Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism
 

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

LMAO @ your sig.

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

Red X :9

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

bill o'reilly is god.

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

Nobody is stopping them. Perhaps people doing reports on Fox News just had a bit more information to work with

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.

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?

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.

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

You lost me.

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.

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.

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

Yup, standard conservative response.

So you base your entire point around a single incident?

Wow. Thanks for playing, retard.

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

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."

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 ...

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.

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?

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

i just gave you two facts.

70% of journalists who voted, then took part in the poll, you mean.

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.

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:

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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.