MovieChat Forums > Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism (2004) Discussion > Id be interested to hear what non US cit...

Id be interested to hear what non US citizens thought of this movie

posted 19 years ago by edzillion
155 replies | jump to latest

Greets,
It is interesting to me how much me and my friends talk about American politics. Obviously if you are interested in the politics of the world at all you will follow what goes on stateside, and it is definitely more dramatic than the politics of smaller nations, but there is more to it than that. I think people are genuinely concerned. For all these reasons I found outfoxed fascinating.
Im from Ireland, where we have what I think is a fairly neutral and unbaised national news network, RTE. Like alot of small nations (where nothing much seems to happen) the Irish take a larger interest in world affairs than say Americans do(having bigger domestic issues) and RTE also reflects this in its news.
I was *shocked* watching Bill O'Rielly (and embarrassed I might add, sharing an Irish name with this guy) and his aggressive, hectoring and thuggish way of dealing with his "guests". I can honestly say that if any Irish news broadcaster told a guest to "shut up" on air in that tone, there would be numerous complaints and I would imagine his/her career would be in question. Some of the crude humour and obvious personal attacks on politicians made my stomach turn, and also wouldnt be acceptable in any Irish media. I was left wondering how any American (down-to-earth rational people as I have met them on my travels) could watch this stuff, and the scary thought was the only explanation is that America is an extremely divided and partisan country at the moment.
Is Irish news just an abberation? What happens in your part of the world?

regards,
ed.

[–] vei_slakt 19 years ago

hi ed,

i've already shared a lot of the same opinions as you do in another thread... but i can confirm that O'reilly could not have worked anywhere in Norwegian tv (or perhaps as a very bad guy in a lousy soap opera...), i was disgusted and felt almost personally insulted by his apperance... when someone shows this kind of discontempt for other people and their point of view they doesnt belong anywhere, least not in the media...
biased news and reporters and anchors personal opinions doesnt belong anywhere in the media of a democracy...
it seems like fox is getting credability for showing a different "side" of the news than other news networks, to me it seems like they're only a propaganda-machine for the sitting government... in Norway we call the media the 4th state power (1. legislative, 2. executive, 3. judicial) the point of a democracy is make these powers work independently spreading the power... the 4th statepower is called the guard-dog watching and reporting to the people if something isnt working or if someones abusing their powers... when the media becomes an instrument of the government like fox is it really shakes me, cause this is something we only find in dictatorships... like joseph goebbles said "if you controll the information, you controll the people", he also said "if you tell people the same lie long enough, they'll think its true"
the more i can compare the political situasion in USA to that of Nazi-Germany the more its creeping me out...

[–] gerritjanssens 19 years ago

Hi there,

I thought "Outfoxed" was a pretty good documentary. Apart from your political views, it makes clear that Fox News standards of journalism are appallingly biased and bad. Murdoch's monopoly is scary too, and the movie shows what is going on behind the scenes. An anchor like O' Reilly would not make it on tv in Belgium, (where I live) - that's for sure.

I find it hard to judge news and information in the States, however. We Europeans tend to think of ourselves as more down-to-earth and neutral, but that is not the case. Our media are gradually evolving into a giving what people-want attitude and not the other way around. I still believe our media determine the quality of the public debate, not the public itself.

I just loved Michael Mann's "The insider" and the way he shows what is going on on a corporate level with our independent media. And that is not just going on in the States. And that worries me a lot.

[–] equalizer316 19 years ago

gerritjanssens - agree with you I do!

live in the UK but havent seen it yet

i do however get fox news and have to say that i only watch it for one reason:

Cause Fox news is a *beep* joke! A perfect example of irony in the subtitle 'fair and balanced'. Coming from the UK were most news is impartial, its either hilariuos or quite depressing to see the *beep* that comes out of the mouths of these people.

That network wouldnt last a day in this country! Although we have sky news which is owned by murdoch, its nothing in comparison but a mere sensationalist tabloid newspaper in TV format.

I guess that when I hear all these people blabbing about the 'Liberal Media' in the US what they are actually referring to is impartial news coverage. I get CNN and my observations are that it has a more balanced outlook somewhat in line of the BBC or ITV news channels.

I love it when I hear some clueless neoconservative blab about 'how fox news is an alternative to bias in the media' especially when you have Bill O'Reilly and Hannity. Do conservatives just read the whole 'fair and balanced' tagline and look no further?

btw - check out www.pabaah.com ABSOLUTELY HILARIOUS!
this is a website run by some hypocrite who is soooooo far to the right in his beliefs and want of censorship of people in the media who criticise the govt that he cant see the horrible irony of it all

or does he?

[–] badi-3 19 years ago

Well, I haven't seen Outfoxed yet but I know a thing or two about US media and private media in general. It's all bad. Where Americans are arguing over which station is right-wing and which is leftish-liberal I can see only far right stations!
Guys, journalists shouldn't get involved. Okay, they are human beings and entitled to have their own opinions - but not at work!
I Germany we have 2 big public broadcasters, with kinds good news shows, all the private stations are just crappy and biased. The public stations are just telling you the news and leave the work to make your mind up to you.
I don't watch "news" that try to tell me what to think!

[–] Maskettenyc 18 years ago

"Coming from the UK were most news is impartial"

And how can you prove that?? Talk about the wool being pulled over ones eyes.

[–] Joebuss555 19 years ago

Frankly, I get a little tired of Europeans lecturing Americans about what is right. Just keep in mind, that if it weren't for America, for guys like my late father who hit the beaches of Normandy in 1944 and a lot of other places during World War II, Europeans would all be speaking German or exploring exciting new career oppurtunities as lampshades and bars of soap.

Now, to straighten a few other things out for you. Bill O'Reilly, whom I personally don't like that much, isn't an anchor. He is a commentator. I don't always agree with him, but frankly, I wanted to slap that little anti-war punk around, too.

Secondly, the reason that Fox News is so successful is because we have four major news networks on TV, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and Fox. The other four are unabashedly liberal in their outlook. We don't turn to Fox because we want to be told what to think, we turn to Fox because it affirms what we already believe.

Finally, Fox does have it share of liberals on the air. Colmes, for one. Greta van Sustren is another. IN addition, there is Geraldo Rivera, who backed Bill Clinton to the hilt during impeachment.

[–] opacic 19 years ago

That anti-war punk just lost his father in the war and that if anything warrants some goddamn respect for his opinions. I'm not going to comment on the rest of your post as it is just excuses for Fox News not doing the right thing.

The right thing is either start presenting fair and balanced news or stop pretending it is a serious news channel. If Fox News only affirms what you already believe, then watching it is nothing less than self masturbation. It is not for people who has the courage to challenge their ideas. It is really a channel for people that is either lazy, cowardice or just apathetic.

[–] Joebuss555 19 years ago

Why should I respect him because he lost a parent? (Not in "the war", by the way, but in the World Trade Center attack.) It seems that he lost a parent, and still doesn't get it. There are people out there who would happily kill Americans, and we aren't going to change that by making nice with them.

I won't even comment on his ignorance, like claiming that George H. Bush funded Osama when he was head of the CIA. When George H. Bush headed the CIA, Osama was a 18 year old kid living in Saudi Arabia. He's just a snotty little punk who has found he can get attention by saying, "I lost my Daddy on 9/11, and I hate America and Bush!"

I look at it this way. There is NO such thing as "fair" news station. You have CNN, started by Ted Turner, a guy so far off to the nutty left that he was dumped by Jane Fonda. You have CBS, which tried to smear our President by using obviously forged documents, and then tried to claim it wasn't because of bias. YOu have ABC, who decided that they need to put Bill Clinton's stooge in charge of their Sunday show and decided it had to do a 2 hour special on UFO's. So, yeah, I'll watch a station that will give me the same hard news, and won't insult my values or intelligence.

Oh, hey, take a look at your last sentence. I can't respect someone who can't use proper grammar.

[–] opacic 19 years ago

You are still making excuses for Fox News not being fair and balanced. I say it's okay for it to be biased but it should not pretend to be fair and balanced when it's not - that is hypocritical.

[–] Joebuss555 19 years ago

As far as I am concerned, it is fair and balanced. Since I know my point of view is the RIGHT one, and they reflect my point of view, that is all the balance I need.

[–] opacic 19 years ago

If you hold Fox News to such low standard how can you still complain about the alleged liberal bias in the media in general? Are you saying bias is okay as long as it is to the RIGHT? What if the situation was different, suppose Fox News was biased to the LEFT, would it still be okay? Do you understand what I mean by hypocrisy?

[–] bobalot 19 years ago

Forget talking to him. He is an idiot.

Some people don't understand wrong is wrong, no matter who does it.

[–] Joebuss555 19 years ago

Gee, so since namecalling is WRONG, then you are wrong to do it, right? No doubt, you'll be apologizing any second now...

I don't see anything that is wrong with what Fox does. It presents the news. It presents a certain viewpoint. It emphasizes some things, but my question is, why doesn't the other media do so as well? Why was Fox talking about the Oil for Food Scandal a FULL YEAR before the rest of the media decided to talk about it? If Fox was the only network asking John Kerry why he threw his medals over the wall, why weren't the ohter networks asking him?

[–] Sally_Draper 16 years ago

If Fox was the only network asking John Kerry why he threw his medals over the wall, why weren't the ohter networks asking him?

Because it was a lie.

[–] Joebuss555 19 years ago

Do you understand what you mean by hypocrisy?

When you use a term like "alledged liberal bias", I think you are disconnected from reality. The Old media is ALL liberal bias. People got sick of it, which is why Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and others have made such an impact.

The only standard I hold any news station to is this - are the things they are telling me happened, things that actually happened. I know you would consider this a "low" standard, but some liberal mainstream media can't seem to reach that goal. You know, like CBS trying to tell me Col. Killian, a guy who died in 1984, came back from the dead and wrote a memo about President Bush on a word processor. Then they take six months to determine that, well, we goofed, but it wasn't because of bias, oh, no, we spent five years getting a story that bloggers took apart in four hours. And we even keep Danny Rather on part time.

I'll tell you another story. One day, I was watching during the last campaign, and I watched both Fox and CBS do stories on President Bush's speech that day. Fox actually gave me two minutes of Speech, CBS only did about 15 seconds, and Dan Rather came on and immediately slammed what the President had to say.

So, give me a Fox that wears their heart on their sleaves, rather than a Dan Rather, who tries to pull a fast one on me.

[–] opacic 19 years ago

You missed my point. Bias in CBS is just as bad as bias in Fox News if the idea is to present balanced news. You can't suggest that bias to the RIGHT is okay and at the same time say that bias to the LEFT is not okay. Its either both okay or not okay - take your pick.

As mentioned in Outfoxed, the problem is'nt that Fox News is a conservative channel, the problem is the consumer fraud of "Fair and Balanced" when its nothing of the sort.

