Here's one of Fox's patented fair and balanced online polls:

quote:

Which statement below best describes your view about the lack of security on trains, and subways? -I will not ride trains and subways after 9/11 -I am afraid when I ride them -I ride them and try not to think about the danger -I ride them and watch everyone around me -I never have occasion to ride trains and subways

Murdoch's goal is for people to be in a constant state of fear, and thus they can be more easily manipulated. I think he's an evil man personally.

I love the inherent irony in that his “news” channel morality squad anchors rail against the kind of trash his movie and TV studios put out.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Well I'd love to watch foxnews for my biased news, but unfortunately I don't get the channel where I live No unfortunately it is just the stupified MSNBC, and the euro-trash CNN-International for me and gasp, PBS which sometimes gets the imperalistically-lefty BBC World This basically explains my television news sources: Don't worry, thats why I come here and take it all out on you guys

HA! I thought you were a Charlie Rose fan? It’s still my opinion that PBS is the best at giving both sides of every argument in the television media, but I agree with you that BBC has a subtle anti-Israel bias. The News Hour, Frontline, Charlie Rose, etc are all excellent though. On Charlie Rose the other day they had Mr. Squirrel's favorite judge, William “Hubinator” Hubbs Rehnquist.

David Brookes is also one of the only conservative talking heads that I respect and like, and he’s on The News Hour.


I grew up watching Sesame Street, Reading Rainbow, and all those other PBS kids programs too.

Do you still live in Austin?

If you have Time Warner cable they have Faux News.

quote:

Originally posted by anuneventrade Why even bother watching TV if you would like to avoid bias? It doesn't matter what station you turn to, there will be bias from one side or the other. Lazy people don't want to READ the news from multiple reliable sources!!

I agree, I get my news mostly from online newspapers now because I got so sick of the tabloid-style TV media.

P.S.
Name some of your "reliable sources."

:P


You can click here and see who owns what media:

http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/

There's really no such thing as the "free press" anymore, since it's all corporately controlled.


All the media owned by Murdoch:

http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/newscorp.asp


As you can see Murdoch is also in control of the US's foreign policy, as he owns the Weekly Standard.

With all of the newspapers he owns in Australia, I'm sure he has great influence over the elections there too.

There are some good conservative news sources out there that are trustworthy like the Wall Street Journal and Washington Times, and I indeed read those papers, but I would NOT fully trust anything in any of the media owned by Murdoch.


When that fake John Kerry intern rumor hit for example, the only newspapers that picked up on it were Murdoch owned papers.

Murdoch's in the propaganda business, and not the news business.

___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/

Last edited by DaveSZ on Mar-15-2004 at 13:25

What are the consequences of a handful at the top being in control of all the media? The degradation of democracy.

Look at Russia:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/14/i...pagewanted=1&th

quote:

Validmir Putin's challengers complain that the Kremlin has abused its control over media, local government and state business to turn Sunday's election into a charade.

quote:

