FOX News memorandum

[HAL 9000 96]

Not totally O/T there, 6... not totally...

I do wonder in a tidbit of my own O/T... if the Red Scare can now be spun via the US Electoral process into the Red Republican Scare.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

50's Paranoia SF came out of some funky politics but the movies are pretty fun.

Quite like The Blob. Also Invaders From Mars.

[HAL 9000 96]

50's Paranoia SF came out of some funky politics but the movies are pretty fun.

Quite like The Blob. Also Invaders From Mars.

I do find it funny how some aliens are particularly fond of authoritarian systems of government with economical ideologies that place emphasis on egalitarian access to wealth under the control of said form of government...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Pretty much all the aliens and monsters from that period of Hollywood were supposed to represent the threat of communism - Invasion Of the Bodysnatchers being perhaps the best known example.

Nuclear proliferation was also a big topic as well - hence all those movies about radioactive mutants. The one about giant ants (Them!) was pretty good also.

I forget the name of it - but I saw this really interesting 50's B-Movie on DVD that was double-billed with The Last Man on Earth (the original adaptation of I Am Legend). Basically about a white American family going on a weekend camping road trip when Los Angeles is hit by a nuclear explosion.

Some interesting propaganda - basically made out that society would collapse and that everyone would go Lord of the Flies - robbing and killing each other for food and supplies.

More specifically it suggested that this is exactly what you should be doing - basically that you have a responsibility to do anything you can to survive. Even if that includes robbing the shopkeeper who won't sell you some supplies, setting fire to a busy road with gasoline so that you can move your car through and killing anyone who gets in your way.

The last line is basically a pair of cops looking admiringly at the family's camper as it drives away from a checkpoint. Something like - "there go some real americans - you know they're going to be all right".

Edited August 19, 2008 by Number 6

[dalegg 143]

Dale and Rich, you guys are obviously reasonably smart gentlemen, but you both demonstrate that even smart people as yourselves have no clue the difference between regular news and editorial news on TV. The best description I can give you is regular tv news is much like the front page of a newspaper, and the editorial tv news is like reading the editorial page. What Fox News does is blur the lines between those two, and I'm sure they're not the only ones. It seems CNN is now a Fox News wannabe...all in the name of ratings.

Steven,

You seem like a reasonably smart gentlemen yourself, but you deomonstrate that even a smart person such as yourself has the ability to read into statements things that simply aren't said and come to his own conclusion, while showing just how condenscending one individual can actually be.

Where in the world did I ever state that I felt any of the Fox News postings were regular news and NOT just editorial news?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Dale and Rich, you guys are obviously reasonably smart gentlemen, but you both demonstrate that even smart people as yourselves have no clue the difference between regular news and editorial news on TV. The best description I can give you is regular tv news is much like the front page of a newspaper, and the editorial tv news is like reading the editorial page. What Fox News does is blur the lines between those two, and I'm sure they're not the only ones. It seems CNN is now a Fox News wannabe...all in the name of ratings.

Steven,

You seem like a reasonably smart gentlemen yourself, but you deomonstrate that even a smart person such as yourself has the ability to read into statements things that simply aren't said and come to his own conclusion, while showing just how condenscending one individual can actually be.

Where in the world did I ever state that I felt any of the Fox News postings were regular news and NOT just editorial news?

Fox News is notorious for blurring the lines between editorial and news...so much so that it's as if they don't see the difference. Just look at the pics that were posted in the OP. Some of it goes beyond just sensationalism into downright irresponsible journalism.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

This is interesting...

Former Roger Ailes Confidant Dan Cooper is Ready to Spill Blood

Former Fox News architect Dan Cooper is lashing out at old bossman Roger Ailes – "a man I knew to be a schoolyard bully" – in a scathing … website post. In what's said to be the beginnings of a book, Naked Launch, Cooper's item story-tells how he's gone from member of the inner circle in the 1990s to corporate outsider, and now is as intent on destroying Ailes as Ailes is on destroying Cooper. Touche!

Back in '97, already ousted from Fox News, Cooper gave an "on background only" interview to David Brock for New York magazine about Ailes. And before the cover story even hit newsstands, Ailes had gotten wind of it, told Cooper's agent Richard Liebner (of N.S. Bienstock), and told him to drop Cooper as a client or none of Liebner's roster would ever be welcome at FNC. BECAUSE ROGER AILES KNOWS ALL! Oh, and he held a grudge against Cooper.