You can tell that this is a problem when 33% of the viewers thinks that they've found WMD in Iraq, 35% thinks that the world opinion favors US invasion of Iraq and 67% thinks that US found links between Iraq and al-Qaeda. What this shows is that fox viewers are misinformed or misled and have a skewed world view. You can't make informed decisions when you can't even get such basic true/false facts straight. If you make uninformed decisions you undermine democracy - you might as well have a conservative totalitarianism if you trust the government to make informed decisions for you.

[–] Joebuss555 19 years ago

No, it isn't the same. Fox presents news in a way that underscores conservative points. CBS wasn't just slanting the news, they were trying to openly commit fraud, then continued to insist they were telling the truth after they got caught.

Aren't all news slogans consumer fraud. When ABC claims that "More Americans get their news from ABC", aren't they committing consumer fraud, because they are regularly beaten in the ratings by NBC? Isn't CNN lying when they claim to be "America's Newsroom". But of course, you are upset by "Fair and Balanced", because you WANT to be upset about it.

You cite this poll which was a questionable hack job by a left wing think tank, and they found the results they wanted. You also accept that their contentions were absolutely correct. There is a strong case to be made that Iraq was cooperating with Al Qaeda, that Zarqawi, a major Al Qeada operative, was invited into Iraq by Saddam's son Udai after being chased out of Afghanistan. Both the Kay and Duefler reports point out that while Saddam didn't have the stockpiles we thought he had, he was attempting to maintain the capability to make these weapons. Okay, you've got a point that most of the world, which dines on a steady diet of anti-Americanism and envy, don't like us or what we did, but screw them.

That same hack poll showed a portion of PBS viewers suffered under the same so-called misconceptions. I guess that PBS is skewed and biased, too. Or maybe people just don't share your opinions. Heck, if you take what people have "proven", OJ and Robert Blake didn't kill their wives. Of course, most of us with common sense know they did, like most of us with common sense know Saddam was in bed with all sorts of nasty people, incluidng Al Qaeda.

[–] opacic 19 years ago

Got any proof that the poll was a questionable hack job by a left wing think tank? Or is that (no offence) just some comment you pull out of your ass any time statistics proves you wrong?

I'm upset about "Fair and Balanced" because it is a lie. In my world lying is wrong. And it does not matter how many others news organizations that does it - it is still wrong. If you believe it is okay for Fox News to lie but not [insert liberal media news channel here] then you are a hypocrite.

About the link between al-Qaeda and Iraq. The poll question was: Has the US found links between Iraq and al-Qaeda? The answer is no. The WMD question was: has US found WMD in Iraq? The correct answer is no. The poll showed that Fox viewers had misconceptions about these things. OJ killed his wive but there is no misconception that the court judged him guilty (understand the difference?).

[–] Joebuss555 19 years ago

Judging by this last post, I can only assume you are not an American. (Spelling Offense "Offence", for instance.)

As Benjamin Disreali said, Mendacity comes in three forms, lie, damned lies and statistics.

The correct answer is not "No". THere clearly were links between the Iraqi regime and Al Qaeda, which I listed. There was evidence that Saddam was still attempting to create WMD's. These are misconception. The problem is the mainstream media says these things,a nd then when you press them with details, like "Well, what about Zarqawi being given refuge after fleeing Afghanistan?" They nuance it by sayind, "Well, there's no evidence that Saddam was in on the planning of 9/11." Or "Well, there were no stockpiles, and they said there would be stockpiles."

As far as I am concerned, Fox is fair and balanced.

[–] opacic 19 years ago

The correct answer to the questions is indeed "No". The US did not find any links between the Iraqi regime and al-Qaeda and I doubt you'll find any no matter how hard you look. And as we all know US did not find any WMD in Iraq. It should painfully obvious to people by now that the reality Bush and Fox News painted was skewed out. And is it really suprising to you that it was? I hardly see true Republicans as naive people - surely they must have some voice inside them telling them to doubt what the government and Fox News spoon-feds them. And if you label yourself "Republican" and deliberately let yourself to be decieved even though you know in your heart that you probably is'nt hearing the whole truth then I have no respect for you or your opinions anymore.

[–] mikeys49 19 years ago

I would strongly encourage you to read the 9/11 Commission report for more details on this. It's a long book, but you can find most of the relevant information in the first 150 pages or so. No one in the American government EVER said that Saddam was actively involved in the planning of 9/11. When are you people going to quit retroactively editing what people said?

No, there were not WMD stockpiles. But don't act like Bush was the only one propagating this "grand conspiracy." Several other governments - even some who opposed the war - backed our claim that Saddam had WMD's. Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore, they all believed it. When will you people stop with this "it was a big lie orchestrated by Bush and Cheney!!" nonsense? It really undermines your professed allegiance to "the truth."

[–] opacic 19 years ago

"No one in the American government EVER said that Saddam was actively involved in the planning of 9/11. When are you people going to quit retroactively editing what people said?"

Who said they did? I said the US claimed there were links between al-Qaeda and Iraq.

That several other governments who opposed the war backed the US claim that Saddam had WMD is news to me. Care to list them? From my own experience most of Europe was sceptical about the claims. The US never did support their claims with evidence. No credible evidence were presented. The weapons inspectors found none and US intelligence could not present any convincing evidence.

So what are we suppose to believe? That the US made a mistake? That Bush misled the American public by mistake? Or rather that this all was done on purpose?

[–] mikeys49 19 years ago

France believed it. Russia believed it. The United Kingdom believed it. They ALL believed it. They just thought the inspectors should be given more time.
You apparently were young when that war started or you weren't paying as much attention to the news. They all became skeptical once it became obvious that the U.S. was going to do something about it. Of course none of this was probably accurately reported in the world media. The intelligence services were saying he had them. The Left was saying he didn't. They happened to guess correctly where the intelligence services failed.

I'm not going to teach you the history of the Iraq war. If you look, you will find and confirm this information. It was all extensively debated 2 years ago.
There were links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. 'Links'. Once the bipartisan 9/11 commission found this out for sure, then the left started the campaign 'well, he was never connected to 9/11'. No one ever said that.

[–] opacic 19 years ago

So how are we supposed to interpret the US claims that there were links between Al Qaeda and Iraq? This statement was used to justify going to war in Iraq, and in the context of the 9/11 attack, don't you think people are gonna make the mental connection between Saddam and 9/11? Fine, the statement does not say that Saddam or Iraqi regime was involved with 9/11.. but surely it meant that Saddam sponsored Al Qaeda somehow? Nope not that either. The 'links' refers to some breif contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda, quoting the 9/11 Commission Report:

"The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."

[–] mikeys49 19 years ago

It's unfortunate that people believed that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. I'm at a loss to explain where they got that information from. But yes, in the atmosphere of a heightened threat from terrorism, we are going to take steps to protect ourselves from terrorists that are not Bin Laden. There were many reasons given to justify going to war in Iraq, and by selecting a certain standard of proof or whatever, you can debate each one effectively.

No one in the United States government ever said that Saddam orchestrated or even knew about 9/11, or that he ever worked directly with Al-Qaeda. If you believe that they misled America in some sort of subliminal way by using the words "Iraq" and "Al-Qaeda" in the same speeches, that's your perogative. . .

[–] blolb 18 years ago

"France believed it. Russia believed it. The United Kingdom believed it. They ALL believed it. They just thought the inspectors should be given more time. "

Do you mean "believed in the existence of WMD"?
No, they didn't.
The official position was: it is very unlikely that Saddam Hussein has had time to rearm. It is even more unlikely that his equipment is sufficient to attack the US in 45 min, which was, mind you, the main reason why Bush was so much in a hurry. This was the position of the CIA too, by the way. If you don't believe me, go to their website and search, it's all there. If you are lazy, you can watch the other Greenwald's documentary "Uncovered" and get the information first hand.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Joebuss555 19 years ago

As someone who was a veteran of the first Gulf War, I don't need Fox News or George W> Bush to tell me Saddam Hussein was a evil man. I saw plenty of examples of that in Kuwait.

Jesus Christ, man, listen to yourself. Saddam murdered half a million of his own people. He attacked four of his neighbors. He started three wars, and killed a million people more in those. He was a sponsor of international terrorism. He paid families of suicide bombers $25,000 to blow up Israelis.
And you and other liberals want to treat him like a clubbed baby seal.

You want to hear something funny. When Bill Clinton bombed that Aspirin Factory in the SUdan, he claimed it was run by Al Qaeda and that Iraqi scientists were helping them develop VX gas. So much for no links, or do only links claimed by Democrats exist.

You make me sick, and I am sorry I spent the better part of my young life in the service defending people like you.

[–] opacic 19 years ago

Perhaps you should read my posts again. I don't condemn the war in Iraq and I never said Saddam was anything but an evil man.

[–] pauleky 18 years ago

Wow...nasty guy. You deride people in this thread for name-calling, then you end your post with that comment.

Well, right back at ya. I, as a proud American, am sad we have people like you in our military. It's no wonder the rest of the world hates us.

So there. :-P

[–] sergey-22 18 years ago

>>>Jesus Christ, man, listen to yourself. Saddam murdered half a million of his own people.<<<
And you killed another 1.5M and counting - does it makes you any better then him? "saddam hussein indeed killed half a millon of his own people, what the us media and officials failed to say were 3 crutial words: this words are "with our help"" (dr. Noam Chomsky). There is plenty of evidence that you suplied him with chemical and biological agents as well as military and political aid at the moment of his worst atrocities.
I am no fan of Saddam Hussein, but if you really were the tyranies you were after... you should invade south africa in the 80's or indonesia in the 70's or saudi arabia or israel. there are much worse dictatorships out there.

>>>You want to hear something funny. When Bill Clinton bombed that Aspirin Factory in the SUdan, he claimed it was run by Al Qaeda and that Iraqi scientists were helping them develop VX gas. So much for no links, or do only links claimed by Democrats exist.<<<
And he was a war criminal too. No doubt about that. Why do you imagine that being opposed to the current republican viewpoint is suddenly supporting the former democratic position. For anyone otside the US it is plainly obvious that you have 1 party system mascarading as a two party system and there is no fundamental difference between republicrats and democins - in fact the US foreing policy was continuous regardless of who ruled the white house. Some of the worst crimes against the humanity were done by the democrats (like jfk ordering carpet bombings of south vietnam).

[–] terroricon 18 years ago

if you think saddam being a "evil man" matters,then i will pray for you.there are many evil men in power around the world,and our government shakes hands and have dinners with them all the time(china's leader anyone).saddam committed most of his crimes during and before the first gulf war,and his crimes since are minor in comparison.if we,as a country cared so much about the innocent people saddam killed,then why did ronald reagen and george bush sr leave saddam in power?our soldier are not in iraq now to punish saddam for past crimes,we are their for weapons of mass destruction,which we still haven't found.the al quada links,supposed international terrorism,and him paiding families of suicide bombers are a joke un tell someone provides credible proof outside of useless propoganda and conspiracy like speculation worthy of a oliver stone film or a national enquirer cover page.

