Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism

[Supreme Olajuwon]

Has anyone watched this? It's a documentary about how Fox News and their conservative bias and stuff like that. It was pretty good. Lots of Bill O'Reilly bashing which is always nice.

Basically it's a movie that makes fun of close minded folk. I'd recommend it

[Funky Fly]

LMAO @ your sig.

He is diving to uppercut the guy. With a hilarious look on his face. He's like "eat it, bitch".

[Buzzkill]

Red X :9

But I have been looking to watch this for a while but have never gotten around to it.

[Gertner]

bill o'reilly is god.

[Gertner]

maybe they should do a report on CNN and all the major news networks and their liberal biased.

[Kane Knight]

maybe they should do a report on CNN and all the major news networks and their liberal biased.
Yeah, because the corporations that own them are so liberal.

Which is why we're hearing so much about this whole Gannon thing. CURSE YOU LIBERAL MEDIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111111111111111

[Supreme Olajuwon]

maybe they should do a report on CNN and all the major news networks and their liberal biased.
Nobody is stopping them. Perhaps people doing reports on Fox News just had a bit more information to work with

[BCWWF]

Yeah I saw it, its not really entertaining like the Michael Moore type movies but is definately informative about the tactics Fox uses. Before, even thought I have always disagreed and thought he was stupid, I enjoyed watching the O'Reilly Factor, now I don't anymore. Basically, what the video is showing is that Fox isn't a news outlet as much as it is an opinion outlet, and its true. Most of their shows are opinion, with very specific stories chosen, all doctored up to look like news. It also shows how Fox claims to be "Fair and Balanced", but the people they use to represent the left side are all no-name pushovers instead of real, legit correspondents. Its just a shame that so many people buy into this, Fox News is far and away the top rated cable news station.

The whole Liberal media thing is such a misinformed thing to say. Most media outlets are quite Liberal is you look at Fox News as moderate. On a line from -10 to 10, with -10 being the most liberal and 10 being the most conservative, I would say most media falls inbetween -1 and 0, but Fox falls probably around 4-5, at least. There are always exceptions, but they aren't the blatant ones that people try to say. CNN is owned by AOL/Time Warner, ABC is owned by Disney, CBS by Viacom, NBC by General Electric, Clearchannel probably owns 4-5 radio stations in your city, just face it every major media publication is answering to some sort of big business, and I don't care what business that is, if its not going to look good for them on their interests the media will not be reporting it. The Liberal Media thing is such a cliche, its stupid.

[Gertner]

If you actually believe that CNN is balenced you're nuts.

[Kane Knight]

If you actually believe that CNN is balenced you're nuts.
You alleged that CNN and the other news networks had a liberal bias. Did you miss that part of your own post?

[BCWWF]

CNN is much closer to the middle then Fox is, and you will get people who argue that CNN is further to the right then the left.

[Supreme Olajuwon]

CNN is biased. So is Fox News. Somebody took the time to make a movie about Fox News.

Not too difficult of a concept to grasp

[Kane Knight]

You lost me.

[BigDaddyCool]

Current events and "news" is for fags. If it doesn't have to do with a floating box of fries telling a brash cup to shut up, then I don't care.

[Kane Knight]

Which is why you'll spend the rest of your life in a trailer park with a bad mullet, 4 teeth, and married to you sister/cousin.

[Gertner]

the dan rather event should prove my point. if it was a report on a democrat, then it would have been closely inspected.

[Supreme Olajuwon]

Current events and "news" is for fags. If it doesn't have to do with a floating box of fries telling a brash cup to shut up, then I don't care.
Yup, standard conservative response.

[Kane Knight]

the dan rather event should prove my point. if it was a report on a democrat, then it would have been closely inspected.
So you base your entire point around a single incident?

Wow. Thanks for playing, retard.

[Gertner]

o.k dumbass show me how it isn't.

[Kane Knight]

Isn't what?

Isn't a good way of proving a point?

If you have an IQ bigger than your shoe size, you should be cabable of understanding that 1 point doesn't make a case.

Otherwise, I could now make the point that because of tha Abu Gahraib scandal, all US soldiers are Sadomassochists into rape and torture.

And at least that would have multiple incidents, instead of judging it off one guy who buttfucked a muslim.

