Can Fox News be trusted?

[Question Everything]

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.�

http://www.readersupportednews.org/off- ... t-made-upq

[rreppy]

The damning point, though, is that they don't call themselves "Fox Opinion Hour"; they call themselves "Fox NEWS", and that makes it a deliberate lie. All the right-wingers I know who watch it genuinely think they are getting their "news" from it.
Personally, I go to BBC online to get my news about America, because at least they don't have a particular agenda.

[His Name Is John]

The damning point, though, is that they don't call themselves "Fox Opinion Hour"; they call themselves "Fox NEWS", and that makes it a deliberate lie. All the right-wingers I know who watch it genuinely think they are getting their "news" from it.
Personally, I go to BBC online to get my news about America, because at least they don't have a particular agenda.

BBC news does have a bit of an agenda, but it isn't party political.

[Choir Loft]

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.�

http://www.readersupportednews.org/off- ... t-made-upq

TO QUESTIONEVERYTHING who wrote,"Oh, you can''t get through seminary and come out believing in God!" current pastor who is a closet atheist quoted by Daniel Dennett.

Well hot diggity dog, here is someone who blames God for the B.S. in seminary. I did my masters work in theology in seminary and am here to testify that it was the people there that were full of lies, not God. In fact, at the end of the experience I trusted God more and church less. Somebody has his glasses on backwards.

- - - - - - -
The six corporations that collectively control U.S. media today are;
Time Warner, Walt Disney, Viacom, Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., CBS Corporation and NBC Universal.

In 1983, fifty corporations dominated most of every mass medium and the biggest media merger in history was a $340 million deal.
n 1987, the fifty companies had shrunk to twenty-nine.
n 1990, the twenty-nine had shrunk to twenty three.
n 1997, the biggest firms numbered ten and involved the $19 billion Disney-ABC deal, at the time the biggest media merger ever.
[In 2000] AOL Time Warnerís $350 billion merged corporation [was] more than 1,000 times larger [than the biggest deal of 1983].

--Ben H. Bagdikian, The Media Monopoly, Sixth Edition, (Beacon Press, 2000), pp. xxóxxi

Today, six colossal media giants tower over all the rest. Much of the information in the chart below comes from mediaowners.com.
The list below reveals only a small fraction of the media outlets that these six behemoths actually own....

Time Warner
Home Box Office (HBO)
Time Inc.
Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.
Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.
CW Network (partial ownership)
TMZ
New Line Cinema
Time Warner Cable
Cinemax
Cartoon Network
TBS
TNT
America Online
MapQuest
Moviefone
Castle Rock
Sports Illustrated
Fortune
Marie Claire
People Magazine

Walt Disney
ABC Television Network
Disney Publishing
ESPN Inc.
Disney Channel
SOAPnet
A&E
Lifetime
Buena Vista Home Entertainment
Buena Vista Theatrical Productions
Buena Vista Records
Disney Records
Hollywood Records
Miramax Films
Touchstone Pictures
Walt Disney Pictures
Pixar Animation Studios
Buena Vista Games
Hyperion Books

Viacom
Paramount Pictures
Paramount Home Entertainment
Black Entertainment Television (BET)
Comedy Central
Country Music Television (CMT)
Logo
MTV
MTV Canada
MTV2
Nick Magazine
Nick at Nite
Nick Jr.
Nickelodeon
Noggin
Spike TV
The Movie Channel
TV Land
VH1

