View Full Version : Fox
horvendile
06-Apr-2003, 19:31
I discovered that one of my TV-channels here in Sweden broadcasts Fox News. Out of curiosity, I sat down and watched. Now I've done it several times for relatively extensive periods.
I've found it quite hard to put words on my feelings, but I think a fairly accurate description would be:
Have they no shame?
There is not a trace of objectivity, something that should be ethically required for calling something "news". The very label "news" implies that this is what's happening in the world, as unfiltered by opinions as possible.
Okay, so what do I mean with objectivity? Aren't we all biased in some way?
Yes, we are. And it's probably not entirely easy to be objective when one's own country goes to war. But these guys aren't even trying!
Some - not all - examples:
*US / British troops are almost exclusively called "our" troops. While possibly not theoretically impossible to maintain objectiveness when using such a nomenclature, I'd say it's impossible in practice. They have done away with the necessary distance, so to speak.
*The language is riddled with emotionally charged words.
*Video shown: US troops preparing to enter Bagdad. To this, they have added exciting drum music.
*Related to #2: The heading of the entire program / channel seems to be "Operation Iraqi Freedom". That may be what it's called by the military, but that doesn't really matter. It's only to expect that the military should choose an emotive name.
*When there is a message from the Iraqi information minister (or suchlike) they deride him in the studio, even before relating what he has said.
I could go on. The studio is strikingly similar to a gathering of sports supporters.
Just to avoid a predictable argument, I'd like to point out that it's not the war in itself I'm questioning.
Also, I'd like to say that it's OK to be supportive of one's own troops. It's OK to ridicule the other side. It's even OK to do it on TV. But you can not do that and call the program "news", giving it an air of objectivity. Call it Fox Propaganda or Fox Cheerleading, and I have no protests. But Fox News; that's disgusting.
Are people to any extent actually using Fox as their main news source? Are they always like this?
Neutrality
06-Apr-2003, 19:50
I have watched Fox once in a while and although im heavily pro war I cant stand watching Fox more then a few minutes at a time.
It makes me http://www.xs4all.nl/~echoes/smile/puke.gif
-Neutrality-
The first time I caught the Fox war coverage I actually thought it was a parody. =\
The use of dramatic music and graphics is so OTT and the idea of "celebrity" Generals etc makes my skin crawl.
MuFu.
RussSchultz
06-Apr-2003, 21:51
The Iraqi information minister deserves deriding. He's a loon. (Though, I suppose it is his job to say what he says--and the Arab world seem to believe him)
Sheppard Smith (the prime time anchor who's young and has dark hair) is a warmongering idiot, who readily confuses facts and missspeaks himself. The rest aren't nearly as bad. I must say they have some of the best embedded reporters who've done a terrific job reporting our troops job and battles (from their point of view, of course).
All of the news channels have some sort of polish: fancy graphics, inspiring music, etc.
But yeah, I tend to watch MSNBC, then skip to fox when yet another "lets revere our fallen comrades" piece comes on (There's only so many good things I can hear about Jessica Clarke). When its "driving through Baghdad" on Fox, and "god bless our soldiers" on MSNBC, I'll check out CNN to see what's there--but usually I avoid them.
Neutrality
06-Apr-2003, 21:55
Personally I watch BBC World.
-Neutrality-
Roger Kohli
06-Apr-2003, 21:57
The Iraqi information minister deserves deriding. He's a loon.
He does seem to be, so you have to wonder if someone is holding a gun to his family's head or something, otherwise he couldn't say that stuff with a straight face.
He may be saying it of his own accord and will though. I mean for Saddam's regime to work he does need people that are loyal to him regardless of what he asks them to do. If Saddam had to point a gun at every Iraqi's head to get anything done then he would not be in power.
Please don't misunderstand what I am saying - I am just saying that evil begets evil and find it hard to believe that Saddam's closest ministers are all doing what they are doing begrudgingly and through blackmail, coercion or torture. I am not claiming that Saddam Hussein is not incapable of these acts but please more myths/rumours/gossip and Urban Legends are NOT needed.
After the war I don't want the closest members of the Baa'th Party coming out with 'Saddam made me do it.' It would be equally less believable if they all say, 'The Devil made me do it.' And that excuse has been used before....
Half of the European news shows are equally as biased in the opposite direction. The French and German media is complete trash.
BBC is ok. Msnbc is ok. Cnn and Fox are terrible.
I am surprised you actually think CNN is that terrible, but I suppose anyone can find anything terrible.
CNN has made asses out of themselves repeatedly I admit, but overall I still qualify them as News and not entertainment, or do you mean Headline News?