You, OTOH, have pointed out one case which happens to favor your narrow point of view, which is forced to ignore all the reports those mainstream media types made about Clinton that were later debunked, the lack of favorable reporting for Gore or Kerry, or basically any knowledge or understanding of the media outside of a single incident.

If you take any single incident, you fail to prove anything. If you're trying to prove an overall bias, you need to try a little harder. I doubt you can, because it sounds like you've exhausted yourself with "Rathergate."

[BCWWF]

Gertner you're really going to have to do better then that, I explained why the general media is more central and Fox is off to the right and the best you can come up with is ...

If you actually believe that CNN is balenced you're nuts.

[Buzzkill]

Read "Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them" by Al Franken, he pretty much demolishes the "liberal media" argument.

[Kane Knight]

Read "Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them" by Al Franken, he pretty much demolishes the "liberal media" argument.
But Franken pokes fun at the intellectual dishonesty of Gertie's "God," O'Reilley.

Do you really think this is a good source to convince someone?

Meanwhile, I noticed the "liberal" media isn't covering much of "Gannongate," which includes CNN. In fact, Fox News has given it more coverage (though mostly to cry about how unfair he's being treated), while CNN's all but silent on the issue.

IF the media bias was liberal, and IF CNN was liberal, why would they not be jumping all over things on a similar scale to Monica Llewisnki?

Unless the liberal bias includes a tendency to be less petty.

[Kane Knight]

CBS News has twice as many articles dealing with Gannon: One "Hard hitting" piece on the demise of Talon News (Tangential at best), the other asking if there should be more coverage.

Yeah, the "liberal media" theory is working pretty well.

While Bill Clinton was all over the "liberal media" for possibly wasting goverment money on a haircut, the Bush administration is not being held accountable for losing millions of dollars supposed to be spent on rebuilding Iraq.

Coverage of the deaths in Iraq is scarce, and coverage of the election started to drop off as soon as it looked like the "other guy" might win. Wouldn't a "liberally biased" Media want to cover these failures extensively, instead of burying them?

[PapaGeorgio]

Yeah I've seen the Outfoxed video. Pretty good watch. Good for a rewatch or two as well.

[BCWWF]

The misconception comes because more journalists are liberal, but where that is thrown off is by who they answer to. A liberal journalist has to make money somehow.

[Supreme Olajuwon]

How do you know that fact? Have you talked to every journalist on earth?

[Triple A]

I put it on my Netflix queue like 4 months ago but there are like 983 movies ahead of it.

[Gertner]

or when CNN employees were working for Kerry's campaign. btw Kane

With your arguement that it's "one incident" I can say that Robert Blake isn't a bad guy. He only commited murder once.

[BCWWF]

70% of Journalists voted for Kerry in the last election. I am in the journalism school at Missouri-Columbia, if you really want me to dig up the source I can, but I think the top j-school in the world would have the edge over Gertners gut feeling.

[Gertner]

i just gave you two facts.

[El Capitano Gatisto]

70% of Journalists voted for Kerry in the last election. I am in the journalism school at Missouri-Columbia, if you really want me to dig up the source I can, but I think the top j-school in the world would have the edge over Gertners gut feeling.
70% of journalists who voted, then took part in the poll, you mean.

[El Capitano Gatisto]

or when CNN employees were working for Kerry's campaign. btw Kane

With your arguement that it's "one incident" I can say that Robert Blake isn't a bad guy. He only commited murder once.
That's an idiotic attempt at an analogy, being that it bears no relation to the point Kane Knight was making.

Most people would justifiably consider someone who kills once to be a bad guy, however anyone who considers an entire nation's media to have a bias based on a single incident is a moron. What these two have to do with each other you'll have to elaborate further on.

[Kane Knight]

or when CNN employees were working for Kerry's campaign. btw Kane

With your arguement that it's "one incident" I can say that Robert Blake isn't a bad guy. He only commited murder once.
I can presume you'll back up that first claim.

As for the second, I've seen a couple of conservatives who are members of the KKK. That proves all conservatives are klannies, by your logic. And the best you can come back with is "Well, Blake only killed once?"

:rofl:

[Kane Knight]

70% of Journalists voted for Kerry in the last election. I am in the journalism school at Missouri-Columbia, if you really want me to dig up the source I can, but I think the top j-school in the world would have the edge over Gertners gut feeling.
And you know what they say about satistics...

