A Complete Propaganda Organization
Tweet
Fox News uses its polls to push made-up conservative stories, even ones occasionally debunked on its own channel. At this point in history Fox has gone far past the role Pravda played in the old Soviet Union.
37 Responses to “A Complete Propaganda Organization”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
OW, this is no longer even news. We all know the Ailes Noise Machine is a fountain of misinformation (and damn proud of it). I give them no credibility whatsoever.
And to the trolls who will inevitably defend Fox in this thread: kiss my ass.
“My dancing with the czars segment is cutting edge”-squirrel eater Mike Huckabee
The funniest part is, the slobbering idiots who watch Fake News insist it’s TEH TRUTH. Now, no one I know who claims to be a liberal will ever jump up and down and swear by all that is holy that MSNBC or CNN is ‘the truth’.
But my crazy right wing father in law totally 100% believes everything he hears on Fox as the gospel. He doesn’t question it if it comes from Fox, no sir. It has to be true if Fox reports it. If it comes from the Washignto Post or NY Times, well, then it may be suspect. CNN? Forget it. Fox or talk radio? Check.
Maybe someday ol Ruppie Murdoch will have his own awards show since they never get any Emmys or any other journalist awards of merit. I cannot imagine why?
Cue James Earl
JonesRay:It’s not news.
It’s FOX News.
squirrel cooked on a popcorn popper eater Mike Huckabee
Fiqst
Regardless of how many liberals Burn knows, the MSNBC / Newsweek / Time / Democratic Party / left wing ideological claque is so obvious* that people like Olbermann, Maddow and “Ed” must doubt themselves at the end of every show: “Was I too over the top, pushing the liberal agenda, and fishing for Obama – exonerating answers to all his opposition?”
Of course, their staff members tell them, “No, Boss, you were way better than FOX!”
they never get any Emmys or any other journalist awards of merit. I cannot imagine why?
It couldn’t possibly be that the people who give out those awards are not sympathetic with Fox’s views (Given that their reporters have earned multiple awards) ? Never!
*Latest example: When a person resigns from a job, they are said to have “resigned.” Yet MSNBC says Gov Palin will be quitting her job on Monday.
It couldn’t possibly be that the people who give out those awards are not sympathetic with Fox’s views (Given that their reporters have earned multiple awards) ? Never!
Um, no , it’s because Fox News is widely recognized in the news industry for what it is; a cheap vanity tabloid for illiterate morons, run just like the NY Post. There is no news on Fox, just commentary, talk and opinion.
Has Fox News ever broke a real story by using actual reporting and investigating?
Which Fox reporters ever won any awards? National, not local.
Burn : I looked it up and found it : So can you. I also found a first person account that indicated that it takes big bucks to get nominated for News Emmys. FOX opted out years ago.
That’s why they haven’t won recently – they don’t enter.
Has Fox News ever broke a real story by using actual reporting and investigating?
Why bother to answer?
What ever I say, it won’t qualify because it is not, in your estimation actual
reporting
investigation
There is one thing I could say: If FOX wanted to break the news of a Republican scandal, or some Democratic heroics, they’d have no trouble getting an Emmy.
Certainly if Fox were to enter, they’d win barrels of awards for Bill-O’s body language segments and their expressions of rage at the culprit behind the Erin Andrews video (as they show a piece of the video with two little blur strips).
So you don’t have answers Frank, other than ‘go look it up yourself’. Ha ha, that’s typical. You can’t even tell me can you?
Neil Cavouto and his multiple interviews with porn stars and Hooters girls, wow, that’s some real serious news reporting.
Sean Hannity slobbering over Rev Wright for two months straight, definitely solid reporting.
Glen Beck crying about Fema camps…that deserves an Emmy, best male performance.
Dildo Reilly sending out his own ‘stuttering john’ to confront people as they are coming out of a restaurant, sounds like Murrow’s legacy to me.
Greeta Van Sustern interviews Rush Limpballs on healthcare…because he’s such an expert.
I like how ESPN told Murdoch and his News Corpse to go fuck off forever for not only running the video of Erin Andrews as often as possible, but they put it on the front page of the NY Post as well.
They didn’t have to, but they knew they’d sell more papers that way.