Half of the European news shows are equally as biased in the opposite direction. The French and German media is complete trash.
Not neccessarily claiming the opposite, but would you mind explaining how you get to that conclusion? Just curious which European channels you've had the pleasure of watching to qualify such a judgement.
Sheppard Smith (the prime time anchor who's young and has dark hair) is a warmongering idiot, who readily confuses facts and missspeaks himself. The rest aren't nearly as bad. I must say they have some of the best embedded reporters who've done a terrific job reporting our troops job and battles (from their point of view, of course).
You've got to be kidding me. Since it's obvious that Sheppard Smith is a "warmongering idiot" - how cliche can you get? You just wow me with your objective criticism right there bud. :roll:
Also, to say that he confuses facts more than, say, CNN or MSNBC is blatently wrong. If anything Fox, on the whole (Smith included), is alot more accurate in their asessment of the battlefield than any other channel hands down. Due in no smaller part to their top embedded reporters as you stated.
I didn't see retired generals on Fox talking 'Doom and Gloom' for political advantage last, did I? If anything, Fox's optomistic view of the war has played out exactly... but then again their military consultents aren't informed, they're puppets of the imperialist US shadow-government. Actually, the one former Green-Beret did state that they didn't have enough forces and then when proven wrong the following week - actually appologized. I see that alot on CNN or MSNBC... wait... no I don't.
PS. 'Warmongering idiot' with language like that - how could anyone take what you say seriously? And you watch MSNBC? What strategy are they goign with this week? Trying to be more like CNN or still attempting to be a Fox? Maybe when they keep their reporters for more than a few months they'll stabilize.
Some - not all - examples:
*US / British troops are almost exclusively called "our" troops. While possibly not theoretically impossible to maintain objectiveness when using such a nomenclature, I'd say it's impossible in practice. They have done away with the necessary distance, so to speak.
*The language is riddled with emotionally charged words.
*Video shown: US troops preparing to enter Bagdad. To this, they have added exciting drum music.
*Related to #2: The heading of the entire program / channel seems to be "Operation Iraqi Freedom". That may be what it's called by the military, but that doesn't really matter. It's only to expect that the military should choose an emotive name.
*When there is a message from the Iraqi information minister (or suchlike) they deride him in the studio, even before relating what he has said.
1) The embedded jounalists don't say this - they objective as they're reporting the facts and events as they happen. They're under strict policy not to say these things as they are reporting the news.
The people who use these words are the commentators who have more "Crossfire" or "O'Reilly" type shows and They're entitled to this as they're the electronic equivalent of a newspaper op-ed or editorial page where opiniosn are expressed.
com·men·ta·tor (kmn-ttr) n.
- A broadcaster or writer who reports and analyzes events in the news.
- One who writes or delivers a commentary or commentaries
- An expert who observes and comments on something
- A writer who reports and analyzes events of the day
www.dictionary.com
I don't see you stating that a Russian or German commentary piece on 'America's imperialist and wrongfull course of action' in their papers are biased and unfair and not an "objective" source of information. Hmm.. wonder why that is... :roll:
Thus, to the commentators, they are our troops. Why should they put the American soldiers on the same moral ground as the Fedayeen Saddam? Should French or British or Jewish commentators in the Second World War have put their troops on the same moral ground as the Waffen SS?
Give me a break.
2) "Emotionally charged words"? So, war and people dying isn't emotional? Is that what we've become as a society - one inwhich war has been reduced to nothing but statistsics and nomenclature?
This actually enrages me... That it's OK to show emotional pictures of Iraqi's dying and those who've been hurt by this war, but an American news station can't use "Emotionally charged words" to describe the most horrific event known to man - warfare and death?
3) "Exciting drum music" - Wow! I think we start a petition to all majot news stations to do away with all graphics that add to the presentiation value of the news. We only need text as otherwise it might offend some people - wait, text can be emotional as we've seen above in number 2.
Instead, we'll petition to have nothing but a Real-time tally count of the dead, wounded and missing. Statistsics and numbers are impartial.
4)"Operation Iraqi Freedom" - So, they shouldn't report on the name given by the Coalition? Should they stop referring to the "Holocaust," "Intifada," or any other Proper Nouns that could offend a certain group of people who disaprove of it? Last I checked there were still people who suggest the "Holocaust" is merely propoganda - we might offend them if we report on the name the Allies gave.