Sure to Win, Putin Takes No Chances With Election By STEVEN LEE MYERS Published: March 14, 2004 MOSCOW, March 13 — Even by Russian standards of democracy, it was a little much to refuse to let patients check into the hospital unless they could prove they had their absentee ballots for Sunday's presidential election. That is what the health committee in Khabarovsk in Russia's Far East ordered beginning March 1 to try to increase voter turnout, about the only drama in an election that President Vladimir V. Putin is all but certain to win. "Such examples discredit the power, and they are inadmissible," Mr. Putin's new deputy prime minister, Aleksandr D. Zhukov, declared in televised remarks on Wednesday. Mr. Zhukov rebuked the local authorities for what he called "administrative overkill," but the only thing unusual about the Khabarovsk case was that Mr. Putin's government acknowledged it. Mr. Putin's challengers, echoed by other political leaders and international monitors, complain that the Kremlin has abused its control over the news organizations, local government and state business to turn the election into a charade. State television has lavished coverage on Mr. Putin, even though he has forsworn campaigning. Local governments and state enterprises have also taken steps to bolster his support, while throwing up obstacles to his challengers. Irina M. Khakamada, a liberal candidate, said Friday that no university in Nizhny Novgorod would permit her to meet with students the day before because their rectors were Putin supporters — the latest in what she called a series of obstructions by officials in several cities. When Sergei Y. Glazyev, an economist and nationalist, campaigned in Yekaterinburg last month the police interrupted a rally, responding to what they said was a bomb threat. Two days later, the authorities in Nizhny Novgorod cut the electricity at another campaign event. Mr. Glazyev, Ms. Khakamada and the leaders of the Communist and Liberal Democratic parties called on supporters to be at polling places on Sunday night to guard against what they warned could be major fraud. Mr. Glazyev accused the Kremlin of planning to rig not only the results but the number of votes because Russian law requires a 50 percent turnout for the election to be valid. "Mr. Putin had a unique historical chance to hold the first free and fair election in Russia," Mr. Glazyev said Wednesday at a news conference in which he accused Mr. Putin of pressuring local officials to ensure a turnout of at least 70 percent. "Unfortunately, Mr. Putin failed to use that chance." The paradox is that, by all accounts, Mr. Putin would easily overcome his challengers in any fair vote, coasting to victory on his popularity and the political and economic stability he has nurtured after the feral years of Boris N. Yeltsin's presidency. But the political machinations surrounding the election campaign threaten to undermine, or at least tarnish, the legitimacy of a victory. "I think President Putin would have made himself a gift if he finally let the campaign follow its course, relieved it of the administrative pressure and firmly ordered his officials not to interfere with the campaign," Ms. Khakamada, his harshest critic, said Friday at a news conference. "And in that case, even though he would still win, we would at least have seen a fair election." The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, whose election monitors criticized the parliamentary elections in December as below European standards for fairness, has already criticized shortcomings in the presidential race. The report cited the state news media's denial of equal access to Mr. Putin's challengers and reported abuses by the local authorities in favor of Mr. Putin and against his opponents. Human rights organizations gathered in Moscow on Wednesday to denounce what they called a repetition of abuses seen in the parliamentary campaign and other elections. "The results of elections are not so much the will of the people, but the will of the administration at all levels, from the Kremlin to the municipalities," said Lyudmila M. Alekseyeva, chairwoman of the Moscow Helsinki Group. Russian liberals are divided over how to respond to Mr. Putin's electoral juggernaut. A new group called Free Choice 2008, whose leaders include the chess champion Garry Kasparov, has called for a boycott, as has Grigory A. Yavlinksy, the leader of the Yabloko Party. He compared the coming elections to those in the Soviet era, when "there was one candidate." "You can find all kinds of terms for what is happening today, but it is not democracy," he said at the human rights gathering. "Maybe it's a tragedy. Maybe it's a necessary step. But it is not democracy." Ms. Khakamada, by contrast, has called on Russians to vote and to demonstrate that a plurality of Russians oppose Mr. Putin's consolidation of power. Mr. Glazyev, her ideological opposite, agreed, asserting that after the election on Sunday, Mr. Putin's power could be absolute. "It's our last chance," he said last weekend in Yaroslavl. His campaign has highlighted the Kremlin's political power and behind-the-scenes intrigue. Barely three months ago, Motherland, the newly created party bloc Mr. Glazyev helped lead, scored unexpectedly well in the parliamentary elections with the tacit support of the Kremlin and positive coverage on state television. It won 9 percent of the vote, drawing support from the Communist Party, and now holds 38 of the Parliament's 450 seats. When Mr. Glazyev declared his candidacy, he came under fierce attack on state television and within his own party. Members loyal to Mr. Putin, including the bloc's other leader, Dmitri O. Rogozin, ousted him as their leader in Parliament, under pressure, Mr. Glazyev said, from Mr. Putin's aides. As he campaigned in Yaroslavl, he said that Mr. Putin's support was not as deep as is routinely claimed. The Kremlin, Mr. Glazyev said, fears that voter discontent may coalesce around his candidacy, with its nationalist appeals and attacks on big businesses that he contends operate in collusion with Mr. Putin's government. "They want to have some kind of political theater instead of real democracy," he said. "In this theater, they want actors they can manipulate." Mr. Putin has eschewed overt campaigning, satisfied, it would seem, with the overwhelming attention paid by state media to his official actions. He turned down free airtime on television and refused to take part in debates. The result has been voter apathy, with an overwhelming majority of Russians telling pollsters that the outcome of Sunday's vote is a foregone conclusion. Many politicians warn that election officials will simply inflate the figures should turnout fall short of 50 percent. Indicating the Kremlin's concern, the most visible signs of the election campaign have been get-out-the-vote efforts. Officials in Moscow have offered concert tickets to voters, while those in Vladivostok offered a chance to win a vacation to China. Mr. Putin appeared on state television on Thursday with his own appeal. "I deem it necessary to stress that only the support of citizens will make it possible to chart the course of the country for years ahead, to make responsible steps to develop the economy and improve the quality of people's lives," he said. "Only your support will given the future president of Russia confidence."