Fucking scumbags. Ever noticed the NY Post has barely any advertising in it? Same with the Moonie Times. Both papers lose millions every year. I thought conservatives were all about profit and making money, so why do they keep up these lame rags that lose so much money?
Gee, it wouldn’t have anything to do with using them as outlets to further GOP talking points, right?
*Latest example: When a person resigns from a job, they are said to have “resigned.” Yet MSNBC says Gov Palin will be quitting her job on Monday.
That’s it? Using a synonym??? That’s what you’ve got as an example of bias?
Shorter Frank DiSalle: Here, Burn, let me prove your case.
Frank DiSalle: Burn : I looked it up and found it : So can you.
I don’t get this. I’ve spent time looking things up several times and always post the results of what I find so that I put the facts that support my view in full view. I always (unless I slipped up sometime) provide a link to where I go tth info so folks can see for themselves. Several folks here seem to work that way.
So why resort to “Well I spent time to find the info and let me tell you I am right. If you want to see the support I have for that you have to find it yourself.”?
So why resort to “Well I spent time to find the info and let me tell you I am right. If you want to see the support I have for that you have to find it yourself.”?
Just ‘speculating’ here, but probably because he didn’t look up squat…or more likely he did find some cites/refs, but none that could stand any scrutiny.
Burn: There is no news on Fox, just commentary, talk and opinion.
Actually, the 20 sec ‘fox news updates’ and tickertapes across the bottom of the screen could be classified as actual news, but other than that, Burn’s observation is probably 99.998% correct (just so certain folks don’t start nit-picking details)
Fox is expecting Emmy accolades the same as Springer’s talk show or McMahon’s wrestling shows are…i.e., no chance in hell.
If you think you will EVER see an investigative report or product on Fox ‘news’ that is on par with reports like Christiane Amanpour has done, you are truly living in your own private Nexxus/Idaho.
(CA is my hero as far as journalists go, and one of the reasons I still tolerate CNN, which has deteriorated over the years I think)
p.s., comparing Fox ‘news’ to WWE or Jerry Springer might be considered an insult. If so, I apologize to any wrestling or Jerry fans that might be out there…
WWE is far more realistic and unbiased than Fox News.
Here’s the deal on the Google search. It turned up Fox reporters that won Peabodys and Emmys , then it turn up numerous repetitive blog stories that FOX never wins EMMYs.
Then I found a story about how EMMYs cost a lot of money to nominate, and after a few years of getting rejected , FOX News chose to no longer participate.
Rather than attempt to encapsulate that into 12 or 15 “a href”‘s, I figured you could look it up and do what I did.
I was watching FOX News tonight, and I realized that if all they did was have some conservative talking heads on , and some left wing / right wing “Crossfire” style debates , that was something .
They are getting the ratings they are getting BECAUSE of their conservative folks, not in spite of them .
You demonstrate this day in and day out, when you present as “evidence” that the media is not left biased, the one or two items that not Presidential coolie – smoochers , or the 10 times Pres Bush wasn’t lied about in 8 years.
Pres Bush was treated shamefully by the MainStreamPress for 8 years. The “evidence” for that is FOX News … Why else would people watch it?
FoxNews’ ratings are almost exclusively attributable to white men over age 65 who ran to the network during the Clinton years and then stayed when they cried victimimzation over the life of the Bush years. The truth is all of the mainstream media acted shamefully during the Bush years. And it for damn sure wasn’t because they persecuted him. Its because they enabled him for about 6 of those 8 years. Its for that reason that every day some new revelation like the suppression of evidence of global warming comes out or about considering suspending posse comitatus.
The problem for anybody criticizing the media during the Bush administration is you will be hard pressed to find a mainstream media story that turned out to be a hoax. There were no Vince Foster stories about Bush nor were there any birth certificate stories. At the worst you can say that after it was evident that the country had turned on Bush then a few of the Villagers decided to weigh in against him on the opinion pages.
And yet you still had FoxNews banging the victim drum over and over again because they don’t want you questioning ANYTHING a Republican president does but they want you questioning EVERYTHING a Democratic president does all the way down to getting ice cream with his daughters. Anybody who watches FoxNews now does so because they have either been brainwashed over the years and they just can’t even consider at this point that they have been wrong all this time OR they know FoxNews is full of shit but are glad because it helps the political party (GOP) they support.