5) You stated:
When there is a message from the Iraqi information minister (or suchlike) they deride him in the studio, even before relating what he has said
Ahh the best for last... So when the Iraqi propoganda minister gets up there and reports:
At a briefing, Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf... Denying that U.S. troops are occupying Baghdad's airport, al-Sahaf said, "The enemy was destroyed and retreated." He said U.S. forces got close enough to the airport to make it look as if they were there but that reports of U.S. troops in the area were nothing more than "propaganda."
They're suppose to report this as fact when they have embedded reporters standing on the damn airport?
Last time I checked, the 101st Airborne had the airport so secure we landed a C-130 there :)
So, you want the media to report lies that they can verify threw tangible and internal embedded reporters because that would make them objective?
Give me a break, please. I can't wait for the media to become another National Enquirer. Because the Iraqi Information Serices have about as much credibility as the following: http://www.nationalenquirer.com/
http://web1.ami-admin.com/images/43568.jpg
Maybe you should read this, they're very objective as they will report anything - no confirmation or commen sence needed.
See... there is a target audience after all. :lol:
MuFu.
RussSchultz
07-Apr-2003, 04:01
Sorry Vince, he's terribly pro war, and he's an idiot.
That makes him a warmongering idiot.
And yes, I've seen him with my own eyes, in real time, take a report from one of their embedded reporters, confuse his location with another and provide analysis which was so blatently wrong, his reporter had to interrupt him to correct him. On more than one occasion.
You're more than welcome to watch fox and like Sheppard Smith's reporting style. I don't and I voiced my opinion. You're free to disagree, but to try and insult me based on which station I feel gives me the best mix (a combination of all of them) is just indicative of you and your style of debate.
Anyways Vince, I'm going to remember rule of engagement #1, which is: never engage Vince in a political debate unless you like being verbally assaulted.
I don't, so I won't.
You're free to disagree, but to try and insult me based on which station I feel gives me the best mix (a combination of all of them) is just indicative of you and your style of debate.
Anyways Vince, I'm going to remember rule of engagement #1, which is: never engage Vince in a political debate unless you like being verbally assaulted.
Insult you? Give me a break, or please grow a skin. I didn't say anything about you other than that your blatent namecalling (eg. Warmonger/idiot) basically nullifies yor argument of any validity.
How about you show me how I'm wrong with proof (eg. his testimony or former documented ideologies),
Sorry Vince, he's terribly pro war, and he's an idiot.
That makes him a warmongering idiot.
Again, show me proof of when he stated he wants a war for the sake of a war. Saying that someone is a "wamonger/idiot" based on their reporting is so fallicious. It reflects back on you more than Sheppard.
PS. I don't even like the guy, you're calling him these things without knowing the first thing about him.
CosmoKramer
07-Apr-2003, 04:18
Hehe. Enough is enough - you don't have to be a parody of yourself...
Fox news was made to address an audience in the US. For the most part media are liberal, (CNN, CBS, etc) and the audience and capability was there to capture those with a conservative bent. Hence Fox news's debut. Overal its nice for the US as it makes for a decently balanced viewpoint on the state of affairs, if you look at several stations.
Irregardless, CNN, MSNBC, Fox et al are sensationalist. They play music, they act dramatic. THe exist to make money for the most part, so don't expect dry, perfectly unbiased viewpoints like say NPR (which is probably the best news source in the US) which turns most audiences off.
As far as European media, TF1, A2, World News, M6, VoX, etc etc All channels that i've watched, and dismissed as unbalanced.
Sharkfood
07-Apr-2003, 06:19
FOX and CNN need to have fancy graphics, catchy theme music and charged commentators. It's the only way 24/7 cable news channels can maintain good enough ratings to compete.
Buried amidst the Vegas-like glamour, the actual "news" component is fairly decent, with each having it's own particular slant/agenda, but which is why folks need to get their news from a variety of sources.
It's interesting you mentioned NPR, which is probably the single most left-slanted media source out there. It's a shame tax payers have to pay for this rubbish as it would likely never be able to compete in the free market. If there is anything I'd like to see hit congress, it would be a bill to remove the tax budget for NPR and similar ventures. We live in a free enterprise society and if an alleged "news" source cannot survive in such a market, it truly does not belong out there... along with the how liberally slanted their so-called "reporting" truly is.
LittlePenny
07-Apr-2003, 06:39
I would like to point out that BBC World plays tone music as well.
Sharkfood, I disagree with your views on NPR. Yes, there is a liberal slant, but I do not believe it to be as biased left as say Fox is to the right. If anything the pre-war debates and interviews on NPR, and Joe Defuria's debates on these boards are responsible for my shift to pro-war.
horvendile
07-Apr-2003, 08:42
I'm not quite sure why I'm answering this, since from what I've seen in other discussions that seems the best way to get yelled at in foul words. I have no wish of entering such an argument. I maintain that there is no correlation (not positive nor negative) between shouting loudly and being right. Given that, I'll try to answer some of the points brought up.