[–] jthibs22 14 years ago

Joebuss -

"As someone who was a veteran of the first Gulf War, I don't need Fox News or George W> Bush to tell me Saddam Hussein was a evil man. I saw plenty of examples of that in Kuwait.

Jesus Christ, man, listen to yourself. Saddam murdered half a million of his own people. He attacked four of his neighbors. He started three wars, and killed a million people more in those. He was a sponsor of international terrorism. He paid families of suicide bombers $25,000 to blow up Israelis.
And you and other liberals want to treat him like a clubbed baby seal."

So by your reasoning we should invade all countries who have evil dictators. Is that what you are saying? Because if it is then we better reinstate the draft because we are going to need a lot more people to fight the dozen or so wars that we would need to get involved in according to your opinions. What about Sudan, North Korea, the Congo, Burma and many others. All who have dictators that cause thousands and thousands of deaths(millions in some cases). Why aren't we doing anything about them?

I think you need to look at the basic facts and stick within the realm of reality. The fact is is that Iraq never attacked us, there was no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda and there was never any WMDs. Also the big smoking gun CIA information about the yellow cake uranium in Nigeria was a pure fabrication. I think you are living in a land of denial. Stick with the facts next time. Unless you really believe what I said above about invading all evil dictators. If you do then I say that it is a noble thought but impossible.

[–] sergey-22 18 years ago

>>> THere clearly were links between the Iraqi regime and Al Qaeda, which I listed.<<<
These links were: Bin Laden has personal hatred towards Hussein as it was his fault that the us had a basis to create military presence in the Saudi arabia and thus the holy land.

>>> There was evidence that Saddam was still attempting to create WMD's.<<<
And? You HAVE wmds, russia, france, china etc. why do you prohibit the others from doing it? isnt that hypocritical?
Anyway if you insist that nonprolifiration should persist... Nuke israel that was developing wmds since 1948 - clearly illegaly.

[–] sergey-22 18 years ago

>>> The Old media is ALL liberal bias.<<<
Give me the examples please of something liberally biased?
the 1999 Clinton helicopter deal with israel was reported once in a detroit paper...
the 1991 Bush's sons scandal faded away to the prime time iraq war
when did you see the last time chomsky was interviewed on tv?
do you see public healhcare debated constantly?
or anti war demostration discussed not just condamned?
or raising of minimal wage debated on lary king live?
instead what i hear is: it was right to sit for 7 minutes when your country is under attack keeping in mind that "we believe that saddam hussein is capable of delivering wmd in 45 minutes".
That protesters are unpatriotic etc.

What i see is a coverage of issues from the economical perspective: "economy is fine" not from the labor angle - like that real wages has droped considerably since 1970's and that working hours have increased and that benefits have deteriorated.
In war coverage i hear the US victims, not total victims - as if it is allright that hundreds of thousands of iraqis die, while another couple of marines of occupying force are lost in combat. I don't even hear the term "occupying force" which is a legal definicion of the US contengent in iraq.

>>>'ll tell you another story. One day, I was watching during the last campaign, and I watched both Fox and CBS do stories on President Bush's speech that day. Fox actually gave me two minutes of Speech, CBS only did about 15 seconds, and Dan Rather came on and immediately slammed what the President had to say<<<
The aim of the media is not to quote 2 minutes of bush's speach which is predictable (like the "the state of the union is strong" and blah blah blah), but to check if it is true.

[–] sancho420ca 19 years ago

This has to be the funniest reasoning I've ever heard in my life. Since they agree with your point of view they must be right? Give me a break, that isn't called being right at all. I reckon you need to watch another news channel other than Fox, but then again based on this post you made you're too far gone for anyone to help.

[–] blolb 18 years ago

"As far as I am concerned, it is fair and balanced. Since I know my point of view is the RIGHT one, and they reflect my point of view, that is all the balance I need."

I think this is the dumbest thing I have read in a very, very long time.
At least, it explains the silliness of your other posts.

Anyway, thanks for sharing, I'll forward that around!

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lazarillo 16 years ago

I have dual citizenship (so I guess I'm half a non-US citizen), but my impression from frequent traveling and living abroad is that Fox News is taken about as seriously as Al-Jazeera in most of the rest of the world. This is not to say there is no bias at all ever on BBC World or CNN International, but Fox like Al-Jazeera, really wears its right-wing, militantly pro-American bias on its sleeve, which doesn't really endear it to a lot of people who AREN'T American, but don't feel inferior for it.

Fox also hasn't really adapted itself too well to international reporting. Instead of loud-mouth American blow-hards like Bill O'Reilly, they should have more exotically attractive anchor-women like CNN International does--for example, Cristi Gustadt, who bears an uncanny resemblance to Laura Gemser, star of many 1970's "Emanuelle" movies (I know I shouldn't be getting turned on hearing about the latest carnage in Iraq, but jeez. . .)

Fox is mostly a joke outside of America, and I think people that exclusively rely on it usually don't know a whole lot about what's happening outside their country. Even if you're the kind of person who can't stand anything with a "liberal bias" I'd recommend British conservative periodicals like "The Economist" or "The Financial Times", so you don't keep your American head COMPLETELY buried in your own American *ss.

[–] brower8 12 years ago

al-Jazeera is at least credible on matters other than the Arab-Israeli conflict just as CCTV is credible about anything outside of China. FoX Propaganda Channel is... Orwellian. When I see or even hear it I invariably get angry about something even if the news story is neutral to my life.

FNC has an agenda, namely to turn Americans into a dangerous wolf-sheep hybrid -- an animal uncritically obedient to its conservative masters yet ferocious toward anyone acting against those conservative masters. It is 100% American, which in itself suggests its limitations. The US flag appearing on the screen is no mere flourish.

When the news violates FoX' intended view of the world it goes to diversion. If it can truncate a speech by some liberal or splice images to make liberals look bad, it so does. Because most of us Americans have no learning in the techniques of media manipulation, many of us either fail to see it or endorse the result if it fits our view of the world.

Honest journalism, much unlike FoX "News", chooses to challenge the complacency of readers or viewers. It doesn't egg people on, and it does not promote causes. Contrast FoX Propaganda Channel, a/k/a the Pravda of the Republican Party.

[–] jimmyboblw 19 years ago

FOR THE RECORD:

Bush didn't give money to Osama when he was in the CIA (because he was too busy trying to portray the USSR as a menace to the free world who could attack us at any moment, rather than as a corrupt one-party bureaucracy that was falling under the weight of its own ineptness). Bush gave money to Osama when he was VP and Osama was in Afghanistan (This was also when he and Reagan were giving Saddam Hussein WMDs, the ones that Israel would eventually distroy because Reagan-era neo-cons were too obsessed with fighting the Communists and Iranian Fundamentalists to realize that Hussein was planning to use them on Israel and anyone who opposed him).

>I won't even comment on his ignorance, like claiming that George H. Bush funded Osama when he was head of the CIA. When George H. Bush >headed the CIA, Osama was a 18 year old kid living in Saudi Arabia. He's just a snotty little punk who has found he can get attention by saying, "I lost >my Daddy on 9/11, and I hate America and Bush!"

Who is "He" that you are referring to in that last sentence? I'll just assume you are talking about Mr. Glick the 18 year old boy whom, according to O'Reiley, hates America. You should actually use a proper noun in that case, otherwise you might confuse people into thinking that George H.W. Bush or Osama bin Laden said "I lost my Daddy on 9/11, and I hate America and Bush!"

And yes, I'm glad you choose to get your hard-hitting journalism from FOX, the same news/entertainment company that also produced shock-oriented conspiracy theory documentaries about alien autopsies and how we faked the moon landing.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] FlyByNight32 18 years ago

<<<I look at it this way. There is NO such thing as "fair" news station. You have CNN, started by Ted Turner, a guy so far off to the nutty left that he was dumped by Jane Fonda.>>>

Actually, they split up after she became a born-again, so I guess the question is, was he too far left, or did she move too far to the nutty right?

And I haven't actually seen anything indicating that Turner influences CNN's news reporting. Murdoch & Ailes, on the other hand, influence much of Fox 'news.'

<<<You have CBS, which tried to smear our President by using obviously forged documents, and then tried to claim it wasn't because of bias.>>>>

If it had been so obvious, why did it take an in-depth investigation of the documents to determine that? If you get information like that, regardless of who's in office, it's news. The press treated Clinton like he was Jack the Ripper, no accusation was too small to jump on.

<<<YOu have ABC, who decided that they need to put Bill Clinton's stooge in charge of their Sunday show and decided it had to do a 2 hour special on UFO's.>>>

How shocking! A communications guy with a political background gets a spot on a political analysis show! What were they thinking?

<<<So, yeah, I'll watch a station that will give me the same hard news, and won't insult my values or intelligence.>>>

Guys like O'Reilly and Hannity don't insult your intelligence? Funny, they insult a lot of other people's intelligence.

[–] criticalg 18 years ago

i haven't the time to read this entire thread at the moment but do we have any thoughts on the practice that exist of people hired to hijack threads and litter them with doublespeak and nonsense? this would be a uniquely obvious thread no?

[–] FlyByNight32 18 years ago

Interesting premise. If I understand you correctly, you're suggesting that people might be paid to jump into discussion threads and push the party line, right?

It wouldn't be surprising. We've seen it happen in newspapers, letters to the editor - one case in which the same letter was printed in four or five different papers in different states, but all owned by the same parent company, comes to mind. So I suppose it's not beyond the realm of possibility that the same thing could happen in movie discussions. Kind of like astroturf, those allegedly grassroots groups that turn out to be anything but.

The big question is, if such a job exists, is there a group on the Democrats' side doing it as well? Follow-up question: Are there still positions available, and what does the job pay? ;)

[–] hisredrighthand 15 years ago

Doesn't it insult your values when guests are yelled at and interrupted and even their microphone turned off simply because they have a different point of view? Especially O'Reilly often acts like the prosecutor in some Nazi or Soviet propaganda trial.

And by the way, just because your grandfathers did a good job in 1944 (together with Russians and English that is) doesn't mean Europeans must forever praise you and refrain from pointing out grievances.

[–] jimmyboblw 19 years ago

>it weren't for America, for guys like my late father who hit the beaches of Normandy in 1944 and a lot of other places during World War II, >Europeans would all be speaking German

Probably not. The Nazis really didn't have an interest in Western Europe; what they were really concerned about was the destruction of Judeo-Bolshevism.

You see, Mr. Joebuss, one of the reasons why Europeans hate Americans is because American attitudes towards Europe are similar to that of the NSDAP/Nazis (interesting fact: the name "National Socialist German Workers' Party" was carefully crafted to appeal to as broad an electorate as possible, kinda like the "compassionate conservative" of today).