The interesting thing about statistics is that Kerry's home state of Massachusetts, when polled, was against same sex marriages and for the war. This was used to Justify Kerry's stances.

Why would that be interesting? Glad you asked. Masschusetts cities formed resolutions against the war, and have several times voted down a "Defense of Marriage Act" That would bar queers from ever marrying.

Now. Ask yourself: Do these statistics mesh with the actual results?

[BCWWF]

I hate statistics just as much as you Kane Knight, but you do get the impression otherwise that most journalists you meet are more liberal, but that being said the people they work for are generally conservative, so it would balance itself out.

[Gertner]

James Carville and Paul Begala were advisors on Kerry's campaign WHILE being employeed by CNN> Spin that Kane till your hearts content

[Kane Knight]

Spin that? Please. Just because you like slanted "journalism" doesn't mean everyone else does.

[Gertner]

Nice way of totally ignoring my argument. keep going, you're amusing me.


and btw the CBS debockle does prove my point. that's not just a little incident. that's pretty friggen major. here's a better example. with your logic I can pass out racist propaganda and claim not to be rascist, since it was just one incident.

[Funky Fly]

I think you're all missing the point here: Supreme has a hilarious sig.

Anyway, I'll watch this thing if I can find it and give a proper opinion when I do.

[Mr. Monday Morning]

Nice way of totally ignoring my argument. keep going, you're amusing me.


and btw the CBS debockle does prove my point. that's not just a little incident. that's pretty friggen major. here's a better example. with your logic I can pass out racist propaganda and claim not to be rascist, since it was just one incident.

It's not his logic, it's your logic that he threw back at you to make the point of how retarded it was.

Which you seem to agree with.

[Kane Knight]

Nice way of totally ignoring my argument. keep going, you're amusing me.


and btw the CBS debockle does prove my point. that's not just a little incident. that's pretty friggen major. here's a better example. with your logic I can pass out racist propaganda and claim not to be rascist, since it was just one incident.
And with your logic I could claim that all North Americans are racist if you did pass it out.

Seriously, your weak-ass arguments are sad.

You want to talk about ignoring an argument, I've already made statements as to why this is a faulty argument that you've thus far ignored. You have to ignore that the "liberal media" that you claim would have checked its facts for a Democrat didn't with Clinton, didn't with Gore, and didn't with Kerry in order for your argument to work. You have to ignore lack of reporting of failures in Iraq, the reporting of the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" claims, the reporting of Kerry's "mistress" (Picked up by the "liberal media" from Drudge without question), lack of favorable reporting for Kerry OR Gore (Not that I can blame them, but this liberal bias theory would require that they cover it). It would require that the "liberal" media jump all over "Gannongate" like Rush Limbaugh on a Twinky.

It would require that the media give a less favorable report of the economy (Pointing out that all those months of "gains" didn't meet minimal growth, and thus were still LOSSES), instead of whitewashing it to say Bush was doing a good job. It would require more negative coverage of the decision to go to war. We'd actually hear more about Gitmo, about the elections going "The other way," and have less PR shots.

And all you can come back with is "Well, this one reporter fucked up and didn't check his facts (like hundreds of reporters in the 90s with Clinton), and two others are DEMOCRATS! That proves my point!"

Uh uh. You have to ignore a huge body of evidence to the contrary before you can make this claim fly at all. So keep talking about "ignoring" your argument, your hipocrisy is a f'ing riot.

[Gertner]

read any new york times and find me 1 Conservative reporter. The liberal media recently torn up a solider whom killed a supposedly wounded solider, even though he was playing dead, but on the other hand made a sob story out of how a catured saudi was being treated badly, after he was arrested for making a plot to kill the president.

[Kane Knight]

So you're taking the "ignorance is bliss" angle now?

Good on ya. Don't let a large body of statements get in the way of your ignorance. Ignore the body of my text and try and come back with "OMG! Find me a consevative reporter in the times!"

That's two times you've ignored specific statements. Please, keep complaining.

[Supreme Olajuwon]

read any new york times and find me 1 Conservative reporter.
Sam Tanenhaus

[BCWWF]

Gertner, watch Outfoxed if you want to see all the Fox News people working for the Bush campaign. Jesus Christ, you are either incredibly naive or incredibly close minded.

