The FOX "News" spin thread!

[Torurot]

You must have a different view of what "liberal" actually means if you can say that with a straight face!

Just start with the straight out lies by your very conservative NYT, the one that supported Bush with KNOWN lies on WMD, and Iran nuclear programs.

[alan1chef]

Torurot....did you even read my post? That is the CEO of MSNBC quoted as saying that for a fact...the media is liberal and most are democrats...end of story. Your comment that the media would not lie if liberal is so much nonsense.

[Torurot]

Try this Al:

NYT, self reported "Newspaper of record" LIES all the time. Do you consider NYT "liberal"? Does Liberal mean something completely different to a USA audience? Am I missing something critical?

I read your post quote:
"I've worked in the mainstream media for all the networks and I will say what people aren't saying. It's got a liberal world view."

When a number of "mainstream" media including our friend Fox are reporting continuous lies about Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan etc etc. Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, and fck any innocent civilians. That's NOT "liberal"! Are you arguing that lieing media is a "Liberal" phenomenon, when Fox (the spin begins here) CLEARLY is not a "liberal" entity??

As for the teabaggers, the more contrary the facts the better "keep your socialist hands off my medicare" ring any bells?

[alan1chef]

The NY Times is definitely a newspaper with a liberal slant and has been liberal leaning for the last 40 years at least. You should do some more research on the liberal news media so you know what is liberal and what is not. Your blanket statement that liberal news is the truth and conservative news is lies is absurd. There is no evidence to support your claim.

Media slants the truth all the time and has for years. Liberal media slant it their way and conservative media slant it their way. That is a given fact of life in the USA. So, if in your definition, slanting the news is lying...then all media lie.

[Lefty]

It is a paper with a liberal slant because you say so? Care to offer any substantive proof to that?

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, a progressive media criticism organization, has accused the New York Times of following the "Reagan administration's PR strategy" in the 1980s by "emphasizing liberal repressive measures in Nicaragua [by the leftist Sandinista government] and downplaying or ignoring more serious human rights abuses elsewhere in Central America" (namely in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, countries with governments backed by the Reagan administration).

According to a 2007 survey by Rasmussen Reports of public perceptions of major media outlets, 40% believe The Times has a liberal slant and 11% believe it has a conservative slant. In December 2004 a University of California, Los Angeles study gave The Times a score of 73.7 on a 100 point scale, with 0 being most conservative and 100 being most liberal. The validity of the study has been questioned by various organizations, including the liberal media watchdog group Media Matters for America. In mid-2004, the newspaper's then public editor (ombudsman), Daniel Okrent, wrote a piece in which he concluded that The Times did have a liberal bias in coverage of certain social issues such as gay marriage. He claimed that this bias reflected the paper's cosmopolitanism, which arose naturally from its roots as a hometown paper of New York City. Okrent did not comment at length on the issue of bias in coverage of "hard news," such as fiscal policy, foreign policy, or civil liberties, but did state that the paper's coverage of the Iraq war was insufficiently critical of the George W. Bush administration.

Following Reagan's PR strategy in the mid 80s does not sound liberal leaning.

While more people in surveys believe it is liberal than conservative, the majority, 50% or more, says neither.

The paper admits a liberal bias on topics like gay marriage, but anyone reading this forum who opposes gay marriage should have their ass kick till their nose bleeds.

Their former public editor says the paper was not critical enough of the Bush Administration regarding the Iraq War. That does not sound liberal leaning. A true liberal leaning paper would have been ripping Bush up one side and down the other over the Iraq War.

[Guest]

(Torurot @ Feb. 15 2010,02:34)  You must have a different view of what "liberal" actually means if you can say that with a straight face!

I think "liberal "is a dirty word in America.Whereas in the uk and Europe it has a slightly different connotation.I find American politics so right wing that your Democratic Party are more akin to the Conservative Party in the uk.
I remember watching Fox news one day ,and Bill o reilly and his gang had a 10 minute rant against CHE GUEVARA!

How long has Che been dead??? Remind me.

[strocube]

Dude's been dead since 1967, that's about 43 years.

As someone mentioned earlier, the general discourse in this country is so right-wing that our democrats line up more with the conservative parties in Europe.

[alan1chef]

I would disagree with that statement. The general discourse in this country is moderate to left-wing and has been like that since the 1960's. The conservatives in Europe and Australia are more like the liberals here and the liberals in Europe and Australia are even further to the left, somewhere between the Green Party and the Socialist Party.

[deepthroat]

Friends don't let friends vote Republican

[Lefty]

Better yet, put all Pubs you know on the acquaintance list, rather than friends list.

They really aren't to be trusted.

[Guest]

(alan1chef @ Feb. 21 2010,10:57) I would disagree with that statement. The general discourse in this country is moderate to left-wing and has been like that since the 1960's. The conservatives in Europe and Australia are more like the liberals here and the liberals in Europe and Australia are even further to the left, somewhere between the Green Party and the Socialist Party.