And let's not forget that the whole "If it weren't for us, then France/Europe would..." argument that many red, white, and blue-blooded Americans love to throw about was first made by a Nazi (specifically, Klaus Barbie, head of the Gestapo in France) who pointed out how much better they were than the Soviets.

[Here comes the sarcasm]...But you probably knew this already. I mean you HAD to since you were intelligent enough to point out to the people reading this post that the other four TV news networks are obviously liberal (although you failed to mention PBS, I'm not sure if it was because of an oversight or because you don't think they're liberal. Oh and lets not forget that these same networks are starting to follow FOX's example in order to regain ground they lost to FOX) and that Fox really IS fair & balanced... [end of the sarcasm]

[–] Maskettenyc 18 years ago

"The Nazis really didn't have an interest in Western Europe; what they were really concerned about was the destruction of Judeo-Bolshevism."

That is one of the most ignorant things I have ever heard. If the Nazis weren't interested in western Europe then why the hell did the invade France, The Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, etc etc. Where they not Western European countries? Germany is in Western Europe! Of course they were interested! I won't even get into Hitler's documents/mindset on creating the German continent and absolute power over his neighbors...you can educate yourself.

I particularly love that you have taken a poll of all Europeans to know exactly what everyone one of them think.

You are arrogant, ignorant and generalize like it is going out of style.

tsk, tsk.

[–] mackersbt6 19 years ago

And if it wasn't for people like George Bush's grandfather, the Nazi party might never had got into power.

"The problem with opinion is that other people's are usually wrong" - the IMDB mantra

[–] FlyByNight32 18 years ago

Hey, I'm happy to bash a Bush as the next guy, but even I can see that it would have taken more than just lacking Bush's grandpa's money to stop the Nazis from getting into the driver's seat.

[–] ezlnoslo 18 years ago

Left/right: To claim the other networks are liberal is absurd. American politics are so right wing in general, that what is considered left wing og liberal in the US (Democrats), is still right of center on any global scale. And Fox' share of liberals are outnumbered and picked for either their incompetence or their willingness to almost admit that "I'm with you on this one." They are truly Fox News' "liberal friends."

WW2 gratitude: My grandparents fought the Nazis. The US was a big help, and we thank you. Not that I think it was anything but a strategical decision, but nevertheless. The same goes for Soviet Union, and Stalin, (a horrible mass murderer), who helped defeat the Nazis every bit as much as the US, at a much greater loss. Should we after this alliance, and even 60 years later, not be allowed be critical towards these countries and their leaders? If "you'd be speaking German now if it wasn't for us" was a valid argument, it'd go for Russia as well. You've just got to accept some pestering when you start more wars and bomb more countries than anybody has ever done - even if you're the sort of person to think it's all in the service of Good.

My family fought Hitler, condemned Stalin and right now believes Bush is the guy around who does the most damage to humankind (not that it puts him in the category with the other guys mentioned). Not only are his politics damaging, unethical, greedy and dangerous - he also dismisses any critical thought as unpatriotic slander or Europeen lunacy, and seems to have a complete disregard for truth. Watching Fox News of course, this would escape you.

The film: Cheap production, horrible graphics and sound. Very valid points, intelligent interviews and fully recommended for its intellectual content alone.

[–] oliverwright 18 years ago

US enetered the war to

1- Save its own skin - WW2 wouldnt have ended in Europe - better to fight it in Europe.

2 - UK paid alot of cash to the US to fight and sold a great many assets in the US at knock down prices to get you into the fight.

Europeans can lecture Americans anytime about whats right - all I can say to prove this point is IRAQ.

FNC - Pravda whats the difference.

Get over yourself.

[–] sergey-22 18 years ago

>>>Frankly, I get a little tired of Europeans lecturing Americans about what is right. Just keep in mind, that if it weren't for America, for guys like my late father who hit the beaches of Normandy in 1944 and a lot of other places during World War II, Europeans would all be speaking German or exploring exciting new career oppurtunities as lampshades and bars of soap.<<<
Keep in mind: 80% of german casualties during the WW2 were taken in the eastern front, which means that it is the USSR that you need to thank for the victory. It was not a question in 1944 if the nazis lose - after kursk battle it was clear who is winning - the question was when would they lose. Normandy made the winning faster but do not overestimate the military significance of it.

>>> isn't an anchor. He is a commentator.<<<
The problem with fox news is that it is supposed to be a "news" channal and there is noone actally presenting the news - just plain commentaries. I would have nothing against this channal if it was called Murdock Rumor with a slogan "personal thoughts and gossip"

>>>CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN ... unabashedly liberal in their outlook.<<<
It turned out that even on those station (and i will give qoute even on the most lefist of all : PBS) "the air time of conservative interviews was higher, and when the liberals were questioned they commonly did it with the consevative counterparts while the right wing were usually interviewed alone" (according to dr. Michael Parenti).

>>>Finally, Fox does have it share of liberals on the air. Colmes, for one. Greta van Sustren is another. IN addition, there is Geraldo Rivera, who backed Bill Clinton to the hilt during impeachment.<<<
Colmes? come on - everyone know that it is a guy who serves coffee to hannity. i mean literally :) Geraldo - a person who enjoys grouping up with the troops and praising them constantly is suddenly a liberal?
Anyway, even if there were some liberals on fox... it is the editors that make the policy, not the journalists. Like even if 95% of factory workers are liberals it doesn't raise the wage - cos who matters is the owner - simple as that.

[–] FlyByNight32 18 years ago

<<<Secondly, the reason that Fox News is so successful is because we have four major news networks on TV, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and Fox. The other four are unabashedly liberal in their outlook. We don't turn to Fox because we want to be told what to think, we turn to Fox because it affirms what we already believe.>>>

The other stations are more neutral, really. They tend to seem leftist to the far-right FOX viewers who consider anything that disputes their views to be leftist.

<<<Finally, Fox does have it share of liberals on the air. Colmes, for one. Greta van Sustren is another. IN addition, there is Geraldo Rivera, who backed Bill Clinton to the hilt during impeachment.>>>

Colmes is a sock puppet. You might as well put a sick 14-year-old dog in his seat. Sustren is a lawyer, not really familiar with her stuff. I'm guessing the face-lift made her suitable enough for Fox. Geraldo backed Clinton - so what? That whole fiasco was enough to turn my dad, who'd been a Republican since the mid-60's, away from the GOP in disgust.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] FlyByNight32 18 years ago

Yes, yes, we saved your butts in WWII. And in WWI. And for that matter, my caveman ancestors taught your caveman ancestors to make fire. Really - check our coat of arms, two sticks and a flame. ;)

I find that particular retort embarrassing when I see it. Yes, we did turn the tide of battle in WWII, but only after Pearl Harbor, and after Hitler declared war on us after we declared war on Japan. Up until then, isolationism and the NMP (not my problem) mentality kept us out of the war.

So, while the argument that if we hadn't helped out you'd all be speaking German is valid, it's also valid to say that if we hadn't fought, we'd probably be speaking German, too.

Plus, that was a while ago. 60+ years, and they can't come up with something a little more recent?

Kind of like a kid who can't add 2 + 2 claiming he should get into Harvard because his great grandfather was Einstein.

[–] tank_the_impaler 18 years ago

Screw you! During Normandy your lot where to thick to think about droping the DD tanks closer to the beach so they drowned and you lost your support. Brits, Canada, and many Europeans took part in the D-day landings and the later fighting. Your thick government could have known about pearl harbour but as usual you failed and screwed up!!!!

Ahhh! i actually love the US and intend to live there after Uni but your all too far up yourselfs!

[–] tonythemacdaddy 18 years ago

But just because it's what you want to hear doesn't mean it is right. I'm sure the Aryan race liked Hitler telling them they were superior, but it doesn't mean it's right.
The truth is always more challenging than just lying for convenience.

Colmes and Sustren are both weak centrists

[–] super-niki 18 years ago

"America, for guys like my late father who hit the beaches of Normandy in 1944 and a lot of other places during World War II, Europeans would all be speaking German or exploring exciting new career oppurtunities as lampshades and bars of soap. "

I hate to be one to pick a historical fight here... but have you ever heard of the Battle of Britain..? I'm afraid that the only reason your wonderful country got involved in WWII was, as it always seems to do in wartime, to do with money and American "honour". You wanted to get Japan back for bombing Pearl Harbour (which some conspiracy theories state was an inside job anyway).

Certainly I would not suggest that your late relatives' efforts did not help the allies win, I'm sure they did. World War II, however, started in 1939 and your country did not enter it until much later when Germany the allies' enemies were almost defeated anyway. Why do you think we let you have your independence anyway? You weren't much use!

This is a thread about Outfoxed, not one where you can start discrediting the efforts of our great Nations. My ancestors are French, Spanish, Scottish and English and my grandfather worked in the RAF (Royal Air force, just so you know, serving her Majesty the Queen) and our boys in England, and the same for the rest of our allies in Europe, were essential in helping war efforts. Keep the post on the topic and DO NOT tries and defends your post, it was hateful. End of.

Now, on the subject of Outfoxed:

I live in England and it was in a media class when we were shown the film and, personally, I thought it was marvellous (minus the fact that it was 9am Monday morning!!). It really gave an insight into how the media (and I use that term to describe the entire media, not just America) uses certain words and phrases to emphasise it's political stance, to quote one of the best lines from the film "it's just 93 days until George Bush is re-elected" (O'Reilly).

I think Fox news is interesting, it is very amusing if you're quick minded enough to actually LISTEN to what they're saying, rather than just hearing what you THINK they're saying! Fox, however, isn't the only news channel that's biast and I will admit we're certainly not innocent here in England. Take the Daily Mail as my favourite example, a paper that was dubbed "a racist piece of toilet paper" and one that my college wouldn't even supply the students with (although we got The Sun... which is a WHOLE other argument!!).

Anyways, docco was very good, and one of my fellow classmates used it as the basis for his A-level research essay. I'm currently bidding for it on eBay and a film about Wal-Mart (that's Asda over here guys) because if it's half as interesting, it'll keep me entertained for hours!

Edit reason: Sp

[–] setien 18 years ago

It always kills me when Americans invoke WWII to tell europeans that without the US, europeans would all be speaking German.

If you really want to play that lame game, look further back in your history, and you will find that the US would not have existed if it weren't for the French (!) coming and aiding them when Britain wanted to remind the colonists of the fact that America was in fact still a British colony.

So, you'd all be speaking british english if it weren't for the french (I don't actually believe in simplistic statements like that, but I felt that I needed a simplistic punchline for balance).

Tea and crumpets anyone?

- Brian
Danish and American citizen

[–] Aidan_Mclaren 17 years ago

Will you shut up, you deluded idiot. Stop force-feeding Europeans that you were the chivalrous heroes who saved the day, we don't buy this stupid crap.

[–] givesalahmail 16 years ago

Wow, can you get more idiotic than that?