So Cooper left Liebner, and left New York for Los Angeles. And now he's ready to tell all. God, what we'd give for dramatic music right about now.

To be sure, the anecdotes offered are perhaps what you'd (mostly) expect about Ailes: "boys club" meetings ("How about those bazookas on that Indian girl, or whatever the hell she is!" … "pus$y masala on the menu today?"), making fun of Rupert Murdoch, admissions that he's been diagnosed as paranoid.

And what Cooper writes about FNC's operations could've been entirely fictionalized — and still entirely believable. But isn't it much sexier when it's relayed by a former insider? That, and Cooper doesn't exactly reveal why Ailes "reorganized" things to have him bounced from the company. But let's not get ahead of ourselves.

The best thing that ever happened to Roger Ailes was 9/11. Even Roger Ailes, Machiavellian as he was, couldn't have dreamed up anybody as fabulous as Usama bin Laden (Allah told Roger to spell it Usama), or UBL, as Fox News called him. Because somebody up there, or down there, loved Roger, 9/11 happened on his watch. It gave him the opportunity to throw gasoline on the bonfire he had already set to scorch and destroy traditional liberal values. For those of you under 50, the United States once had liberal values. There was even such a thing as liberal Republicans. That's enough of that, because I know talking about the Devil's spawn and blond big-boobed temptresses is far more interesting. But hang on a bit.

http://www.jossip.com/former-roger-ailes-c...blood-20080110/

Edited August 19, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[dalegg 143]

Dale and Rich, you guys are obviously reasonably smart gentlemen, but you both demonstrate that even smart people as yourselves have no clue the difference between regular news and editorial news on TV. The best description I can give you is regular tv news is much like the front page of a newspaper, and the editorial tv news is like reading the editorial page. What Fox News does is blur the lines between those two, and I'm sure they're not the only ones. It seems CNN is now a Fox News wannabe...all in the name of ratings.

Steven,

You seem like a reasonably smart gentlemen yourself, but you deomonstrate that even a smart person such as yourself has the ability to read into statements things that simply aren't said and come to his own conclusion, while showing just how condenscending one individual can actually be.

Where in the world did I ever state that I felt any of the Fox News postings were regular news and NOT just editorial news?

Fox News is notorious for blurring the lines between editorial and news...so much so that it's as if they don't see the difference. Just look at the pics that were posted in the OP. Some of it goes beyond just sensationalism into downright irresponsible journalism.

How's about I rephrase the question so I get an actual answer....?

How did I demonstrate that even a smart person like myself has no clue to the difference between regular news and editorial news on TV? Since you saw fit to be so insulting, I kind of think you owe me an explanation.

Edited August 20, 2008 by dalegg

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Dale and Rich, you guys are obviously reasonably smart gentlemen, but you both demonstrate that even smart people as yourselves have no clue the difference between regular news and editorial news on TV. The best description I can give you is regular tv news is much like the front page of a newspaper, and the editorial tv news is like reading the editorial page. What Fox News does is blur the lines between those two, and I'm sure they're not the only ones. It seems CNN is now a Fox News wannabe...all in the name of ratings.

Steven,

You seem like a reasonably smart gentlemen yourself, but you deomonstrate that even a smart person such as yourself has the ability to read into statements things that simply aren't said and come to his own conclusion, while showing just how condenscending one individual can actually be.

Where in the world did I ever state that I felt any of the Fox News postings were regular news and NOT just editorial news?

Fox News is notorious for blurring the lines between editorial and news...so much so that it's as if they don't see the difference. Just look at the pics that were posted in the OP. Some of it goes beyond just sensationalism into downright irresponsible journalism.

How's about I rephrase the question so I get an actual answer....?

How did I demonstrate that even a smart person like myself has no clue to the difference between regular news and editorial news on TV? Since you saw fit to be so insulting, I kind of think you owe me an explanation.

I was being a bit cheeky for starters...and it was directed at two people as a generality...sorry if it came off as personally insulting.