You contradict yourself here.How can the usa be moderate to left wing,and their Liberals akin to the Conservatives in Europe? Where does that leave the Republicans then?Obviously far to the right of the Conservative parties of Europe.
As i said earlier,USA is a very right wing country,thats why there is such an appetite for"der volkishes beobachter" aka FOX news

[Tomcat]

The word Liberal does have a different meaning in Europe. Europe is a lot more complex as its a lot of different Countries and many languages. When the word Liberal in mentioned you have to take into context which Country you talk about.

You cant mix the two ( US & EU )except in very broad terms)

[Torurot]

Surprising who owns what

Fox News Can't Upset Murdoch's Saudi Prince
by Joseph Trento

http://www.dcbureau.org/2010020....ce.html

[Torurot]

May as well resurrect this thread as well

You Know Fox News Is Lying Whenever The Words "Global Warming" Are Uttered
http://www.opednews.com/article....39.html

Daniel Moynihan's seminal essay"Defining Deviancy Down,"took direct aim at the likes of Juan Williams and Ceci Connelly, who, in exchange for money and media exposure, lend legitimacy the charlatans and reprobrates of Fox News, an outfit devoted to relentless repetition ofThe Big Lie. On a recent All-Star Panel, used to commence a 48-hour propaganda cycle, Connelly and Williams were used as foils forChris Wallace and Bill Kristol, who injected a lie in order to frame the debate on global warming:......

[Torurot]

Cable Nets Concealing Corporate Ties of Guests
By Sherwood Ross March 16, 2010
http://www.opednews.com/article....05.html
Since 2007, at least 75 registered lobbyists, public relations represenatives and corporate officials have appeared on cable news broadcasts "with no disclosure of the corporate interests that paid them," The Nation magazine (March 1) reveals.

Many of these people are "paid by companies and trade groups to manage their public image and promote their financial and political interests," writes the magazine's Sebastian Jones, a freelance reporter after a four-month-long probe.

"Many have been regulars on more than one of the cable networks, turning in dozens---and in some cases hundreds---of appearances," Jones reports.

For example, Tom Ridge, identified as the former governor of Pennsylvania, appeared on MSNBC's Hardball With Chris Matthews urging the White House to "create nuclear power plants." What viewers were not told, though, is that Ridge since 2005 has pocketed $530,659 in executive compensation for serving on the board of Exelon, the nation's biggest nuclear power company, Jones writes.

On the same day, last Dec. 4th, retired general Barry McCaffrey, told MSNBC viewers the war in Afghanistan would require a three-to-ten-year effort and "a lot of money." Unmentioned, Jones says, was the fact DynCorp paid McCaffrey $182,309 in 2009 alone and that DynCorp has a five-year, $5.9 billion deal to aid U.S. forces in Afghanistan.


Jones describes MSNBC as "the cable network with the most egregious instances of airing guests with conflicts of interest." He notes, "Only on MSNBC was a prime-time program, Countdown, hosted by public relations operative Richard Wolffe and later by a pharmaceutical company consultant, former Governor Howard Dean, with no mention of the outside work either man was engaged in. And MSNBC has yet to introduce DynCorp's Barry McCaffrey as anything but a 'military analyst.'"

Moreover, last January 22nd, MSNBC's Morning Joe audience saw Mark Penn, identified only as a Clinton administration pollster, suggest the Obama administration put healthcare reform on ice. Unmentioned, says Jones, was "Penn's role as worldwide CEO of Burson-Marsteller, which has an entire healthcare division devoted to helping clients like Eli Lilly and Pfizer 'create and manage perceptions that deliver positive business results.'"

Jones reports that what transpires on MSNBC also occurs on Fox News, Fox Business Network, CNN and CNBC. These outlets "eager to fill time and afraid of upsetting the political elite, have often looked the other way (and)at times...have even disregrded their own written ethics guidelines." MSNBC may be the most flagrant example of deception but the other networks do not appear far behind.

During a Sept. 18, 2008, Fox News appearance to discuss Sarah Palin, Bernard Whitman, president of Whitman Insight Strategies---whose clients include marketing/PR firms like Ogilvy & Mather---lambasted Sen. John McCain for proposing to "Let AIG fail," saying his position demonstrated "just how little he understands the global economy today." Whitman's "ongoing work" for AIG was not mentioned!

"When there's a whole host of pundits on the airwaves touting the same agenda at the same time, you get a cumulative effect that shapes public opinion toward their agenda," Janine Wedel, an anthropologist at George Mason University told Jones. Another academic, Jay Rosen, journalism professor at New York University, said, "More disclosure is good---I'm certainly in favor of that---but why are these people on at all?"

That's a very good question. MSNBC, Fox, and the others guilty of deceptive journalism owe their viewers an apology. Such broadcasts are neither fair nor balanced. They are deceptive, slanted, and contrary to the public interest. The cable broadcasters need to pledge to their viewers to reveal the hidden corporate agendas of their guests. Until that time, viewers can always turn them off. #

(Sherwood Ross, formerly a reporter for the Chicago Daily News and wire service columnist, is a freelance writer. Reach him at [email protected])


Sherwood Ross worked as a reporter for the Chicago Daily News and contributed a regular "Workplace" column for Reuters. He has contributed to national magazines and hosted a talk show on WOL, Washington, D.C