Some - not all - examples:
*US / British troops are almost exclusively called "our" troops. While possibly not theoretically impossible to maintain objectiveness when using such a nomenclature, I'd say it's impossible in practice. They have done away with the necessary distance, so to speak.
*The language is riddled with emotionally charged words.
*Video shown: US troops preparing to enter Bagdad. To this, they have added exciting drum music.
*Related to #2: The heading of the entire program / channel seems to be "Operation Iraqi Freedom". That may be what it's called by the military, but that doesn't really matter. It's only to expect that the military should choose an emotive name.
*When there is a message from the Iraqi information minister (or suchlike) they deride him in the studio, even before relating what he has said.
Regarding point 1:
They're entitled to this as they're the electronic equivalent of a newspaper op-ed or editorial page where opiniosn are expressed.
If I found fox-type commentary at an editorial page in a newspaper, I would have no protest. Should I find it on the news pages, I would react. Fox labels it news, but it bears the characteristics of editorials (or opinion, or propaganda, whatever you like). As I stated in my original post, it's not the comments per se I protest against, it's calling them news I don't like.
I don't see you stating that a Russian or German commentary piece on 'America's imperialist and wrongfull course of action' in their papers are biased and unfair and not an "objective" source of information. Hmm.. wonder why that is... :roll:
One possible explanation could be that I, living in Sweden, don't have Russian or German papers. I like to have at least basic knowledge about what I'm talking about, and I didn't write anything about Fox until I saw it. Furthermore, even if all the Swedish news media were as bad as Fox (they aren't), I don't see how that would change matters. That would mean that they would be wrong too, not that Fox would be right. To be fair though, that may not be what you're trying to say.
Okay, to clear that last paragraph up: Vince, this is not an anti-american conspiracy. The reason that I do not comment on Russian and German media is that I do not have Russian and German media. The reason that I'm not attacking Swedish media is that the Swedish media I use don't mix editorials and news, at least not nearly to Fox extent.
Thus, to the commentators, they are our troops. Why should they put the American soldiers on the same moral ground as the Fedayeen Saddam?
Again, it's the difference between editorials and news. I expect to find the moral grounds on the editorial page, not the news page.
Concerning point 2 and 3:
Yes, war is emotional. It's OK to be emotional about it. But not when doing news. As I stated before, it's probably very hard to stay totally objective, but Fox doesn't even try. On the contrary, they go to great lengths to increase emotive content - in what they label as news reporting.
Point 4:
This one I am a bit less sure about. As you point out, it is common to use the "official" names. Desert Storm comes to mind. The difference, I feel, is twofold.
Firstly, this name is - yes, here it comes again - very emotive. If the official name was "The Best Thing Ever", would it be OK for news programs to use that as headline for the programme? "Here we have the latest news on The Best Thing Ever!"
Secondly, if Fox used it when referring to military information/propaganda: No protests from me. It's when they create a flashy logotype and make it their own I protest.
5) You stated:
When there is a message from the Iraqi information minister (or suchlike) they deride him in the studio, even before relating what he has said
Ahh the best for last... So when the Iraqi propoganda minister gets up there and reports:
At a briefing, Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf... Denying that U.S. troops are occupying Baghdad's airport, al-Sahaf said, "The enemy was destroyed and retreated." He said U.S. forces got close enough to the airport to make it look as if they were there but that reports of U.S. troops in the area were nothing more than "propaganda."
They're suppose to report this as fact when they have embedded reporters standing on the damn airport?
No. I expect them to say something like: "The Iraqi information minister says that X. However, (our) sources among the US military says that Y." Not "In another Oscar-winning piece today (laughs) the Iraqi information minister (...)" (this is as close to quotation as my memory allows) followed up by (as my memory serves me) comments on what drugs he could possibly be (ab)using.
So, you want the media to report lies that they can verify threw tangible and internal embedded reporters because that would make them objective?
Every other serious news organisation can handle these situations without resorting to reporting that is just embarrasing.
http://web1.ami-admin.com/images/43568.jpg
Maybe you should read this, they're very objective as they will report anything - no confirmation or commen sence needed.
If I had said that such papers were a valid alternative, that comment would have bearing. Then, Fox News would indeed look like news.