To the people questioning the UK's impartial news... The BBC is impartial, Channel 4 is impartial and even Sky News which is owned by Rupert Murdoch is impartial. All of the baove are well known popular news.

[–] pmsa2002 16 years ago

"Just keep in mind, that if it weren't for America, for guys like my late father who hit the beaches of Normandy in 1944 and a lot of other places during World War II, Europeans would all be speaking German or exploring exciting new career oppurtunities as lampshades and bars of soap."

And if it weren´t for the French you wouldn´t even be a free territory/country to begin with.

Still, Normandy was just the final blow. It were the soviets who ignited the fall of the nazis.

[–] brower8 15 years ago

I am an American, and I saw the interview. The war critic was shown with odd and unflattering camera angles and lighting intended to make him look like a gang-banger, terrorist, or some other menace. O'Reilly smeared him with allegations that he was a disgrace to his family, as if patriotism were identical with support for the political leadership of the time.

FoX News' techniques of journalism well fit totalitarian media. I saw the documentary and recognized exactly what I suspected: that FoX News is extremely manipulative, heavy on ideology and light on fact.

[–] othernametaken 13 years ago

No disrespect to your father or the soldiers that stormed Normandy, it must have been hell and most can only imagine the courage that would take, but the Allied victory was a collective effort. I imagine the Americans fighting at the time were more grateful to their allies than today's generation that take a stand that America alone won the war and that "Y'all would be speaking German if it weren't for us" mentality. Many *allies* suffered worst attacks on their homelands in that war than America's single Pearl Harbor. America is fortunate they were so far away and that they waited such a long time before finally entering the war, while everyone else was fighting tooth and nail.

If you want to give the most credit to a single country, hell, give it to Russia. They fought a brutal war on their soil, rebounded, and tore up the Germans worse in the east than America did in the west. Plus, they were the first Allied power to reach Berlin.

Just saying: Don't take credit for something you weren't involved in. It's pretentious and degrading to those that gave just as much, if not more.

[–] oh_the_irony 19 years ago

As an Australian journalism student (Murdoch, the owner of News Corp. and therefore Fox news, is Australian), I figure I'd have a stronger reaction to this film than most US citizens, but Outfoxed seriously shocked me. I knew FOX was biased, I knew about the talking points memos which dictate the news, but I was completely unprepared for just how much of a propaganda arm for the RNC FOX really is!
Americans, I'd like to apologise on behalf of Australia for releasing Rupert Murdoch into the wild.

[–] Joebuss555 19 years ago

Why should you apologize?

Look, there is a reason why Fox is so successful, and it is because a lot of Americans, myself included, agree with their slant on the news.

My question is, why is it acceptable that CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, PBS are propaganda arms for the DNC, and no one cares?

You point to the memos that brought up the fact that John Kerry lied about throwing his medals at Congess in 1971. (This was before the whole Swift Boat thing blew the lid off of Kerry's treason and perfidy.) I have to ask, why weren't the other networks asking about this LONG before this guy got the nomination? In fact, he purchased some medals at an Army Surplus store, and then threw them back at Congress. His own medals, which we later found out he didn't really deserve, he kept on display in his office. He later claimed he threw back his "ribbons", not his medals. (Although if you look at the pictures, he is CLEARLY throwing medals.)

[–] john-last 18 years ago

FIRSTLY:

You think CBS, ABC, and CNN are liberal? Try watching ANY Canadian News Network, and by your standards we're communist! CBS, ABC, and CNN all show an innacurate representation of the news. I hardly think it is left-wing, but that is certainly a matter of opinion.

SECONDLY:

Why is your defense that Fox is okay because the others are "liberal"? Don't you want a news source that provides no spin, that gives you just the hard facts? And I'm not talking about balance (one republican, one democrat), I'm talking about NO partisanism in the news? I can't comprehend why someone living in a first world country, one of the most powerful and most free nations in the world, doesn't want an uncomprimised media source! If Fox news was in Canada, I would spend my life working to close them...same with any leftist media!

[–] sergey-22 18 years ago

>>> Don't you want a news source that provides no spin, that gives you just the hard facts? <<<
News agencys: reuters, itar-tass etc. read it you will find no bias or commentaries in there - you can always opt for plain news.

[–] FlyByNight32 18 years ago

You really need to get your info from some source other than that Swift Boat Veterans crap. The ads featuring people who claimed to have served with Kerry but didn't should be your first clue that their information shouldn't be taken as gospel.

[–] brower8 13 years ago

I have called it FoX Propaganda Channel, FoX Newspeak Channel, and GOP Pravda.

Nobody can deny that FoX "News" has a slant -- but every news channel/program has some. FoX "News" is extremely manipulative in that it makes its viewers angry as the others don't. Even MSNBC lightens up on occasion.

FoX manipulates images, excises words from speeches, and doctors texts to show things most unfavorable to anyone who fails to hare FoX News' viewpoint. If it doesn't have right-wing politics it has crime stories to make viewers scared and disgusted.

Significantly it effectively teaches people how to manipulate news so that not-ready-for-prime-time entities can imitate FoX and feed its political objectives. FoX is Orwellian.

Most importantly, FoX "News" misinforms its viewers. Heavy viewers of FoX "News" Network get political realities wrong -- and not solely on matters of Left and Right bias.

[–] FlyByNight32 18 years ago

<<<Americans, I'd like to apologise on behalf of Australia for releasing Rupert Murdoch into the wild.>>

Hey, you can have him back if you like. No strings, either - although if you'd like to take O'Reilly off our hands as well, we won't complain.

Hell, I'd be happy to dump all these guys off somewhere in Anarctica, let them rant away at the penguins.

Well, maybe not. Hate to subject the penguins to that.

[–] shehzadashiq 19 years ago

Hi

I live in the UK. I saw the documentary last night and I was appalled at the way O'Reilly casually tells people to shut up or the presenters just cut off a guest. It can only happen in America because it would never be tolerated here. It seems as if all Fox is interested in is pandering to the LCD present in America. Sad but only what we can expect from something run by Murdoch.

[–] flyingflyn 19 years ago

I saw Outfoxed a week ago, when it was shown on finnish tv. Really discusting stuff. I knew before that fox was biased, but it was a shocking ducumentary anyway. Only in America... or Russia. Really makes one happy to live in a country where the news are free of propaganda.

The most unbeliavable thing is when american conservatives talk about the liberal mainstream media. Where's the liberal bias in NBC or CNN news, cos i dont see it? I would love to see a conservative version of outfoxed, but they could never make one. They simply dont have any juicy material.

[–] philipadams_ 19 years ago

I'm from Australia and wasn't that shocked since I watch FNC almost everyday on Austar cable. I didn't think much of what was there was too bad to be honest, especially what most people consider to be "shocking" like O'Reilly being a jerk and the "personal attacks" on pollies. While O'Reilly is a jerk often most of the time he doesn't get that pissed off, he just acts like he is always right. Obviously on an opinion show such as his that sorta thing is gonna happen, which is pretty funny considering the way he always pumps his show up as having "in-depth analysis" and what not. Also, while the flip-flop thing was stupid and anti-dems it's not like the other news stations don't bash Bush continuously over bad decisions.

These things might be upsetting when cut up and put together, but the real problem with FNC is that it mixes the opinion programs with news programs to the point that people actually believe the opinion shows as fact. It reminds me of something I heard somewhere about a woman in America suing Fox for defamation or something like that but the court ruled in favor of FNC. FNC said this "vindicated" them when in actual fact the only reason the judge ruled in favor of Fox was because he ruled it wasn't news. That's what the majority of people who watch FNC don't seem to understand.

[–] thecosmicjester 19 years ago

Another fellow Aussie here, i found the documentry quite interesting it just aired on free to air TV here on ABC, our government funded station, sort of like our BBC. I have to tell you i thought the strangest part of the film was that whole "French Connection" thing Fox News did about John Kerry just wierd, it was like the journalism equivilent of finding an insulting nick name for a kid at school. I am not even sure what they meant, as John Kerry is clearly not French and neither is his wife, but i am guessing that didnt really matter to Fox News.

Not that i would mind being called French, the French as i found in my travels last year to be the most freindly, social, healthy and actractive people i have met, completley different to the stereotype you hear about. I guess the insult was to do with that whole America boycott of France in '03 before the war, where America seemed to hate the idea of a country forming thier own opinions on world affairs. If anyone else can shed the whole Kerry = French thing i would be glad to find out.

I also like that bit where that Fox reporter said that people in Korea (I am assuming she meant North Korea, but i wouldnt be suprised if she didnt know Korea was split in two) like John Kerry, and she didnt point to any surveys or research to prove that point, she might have well just said that terrorists and the French like John Kerry as i dont think they have to prove anything, or how about that satan is a big supportor of the Kerry campain, great jouranilsim guys.

My only complaint with the film is it didnt tell you much about Rupert Murdoch himself, just that he owned a lot of media outlets, but apart from that it was very good.

[–] Unexplained 19 years ago

Bear in mind that the Herald Sun (Melbourne) and the Courier Mail (Brisbane) newspapers (both News Ltd, hence Murdoch owned) refused to carry ads for the movie when it was in the cinema. Also, all the Murdoch papers had editorials in support of Operation Iraqi Liberation (or OIL, as it should have been called. I really do wish they had have called it that) at the time of the invasion, and you may as well give up. Fox News even threatened to sue the Simpsons, for Gods sake, when that is a Fox show as well.

[–] philipadams_ 19 years ago

I think they did show ads. But they were not allowed the "War on journalism" part ot anything else pretty much and ended up just being the title and rating. However bear in mind that The Australian is the most left-wing paper in the country and Rupert owns it.

As for that Simpsons, their parody of Fox when Krusty is running for Senator was the funniest thing they have done for about 4 series. "Yes I'm sure you are, comrade."

[–] bobalot 19 years ago

The Australian is hardly left wing. I reckon its a bit conservative

I would say the Sydney Morning Herald is around centre, which is why its the only newspaper I buy.

[–] philipadams_ 19 years ago

Whaaaaa? The Australian is the ABC of newspapers. They were against the war, run really anti-coalition stories and employ Phillip Adams.

[–] Joebuss555 19 years ago

Be happy to explain it to you...

John Kerry speaks fluent French, has spent time there, including the time in 1971, when he went to Paris to hobnob with North Vietnamese officials when we were at war with them. He seemed to think that we should only go to war with Iraq if the French thought it was okay. On a larger scale, it seems to indicate the whole problem with the American liberals/Democratic Party, where they don't believe in American exceptionalism.

I think that there is an entire resentment towards France that goes down to their lack of gratitude. As I said in my previous post, my father was one of hundreds of thousands of Americans who helped liberate France from Germany. Yet throughout my lifetime, it seems like the French have done nothing but try to frustrate American foreign policy, including snuggling up to the likes of Saddam Hussein.