News Corporation (Rupert Murdoch)
Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Fox Television Stations
The New York Post
Fox Searchlight Pictures
Beliefnet
Fox Business Network
Fox Kids Europe
Fox News Channel
Fox Sports Net
Fox Television Network
FX
My Network TV
MySpace
News Limited News
Phoenix InfoNews Channel
Phoenix Movies Channel
Sky PerfecTV
Speed Channel
STAR TV India
STAR TV Taiwan
STAR World
Times Higher Education Supplement Magazine
Times Literary Supplement Magazine
Times of London
20th Century Fox Home Entertainment
20th Century Fox International
20th Century Fox Studios
20th Century Fox Television
BSkyB
DIRECTV
The Wall Street Journal
Fox Broadcasting Company
Fox Interactive Media
FOXTEL
HarperCollins Publishers
The National Geographic Channel
National Rugby League
News Interactive
News Outdoor
Radio Veronica
ReganBooks
Sky Italia
Sky Radio Denmark
Sky Radio Germany
Sky Radio Netherlands
STAR
Zondervan

CBS Corporation
CBS News
CBS Sports
CBS Television Network
CNET
Showtime
TV.com
CBS Radio Inc. (130 stations)
CBS Consumer Products
CBS Outdoor
CW Network (50% ownership)
Infinity Broadcasting
Simon & Schuster (Pocket Books, Scribner)
Westwood One Radio Network

NBC Universal
Bravo
CNBC
NBC News
MSNBC
NBC Sports
NBC Television Network
Oxygen
SciFi Magazine
Syfy (Sci Fi Channel)
Telemundo
USA Network
Weather Channel
Focus Features
NBC Universal Television Distribution
NBC Universal Television Studio
Paxson Communications (partial ownership)
Trio
Universal Parks & Resorts
Universal Pictures
Universal Studio Home Video

These gigantic media corporations do not exist to objectively tell the truth to the American people.
Rather, the primary purpose of their existence is to make money.

but that's just me, hollering from the choir loft....

[dianaiad]

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.�

http://www.readersupportednews.org/off- ... t-made-upq

Question Everything...it might be a good idea if you questioned some of your own preconceptions.

For instance, "Media Matters" is a far left wing ideological group. They don't even TRY to be balanced.

For instance, Media Matters didn't have diddly squat to say about Dan Rather and his forged paperwork, or any of the other funny business committed by the folks they perceive as thinking the correct thoughts.

On the other hand, we have a three year study by a group from UCLA, who found out that the most unbiased NEWS programs were"NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third. Britt Hume's program on Fox News turned out to be a great deal closer to the center than any OTHER news outlet, being far closer to 'center' (measured by how politicians and other people vote) than they are. IN fact, this study finds that the vast majority of media outlets are far, far, FAR left of center.

So, in a way Fox News is to the right---if you figure that left wing socialists represent the 'centrist' position. If, however, you are using the average American position? Smack dab in the center.

Now this study measured only the news programs, not the opinion bits--which is why, for instance, 'The Wall Street Journal' measured considerably left of center.

On the other hand, it turns out that everybody BUT Fox broadcasts ONLY left wing opinion programs, which puts the general run of media is biased so far to the left it should be using British road rules.

OH. almost forgot; here's the study.

[Furrowed Brow]

Seems to be news output should not be about left or right. It would be about fierce critical methodology applied to everything leaving no stone left unturned. We don’t get this.

I think the DNA of any journalist should be a healthy dose of cynical anti-establishment. We don’t get this.

If the establishment is left they should be cynical, if the establishment is right they should be cynical. Without that all you get is establishment conceits normalised and passed off as truths. We get his.

I have onyly managed to see clips of Fox on youtube and it does look pretty dreadful. But then I have been pulling my hair out more and more over the BBC which is in flight towards blandness and pap.

For my money RT, Press TV, Al jazeera are streaks ahead of the mainstream. I moslty watch RT, and Press TV is now banned in the UK.

So I guess it comes down to whether folk want news output to reflect their own basic biases, or ones that challenge them to wake up. The BBC as far as I can see is presently trying not to worry or upset anyone or offend the powers that be. Fox news seems to me on the limited evidence I have to be wanting to protect the US sense of itself as either a great nation, or that it was once a great nation and needs to get back to what made it great. In doing so it perpetuates uncritical and unreflective thinking. But Murdoch is a business man. He will give you the news you want to buy.