For as much as so called conservatives and Republicans want to talk shit about KO or Rachel Maddow on MSNBC both of them have sharply criticised President Obama over subjects like DADT, preventative detention, and not holding anyone accountable for torture.
Think REAL hard and try to come up with something Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Neil Cavuto, or anybody else on FoxNews criticized President Bush on for the first 6 years of his administration.
Don’t run from it either. Don’t try to point to a shiny object and run. Try to come up with something they criticized Bush for or your whole argument falls apart. We can wait all day.
Don’t run from it either. Don’t try to point to a shiny object and run. Try to come up with something they criticized Bush for or your whole argument falls apart. We can wait all day.
What you wrote, sgwhiteinfla, but I seriously doubt that a legit answer is not forthcoming.
I know I have heard Bill O’Reilly criticize Pres Bush, but I hardly watch him anyway. I don’t watch Hannity as much as O’Reilly (meaning hardly ever). I watch Neal Cavuoto trying to learn about finance. His best shows are when he has about six guys with six different opinions.
First, let me say that I have not paid much attention to MSNBC until Pres Obama was elected. The fact some news commentators have criticized him for not being liberal enough does not dissuade me from my belief. Would you be impressed if I presented you with evidence that FOX commentators had criticized Pres Bush for not being conservative enough ? I think not .
Anybody who watches FoxNews now does so because they have either been brainwashed over the years and they just can’t even consider at this point that they have been wrong all this time OR they know FoxNews is full of shit but are glad because it helps the political party (GOP) they support.
Is that an argument?
My point was that no one would bother to watch a news channel that wasn’t a news channel, unless it performed some other function. like “E!” or Biography.
If FOX were only the “right hand” of the news , as I said above, that would be something ABCCBSNBC and CNBCCNNMSNBC were not — that would be useful function.
FoxNews’ ratings are almost exclusively attributable to white men over age 65
Even that figure is distorted to make Fox look bad.
In an article from Pensito Review they totally confused the issue by conflating radio with TV, median with “mean” (average), and left this bombshell at the end:
Fox pundits/commentators like to present themselves as the ‘outsiders’, fighting the good fight against the mainstream (i.e. liberal) media goliaths. News Flash: If you’re getting the ratings, viewer ship, advertising revenue (and Fox IS getting rating and viewership, a point they’re glad to constantly share), you ARE the mainstream media!
Content quality is not the prerequisite for having a popular TV show. (rhetorical question: have you seen the Jerry Springer show?). You just need to be ‘selling’ something a big enough customer base is willing to ‘buy’.
I don’t know how true it is, but I saw a stat somewhere that said ‘Coast to Coast’ was the most popular syndicated radio talk show. Makes sense, UFOs and reincarnation are a lot more interesting than global economics to most folks….
Wiz: Their ratings don’t compare to ABCCBSNBC and CNBCCNNMSNBC, when they are combined, and yet they do well. And not because the content is superior. But because they are an alternative to each of them — all of them.
I will make the point for the third time. The news was strained through a liberal filter for years with an occasional crumb thrown to the right (Firing Line, Crossfire, McLaughlin Group).
Fox goes out and collects the reporters and commentators that I had been reading for years, and suddenly people are interested : “Who are these guys ?”
The left goes wild!
Bias !
Stupid !
RNC mouthpiece!
That’s supposed to convince me that there’s no leftist bias in the media?
I can tell you right now: The anti-Republican bias on MSNBC is palpable — so dense you can cut it with a knife .
The anti-Republican bias on MSNBC is palpable — so dense you can cut it with a knife .
Morning Joe
Pat Buchanan
sgwhiteinfla: Don’t run from it either. Don’t try to point to a shiny object and run. Try to come up with something they criticized Bush for or your whole argument falls apart.
Frank DiSalle: I know I have heard Bill O’Reilly criticize Pres Bush, but I hardly watch him anyway.
That would be the Frank once again demonstrating the level of support he believes is sufficient for his arguments. “I know I heard it once somewhere.” Goes almost hand-in-hand with his “I found it when I google, you can too.”
Frank DiSalle: The fact some news commentators have criticized him for not being liberal enough does not dissuade me from my belief.
