BBC- Director general slates 'gung-ho' war reports (ie Fox)

[Fencer128]

I just got this from the BBC site:

BBC director general slates 'gung-ho' war reporting

I only paid a passing visit to Fox news during the war - but I have heard from several sources of its "sensationalist" journalism. Is it a well watched news channel? and is this anything new, or "old news" (no pun intended!).

I must say that I used the BBC for Iraq coverage almost exclusively as opposed to some other news sites it seemed to be the most objective and also the most cautious about releasing possibly inaccurate and propogandist information.

Thoughts?

Cheers,

Andy

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: Fencer128
I just got this from the BBC site:

BBC director general slates 'gung-ho' war reporting

I only paid a passing visit to Fox news during the war - but I have heard from several sources of its "sensationalist" journalism. Is it a well watched news channel? and is this anything new, or "old news" (no pun intended!).

I must say that I used the BBC for Iraq coverage almost exclusively as opposed to some other news sites it seemed to be the most objective and also the most cautious about releasing possibly inaccurate and propogandist information.

Thoughts?

Cheers,

Andy

FOX is the greatest channel on earth. If you are a conservative. It is extreamly biased and caters to a particular audience. Others tend to watch it for shock value. There is a whole thread on this. It's called "I fvucking hate Fox News" or something. We all had a massive argument that is still going on I think. Check it out.

 

[Wag]

It is extreamly biased and caters to a particular audience.

I wouldn't say that exactly- if it does cater to a particular audience, it's an audience of one- Rupert Murdock. Fox News along with all his other media outlets are just mouthpieces for his personal views-

This is a bit concerning since he seems to be gaining more and more media properties all the time.

 

[LH]

It is extreamly biased and caters to a particular audience

Until Fox News made it big, the other media was extremely biased to the left. Now that Fox news is around the rest of the media is now slightly-left to moderate, except for NPR which is still pretty far left. Fox news even though they are biased, have do more for unbiased reporting than the other news outlets. Without Fox news the other american media would still be where there were ~5 years ago.

 

[Wag]

Perception my friend.

Fox news is so far right that all other news outlets seem moderate compared to them.

 

[kleinesarschloch]

Originally posted by: Wag

It is extreamly biased and caters to a particular audience.

I wouldn't say that exactly- if it does cater to a particular audience, it's an audience of one- Rupert Murdock. Fox News along with all his other media outlets are just mouthpieces for his personal views-

This is a bit concerning since he seems to be gaining more and more media properties all the time.

i doubt that FOX news is reflecting rupert murdoch's views, whatever those may be. he is very good at one thing: selling a product to a target audience. FOX news is a product, and the audience is very willing. $$$ my hat off to rupert, he knows how to make money

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: kleinesarschloch

Originally posted by: Wag

It is extreamly biased and caters to a particular audience.

I wouldn't say that exactly- if it does cater to a particular audience, it's an audience of one- Rupert Murdock. Fox News along with all his other media outlets are just mouthpieces for his personal views-

This is a bit concerning since he seems to be gaining more and more media properties all the time.

i doubt that FOX news is reflecting rupert murdoch's views, whatever those may be. he is very good at one thing: selling a product to a target audience. FOX news is a product, and the audience is very willing. $$$ my hat off to rupert, he knows how to make money

I can't argue with you on that one. I don't agree with him, but he is a financial genius. He knows what sells and he will sell it for all he's worth.

 

[konichiwa]

Hopefully more and more people will start to recognize FOX for what it is: an entertainment channel, and for what it's not: a news outlet.

 

[Ornery]

Links to Fox news reports that are Jingoistic?


I heard that during the toppling of Hussein's statue, the BBC was doing a report on an Earthquake in China instead. If that's true, what do you think of it?

 

[CaptnKirk]

FOX is owned by Ropert Murdoch, who owns a string of Tabloid Newspapers, IE - SUN, but there are others.
He shills to the leadership of whatever country his news group is in - like he did in China to present the Chinese
goverments agenda there, so he gains 'Special Favors' from the Government.
Chinese Shill

He does the same thing in the U.S. because he got/gets 'Special Deals' that others don't.
Example # 1 - Republican congress & Senate pass laws to allow 'Select' forign citizens to own
Newspapers, Radio and Television Stations - And he returns the favor by controlling HIS Press Coverage.
FCC Deals

He also got to take over DirectTV, as the FCC under Colin Powells son squelched the previos sale deal,
but let Murdoch come back in and pick it up for a bargain price.
Now here's the kicker - notice who and what is congradulation Murdoch on his acquisition:
Communist News

Talk about a hypocritical bunch of creeps - Our Government conveniently looking the other way.
It serves their mass media brainwashing pourposes - they get the Super Patriot Hype
But won't reveal how entrenched they are in controlling the Mediocre Americans.