[His Name Is John]

For my money RT, Press TV, Al jazeera are streaks ahead of the mainstream. I moslty watch RT, and Press TV is now banned in the UK.

I used to watch Press TV sometimes.

Very interesting view on things.

When was it banned? And why?

[Furrowed Brow]

For my money RT, Press TV, Al jazeera are streaks ahead of the mainstream. I moslty watch RT, and Press TV is now banned in the UK.

I used to watch Press TV sometimes.

Very interesting view on things.

When was it banned? And why?

It was banned early this year.

Here is a link to an articel in The Telegraph

I smell a rat. If you notice their licence was revoked for failing to agree a proposal from Ofcom who wanted the editorial decisions and the office where the company registered to be the same i.e. either in Iran or in the UK. Sounds like a a thin excuse to me.

As you say they get into some interesting stuff. What companies like Press TV offer is an alternative view and harder crititicism of the UK government then you would get from BBC or Sky or ITV.

[Choir Loft]

Seems to be news output should not be about left or right. It would be about fierce critical methodology applied to everything leaving no stone left unturned. We don’t get this.

I think the DNA of any journalist should be a healthy dose of cynical anti-establishment. We don’t get this.

If the establishment is left they should be cynical, if the establishment is right they should be cynical. Without that all you get is establishment conceits normalised and passed off as truths. We get his.

I have onyly managed to see clips of Fox on youtube and it does look pretty dreadful. But then I have been pulling my hair out more and more over the BBC which is in flight towards blandness and pap.

For my money RT, Press TV, Al jazeera are streaks ahead of the mainstream. I moslty watch RT, and Press TV is now banned in the UK.

So I guess it comes down to whether folk want news output to reflect their own basic biases, or ones that challenge them to wake up. The BBC as far as I can see is presently trying not to worry or upset anyone or offend the powers that be. Fox news seems to me on the limited evidence I have to be wanting to protect the US sense of itself as either a great nation, or that it was once a great nation and needs to get back to what made it great. In doing so it perpetuates uncritical and unreflective thinking. But Murdoch is a business man. He will give you the news you want to buy.

Dear FurrowedBrow:
I admit to agreement with you on the domestic political filter through which Americans have been forced to view the world. Politics has its place and no place is better served than the forum of news. Media coverage shouldn't be left or right, but it is. That being said I think most folks realize most of what we're watching is talking heads telling us how to think. It's editorializing masquerading as journalism.

You also wrote, "I think the DNA of any journalist should be a healthy dose of cynical anti-establishment. We don’t get this." We don't get it because in the USA a journalist can be jailed for reporting anything which embarrasses the government or reveals illegal government activity. The big news corporations don't stand behind their reporters any more and as a result all of them are running scared. There is no such thing as freedom of the press in America. Not any more. One of the first institutions to be crushed under the heels of an autocratic state is truthful journalism. A few examples should suffice to establish my point.

Google Daniel Ellsberg.

In the early 1970s Mr. Ellsberg was responsible for obtaining what was euphemistically called The Pentagon Papers. They revealed information that President Lyndon Johnson and military leaders already knew; that the United States could not win the war in Viet Nam. Nevertheless the pentagon continued the battles, costing thousands of American and Vietnamese lives and untold property damage as a result. A lot of big shots made a bucketload of money, though.

Ellsberg submitted his documents to the New York Times, which had to go all the way to the US Supreme Court to obtain permission to print. Would the Times do that today? Not so much, I think. Such legal wrestling is expensive and risky and no big company wants to back their sources any more. Hence the lack of intestinal fortitude in journalism. In addition, the government of the US has developed more subversive methods to quiet the opposition in the press. We'll get to that later.

Google Woodward & Bernstein.