Assuming that is what they were criticizing him for. Sharply criticising President Obama over subjects like continuing preventative detention, and not holding anyone accountable for torture is criticizing him for hypocrisy and his willingness to not follow the law. If there’s a “not liberal enough” aspect to that, its becuase liberals are more interested in the rule of law than conservatives.
My point was that no one would bother to watch a news channel that wasn’t a news channel, unless it performed some other function.
Which it does. As has already been pointed out. It provides reinforcement to a world view that everything the viewer’s side (Republicans, right-wingers) does is correct and good while everything the other side (Democrats, liberals, non-whites) do is terrible.
Straw men, Frank.
OK, Sean, CNN is fair and balanced . Tell me when they praised Pres Bush. Tell me when MSNBC criticized Pres Obama from his right, or praised Pres. Bush from his left.
I was asked if I heard it, not to prove it.
And that was his argument, not mine.
No one has accepted my challenge – it seems like all of you are chasing the “sparkly thing” – FOX doesn’t report REAL News (I asked when did ABCCBSNBC and CNBCCNNMSNBC praise Pres Bush?
Answer: When did FOX criticize Pres Bush?)
Wrong answer.
Frank DiSalle: Fox goes out and collects the reporters and commentators that I had been reading for years, and suddenly people are interested : “Who are these guys ?”
The left goes wild!
Translated Frank: I thought Burn needed more support for his original point so I’m happy to provide it.
Frank DiSalle: (I asked when did ABCCBSNBC and CNBCCNNMSNBC praise Pres Bush?
Answer: When did FOX criticize Pres Bush?)
Wrong answer.
Flip the networks, and how is that question/answer any different from what you started your comment with?
Let’s try this again:
If there’s a “not liberal enough” aspect to that, its becuase liberals are more interested in the rule of law than conservatives.
That is not news. That is your opinion, your point of view, your perspective. That is PRECISELY why the news is biased, Because what they think simply “is” , is really what they think ought to be.
Translated Frank: I thought Burn needed more support for his original point so I’m happy to provide it.
That was not my point. I meant that when FOX came into existence saying, “Yoo hoo! Conservatives exist and have opinions too!” That was when the Left went wild, with silly accusations of distortion and presenting biased news.
I was suggesting that ABCCBSNBC and CNBCCNNMSNBC did not treat Pres Bush fairly. You never said, “Oh, sure they did” because that would be a totally unsupported lie. So, instead you asked me to prove to that FOX never criticized Pres Bush.
Maybe that would be a good thing for me to do, but it would no way be as daunting a task as yours.
I, at least, heard Pres Bush criticized — you never heard him praised.
I repeat, the problem with liberal news is commentary. I know when liberal commentators are commenting. The problem is, was, and most likely will always be: Story selection; whose side of the story gets the most weight; who is called upon to analyze it; and how often it is presented.
Finally, take a concrete issue: This new “healthcare reform” bill. How is FOX doing in the four areas?
How about ABCCBSNBC and CNBCCNNMSNBC ? How are they doing in those four areas?
I think it’d rather pathetic to say Republicans are represented by three people at MSNBC, and call that a fair representation of Republican opinion. John McCain disappointed a whole bunch of people who might have voted for a different Republican, and still got 46% of the popular vote .
But MSNBC has three Republicans?
I think to advance this discussion, there needs to be a definitive spec on what you consider a ‘news’ show and whats a ‘politico-talk’ show (no easy task as the media has itself blurred the line)
‘Headline news’ is a news reporting program. cross-fire, hannity, mclaughlin, oreilly, today show, are talk-shows (with news reporting sprinkled in to reflect current events and/or establish the template for the discussion).
Frank:I will make the point for the third time. The news was strained through a liberal filter for years with an occasional crumb thrown to the right (Firing Line, Crossfire, McLaughlin Group).