You did ask me though what I thought of Keith Olbermann after I posted the quotation regarding journalistic neutrality. Looking over the OP's screen captures from various Fox News programs, can you say with certainty which ones are news shows and which ones are clearly editorial? I sure can't. To be fair though, CNN seems to have jumped on the same bandwagon as well as MSNBC with Keith Olbermann's show. Again, I can't stand watching his program....just like I can't stand watching Neil Cavuto (Fox) or Lou Dobbs (CNN). Each show focuses on those blowhards' faces in the camera, whereas, programs like, Meet the Press (Tim Russert), Journal (Bill Moyers), and Charlie Rose focus the attention on the people they are interviewing.

But getting back to the idea of journalistic neutrality - whether it's Fox News, CNN, or MSNBC, if they are presenting a piece as news, for integrity sake, they should present opposing viewpoints with the same amount of critical scrutiny. Getting rid of those tickers or banners on the bottom of the screen would be a great improvement.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Dale and Rich, you guys are obviously reasonably smart gentlemen, but you both demonstrate that even smart people as yourselves have no clue the difference between regular news and editorial news on TV. The best description I can give you is regular tv news is much like the front page of a newspaper, and the editorial tv news is like reading the editorial page. What Fox News does is blur the lines between those two, and I'm sure they're not the only ones. It seems CNN is now a Fox News wannabe...all in the name of ratings.

Steven,

You seem like a reasonably smart gentlemen yourself, but you deomonstrate that even a smart person such as yourself has the ability to read into statements things that simply aren't said and come to his own conclusion, while showing just how condenscending one individual can actually be.

Where in the world did I ever state that I felt any of the Fox News postings were regular news and NOT just editorial news?

Fox News is notorious for blurring the lines between editorial and news...so much so that it's as if they don't see the difference. Just look at the pics that were posted in the OP. Some of it goes beyond just sensationalism into downright irresponsible journalism.

How's about I rephrase the question so I get an actual answer....?

How did I demonstrate that even a smart person like myself has no clue to the difference between regular news and editorial news on TV? Since you saw fit to be so insulting, I kind of think you owe me an explanation.

I was being a bit cheeky for starters...and it was directed at two people as a generality...sorry if it came off as personally insulting.

You did ask me though what I thought of Keith Olbermann after I posted the quotation regarding journalistic neutrality. Looking over the OP's screen captures from various Fox News programs, can you say with certainty which ones are news shows and which ones are clearly editorial? I sure can't. To be fair though, CNN seems to have jumped on the same bandwagon as well as MSNBC with Keith Olbermann's show. Again, I can't stand watching his program....just like I can't stand watching Neil Cavuto (Fox) or Lou Dobbs (CNN). Each show focuses on those blowhards' faces in the camera, whereas, programs like, Meet the Press (Tim Russert), Journal (Bill Moyers), and Charlie Rose focus the attention on the people they are interviewing.

But getting back to the idea of journalistic neutrality - whether it's Fox News, CNN, or MSNBC, if they are presenting a piece as news, for integrity sake, they should present opposing viewpoints with the same amount of critical scrutiny. Getting rid of those tickers or banners on the bottom of the screen would be a great improvement.

For the most part, the idea of "journalistic integrity" is a sham. It's a nice idea in theory, but it fails to take into account people and their own personal viewpoints and prejudices. Everyone has an agenda, especially those in the media since they're in the perfect position to influence others. More often than not, this agenda is political and slant to the right or left. There's no getting around that, unfortunately. No matter how objective you might think a news channel, program or personality is, the truth of the matter is they are probably attempting to influence you one way or the other. That's why it's up to the viewer or reader to filter through the garbage -- from all the networks, papers, magazines and so on -- and figure out what's actually newsworthy and what's simply propaganda and spin.

[dalegg 143]

You did ask me though what I thought of Keith Olbermann after I posted the quotation regarding journalistic neutrality.

So because I asked you if you thought Keith Olbermann was any better than the Fox News hosts, that means I think that the Fox News program hosts are actual reporters- okay.

Looking over the OP's screen captures from various Fox News programs, can you say with certainty which ones are news shows and which ones are clearly editorial? I sure can't.

Well first of all Stephen, you seem to be trying to change the focus of this thread.

The title is "FOX News memorandum, fair and balanced" not "FOX News memorandum; hard news only, which tells me the OP intended to show clips of Fox's bias nature in reporting to dispute the call "fair and balanced" more so than their blurring of editorialism vs telling of the news. The only exception to that is the second clip where they focused on the bikinis.