I watched this yesterday, and the Fox reporter CLEARLY said North Koreans like John Kerry.

[–] blolb 18 years ago

"He seemed to think that we should only go to war with Iraq if the French thought it was okay."

Is this really what you got from his speeches?

"On a larger scale, it seems to indicate the whole problem with the American liberals/Democratic Party, where they don't believe in American exceptionalism."

Well, obviously, blind nationalism is the far-right's monopoly, thank god. If you knew the first thing about other countries, you might open your eyes about their achievements and, maybe, your own weaknesses.

"I think that there is an entire resentment towards France that goes down to their lack of gratitude."

Lack of gratitude? Did you write lack of gratitude? Oh my God, so you *really* have no idea, do you? Seriously, stop watching FoxNews.

During decades, and in spite of the tensions that started under De Gaulle, the French loved the Americans (and the Canadians, and the English, and their own Resistance) for helping to liberate them, and admired the country for what it was in this time: a beacon of civilisation. It's just a shame Americans have forgotten they would still be part of the UK if it was not for the French, but ok, it was a long time ago.

The French and the Europeans in general remember the war and the liberation, believe me, it's rooted in modern culture and the society at many levels. But times have changed. As you would know if you read serious newspapers rather than watching private channels that tell you what you want to hear, the US has become a jingoist country, and a quasi-democracy mostly led by large companies. Most of that thanks to Reagan and then the Bush dynasty.

So, the question is: should the Europeans kneel before pro-fascist Bush because your father died 60 years ago fighting Nazis? I think they are smarter than that. I also think this would be an insult to your father.

And, you know, these discussions are not about the French or Europeans against the Americans, contrarily to what FoxNews tells you. It's about moderates against extremists, as always, and no matter the country. The fact is that 50% of the US is far-right, but the other 50% is made of decent people. Europe has its 20% far-right too. We should lock all of you in a big arena so you would probably kill each other off, and the rest of the world would live peacefully. :)

[–] cbreeding 18 years ago

Here is something I've never understood:

Why should other countries be pro-American? Are the French anti-American, or just, you know, pro-French?

I studied for a bit in France, and didn't detect this virulent anti-American sentiment I heard about. I did think they were pro-French, which made absolute sense to me.

My grandfather was a WWII vet. My father was in the service. But my father has never behaved as if his service to the country should be paid for by some moral obligation on the part of everyone else to love this country.

The reason so many people outside of this country don't like America is because they live with the blade of U.S. foreign policy at their throats every day. There are people outside this country who are hurt by our policies.

[–] feachlomana 18 years ago

Hello there. They showed Outfoxed here in the UK last night. I must say that, though I knew Fox 'News' was right-wing and heavily biased, I was still quite shocked at how far they go.

That O'Reilly geezer almost made me physically sick. When the son of a 9/11 victim came on to say waging war was not the answer he was not only shouted down and told to 'Shut up', but O'Reilly claimed the guy's dead father would not agree, and that his mother would be ashamed of him.

The way facts are twisted, ignored, or basically made-up on this channel is taking the war against truth and democracy to a new level. The way they use the slogans 'fair and balanced', and 'we report you decide' is so cynical it's almost laughable. But actually it's frightening.

It's not just bias, it's extremism. The idea that it is disloyal or 'hurts the country' if people criticise goverment policy is Stalinist. There is no place for that attitude in a democratic country, especially the 'land of the free'.

I really had no idea that balanced debate was so stiffled in the US. Why does this channel get big audiences? Are americans that stupid? Honestly, the media in the UK leans toward the government, but there's nothing remotely like Fox over here. They simply would not be able to get away with it.

(I recently stopped buying Murdoch newspapers because of their recent disgraceful, dishonest, racist editorialism regarding anti-terror laws. After watching this I will never buy anything of his ever again.)

http://pilger.carlton.com/print

[–] jwitek-3 18 years ago

Joebuss555,

There's no point in debating this issue with the people on this message board. Obviously, anyone that feels like wasting their time watching propaganda films like "Outfoxed" has liberal views anyway, and would be better off listening to Air America or reading the New York Times instead of watching Fox News in the first place.

As you pointed out, the reason Fox News has been so successful is because of the fact that historically the mainstream media has been left of center by varying degrees depending on the news organization. Conservatives would rather get their news from somewhere that doesn't cater to those who blame George W. Bush for all the ills of the world and pretend to know that our future in Iraq is failure.

Fox News *is* fair and balanced. Plain and simple. Liberal points of view are portrayed just as accurately as conservative ones. Liberal commentators are frequently seen debating with conservative ones on various programs on Fox News.

It goes without saying, conservative Fox News *commentators* such as Bill O'Reilly are going to give their own opinions on their shows. Anyone who watches the O'Reilly Factor on a regular basis knows that everyone who comes on to the Factor and plays by the rules gets a fair shake. That means no FILIBUSTERING! There's nothing that pisses me off more, (or Bill for that matter) than someone using live television as a platform to spew propaganda.

State the facts, and then follow up with your political opinion, don't distort the facts to fit your views.

[–] bobalot 19 years ago

From Australia here.

Never forgave Rupert Murdoch for destroying Rugby League with his crappy super league competition.

I always had an idea that generally the fox press was conservative. The documentry did shock me though. They way they blur fact and opinion is wrong. Plain wrong, you cannot argue against it.

And Bill O'reilly, I know by reputation of being a jackarse from this article in this site from maddox's site.

http://www.maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=bill_oreilly
"Bill O'Reilly is a big blubbering vagina."

They way he treats his guests is disgusting. You can't give them an easy ride, you have to ask tough questions. But Bill O'reilly's behaviour was disgusting.

[–] equalizer316 19 years ago

Well said flyingfinn2 but badi-3 said it best:

"Where Americans are arguing over which station is right-wing and which is leftish-liberal I can see only far right stations!"

Ive actually noticed this a lot more now because im watching CNN to see if there is a left bias as so many willfully ignorant morons will say. They are WRONG as CNN does ingfact lean to the right, its just that becasue it doesnt lean as far to the right as FOX, these dikless idiots immediatly think CNN is trying to overthrow the US government and install castro as president.

Think about it, CNN is owned by AOL/Timewarner has anybody in the universe encountered a transnational conglemrate like that spouting off leftwing politics and handing out social welfare for the good of underclasses? DOESNT HAPPEN!

[–] cfish78 19 years ago

i already knew fox wasnt fair or balanced. bill o'reilly amuses me, he is so rude and psychotic its hilarious. i suspect rupert bought some blood from dr. mengele and cloned o'reilly from that.

[–] superjaneyjane 19 years ago

Yet another Australian here.

I could not believe the blatant right-wing propaganda Murdoch and his cronies passed off as news. If you tried that on an Australian network, hell, any other network, you'd be turned faster than O'Reilly could say shut up.

Bill O'Reilly is an incompetent, bullying loudmouth. I was disgusted to see him belittle that poor man who lost his father in 9/11 and then opposed the war. He should be fired, or at least take some anger mangagement classes.

[–] masterofluisafernanda 19 years ago

U.S citizen here

I thought this movie sucked, It was also very boring, So what if Fox has a right wing bais, if your looking for left wing bais turn to CNN or MSNBC, and if Fox sucked so bad then why are they the # 1 cable news network in America?

[–] gerritjanssens 19 years ago

Sure, indifference is a great point in this discussion. Thank you for that.

Just to answer one of your questions: if Fox News gives wrong/biased information, or just does not tell the 'whole truth', and they influence the voting behavior of the majority of the American public - like Outfoxed so nicely shows -, then you have a BIG problem if you care about the democracy you are living in.

The reason why are they the # 1 cable news network in America, is exactly that they provide people with a simple and dishonest worldview which does not ecourage you to use your head: "we are right, they are wrong" - that's Fox. And world politics simply aren't that easy.

[–] mikeys49 19 years ago

I know I'm going to sound like an American exceptionalist *beep* here, but I have to throw this out there. . .

I'm no expert on how European television media function. So I would appreciate any information Europeans could give me on this point.

Is it easy for a small country like Finland or Norway to have an unbiased system? I mean, let's be honest, the foreign policy of those two countries does not shake the world the way ours does (except for your high per capita donations of foreign aid, which I applaud). America is held up to a microscope that no other country has to deal with. No one worries about what Belgian media is saying about a particular event. It's just because the U.S. is so huge that we (and thus, our media) have such a huge impact on the world.

Understand, I'm not trying to be an *beep* I would be curious to heard anyone else's perspectives on this.

My basic point is this: in some areas, we really have to recognize the qualitiative and quantitative differences between the United States and European countries.. We are a huge country of 300 million people of many different races, geographic areas, ways of life. It stands to reason that there will be a difference of opinion in the US larger than in a country of 5 million people. I'm not trying to belittle any particular country because of its size, don't interpret the post that way. I'm just saying that one has to recognize the fact that the U.S. is huge compared to all European countries. We have nearly four times the population of the largest European country. We have more land area. People in the urban northeast don't relate to people in the Bible Belt. I'm sure there are parallels in your European countries, in fact I know there are. But I think it makes sense that because the U.S. is so huge, we can't be expected to smooth over our differences of opinion so easily.

Another note: Bias of course depends on one's perspective. If you're wearing a Che Guevara shirt and a rasta hat, all of the news networks will be conservative to you. If you're sporting a NASCAR shirt and chowing down on KFC and a Keystone, they will all seem liberal.

[–] gerritjanssens 19 years ago

Of course, you have a point there. It's is no use denying that the US are the only 'superforce' in the world left now. (Although China may come in sooner or later). So sure, the world watches your every move.

The problem is that 'extreme' biases in the media are often inspired by financial reasons or political agendas (like Fox) - and do not reflect the majority of the public opinion. They influence public opinion, but do not 'reflect' it.

I would argue, for exactly the reasons you state, that the US are in need of media which are more objective and less biased. Like N. Chomsky argued: if you are a citizen of the most influential country in the world, you have a big responsibility when you vote. So you need citizens who are very well-informed.

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying the media in Europe are more objective. I found European media discusting in the aftermath of 9/11 - in a self-indulgent way accusing those crazy US media of losing it, while they were doing exactly the same thing. Right now, Europe is heading the US way. Quality newspapers are disappearing under financial pressure.

"The insider" by Michael Mann shows exactly what is happening everywhere. We just don't have our Fox News over here... yet.

[–] mikeys49 19 years ago

I would agree with everything you said.

I would however disagree with you that the news corporations do not reflect public opinion. I think to a large degree they do. The rise of conservative "alternative" media, for better or for worse, is responding to a demand. The New York Times and Dan Rather/Peter Jennings/Tom Brokaw don't represent American public opinion, and there was a huge portion that was until now unrepresented. Though of course it must be said that it is impossible to put one's finger on something as huge and amorphous as "American public opinion." I can only give my perspective.