 

[Ornery]

I did NOT see anything reported on Fox News, that wasn't also reported on any other US news station. I did NOT see anything reported on any other US news station, that wasn't also reported on Fox News. Only difference I saw was reporters on Fox openly snickering at Baghdad Bob and openly cheering for the likes of Killer Chick.

 

[kylebisme]

it is not what is reported that is of issue, it is what is not reported.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
it is not what is reported that is of issue, it is what is not reported.

What is that?

 

[AmerDoux]

The SoCal local Fox Channel is an embarrassment to legitimate news. Their morning news show consists of two bimbo's dressed in casual-skimp gear, jumping up and down and squeeling out adverbs, while the much older well-dressed newsman remains seated between the two with a smirk on his face.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: Ornery
Links to Fox news reports that are Jingoistic?

How about FOX's music video of the bombardment of Baghdad? I'd say that qualifies as jingoistic patriotism. I only wish I could find a clip of it...[/quote]

 

[Ornery]

Originally posted by: AmerDoux
The SoCal local Fox Channel is an embarrassment to legitimate news. Their morning news show consists of two bimbo's dressed in casual-skimp gear, jumping up and down and squeeling out adverbs, while the much older well-dressed newsman remains seated between the two with a smirk on his face.

Oh, how horrible! I'd MUCH rather watch this icon utter the news.

 

[Ornery]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: Ornery
Links to Fox news reports that are Jingoistic?

How about FOX's music video of the bombardment of Baghdad? I'd say that qualifies as jingoistic patriotism. I only wish I could find a clip of it...

[/quote]Doesn't sound like it was a NEWS REPORT either, does it?

 

[konichiwa]

Okay, if that doesn't suit your tastes, how about this gem of a quote from your friend and mine, Bill O'Reilly:

"We should not target civilians. But if [the Afghans] don't rise up against this criminal government [the Taliban], they starve, period," and, "What we can do is . . . say to those people, 'Look, we don't want to do this. But either you get rid of this guy yourself, or you're just going to have to starve to death because we're not going to let anybody in there'" (The O'Reilly Factor, 9/17/01).

Well according to The 1948 Genocide Convention:

• Article II(c): Deliberately inflicting on [a national] group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part"

• Article III(c): "Direct and public incitement to commit genocide"

That about sums it up. I'd be behind trying Bill O'Reilly for war crimes, anyone else agree? After all, according to the same document (of which the US is a signatory):

• Article IV: Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.

Next?

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: konichiwa
Okay, if that doesn't suit your tastes, how about this gem of a quote from your friend and mine, Bill O'Reilly:

"We should not target civilians. But if [the Afghans] don't rise up against this criminal government [the Taliban], they starve, period," and, "What we can do is . . . say to those people, 'Look, we don't want to do this. But either you get rid of this guy yourself, or you're just going to have to starve to death because we're not going to let anybody in there'" (The O'Reilly Factor, 9/17/01).

Well according to The 1948 Genocide Convention:

• Article II(c): Deliberately inflicting on [a national] group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part"

• Article III(c): "Direct and public incitement to commit genocide"

That about sums it up. I'd be behind trying Bill O'Reilly for war crimes, anyone else agree? After all, according to the same document (of which the US is a signatory):

• Article IV: Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.

Next?

I know you have some problems but even you should be able to distinguish between someone in the news and someone in the government. You saying that you would be behind a news personality Geneva Convention is absurd.

 

[konichiwa]

Of course my comment suggesting that Bill O'Reilly be brought before the Hague or some similar international tribunal is in jest, but the point was that to suggest that Fox news is "fair and balanced" and lacks any hint of nationalism, extreme patriotic fervor or jingoism is just obtuse, and I was proving that point.

 

[Ornery]

Bill O'Reilly is not a reporter. Where's the links to NEWS REPORTS?

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: Ornery
Bill O'Reilly is not a reporter. Where's the links to NEWS REPORTS?

Does it matter? Fox hires, supports and stands by Bill O'Reilly and his opinions. That is proof enough of their motives and beliefs.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: konichiwa
Of course my comment suggesting that Bill O'Reilly be brought before the Hague or some similar international tribunal is in jest, but the point was that to suggest that Fox news is "fair and balanced" and lacks any hint of nationalism, extreme patriotic fervor or jingoism is just obtuse, and I was proving that point.

Damn, I completely forgot to not feed the trolls.

 

[konichiwa]

Excuse me? Ornery asked for links to examples of Fox's jingoism. I provided them.

 

[BigJelly]

Seeing that the BRITISH military boycotted the BBC during the war because of THEIR slanted coverage and one of BBC's reporters was pissed off that the BBC was bias against the war, id say the BBC is as fair and balenced as Hitler's propaganda.