And to your point- NO, I absolutely cannot judge the context of any of the programs shown from the OPs screen captures because they represent exactly 1/30th of 1 second of each of the programs. There is no context to the screen capture to truly base what Fox's position on the issue is, who the other hosts on the program are rebutting the issue, or what exactly the main topic even is.

Even in the first video shot all that is shown is a few second blurb of each program. You have no idea what was said before the blurb or after, so to base anything at all regarding bias on these shots would be irresponsible. If you want to say they show that Fox News is not just news, then fine. Nobody is going to disagree with you there, not even Fox, but I didn't see that as being the focus of the thread.

[IAMX 3,055]

the OP intended to show clips of Fox's bias nature in reporting to dispute the call "fair and balanced" more so than their blurring of editorialism vs telling of the news. The only exception to that is the second clip where they focused on the bikinis.

Indeed, it is both. Both to show various biased nonsense, less surprisingly in their editorial news (pundit nonsense), but more surprisingly in their "informative" news bytes which are supposed to be unbiased and strictly informative, and their hypocrisy in having this ardent stand on morality while showing tits and ### (spring break) doing a report on increased crime is exactly why FOX gets the attention it deserves.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

But getting back to the idea of journalistic neutrality - whether it's Fox News, CNN, or MSNBC, if they are presenting a piece as news, for integrity sake, they should present opposing viewpoints with the same amount of critical scrutiny. Getting rid of those tickers or banners on the bottom of the screen would be a great improvement.

For the most part, the idea of "journalistic integrity" is a sham. It's a nice idea in theory, but it fails to take into account people and their own personal viewpoints and prejudices. Everyone has an agenda, especially those in the media since they're in the perfect position to influence others. More often than not, this agenda is political and slant to the right or left. There's no getting around that, unfortunately. No matter how objective you might think a news channel, program or personality is, the truth of the matter is they are probably attempting to influence you one way or the other. That's why it's up to the viewer or reader to filter through the garbage -- from all the networks, papers, magazines and so on -- and figure out what's actually newsworthy and what's simply propaganda and spin.

The agenda of a news journalist is or should be, to give the facts about an event and their choice of words can make all the difference. When describing a robbery suspect - he was wearing loose clothing, or he was dressed like a gang member. Do you see the difference? One is neutral and one implies that robber is a gang member without any factual evidence to prove it...just an observation of his clothing. And even if the robber dresses gangsta doesn't necessarily mean he's in a gang. I see this kind of crappy tv news journalism all the time. Journalism students should know that's a fundamental no-no to responsible journalism, so you've got wonder why such shoddy journalism is so prevalent?

[DeadPoolX 9]

But getting back to the idea of journalistic neutrality - whether it's Fox News, CNN, or MSNBC, if they are presenting a piece as news, for integrity sake, they should present opposing viewpoints with the same amount of critical scrutiny. Getting rid of those tickers or banners on the bottom of the screen would be a great improvement.

For the most part, the idea of "journalistic integrity" is a sham. It's a nice idea in theory, but it fails to take into account people and their own personal viewpoints and prejudices. Everyone has an agenda, especially those in the media since they're in the perfect position to influence others. More often than not, this agenda is political and slant to the right or left. There's no getting around that, unfortunately. No matter how objective you might think a news channel, program or personality is, the truth of the matter is they are probably attempting to influence you one way or the other. That's why it's up to the viewer or reader to filter through the garbage -- from all the networks, papers, magazines and so on -- and figure out what's actually newsworthy and what's simply propaganda and spin.

The agenda of a news journalist is or should be, to give the facts about an event and their choice of words can make all the difference. When describing a robbery suspect - he was wearing loose clothing, or he was dressed like a gang member. Do you see the difference? One is neutral and one implies that robber is a gang member without any factual evidence to prove it...just an observation of his clothing. And even if the robber dresses gangsta doesn't necessarily mean he's in a gang. I see this kind of crappy tv news journalism all the time. Journalism students should know that's a fundamental no-no to responsible journalism, so you've got wonder why such shoddy journalism is so prevalent?

You're right, it should be. But often what "should be" isn't how things are in practice.

[IAMX 3,055]

Brilliance!