Fox

[epicstruggle]

@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]

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]

they all report accurately the war.

Get real. How would you know if *any* news you see is reported accurately?

 

[Humus]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[8ender]

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]

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]

My favorite FOX touch is the graphic of an eagle morphing into a fighter jet firing missiles

 

[epicstruggle]

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]

@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]

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.

later,

 

[Trawler]

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 ) 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...

 

[dee]

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]

@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.

That last statement was a sarcastic comment. kinda of. well may be you would be happier with that type of news.

 

[dee]

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]

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.

Yes they are!
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!

 

[Trawler]

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?

 

[dee]

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...