Of course one can argue that there is a fundamental difference in theory between state-run television and corporately controlled media, but the eventual outcome, in practice, of a handful of individuals manipulating what the public reads, hears, and watches, is essentially the same.

The Bush Admin (through its FCC chair), and also House Speaker Tom Delay are squarely in the pocket of big media despite millions of letters written to Congress and the White House by Americans like me who realize the threat to democracy.

There is also a bipartisan majority in both the House and Senate (including such disparate members as Ted Kennedy and Trent Lott) that favor placing a cap on media consolidation. Tom Delay, bought and paid for, refuses to bring it up for a vote.

If anything good comes out of the Janet Jackson boob incident, it will hopefully be greater restrictions on media consolidation.

Obviously John Kerry cannot speak out against media consolidation, or he’s done for. The media is what created him, it’s what destroyed Dean after Iowa, and it’s what sank George Bush’s father in 1992. I certainly hope if he wins though, he will do the right thing. Even if he’s half as corrupt as Delay and Bush that would be a great improvement.

Since I posted a NYT article, I also certainly hope that the Jayson Blair phenom is not a systemic problem within that newspaper.

___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/

Last edited by DaveSZ on Mar-16-2004 at 02:12

This is nothing new. Murdoch has a history of manipulation, and you can bet he had a hand in the recent changes in the US media foreign ownership laws.

This quote (from here) is an extract from a documentary on Murdoch that was aired here is Australia recently.

quote:

in the 90's PBS' 'Frontline' did an excellent story called Frontline: ‘Who’s Afraid of Rupert Mudoch?’ which explained how his first empire in Oz got Whitlam elected as PM of Oz, after undermining the previous gov’t in print. When this guy did not dance to the dirty digger's tune, an attack was mounted by Murdoch. From the transcript: He'd supported Whitlam. He'd helped to destroy the previous government, therefore Whitlam should now support him and whatever demands he made, however outrageous they might be…. Whitlam says that after the election, as a price for his support, Murdoch asked to be made Australia's ambassador to London, a charge Murdoch has always denied. Whether because Whitlam refused to grant him favors or because, as Murdoch says, he was ineffectual, in the 1975 election Murdoch turned his papers against Whitlam and supported the more conservative Malcolm Fraser. The journalists' copy was being altered. They were given specific instructions on what they could write and what they couldn't write. And where the instructions weren't specific, they learnt pretty bloody quickly because nothing appeared in the paper if it didn't follow the line. It was the most extraordinarily ruthless and one-sided political coverage I think any of us can remember and we devoutly hope we never see it again. … Murdoch's papers were burned in the streets. And then Murdoch's own journalists walked out. It was a rarity-- reporters striking not over money, but ethics. But again Murdoch had backed the winner and now he wanted a favor from Prime Minister Fraser: a change in the laws regarding the ownership of T.V. stations. Murdoch's plans to expand into foreign markets conflicted with laws requiring station owners to maintain their permanent residence in Australia. Fraser had the law changed.” …“he loves the idea that presidents and prime ministers pick up the phone and call him and say, you know, "Rupert, you'd be a big help to me if and so.”

