Fox

[horvendile]

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]

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

-Neutrality-

 

[MuFu]

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]

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]

Personally I watch BBC World.

-Neutrality-

 

[Roger Kohli]

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.

 

[Tahir2]

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....

 

[Fred]

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.

 

[Sxotty]

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?

 

[Gollum]

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.

 

[Vince]

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.

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.

 

[Vince]

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...

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/

Maybe you should read this, they're very objective as they will report anything - no confirmation or commen sence needed.

 

[MuFu]

See... there is a target audience after all.

MuFu.

 

[RussSchultz]

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.

 

[Vince]

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]

Hehe. Enough is enough - you don't have to be a parody of yourself...

 

[Fred]

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]

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]

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]

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...

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.

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.