.
•Att. Ginsberg on Swift Resignation
-Former SBV Lawyer comes out and says he told the White House nothing about the ads ahead of time. Neutral for most part, but looks good for Bush because one man says he didn't tell the white house about any of this.
•Swift Boats: Political Distraction or Dynamite?
-The 2 hammer Kerry for not handling the ads better make him seem incompitent.
•American Injustice: 60 Days For Child Rape
-Another ad for why we need more jails and police. Does he ever do any on how people are sent 25-Life for drug use? Or how innocent people are put away?
•Taking Sex Ed Too Far?
-Against sex ed in school, pretty conservative position.
•Iraqi Teen Helps Prevent Terror Attacks
-Call for more military action in another city.
•Abortion and Parental Rights of Notification
-Talking about the issue of parents being notified for a child's abortion., which all 3 quests agree should pass. No case against the bill is given, even by the supposed liberal.
•Does Immigration Increase Gang Activity?
-This issue is what convinces me that the "liberal" media is a myth. Everyday on these programs there is at least one segment on how there are too many Mexicans and they are destroying the country. Their solution is to militarize the neighborhoods and furhter militarize the border. Buchanon does this crap on MSNBC and CNN is following the lead. It's crap like this that makes normal people to expect the worst when they see the "profile" person of color, because these brown bodies are causing harm to their nation, as they are told. The segment doesn't even advocate against illegal immigration, it advocates for more regulation against ALL immigration. This crap gets programmed EVERY DAY in the "liberal" media.
•Red Cross Cleans Up in Charley's Aftermath
-I don't know if this is conservative or not, but it does play to the fear angle. In this case it's mother nature. One dude actually says "This is a very, very scary thing." THE APOCALYPSE IS COMING!!! :::break for commercial::: Lease a Jaguar for Zero Down and no payments till March!!! Hurray on down!!!
•Alec Baldwin: My Life Is Nobody's Business
-O'Reilly attacks Hollywood lefties and even Michael Moore a lil bit.
•What on Earth Is Happening in New Jersey?
-He actually defends the Gov., but makes an accusation that Jersey is really "Tony Saprano Land". The old unions involved with the mob ploy.
Mah, see!
•Is the Minority Media Majorly Biased?
-Has he ever had a segment on how the white media is biased? He's pretty much questioning why blacks are biased against Bush.
•Group Cries Foul on Border Control Measure
-What a shock. Another topic about the border. He spins this issue more than any other.
•Vietnam Vet Says Kerry Saved His Life
-He defends the SBV by saying they can both be right. How can they both be right if they disagree?

Almost all these topics he's gone threw are conservative in nature. He also does not say it is merely an opinion show, he says he brings out the truth with no spin. He says he brings you the topics concerning the country fairly, which he clearly stated when talking about the coverage of the Iraqi war. He's even given the President a free pass by saying he didn't lie about the WMD's in Iraq since he didn't know. That may work for Pre-School, but not the President.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Daiwa

Join Date 07/2001

+351

He's even given the President a free pass by saying he didn't lie about the WMD's in Iraq since he didn't know. That may work for Pre-School, but not the President.

Parroting Mikey. And weak.

Otherwise, you see O'Reilly correctly - he makes no bones about his conservatism. Call it spin-stopping truth-detecting, yada yada, but the fact is the points of view he brings to his show were not getting any airtime before the cable news revolution and Fox News. That was my point.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Successfully updated karma reason!

Daiwa:

You are either missing the point I'm trying to make or confusing it with bias. I don't care about bias. If a stockbroker talks about a stock for example, they have to say "I own the stock or am short the stock" but news networks like FoxNEWS don't have to do anything of the kind. When the line between news and opinion blurs AND sells products then other networks adopt the policy and we become a nation that is buying products with our news (opinion) and not a news broadcast supported by advertisers.

Advertisers NEVER want you to think there is anything bad going on in the world and so they support the military, the status quo of conservative government and the concept that you the consumer should only worry about your next new car, house, dustmop, etc. That's the threat we are really facing. That threat is real, now, and very dangerous.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Draginol

Join Date 03/2001

+137

JDJefferson:

Sorry I find it just so amusing that someone who

a) argue that the news has a conservative bias (including NPR)

Use "facts" from a left wing media watchdog group who thinks EVERYTHING has a conservative spin to it to "prove it"

c) When asked if he even watches these shows to make his own determination says "You should go out more, read a book, blah blah blah". Well, I have to watch these shows for research for a project that I was recently involved on.

And what I can tell you is that NONE of them have a significant partisan approach to their news. FOXNews is no more GOP TV than PBS is DEM TV. They all have their own tone and some of them have more conservative or liberal commentators than others but none of them are overtly partisan (none enough to justify something as profoundly manipulated as Out Foxed).