Let's see now... first, the roll-eyes. Then un-called for dictionary quotes - always a good way to get someone feel insulted. Then a load of "give me a break". Now this. You must have understood that your last suggestion had no connection at all to what I said. Why are you trying to make me look as I've said things I haven't? Are you deliberately trying to provoke a yelling contest? Either way, I am entering no such thing.
epicstruggle
07-Apr-2003, 09:37
@horvendile: I think you object to the presentation and not the content of Fox. At least you have not argued that they have misreported anything. I do watch an equal amount of Fox, MSNBC, and CNN. And although they all use music, flashy logos, they all report accurately the war. They use words like "our troops" because they are our troops.
We live in the post-MTV world where everything has to have flashy graphics, music fading in/out, smart allecky(sp?) comments. And since I have grown used to this, Im glad its that way. I would kill my self if i had to listen to some old man read a dry report of what is happening, like my history teachers in school. Maybe in Sweden you have not grown up during this transition.
BTW al-jazeera does the same thing expect to the nth degree, and I dont see anti war people complaining. And ontop of it they overreport the negative, and underreport the positive.
later,
RussSchultz
07-Apr-2003, 14:43
The Iraqi information minister deserves deriding. He's a loon.
He does seem to be, so you have to wonder if someone is holding a gun to his family's head or something, otherwise he couldn't say that stuff with a straight face.
Ha. I watched his conference this morning and he had this bemused look on his face like "I can't believe I'm saying this". I think you could hear the latest fire-fight in the background at their conference that had to be moved because the US tanks were around the information ministry building.
CosmoKramer
07-Apr-2003, 21:13
they all report accurately the war.
Get real. How would you know if *any* news you see is reported accurately?
We live in the post-MTV world where everything has to have flashy graphics, music fading in/out, smart allecky(sp?) comments. And since I have grown used to this, Im glad its that way. I would kill my self if i had to listen to some old man read a dry report of what is happening, like my history teachers in school. Maybe in Sweden you have not grown up during this transition.
There are of course large differences between various media in Sweden too. We do for instance have channels TV1 and TV2. These are IMO the most unbiased source of news available in Sweden, and being federally funded they have a quite large budget and they have no profit interests, so quality stays high. No sensationalism or MTV style presentation. This doesn't means the presentation is boring though. Then we have commerical channels like TV4 which does a very good job too IMO. Then we have channels like TV3 where sensationalism is everything, and they suck, not only in news but even their sports coverage and pretty much all content broadcasted such, IMO.
Then we have newspapers, the two largest Expressen and Aftonbladet both rely a lot on sensationalism. Aftonbladet tend to be fairly OK, but lately they seam to have lost it in the war coverage, too much anti-americanism. Expressen tend to suck all the time so I haven't even read their coverage.
To me, sensationalism and MTV style presentations are just tireing.
Sharkfood
08-Apr-2003, 00:04
Sharkfood, I disagree with your views on NPR. Yes, there is a liberal slant, but I do not believe it to be as biased left as say Fox is to the right.
The point is- Fox is independent and runs off it's own funding. NPR comes out of the tax payer's pockets.
The fact that it has a slant suggests it is being financed by those that do no necessary agree with it's point of view, and it does so forcibly. This is the main problem. I'm all for the NPR and other networks, but not at the expense of the tax payer.
The way I look at it, FOX and CNN hold the majority of viewers. I also envision the viewership to be somewhat like this:
a) Viewers that mainly watch CNN and despise FOX.
b) Viewers that mainly watch FOX and despise CNN.
c) Viewers that dont really care for either, but occasionally watch both for either a chuckle or to see other viewpoints on current events.
Another interesting thing about FOX that I haven't seen mentioned here (and admittedly, part of the reason why I still turn it on from time to time)- they have instigated some of the same production values as some of the lower budget Spanish channels. This involves finding some of the most pleasing/sexy commentators and anchors. My goodness gracious! The long shots of these super-model calibre news commentators.. mini-skirts and low-cut tops... FOX has a list a mile long of just absolutely stunningly attractive staff. It's obvious that sex sells in the US and this channel has taken this to a new level. :)
epicstruggle
08-Apr-2003, 01:43
they all report accurately the war.
Get real. How would you know if *any* news you see is reported accurately?
Ok, when and which channel, and about what have they misreported (without correction) the war?
I doubt youll be able to come up with anything.
later,
JF_Aidan_Pryde
08-Apr-2003, 03:30
BBC is my favourite and I appreciate the views of NPR, as we get both in Australia. Our own ABC isn't bad too. I mainly like BBC as they get to all points of view, interviewing both sides and reflecting on the local context. CNN isn't that bad IMO, but FOX is just brewing hate and ignorance sometimes.
they all report accurately the war.
Get real. How would you know if *any* news you see is reported accurately?