[Kane Knight]

Gertner, watch Outfoxed if you want to see all the Fox News people working for the Bush campaign. Jesus Christ, you are either incredibly naive or incredibly close minded.
Doesn't hurt that there's a family connection there, either.

But hey, Ignorance is bliss, why shouldn't Gertie be happy?

[Zelda]

It was interesting. I've never watched Fox news because it's all about "Radio-Canada" around here, I would have never imagined that it was that bad.

[Kane Knight]

It was interesting. I've never watched Fox news because it's all about "Radio-Canada" around here, I would have never imagined that it was that bad.
Well if you damn canucks weren't so self-centered...:roll:

[YOUR Hero]

Pretty weak arguement Gertner. Damn.

[Kane Knight]

Probably why he abandoned it.

[Zelda]

Bill O'Reilly: I'm not a right-winger, I believe in global warming! :rofl:

[Kane Knight]

Bill O'Reilly: I'm not a right-winger, I believe in global warming! :rofl:
That's pretty liberal for Fox though.

moderate means condoning the deaths of gays, the beating of women, and killing social security so that Gates can afford another yacht, but feeling that you should sterilise the needle before killing the retarded death row inmate.

[BCWWF]

In my journalism class today we watched a film about how corporations dictate what is in the media..it wasn't its intent but it simply displaces the whole notion that the media is liberal.

It started out with a story about a lady in South Carolina. Her little town had sent Democrats to the house for about 100 years, but then she randomly ran as a Republican and won. When she got into office, she found out that there was a problem with the local pig farms expanding too rapidly and dumping their waste in places hazardous to the well being of the citizens. When she started to speak out, the farmers (not your Old McDonald, like big companies) formed a group called "Farmers for Fairness" which spent hundreds of thousands of dollars making character defamation ads against this lady, and she had the money to make no ads, so she was beat in the next election by, guess who, a farmer, and the nothing was done to control these giant pig farms.

Next was a big smoking bill that was in the senate in the 1990's at some point (the video was kind of old, so it was new at the time). The big tobacco companies were being douche bags, so John McCain clamped down and made the bill real hard on them. It passed 19-1 in committee, so it should have passed easilly in the senate, but....pretty soon ads started coming up about how the government was going to raise taxes (cigarette taxes), spend more (spend the money by giving it back to the states after they lost so much in medical insurance from cigarettes) and other things. On the bottom of their ads they would cite sources, such as "Morgan Stanley, 1996" which gave the impression that independent research came up with this, but the fact was really from a Morgan Stanley worker who was reporting what a Big Tobacco exec had said in a speech. Then they had a fact "70% of the people who will be taxes more make less then $30,000 a year", but what it really means is that 70% of the people who smoke make less then 30,000 a year. They just came up with a bunch of rediculous, misleading claims and spent millions of dollars promoting them on TV, and sure enough people got misled by them and the bill, which should have passed with flying colors, was defeated in the senate.

The third example was from the Telecommunications Act of 1996 I believe. Basically, this was before the digital era, so there was millions of dollars worth of digital space available for making television networks etc. People in the Senate wanted to auction this space off so that they could get the value of what it was worth, but because the big television networks were the one's who would benefit from getting all the free space, they didn't cover the story at all, so the American public was completely unaware that the big media networks were getting what was called "the biggest government giveaway in the century".

Finally it went into details about how all of the major networks have conglomorated, and how many of them now have stock in each other. Examples: Disney currently owns ABC, ESPN, some other cable channels (I think History Channel is in there), a bunch of local tv and radio stations, and just a bunch of other stuff. NBC is owned by General Electric, who also owns just about any random thing you can think of. Fox owns a billion channels and everything else, CNN is owned by Time Warner, etc etc. There are like 10 big corporations that own almost everything now (Microsoft, AT&T, Disney, Time Warner, Viacom, Clearchannel, GE, and others) and now most of them have stock in each other, so besides an exec at Disney saying "ABC shouldn't report on Disney", now for example Time Warner has money invested in Disney and they don't want to report bad about them because then Time Warner will lost money too. It is just a complete mess.

Corporations own the broadcast media, the Liberal bias is just something your conservative mothers told you about and you accepted without knowing the truth.

[Kane Knight]

Corporations own the broadcast media, the Liberal bias is just something your conservative mothers told you about and you accepted without <s>knowing the truth</s> Thinking.
Fixed. but since Gertie's retreated, the point's moot.