I believe Fox is merely representative of a trend. It is by no means alone. All news in America is supplied by financial interests who inevitably have their own political agendas, and Rupert Murdoch is not unique. My question would be what do we do about journalism? It is something of a public good in the sense that the free market may not provide the socially optimal level. Intellectually challenging journalism cannot compete financially with entertainment, and I think more and more news programs are realizing that they get more viewers when there is an entertainment angle that they go for. That is why Michael Moore sells more books than Henry Kissinger (I don't really know that for sure, but I think it's a pretty safe bet).

I think you would say that free market economics is not the best way to achieve quality journalism. Because when most people turn on the TV they want to be entertained. The news has to feed into that, unfortunately. But what would be a solution? Americans would not accept state-sponsored news, that would go against every grain in our political culture. So I wonder who can supply it, if not the government and if not corporations?

It's impossible to define objective though. Here we have countless media watchdog groups (I'm sure you do in Europe as well) and they all get on the news and talk about how the media is conservative or liberal, which in itself is a subjective opinion anyway.

I agree with you that if you're going to the ballot box in any country, you have a responsibility to make an effort to be informed. Like Gore Vidal said "Half the country doesn't vote. Half the country never reads a newspaper. One hopes it is the same half."

How would you describe the system of journalism in your country (whichever one it is)? Who decides what goes on the air, and what is important, if not some company?

[–] vei_slakt 19 years ago

In my country (Norway) there are two state tv-channels (its the same for Sweden and Denmark if I'm not completely wrong).. The tv-stations are much like BBC if you are familiar with that, generally more news and debate-programs than on other stations (tho political debates are pretty common on commercial stations as well, many shows debates daily). Havent seen any bias in commercial stations, tho they tend to have shorter news programs and focus more on breaking news and popular-culure...
The state-channels (tho one is more youth oriented that the other) shows a lot of documentaries wich i'm very fond of (this is where i saw Outfoxed the first time), their news-programs are also twice as long as in the commercial media and in my opinion they do more thorough journalism. Altho its tempting to watch the simpler "headlines" on commercial stations, the main news program on the largest of the two state-channels is actually one of the most watched tv-programs in Norway (the tv-channels is also the most watched btw.)

Hope that gave you an idea of how it works here, about who decides what goes on the news I guess that is the news editors of each channels..

I can't see why a state-channel would be a threat to any democracy... is it perhaps rather that people would refuse to pay money to fund it? I would think that the exchange of journalism for journalistic opinions in media would be more harmfull for a democracy than a state controlled tv-station...

[–] gerritjanssens 19 years ago

Hi mikeys49,

You definitely have a point there. And you ask a lot of questions which I cannot answer.

Western media are in crisis, that is for sure. I believe in the BBC-approach. Funded by the government but strongly independent. VRT works the same in Belgium. Problem is, they have to compete with commercial stations, which makes them go for the commercial approach. I would not know how to solve this.

What I meant by saying that Fox do not reflect public opinion, is that I believe a lot of people would not go for their opinions, if they were better informed. Fox shapes their world view, and abuses their 'ignorance', but I hope people would not go with Fox' view when they would hear from other sources.

As far as 'indy media' are concerned, you are right. but I think they do not have the same impact as Fox do. Correct me if I am wrong here. I find it hard to judge US media, since they are barely mentioned or discussed in Europe. So I don't want to generalize. If you feel like it, tell me about more about the impact and the role of independent media in the US.

We, for example, hardly hear from protests against the Bush government in the news, which makes us believe the whole of the US just goes with him, and I think that is not the case. European media can be quite self-righteous when it comes to criticising the US. That's not what our democracy needs right now.

[–] mikeys49 19 years ago

Hi gerritjanssens,

My comment about state-sponsored television has to be taken in the context of the differences between America and Europe. As you probably know, America is heavily oriented towards the private sector and most outside academia feel that corporations do a better job than the government at providing a product. From my limited experience in Europe, there seems to be a much greater distrust in corporations over there. Here, we fear big government more than big corporations, while in Europe you seem to fear big corporations more than big government. That's one difference. The other is that I don't think any American would accept a news organization funded by the government. Not because we don't want to pay for it but because it goes against our small-government political culture. I don't think Americans would take seriously a news organization that is dependent on the government for its money. Look how many people (probably almost half the country) don't take Fox seriously because they think it is biased!! Now imagine a news organization whose budget is proposed by a Republican president and approved by a Republican Congress. The BBC is unique, and it always amazes me that people over there don't worry about the quality of news coming from one organization that is dependent on a government for money. You could probably tell me a bit more about how they maintain their independence.

You are right in saying that it is difficult to judge the state of a country's public opinion based on news reports from that country. You say your news does not focus on protests against Bush, I can tell that they are covered here. The media here spends 24 hours a day telling us how divided we are, and I personally think the media overplays this to fuel people's passions and get them to watch news coverage of the latest political bickering. My personal opinion is that the media stokes the fires of partisanship to gain viewers. And Fox is guilty of this. And now that each side has its own media outlets, there is even less common ground because we don't even tune in to watch the same nightly news programs.

I have had other people from other countries tell me that the U.S. projects the image of being solidly of one public opinion. It isn't the case though, far from it. About 51% of America more or less goes along with Bush, and the rest don't at all.

In summation, I think the impact of Fox News is grossly overstated by paranoid people. Fox doesn't create public opinion, it just represents a set of opinions that have always been around and that are held by about half of America. I think many people are afraid that certain opinions which have previously held a monopoly in the media are being challenged. Just as before, conservative thinkers were angry that the news was dominated by liberals(surveys consistently show a substantial majority of journalists consider themselves "liberal," while almost none call themselves conservatives)

On another note, it's funny that 'Outfoxed' has run on TV in many European countries, whereas it would probably never be shown on TV here. It would seem that that is an effort to indoctrinate Europeans against Fox, since Fox tends not to portray Europe very nicely. Why would European television run a documentary on one of many news stations in the U.S.? Is it really that interesting? While you in Europe think Fox is biased, many in America think that such stations as the BBC are biased, and we feel that we do not get a fair shake at all.

All of this is, of course, only my perspective. I can only say what I "think" "most" Americans believe, and evaluate our political culture. Maybe some other America will come on this board and express his/her perspective on these issues. I also don't want to sound like a know-it-all trying to tell you how Europe is, obviously I wouldn't know. These are only the ideas that I have gathered from Europeans I know. If any of them is erroneous, let me know.

[–] flyingflyn 19 years ago

First of all mikey49, dont worry about coming out as a "beeb", cos you'r not. Even though this thread was for non US citizens, your input has made it much more interesting.

I disagree with you on the government funded tv issue. We here in Finland and I'm pretty sure in other nordic countrys dont think about it being simply state sponsored. I'm not sure about US, but here everybody who owns a TV set has to pay TV-lisence. Ofcourse not all pay and there are people who go door to door to check. They cant legally search your house for TV's if you dont allow them, so it's kinda silly. I have never come acros these inspectors. Anyway our two national TV channels are paid partly by these licence fees. The rest is paid by the commercial TV stations. You see our two state TV channels (TV1 & TV2) cant show commercials, because of their nature. This is why the corporate Channels have to give a part of their income they get from showing commercials to TV1 and TV2.

You say that Fox doesn't create public oppinion. I have to disagree on that. The whole media culture in your country has changed dramatically in the past 15 years or so. The US media no longer functions in a way that media should function. The US media and I'm talking the whole US media - not just fox - is no longer in the informing business. It's in the affecting peoples oppinions business (spinn). And you can say it's the same everywhere, but it's not. In Finland we dont have this culture of spinn. In a way Fox is more honest than say CNN. Like Talon News Fox just gives out GOP press releases and this is their job. Fox has a connection to the Bush white house. CNN doesn't and it has a different job. It should be informing people, but it isn't doing it anymore.

The Jeff Gannon scandal is good example. Jeff Gannon (real name Jim Guckert) a former gay escort with no press credentials is given a white house press pass just so he could help out Bush, when the reporters are giving him hard time. His task was to throw soft ball questions when needed. This whole issue has been silenced in the mainstream media in a way that is more than scary. The producers of 60 minutes seem to think that Jim Carreys fight against depression is more important than this story. Left wing bias indeed.

The one thing that americans seem to be the least informed about is the Israeli Palestinian conflic. This is plain to see on the internet message boards. Your media has to change. It has to stop the continuing coverage about the Panda giving birth in the local zoo and start reporting about world affairs. People should know the difference between people like Osama bin Laden and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and between people like Abdallah al-Janabi and Mahmoud Abbas.

Nobody should be dependent on bloggers to get their news, but what can you do. Can you really trust the mainstream media, when you know they are withhelding information? What else are they not telling you besides this Gannon-Guckert thing?

One thing is for sure. Comedian's in my coutry would kill to have the material your Jon Stewart has. Btw. that guy is doing a very good job. And so is Seymour Hersh - a real patriot IMO.

[–] mikeys49 19 years ago

Well,

I suppose our perspectives are going to differ on exactly what is the media culture in the U.S. I don't have a really great handle on what the European equivalent is, so I'll try not to pontificate excessively. . .

About the Jeff Gannon story: that was covered by all the news networks, and people realized pretty quickly that it wasn't even an interesting story, and the only reason it was covered is because his pictures showed up on a gay pornography site. So what if there was one guy who was a conservative in the White House press corps? Surveys consistently show that the White House press corps votes about 80% Democrat. Don't get up in arms about Jeff Gannon. That story fell flat because the media realized "nobody cares about this. This is not a big deal"

About the state owned television thing: That's not the way America works. We have an innate dislike of nationalized enterprises, and that includes television. Now I don't want to get into a whole debate about economic ideology, but that's the way we are here. That and the fact that no one would respect a media organization whose budget was submitted by a Republican president and approved by a Republican Congress are the reasons that we won't have BBC-style media here anytime soon.

BTW: 60 Minutes is not a respected news program anymore. It used to be, but it has been completely dethroned by the 24 hour news networks. No one under retirement age watches it. That's one of those cultural things that have shifted. . .

Please detail your perceptions of Fox's connection to the White House. I've heard all the stories about Carl Cameron and how Rupert Murdoch is some goose-stepping right wing maniac, I'm just curious what information you have.

I understand that Finnish people probably, on average, have more knowledge of world affairs, but your country is what, 5 million people? There probably isn't enough interesting stuff that happens there compared to a country the size of the U.S. (I'm not bashing Finland, I'm just saying that it's about the size of the average state, so it makes sense that you would have to worry more about what goes on around you). Our news reports plenty of world affairs, and for the people who are interested there are plenty of news sources about it. But we also have issues in our own country that have to be dealt with and debated (not the panda at the local zoo, though)

That said, I think it's a bit disingenuous for Europeans to always assume that they are the foreign affairs experts and that they have to educate the provincial Americans about the "world outside." Because we have different perspectives on issues doesn't mean you know and we don't. I don't want to get into a massive debate about Israel and Palestine. Our media cover the issues significantly differently than yours do, of course. And of course we react differently to people on TV chanting "Death to America" than we would to people chanting "Death to Finland."