Reporters for the Washington Post uncovered a Republican scheme to subvert the reelection of President Richard Nixon. At several points in the investigation Woodward and Bernstein feared physical reprisal from the government. They feared for their lives, but the Post backed them up at every step. There was more going on than Nixons' political gamesmanship, however illegal his measures might have been. Involvement with organized crime, illegal campaign contributions, and creepy goings on with former enemies in the leadership of Communist China were all on the plate. Most Americans were bored with the stories, but those who watched the news industry began to see great changes in the way things were done. Woodward and Bernstein wouldn't make it today. They'd simply be accused of some heinous crime and fired, possibly followed by jail time. American repression is a lot more sophisticated than it used to be.

Google Julian Assange

Anyone who has perused the pages of wikileaks has been shocked and outraged at some of the stuff that this publisher has broadcast about American war crimes and atrocities in the middle east. Whatever opinion one may have about Mr. Assange's personal character or motivations, one must acknowledge one thing to get a clear picture of what's going on in modern journalism.

Mr. Assange is a publisher. A bearer of bad tidings I admit, but a publisher. Unlike the New York Times and the Washington Post which prints their stories, wikileaks is electronic. All three, however, are publishers. The US government hated that the Times published Ellsberg's material and Nixon resigned from America's highest political office because of the Post's stories. The Times and the Post are publishers. Assange is also a publisher.

The difference today is that Assange is on the razor's edge, almost but not quite beyond the reach of American hegemony in the world press. The US government is employing all its well developed methods of journalistic intimidation in its battle against Assange's revelations that American troops have been involved in hundreds of atrocities and war crimes in the middle east wars. It's common knowledge that in the first three years of the Iraqi war more than 240 instances of war crimes were reported to the UN international oversight committees. Did Americans care? Nope. Assange published some of these stories in detail with photos and video. Is he a criminal? Maybe. Maybe not. But what he IS at the root of it all, is a publisher. Think about the effects this has upon individual journalists who are the 'boots on the ground' when it comes to uncovering government dirt. It's not good, that's for sure.

If anyone wonders why US news is so politically oriented and has little or no real meat to it, one doesn't have to go very far to understand why. Given the dumbing down of Americans in general and the suppression of truth overall, we now find ourselves in a literacy trap.

The Russian news sources Pravda and Isvestia literally mean 'truth' and 'news' in English. In the days of the Soviet Union, Russian citizens used to say that there was no truth in Pravda and no news in Isvestia. The same can now be said of American news outlets. There's no real difference between PBS, FOX or CNN because there's no real news -or- truth, only assent to the Democrats or Republicans, dual heads of the same snake.

But most of us have the internet (for now). Most international news sources are equally quashed by their respective governments, but the truth does tend to leak out between the cracks. The earnest reader just has to be there to find the truth, oozing out like tiny droplets of water in the deserts of political influence. Such droplets of truth are worth more to some than gold. I know they are to me.

but that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...

[His Name Is John]

It was banned early this year.

Here is a link to an articel in The Telegraph

I smell a rat. If you notice their licence was revoked for failing to agree a proposal from Ofcom who wanted the editorial decisions and the office where the company registered to be the same i.e. either in Iran or in the UK. Sounds like a a thin excuse to me.

As you say they get into some interesting stuff. What companies like Press TV offer is an alternative view and harder crititicism of the UK government then you would get from BBC or Sky or ITV.

I have noticed our national press becoming much more pro-western recently.

You are right about why they were banned, it doesn't sound right.

I guess having someone not biased towards our nation is not something the government want.

[new friend]

I am a Brit so am more than aware of Murdoch's attitudes and agenda. You might be aware of the situation in the UK where, at long last, we seem to be prepared to take him on.

The short answer is no. You cannot trust anything which comes out of a Murdoch controlled company, but especially Fox. It panders to every type of right wing prejudice and just reinforces some of the more stupid and regressive political views which seem to be held by so many naive Americans.

If you want your hatred massaged watch Fox. If you want news, watch the BBC.