I don’t believe thats true. I’ve heard this contention before (another one of those core mantras that conservative media advances) For a time, I would even scan the broadcast/cable news shows looking to find some instances of this happening, but I never heard any news anchors (e.g., rather, brokaw, losure, etc.) skewing anything. Again, when I went to any of the talk shows, that was a different story (but that’s what the talk shows are there for). I can’t even recall any national broadcast news doing ‘commentary’ or ‘editorial’ segments since the Cronkite/Huntley-Brinkley days (I think that format died out and got replaced with whats now the talk show/forum type segments)
Believe me I’ve got no problem with any talk show commentator (on any side of the politico-fence) presenting whatever perspective they care to. But when some other show then calls you on your BS, press to justify your facts/argument,…don’t whine that your show is the unbiased truth and any other contradictory outlet is just a conspiracy to squelch your truth and harm the republic, but we’ll keep fighting the good fight against that big bad mainstream liberal machine, ‘cause we’re patriot local-joes just like you America, yada yada……
So lame…
Frank: I repeat, the problem with liberal news is commentary. I know when liberal commentators are commenting. The problem is, was, and most likely will always be: Story selection; whose side of the story gets the most weight; who is called upon to analyze it; and how often it is presented.
The problem (I think) with ANY news would be to interject commentary. Liberal (and conservative) commentators on the other hand, are supposed to comment (hence the title).
The contention that liberal news anchors interject commentary in a covert, yet consistent fashion, is unfounded rhetoric. I’d like to see any example of a relevant story/news event that DIDN’T get reported by a national liberal NEWS outlet in order to skew viewer perception about the event ( I would also note that it doesn’t happen on fox NEWS segments either, what little NEWS segments they actually have). But having said that, you can also count on the talk shows coming right behind the news events to give their slanted take on those events.
Frank: I know I have heard Bill O’Reilly criticize Pres Bush, but I hardly watch him anyway.
I used to consistently watch oreilly (really, I can explain, but that’s a whole other story)
I can tell you he was a staunch POTUS supporter, at one point considered any contradictory perspective on the president as possibly treasonous.
He didn’t change his rhetoric UNTIL the administrations Iraq strategy started showing its shortcomings and the facts bore out all the bush critics. Even then, he tried to mitigate Bush’s culpability by saying his options were limited, couldn’t leave a vacuum in Baghdad, blah blah blah..
Frank: I was suggesting that ABCCBSNBC and CNBCCNNMSNBC did not treat Pres Bush fairly.
It depends on what outlet you mean. If you’re referring to the NEWS shows on those networks, I would disagree. If you’re referring to the talk/forum shows, I would say calling an actual knucklehead a knucklehead is what you’re supposed to do on that type of show. Wouldn’t be fair to viewers otherwise. As long as the criticism is pertinent to the event topic and can be backed up with some facts/results/consequences….
I will accept
I will not accept that editorial choices are ideologically bent, and if there were 6 “conservative” news outlets, there would be 6 flavors of conservatism on TV news
and yet, in spite of the fact that you folks insist they don’t broadcast real news, they leave the competition in the dust with regards to numbers of viewers.
nah… I watch all the news… I watched MSNBC when it initially suggested tea parties, and then later, it claimed that fox news suggested them. Gee, I guess they don’t watch their own tapes, eh?
I watched the tea parties on fox news, and thought it was interesting even though hundreds of thousands of people participated, that other news media gave those events very little coverage… and why was that? Oh, because it wasn’t what they agreed with, so they wanted to minimize it.
There was janeane garofalo who insisted that anyone who participated was a racist who didn’t agree with having a black president, and guess what? There were many, many black people there. Many of the people I know that attended the event are in no way, shape, or form racist. And yet, the MSNBC host agreed with her (he murmured his agreement… I watched that on the very biased YouTube).
If you want to delude yourself into thinking that MSNBS is unbiased, I am afraid you are sadly mistaken. The only news media station that I find to be relatively unbiased is CNN.
MSNBC would not allow any divergent opinion from the President’s health care plan during the Obamacare infomercial that was presented, and I simply cannot respect that. To not even allow the critics to have any voice (including paid for commercials) strikes me as extremely disturbing, and quite frankly, even though I have always leaned towards health care reform, I now believe that the president is not interested in any discussion as to what the best plan would be. I am unwilling to just lay there and take it while yet another piece of legislature is passed without even been read.
I have heard Hannity, Glenn Beck, and Bill O’Reilly criticize George W. So, while the bend on Fox news is decidedly conservative, it did not worship the ground George W. walked on. Conversely, MSNBC DOES seem to worship Barack Obama.
So, in short, the only news outlet that I have very little, if any respect for is MSNBC. I will continue to earmark a couple hours of my day to ABC, CNN, and Fox News. I actually think it is interesting to get different perspectives.