Ok, when and which channel, and about what have they misreported (without correction) the war?
I doubt youll be able to come up with anything.
later,
Ahh, but reverse that statement and you'll find yourself equally at a loss.
One of my major issues with media today is that it is very easy to accept the facts the major outlets spew out, but harder to judge validity.
Trust me, I've been interviewed before by different news agencies and with each interview, my words and my point of view was slanted and taken out of context by the reporter in order to fufill his/her's sick framework for the story I was being interviewed for. When those stories finally aired, I was made to look like a inept bureaucrat in one article (the left wing newspaper) and a national hero in another (right wing newspaper)
My point is, much of our news today goes through too many filters, which by the time facts filter though them, have twisted what might have been a straightforward news story into a hideous collection of opinions, bias, and untruth.
Crusher
08-Apr-2003, 07:16
Get real. How would you know if *any* news you see is reported accurately?
How do you know we're really at war? How do you know peanut butter is made from peanuts? How do you know you're alive and not just a part of my imagination? How many licks does it take to get to the Tootsie Roll center of a Tootsie Pop?
PC-Engine
08-Apr-2003, 07:20
My favorite FOX touch is the graphic of an eagle morphing into a fighter jet firing missiles :lol:
epicstruggle
08-Apr-2003, 08:42
Ahh, but reverse that statement and you'll find yourself equally at a loss.
One of my major issues with media today is that it is very easy to accept the facts the major outlets spew out, but harder to judge validity.
Trust me, I've been interviewed before by different news agencies and with each interview, my words and my point of view was slanted and taken out of context by the reporter in order to fufill his/her's sick framework for the story I was being interviewed for. When those stories finally aired, I was made to look like a inept bureaucrat in one article (the left wing newspaper) and a national hero in another (right wing newspaper)
My point is, much of our news today goes through too many filters, which by the time facts filter though them, have twisted what might have been a straightforward news story into a hideous collection of opinions, bias, and untruth.
Like Crusher said, how do we know this whole war even exists. Do we know that the french government, didnt pay off every media company to get this fake war started. Come on dont be ridiculous, if you have multiple sources saying essentially the same thing, then it probably is true.
Prove the reverse. :rool:
later,
horvendile
08-Apr-2003, 09:10
@horvendile: I think you object to the presentation and not the content of Fox. At least you have not argued that they have misreported anything.
Quite correct. Granted, I think I can come up with a few instances where Fox has reported things that later turned out not to be true, but then again, which channel doesn't? It's impossible to get everything right, and I haven't watched enough to say if they are better or worse in that respect than other channels.
Regarding Swedish TV I totally agree with what Humus said above. I haven't come to the exact same conclusions for the newspapers, though I generally agree that the two he mentioned are basically sensationalist. Not anywhere nearly as bad as English tabloid press, but a bit too fond of headlines.
But I digress.
In fact I do prefer to "listen to some old man read a dry report of what is happening" (though the "old man" part is not a requirement), and I dare say that the difference is more important than personal taste. I maintain that it is important to get the news (not to confuse with editorial, whatever that is in TV terms) as clean from opinion and tendentious slant as possible. Bluntly, to get facts and form opinion, not get opinion and form facts. And in this respect, Fox is far worse than the other channels I have seen.
(For reference: The channels I have seen are: Most of the Swedish channels, plus a bit of CNN and BBC.)
Addendum:
That Fox is privately owned and must compete Vegas-style is an explanation, not an excuse. Tendentious reporting is tendentious reporting even if it is privately funded. If anything, it doesn't make me want to give up my state-financed (not state-controlled) TV! :)
epicstruggle
08-Apr-2003, 09:39
state-financed *insert about sign* state-controlled
Youll disagree with this, but whenever you get the government into a sector (business, news, statistics gathering service) they will somehow find a way to influence it. Politicians in any country are going to find a way to cut/restrict the cash until they get what they want.
Or are the politicians in your country more honest than everywhere else. :wink:
I have no idea how many channels the average person has in sweden, but here we have at the very least several dozens of channels. A commercial news agency is better any day over a state run news agency. They will give what the consumers want, which will at least make people watch the news.
later,
Trawler
08-Apr-2003, 11:35
I try to watch BBC World, though here in the UK I have to settle for BBC News 24 which has a more local focus (not a bad thing, but I prefer the more global viewpoint).
Possibly the best news broadcast I know of is Australia's SBS World News. It really is fantastic, and has won numerous awards. Always well researched, thorough, and disiplined in putting forth as many viewpoints as they can (unlike most US broadcasts).