What I suggest is to actually -think for yourself-. Every time I ask for specifics, I get nothing. The best I've seen in the year of debates on this kind of thing is CrispE making vague assertions that the morning news is pro-Bush (which I don't agree with as during the Democratic convention they were pretty glowing about some of the Democratic speeches).

Consider the Fox News panel. It includes 1 person from the Washington Post, 2 people from NPR, 2 people from the Weekly Standard. One from "Roll Call" (moderate). And Brit Hume (conservative). So you've got 2 right-wingers, 1 moderate right, 2 moderates, and 2 liberals. So that's a slight right of center panel. And that's the kind of thing that the left-wingers on the net freak out about.

But on the other hand, This Week on Sunday ABC is hosted by George Stephanaplous -- Clinton's former press secretary. And their panel was more left than right (with the token George Will as the conservative).

On CNN, The Capital Gang is decidedly left wing.

HardBall with Chris Mathews tillts a bit to the left but other shows on MSNBC tilt a bit to the right.

My point is that NONE of these places are particularly left wing or right wing. They may tilt a bit one way or the other but nothing that substantial. Not enough for intelligent people to not be able to filter out the bias.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Draginol

Join Date 03/2001

+137

Rat - O'Reilly is a fiscal conservative and traditionalist. But he's liberal on quite a number of issues.

Successfully updated karma reason!

"But he's liberal on quite a number of issues. "

If you watch his show you'll find he gets belligerant email from ultra-conservatives accusing him of being Liberal and even being pro-Kerry. The problem is some people have lost all reasonable understanding of what "middle" is in the US. You are either left of center or evil.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Draginol:

It's not a vague assertion the morning crew is right wing. It is my opinion from years of watching. They cloud the line between news and opinion as much as O'Reilly and Hannity. But the point isn't the lean of the bias, it's the division between news reports selectively chosen and reported with bias versus the idea that news is entertainment rather than information reported. Do you agree that Foxnews's "Fair and Balanced" banner should be dropped?

I mean, there is much to hear and learn on Joeuser, but you don't suggest it is a "news sight" do you?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Draginol

Join Date 03/2001

+137

CrispE: The morning shows on FoxNews are along the lines of the morning shows on other networks - they're not hard news. Do you think Katie Couric isn't pretty far left-wing for instance?

The hard news, as in the actual lady at a desk reporting the news on Fox is just as hard news as anywhere else.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Draginol-

Sorry I find it just so amusing that someone who
a) argue that the news has a conservative bias (including NPR)

Use "facts" from a left wing media watchdog group who thinks EVERYTHING has a conservative spin to it to "prove it"

Facts are facts whether they come from the left or the right.

I am only making a reference to your suggestion that NPR is a "liberal" media. I have no comment on FoxNews or the others, as I don't have a TV and cannot say for myself whether any of those networks have any bias. Personally, all I know is BBC (radio), DemocracyNow! (radio), and NPR, as well as my local newspaper--of which I am fortunate to have two choices each day: The Wisconsin State Journal (on the right), and The Capitol (Madison) Times (on the left). I think BBC, because of their international base, has a more liberal bias, DemocracyNow! is definitely farther to the left (though if you ever heard Amy Goodman's [the host] interview with Bill Clinton in 2000, she ripped him a new one!), but is not afraid to attack the left when it deserves it, and NPR is pretty middle-of-the-road.
A show like DemocracyNow! can behave as it pleases and report to the left or right at will because it is not beholden to corporate sponsors. That, you must admit draginol, is where the real problem is with network news. If a network news program is "liberal" or "right-wing" it is so because of ratings and corporate influence. Just look at CBS backing down from showing the Ronald Reagan movie a few months back. Whether the movie was factually correct or a blend of fact and fiction, Viacom made sure it didn't air. It's the same reason call-in talk shows are so biased one way or the other--ratings. Ratings attract advertisers.
Fox can be as pro-right as it likes. Rush can spew for hours at a time for all I care. In the end, however, it is up the viewer (or listener, or reader) to ask themselves if there is another side of a story. Sadly, I don't think many do.
I'm not against you Draginol, I just wanted to make a point that there are other sides to an issue. Keep raising the issues and fighting the good fight, but play nice.
Thank you.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Do you agree that Foxnews's "Fair and Balanced" banner should be dropped?

You mean much in the same way Bill O'Reilly has a "No-Spin Zone".

CrispE, let's swing this back towards the original point of the article about conflicted interests. In your industry, the people you need to watch to make your analyses have at least a small vested interest in the advice they are giving you, as they may work at firms that are making profits on the very stocks they recommend or discuss. Is it unethical? Yes, of course it is. Does it stop the network from hiring them. No... because that would be bad business... you need to have someone that has experience or the illusion of experience in the field they discuss for you to have any credibility... even if that conflicts with the perception of their integrity.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.

There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting and posting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!

View all recent posts

Mark all posts as read Delete cookies created by the forum Return to Top

Stardock Forums v Server Load Time: Page Render Time: