"there are portions of FOX news that are legitimate and there are portions that are commentary"

[DaveinJapan]

That's what an acquaintance of mine said to me when I told him that FOX is a propaganda arm of the right wing.

Can anyone help me prove him wrong? I realize that I can't counter with the commentary side (that much is obvious, even to him), but I'm looking for examples from the "news" side. If anyone could help me out with some examples of propaganda on their "legitimate" side, I'd greatly appreciate it.

By the way, the subject line is a direct copy of what he emailed me.

[lame54]

1. Here ya go:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-29-2009/for-fox-sake-

[Stevenmarc]

2. I suggest you look into the Jane Akre case

It gave them the legal justification to distort news as they please

[Buzz Clik]

3. All the knuckledraggers say that.

Fox News (legit) is the furthest to the right of any news outlet. Period.

Fox News (batshit crazy) is so far gone, you need a map to find them.

Yeah, they're different, but Fox News (legit) keeps bringing in Fox News (batshit crazy) as their resident experts to allow the insane people to spew as if they aren't really insane.

[unpossibles]

7. that's a good way to put it

As Jon Stewart pointed out, the non-news part will start some rumor/"story" about something, then the "news" part will report on it. It's all trumped up bullshit fake journalism.

Another example is how FOX promoted (and bused people to) the 912 rallies, and even got the crowd riled up off camera for background shots. Again, respectable news orgs don't do that.

[Saturday]

4. FAUX continually identifies R's as D's in scandals.

Media Matters might have footage of those constant "mistakes".

[DaveinJapan]

5. Thanks for the input so far! Appreciate it.

I'm hoping to compile a comprehensive list on the "legitimate" side, so please keep the suggestions coming.

[NewJeffCT]

6. The problem is the selection of what to cover and how they cover it

A few weeks ago, TDS basically called out their "news" department for following the lead of their commentators - Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc.

Also, ask your friend to point to any positive Obama stories they have reported since Obama has been inaugurated? Have they reported that the stock market is way up since he took office? How about the fact that the massive deficits they've been complaining about all happened under the Bush budget that was in place until 9/30/09? Does Fox report that the recession started in December of 2007?

[DaveinJapan]

9. Excellent points, Jeff.

Thanks for that, I will certainly pass it on to my "friend" (he's more of an acquaintance, what can I say!? :p).

[cbdo2007]

8. This is the problem with ALL news these days. The line between fact and opinion is so blurred

that many times you can't tell the difference between the two.

[ejpoeta]

11. that is true. all the media does this. they report what people say as if it is fact simply because

someone said it. they don't bother to fact check or maybe go investigate what people say before they put it on the air. the desire to be the first to report seems to trump factual accurate reporting.

[cbdo2007]

13. Right, or they'll use another new site/station as their "source"

"Today the Wall Street Journal reported that...blah blah blah..."

Ok, that's great, but why don't you all do a story on it also and not just report on their story.

[ejpoeta]

17. that would take actual WORK.... it's much easier to just sit and report what others say

then to actually do any WORK yourself. more profits with less expense. see how easy that was.

[ejpoeta]

10. have them watch the daily show segment regarding fox news vs fox commentary...

does a wonderful job showing how they use the commentary part to try to legitimize a bs story.

[mmonk]

12. Tell your acquaintance the weather reports don't count.

[Liberal In Texas]

14. Effective propaganda usually has basis of some truth.

The propagandist takes the facts and distorts them with lies and, as we've seen in the * administration, cherry picking facts to make whatever conclusion they want the public to believe.

[DaveinJapan]

15. Excellent observations from everyone, thanks! Here's what I'm hoping for though...

A case of point A to point B to point C...where the noise machine starts a story, and the "legitimate" news side runs with it, and the the commentators comment on the "news".

Can I get some examples of this in action?

OR, is it something we should watch out for in future...

Appreciate all the replies thus far very much, thanks to all!

[haele]

16. Also, make sure they understand the difference between FOX cable and the affiliates

The local affiliate news is relatively benign; their commentary segments are generally Murdoch propoganda, but in my experiance with several different locales, unless a local story has a the potential for national or political spin, at worst they are sunshine patriots, pro local status quo, or "family friendly".

FOX NEWS cable, however, tends to have only 2 hours (perhaps 4 hours if you count half hour segments in between their big shows) where the news is "straight" with no commentary; every other show is information, which is "news with commentary" - otherwise known as gossip. Here's a hint - if a show spends half the news segment sitting around a table "talking" about their opinions and analysis of what happened, it isn't news, it's the equivilent of watercooler or bar gossip. That's not news. That's spin. And Fox and Friends, O'Rielly, Hannity, Beck, Chris Wallace, Lou Dobs - they're all telling you "how they see it". And since they're on the same script - saying the same comments over and over and over again, it's pretty obvious they're reading off some editorial direction. Not a single show has a different story or point of view, every show except for the few actual news segments is directed towards a specific organizational mantra. Anti-liberal, anti-intellectual, pro corporation, Neo-conservitive, "family values" propoganda. "Us vs. Them".
Their interviews are "team sports" - if a supporting "team member" is being interviewed, that person is allowed to talk while the FOX team nodds their heads in agreement. If the interviewee is of the "opposing team", he or she get talked over and don't get to present any of their explainations as to why an opposing point of view has merits.
I mean, really - MSNBC constantly gets slammed because of "Keith and Rachel aren't real news..." - but then again, Keith and Rachel don't pretend that they are a real news show, they are up front that they are presenting their research and their analysis of a particular news event or trend that is in the news.
My personal observation - that they can back their analysis up with facts pretty much makes the point that facts tend to have a liberal bias...

As your friend if he or she believes that MSNBC has as much real news as FOX does. If the answer is "MSNBC has liberal bias", smile and say "so do facts..."
Rupert Murdoch has already admitted that his New York Post is a personal political arm he uses to get his point across and go after his political enemies. His newspapers in Austailia and Britain have been known for the same activities. Why would anyone think his personal Cable Channel, who's director, Roger Ailes, held Karl Rove's position in the Nixon administration, would be any less politically biased than his newspapers?

Just because FOX entertainment has a salacious bent that poses as "liberal" just means that salacious pays off; people want to see sly, amusing, sexy, dumbed down so they don't have to think too hard TV, and will pay to see it.


Haele
Haele

[SoCalDem]

18. Like saying the cancer is only on one side of their brain

:eyes:

[annabanana]

19. The only real news on Fox can be found on The Simpsons. . .n/t

[annabanana]

20. No one has catalogued their transgressions in more detail

than Mediamatters.org.

http://mediamatters.org/search/tag/fox_news_channel?tab=research