For non-Australians, SBS is Australia's government funded (thus obviously state-controlled :roll: ) multi-cultural channel. It produces quality stuff, but no-one watches it. :)
Edit: BTW, I've also been checking out AlJazeera's english website. I really don't know what people have against what they broadcast? Seems in line with most other news sources, but more info on the Iraqi side. Definitely not promoting the Iraqi case in any way...
state-financed *insert about sign* state-controlled
Youll disagree with this, but whenever you get the government into a sector (business, news, statistics gathering service) they will somehow find a way to influence it. Politicians in any country are going to find a way to cut/restrict the cash until they get what they want.
Or are the politicians in your country more honest than everywhere else.
I have no idea how many channels the average person has in sweden, but here we have at the very least several dozens of channels. A commercial news agency is better any day over a state run news agency. They will give what the consumers want, which will at least make people watch the news.
Sorry, but the above a massive overgeneralization at best. The channels / programmes I've watched here (the UK) to any great extent would be from BBC, ITN, SKY & CNN. I'd be hard pressed to say that BBC is in any way inferior to the other three. Of course, this is subjective in itself, but you'll find that the BBC has a fairly good reputation well beyond the British Isles.
Your comment re. government influence over news channels in massively naive. Case in point, Rupert Murdoch controls a large section of the media in the UK. He is known to be fiercely anti the European Union and, what do you know, his papers/TV channels also happen to espouse this view vociferously. In what way is this favourable to a government having influence over state controlled media (& certainly, the UK's government has nothing like this level of influence over the BBC, AFAICS).
epicstruggle
08-Apr-2003, 12:38
@dee: I disagree with you, I dont want my government (federal/national) to do everything for me, from funding what I watch, to telling me what to do with my life. I like my government (f/n) to have a very limited role in what it does. The smaller stuff should be handled by the state government. I guess your happy that your government funds what you see. It will never happen here in the US. We just dont trust the government not to eventually influence/edit/control what we see. I guess the media outlets in Iraq, North Korea, China are more to your liking as their all state funded/controlled. :wink:
That last statement was a sarcastic comment. kinda of. well may be you would be happier with that type of news.
I disagree with you, I dont want my government (federal/national) to do everything for me,
I'm all for distrusting governments, wouldn't have it any other way:), but why do you think corporations are any better in the media realm (particularly when a large section of the worldwide media is owned by a select few corporations)?
horvendile
08-Apr-2003, 13:54
state-financed *insert about sign* state-controlled
I agree that it is not unreasonable to have that suspicion, but there are, at least in Sweden, regulations and institutions to prevent that sort of thing - and what's more important, they seem to work. Sure, it happens that some politicians try to intervene, but the control functions (not controlled by the government) come down like a ton of bricks on that. Where is that control in a privately owned company?
Furthermore, it is required that news reportings (and some other programmes) are impartial. When they are not, which certainly happens, once again the control functions come down hard.
The above details are however, while important for making the system work, way less important than the observation that:
It works. The news reporting by the public service TV is very strict, which can not be said about most of the private channels (definitely including Fox).
Or are the politicians in your country more honest than everywhere else. :wink:
Yes they are! :lol:
No really. I don't say that politicians should be blindly trusted (just as corporations shouldn't), and it's not directly related to this, but:
http://www.transparency.org/
and specifically
http://www.transparency.org/pressreleases_archive/2002/2002.08.28.cpi.en.html
I have no idea how many channels the average person has in sweden, but here we have at the very least several dozens of channels.
<Swedish demographics>
Not all have cable TV, but most do, and I'd say among them the average is 10-20 channels, my estimate.
</Swedish demographics>
A commercial news agency is better any day over a state run news agency. They will give what the consumers want, which will at least make people watch the news.
Even privately owned crap is crap. It is possible that consumers want a propaganda flow instead of impartial news reporting, but that won't transform propaganda into news.
Looking back at what I have written, I'm not entirey satisfied with the tone. Thus, one should probably not pay too much attention to the tone itself. I'll try to make a summary of what I've been trying to say:
I'm definitely not saying that privately owned TV should be banned. But on the other hand, I think that owner relationships are never an excuse for bad reporting.
With so many examples of state owned TV handling news reporting excellently, it isn't reasonable to dismiss it out of hand on ideological grounds. It would be exactly like following the map instead of the terrain, to make use of a tired cliché. Or another: The bloody bumble-bee does fly! :wink:
Trawler
08-Apr-2003, 14:00
Isn't the BBC publicly funded in Britain (through TV licenses rather than government taxes), thus without the restraints of government funding? What type of controls does the government have over the organisation?