Whitlam was Labour (equivalent of US Democrat); Fraser was a Liberal (Republican).

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Well I'd love to watch foxnews for my biased news, but unfortunately I don't get the channel where I live

w000t, i thought everyone in america had all channels in the world... hehe.. even i got fox news

quote:

Don't worry, thats why I come here and take it all out on you guys

ahaaaa now it all makes sense

My sympathies, Yoepus. I'm not sure where you are, but yeah, some cable systems in the US don't carry all the news channels, just CNN, or sometimes CNN/MSNBC. If you go get a mini-dish like DirecTV you can get it. (Plus 500+ other channels, should you have that kind of time to watch TV). But depending where you live, some apartment complexes are very strict about not having dishes.

In Israel, I thought that Fox had been picked up by some of the cable providers? There was that period about a year ago where the government got really pissed at CNN and wanted them off the systems. If not, it's on satellite over Europe.

I've actually been enjoying some interesting European news lately. I picked up a DVB satellite system that's geared more towards hobbyists, but I can get 7 channels of Euronews, which seems to have a great deal of good footage. Plus, France 2 and 3 seem to have late-night news feeds over the US, and I can try to re-learn my French.

___________________
FLUSHED THE JOHNS!

Honestly, is anyone surprised? The inaccuracy of the news media, especially television news, seems to be a common theme here, so I'll say it again. STOP WATCHING THE STUPID TELEVISION! I say this every time: television news is worthless sensationalism based on the principles of the entertainment industry. Read the news, from several different sources if you want to know what's going on, don't just wait for someone to tell you what to think. If you don't want to be misinformed, you're going to have to glean the truth from various biased sources, because nothing is unbiased.

That said, I think everyone around here does that reasonably well, so you can just copy and paste my rant to the morons who try to post news in the Chillout room.

quote:

Originally posted by daffodil Honestly, is anyone surprised? The inaccuracy of the news media, especially television news, seems to be a common theme here, so I'll say it again. STOP WATCHING THE STUPID TELEVISION! I say this every time: television news is worthless sensationalism based on the principles of the entertainment industry. Read the news, from several different sources if you want to know what's going on, don't just wait for someone to tell you what to think. If you don't want to be misinformed, you're going to have to glean the truth from various biased sources, because nothing is unbiased. That said, I think everyone around here does that reasonably well, so you can just copy and paste my rant to the morons who try to post news in the Chillout room.

Nice post! Thank you!

quote:

Originally posted by b1_ This is nothing new. Murdoch has a history of manipulation, and you can bet he had a hand in the recent changes in the US media foreign ownership laws. This quote (from here) is an extract from a documentary on Murdoch that was aired here is Australia recently. Whitlam was Labour (equivalent of US Democrat); Fraser was a Liberal (Republican).

I had suspected Murdoch had these ulterior motives for some time in gaining control of various world media.

He's undeniably one of the most powerful, most domineering people on the planet.

___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew w000t, i thought everyone in america had all channels in the world... hehe.. even i got fox news

We do. I'm just to cheap to pay for it

I get only the basic channels. Which unfortunately includes MSNBC and CNN, but no Foxnews


Ya, Dave I've moved to Galveston now so I get the Houston channels. PBS is good, but their news show is the dullest most sleep inducing thing, plus all its long editorial reports are 80% hippie.

Even Charlie Rose is left-leaning, although he tries to moderate it. I like watching the guy because he gets the coolest people on earth (he had Bill Gates two weeks ago.. and had Jack Welch this last week) but unfortunately he isn't a very good interviewer. He leads them on with their questions, and stops them often when they're just about to say something big and shocking (Charlie stopped Bill from telling the world exaclty what Longhorn is and why its supposed to be so revolutionary).

I don't know, he has his days and he has his days.

Though the two other shows I like from PBS are frontline and NOVA.

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.