That's great that you don't have the culture of spin in Finland. I wish we could get rid of it here.

[–] flyingflyn 19 years ago

Many people have got in arms about this Guckert issue, but from what I have understood it's not because he is a conservative. It's because this Guckert wasn't a real journalist. On top of that, it seems White House officials committed a crime giving this guy exclusive access to an internal CIA memo that named Joseph Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as a covert CIA agent. All this sounds interesting to me. Maybe the media should have lookt a bit more in to it. I think it's strange they didn't make a big deal out of this story. Sure, reviewing facts about the aggravating factors to the public might have seemt boring, but they still had the prostitution angle to sex the story up. And What is important, if this is not? Terri Schiavo? Please...

And I wasn't in any way trying to start a debate about economic idealogy either. Just saying that here we have made national television work. I wasn't saying that it could or should work there. And I'm 100 % with you when you say that people would not trust a media organization whose budget was submitted by the american government (republican or democrat). I wouldn't either. But it would have it's perks. Maybe then they wouldn't have to send those video news releases to other channels. They could show them on their own channel 24/7. It would be less sneaky and more honest altogether, dont you think? Bush said himself that sometimes it's beneficial to go past the normal media filter.

More detail of the Fox-GOP connection? I think that issue was mentioned in the documentary too. Remember the part about the striking similarities between Fox's news and White House press releases? I admit that I havent seen indisputable proof, that they have more than ideological connection - I see it as a possibility though.

Your right - I'm from a small country. Conan O'Brien said it best: “Finland - you’ve had over 5,000 years of culture and the world’s most famous Finn is still Huckleberry.” I could say that's because americans dont watch Formula 1, but he has a point. Fortunately The WWE has started to make visit's here when they are on tour, which is good remedy for the usual boredom. :D

What happens up here that's worth reporting, you might ask. Let's see. A customs authorities crackdown agains human trafficking is creating controversy. A group of Georgian women are suing Finland for getting them labeled as whores in their country. Vice president of the European Central Bank, Sauli Niinistö (conservative) sets plans to run for the finnish presidency. Will there be centre-right cooperation to overturn the Social Democrat candidate in 2006? Only time will tell. All this might not be interesting in a global scale, but we got enought of stuf going that is important to us at least. It dont matter if you are from Finland or from Iceland or from where-ever. We all have our own issues. IMHO the news networks should use 50% of their time on issues conserning domestic news and 50% on stuff that happens elsewhere, but maybe this isn't realistic in the bigger countrys like the US for example.

I have no idea why I even mentioned Israel and Palestine. Maybe I thought my post wasn't long enought or something. Anyway it was unnecessary on my part.

I wish I would have the opportunity to watch Fox. Some say that they went overboard mostly during the elections, and it's not like that always. That debate show with that Sean Hannity fellow sounds quite fun. I saw a part of that episode, where Jon Stewart was a quest.

[–] mikeys49 19 years ago

Well, I have to disagree with you on the importance of the Jeff Gannon story. I have to admit I didn't follow it all that closely, and I'm surprised someone from Europe would be interested enough to look into it as you have. Also, Terri Schiavo is very important, because our country is grappling with a lot of issues about life vs. death. There were a lot of aspects of it that were interesting. It would be easy for someone to paint it as the right-wing wackos coming out of the woodwork and breaking police barriers to deliver glasses of water that Terri wouldn't even be able to drink, but there were a lot of questions about it that made it interesting.

If the woman's parents were willing to take care of her, why wouldn't her husband let that happen? Why would he not allow any MRI scans to be taken of her? Why did he say during his malpractice suit that he would use whatever money he won to take care of Terri for as long as she lived, then right after he wins a million dollars and shacks up with another woman, he suddenly remembered that she had said she "wouldn't want to live like that." No one else ever heard her say that, but he did. Do we let one judge decide whether a non-existent will is to be followed based on the testimony of one man? It was far from a cut and dry issue, and it was very important.

Ha ha, that is true about how the government wouldn't have to publish BS Department of Defense sites or release videos to the media, they could just display them on "the Government Channel." Maybe we could have a C-SPAN 4 just for that. . .

And I wasn't trying to imply that nothing interesting ever happens in Finland, I apologize if I came across that way. I was just trying to make the point that I think you recognize, that a country like the United States is going to have a lot more domestic coverage (just because there are 300 million people running, so there is a lot of potential for them to do idiotic things!!). But I'm definitely willing to accept that Americans probably tend to be less concerned with the outside world than the average Finn. Are there many Finnish people who've never left Finland? There are plenty of Americans like that. . .

Again, you've seen OutFoxed but you can't watch Fox News? It seems a lot of Europe is like that, they can get the documentary but not the actual channel. Is it possible to get it in Finland?

[–] Makkeli 18 years ago

Oh my God, the Finns are ganging up! :D I thought I'd throw in my two cents on Outfoxed and US media culture when compared to the Finnish model. Um, I won't go into the Gannon/Schiavo -bits, because they're a bit offtopic to me.

So partially recapping what flyingfinn laready said, the Finnish system has two tv-channels that are government sponsored. The main purpose of these channels is to provide culture, sports, news and documentaries more than anything else, whereas the commercial channels concentrate on entertainment. Now, one of the commercial channels, Nelonen (='ChannelFour', we're not very imaginative) has taken several points from US media, and it shows. They like to spice their news up with flashy graphics, simplified coverage (bulletpoints giving the "four facts" of what you need to know) and selective topics (e.g. shockers or semi-news about celebrities). To me, after considerable time of viewing the two state channels, the news on Nelonen seem slightly distasteful. When news have to go for ratings, to content takes a backseat to the show.

This, I am afraid, is a lesson taken from the States. As Mikeys49 said, the American culture regarding state ownership is vastly different from the Finnish one. In the eyes of the average American, I think, state ownership is what leftist communists do (in all fairness, when comparing with the US, Finland, a welfare society, indeed IS leftist). State ownership is admittedly a double-edged sword, but considering that Finland has a multiple party system, no political viewpoint can concentrate enough political power in its hands that it could control the state-owned media. In the US, where there are only the Reps and the Dems, naturally especially in the light of the culture war there is a great risk of government starting to influence media content.

But I digress. Generally speaking, in the US the vast multitude of news channels need to compete. And when news compete, that's when the content takes an unavoidable hit. Fox, for example, caters to a certain audience, offering commentary more often than actual news, but that commentary is delivered as authentic news. There is a difference there. It is not wrong as such for FOX to cater to these people, but it is hypocritical, as I believe flyingfinn said, to pretend it is impartial. Having Colmes in Hannity&Colmes is a weak attempt to display any serious balanced coverage.

My experience of Fox is limited to five months during my stint in the US, when out of curiosity I compared MSNBC, CNN and FOX in content. What FOX does more often than the others is not outright lying, but spinning the story for their benefit. Sure, you can argue that a viewpoint is still okay, but what FOX is not is "fair and balanced", because the spin consistently banks to the right. It is sometimes subtle enough to Americans, but to a foreigner used to very different kind of reporting it stands out rather strongly.

To Mikeys49; No, I don't think we can get FOX up here, which is kind of good because my tend to get depressed after watching the O'Reilly Report online. I cannot believe he is considered a man that can say what he does on TV. However I cannot exclude the villified liberals from mudflinging either.

My belief is that the general level of media quality and content in the US has decreased, because other channels, if they want to fight with FOX, have to do it with the same methods as FOX, which simply dumbs down the discourse into petty squabbling, and heightens the bipartisan division of politics and culture.

I am hopelessly biased against FOX after viewing it way before Outfoxed. Finally, I will further confess that watching the net-streamed clips of the Daily Show and the Colbert Report usually make my day. At least they admit they are delivering fake news. For more potentially left-wing analysis of US media see http://mediamatters.org/. :)

[–] sergey-22 18 years ago

>>>I would however disagree with you that the news corporations do not reflect public opinion. I think to a large degree they do. The rise of conservative "alternative" media, for better or for worse, is responding to a demand.<<<
Parenti has a great point on that "bertolucci's 1900 (which won best european movie award)... which was essentually a communist movie ... was shown in 40 theaters, while rambo 2 (which turned out to be a big flop) was in over 2thousand movie theaters. [If one took the paradigm that it is demand that creates the supply] ... one might assume that the there is a greater demand for rambo 2 movies, in fact i argue that it is supply that in large scale creates the demand. People watch it because there is nothing else to watch."

[–] k-march 19 years ago

Interesting that the post is titled "Id be interested to hear what non US citizens thought of this movie", considering the track that much of the replies have taken, and considering the inordinate number of posts from an American source. Food for thought.

I'm a Canadian and a journalism graduate. I appreciated the movie because it was basically putting forth the opinion I have had for many years. I have watched little American news since I started J-school.

I would like to make the point however, that those of us from smaller countries, with smaller, less powerful news organizations should not be naive. Media concentration is a serious problem even here, though I wouldn't put it on the scale of FNC. One of the largest media companies here is Bell Globemedia. It is owned by Bell Canada Enterprises, which was originally the monopoly phone service company. It now owns much more, including major television networks, newspapers, cell phone and internet service and the list goes on. Most of my news comes from BCE, (through CTV News or the Globe and Mail)which is a little terrifying. Which is why I check reuters, BBC and The Guardian online to make myself feel better. We also have the CBC, yes, BBC equivalent, but because it is a crown corporation and the government has done nothing but cut it's budget for many years, I find it often ineffectual and irrelevent up against the money BCE can throw around. In fact, a lot of CBC newsroom staff work on monthly, weekly or even daily contracts.

My point is, I don't generally feel that the news in Canada is partisan or biased by it's parent-company holdings, but I have also seen instances where it has happened and that keeps me on edge. A few years back reporters were fired out west because they were protesting conflict of interest relating to ad sales and parent-company holdings.

I love the BBC as much as the next journalist, but don't sit on your laurels. They're still very large companies with a lot of power.

And if anyone wants a great book about biases and ethnocentrism in the media, this one is written by a Dutch professor. Understanding Global News; A Critical Introduction, by Jaap Van Ginneken. As an intro the first paragraph of the preface reads: This is a book about the 'social construction' and 'social representation' of world affairs by North American and Western European media, which also shapes news definitions on other continents.

No, I am not affiliated with Van Ginneken or his book. I am not his niece trying to peddle his words, I just got a lot out of it and it really clarified a lot of questions I had about global media.

Also see, Islamic Peril: Media and Global Violence, by Karim H. Karim. A much more controversial book, but if you can keep a little perspective and read the words carefully instead of reading into them, it's extremely informative and has some enlightening ideas.

So, that's what the Canadian thought.