Isn't the BBC publicly funded in Britain (through TV licenses rather than government taxes), thus without the restraints of government funding? What type of controls does the government have over the organisation?
License Fee/Ring-Funded Tax. I'm not sure I see the difference...
Trawler
08-Apr-2003, 14:24
Isn't the BBC publicly funded in Britain (through TV licenses rather than government taxes), thus without the restraints of government funding? What type of controls does the government have over the organisation?
License Fee/Ring-Funded Tax. I'm not sure I see the difference...
True. :wink:
The point I was trying to make out was that if license fees really are the main source of income for the BBC (someone please correct me if I'm wrong), then the BBC is not a government funded organisation, but an independent entity.
Heck, it's pay TV!
The point I was trying to make out was that if license fees really are the main source of income for the BBC (someone please correct me if I'm wrong), then the BBC is not a government funded organisation, but an independent entity code
But the government determines the amount of the fee (actually appoints the people who do) and could abolish it tomorrow & privatise the BBC if they so desired.
horvendile
08-Apr-2003, 15:08
I think almost exactly the same as said above about BBC goes for Swedish public service TV.
WhiningKhan
08-Apr-2003, 17:06
A commercial news agency is better any day over a state run news agency. They will give what the consumers want, which will at least make people watch the news.
Fox gives what the consumers want.
Al-Jazeera gives what the consumers want.
They knew how to handle consumers in ancient Rome, too: they fed people to lions and the audience rejoiced.
JF_Aidan_Pryde
09-Apr-2003, 11:45
SBS absolutely rocks! :)
They have so many quality programs I don't have enough time to watch them. bah.
Trawler
09-Apr-2003, 11:51
SBS absolutely rocks! :)
They have so many quality programs I don't have enough time to watch them. bah.
Especially their 'late night' movies huh? :wink:
In the UK we have to settle for Channel 5 late night movies, and they just aren't the same (mass produced US trash). Otherwise, those lucky enough to have Sky can enjoy the quality viewing which is Men and Motors...
NPR has a liberal slant, but then thats true of much of the academic sector in the World. I have heard long very pointed arguments from both sides, that I would qualify as being fair to each side. Much of my prowar stance comes from discussions from NPR experts who were debating.
I think they do an excellent job of providing an intellectual forum. Which for the most part, is absent from a lot of television media, which is hopelessly dumbed down for the masses and often hinges on catch phrases and irratating repetitious rhetoric.
While you do hear some conspiracy rubish on NPR (say from the likes of Chomsky), thats usually countered real quick by an opposing debator (I also like the format of the arguments/debate).
From what I gather, a large part of NPRs revenues come from private sector fund drives.
As far as other media is concerned...
I very much like the Economist as a magazine.
Also I would characterize Fox News War coverage (the actual hands on in the field reporting) to be topnotch, though the commentary leaves a lot to be desired in terms of being partial.
RussSchultz
09-Apr-2003, 13:53
Speaking of foxnews and sheppard smith, last night he was commending a US reservist for getting up from the computer and his data processing job and picking up an AK47 to serve his country.
That's nice, Sheppard. Here in the states, our boys use AR15/M16s.
MrsSkywalker
09-Apr-2003, 19:41
I watch Fox, I think it's funny as hell. I don't trust it 100% for accuracy, and I am not dumb enough to just watch/read from one news source to get the whole story. But, what's wrong with offering a slant? Either way? CNN is left, Fox is right, and NPR is the best cure for insomnia out there. If you want just the facts, read the ticker off the AP line.
I watch Fox, I think it's funny as hell. I don't trust it 100% for accuracy, and I am not dumb enough to just watch/read from one news source to get the whole story.
Absolutly! I can't agree more... besides they have the best looking reporters hands down. ;)
That's nice, Sheppard. Here in the states, our boys use AR15/M16s.
Actually, it's an M4 Carbine as the main assuault rifle. Although to a lesser extent there are M4-RIS, M16A2s, or M16/M203 in circulation. The AR-15 isn't even used anymore, just used in a semi-auto civilian derivative today. But, we'll keep talking about how others are ignorant :)
Speaking of foxnews and sheppard smith, last night he was commending a US reservist for getting up from the computer and his data processing job and picking up an AK47 to serve his country
You'd think for a "warmongering idiot" he'd know his stuff better, huh? Then again, he's just a commentator not an analyst. I've seen CNN's Wolf call an F/A-18 a B-52... it happens. It's annoying, but insignificant in consequence in light of some of the comments made by former Generals.
DemoCoder
09-Apr-2003, 20:16
I thought only special forces used the M4.
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.