Murdoch Meltdown

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by DanaC

I think that's probably a fair point about Merc actually. His was just the name that came to mind as a vocal defender of Fox.

I don't think it's fair to say it's just about whether a programme/show, or newspaper fits your views as to whether it seems biased though. The Times is absolutely on the other side of the political fence from me, but it is a good paper with quality journalism (most of the time). The Mirror is a left wing tabloid, supportive of unions, anti-Iraq war, pro Labour Party til they moved to the Right and very much in line with my opinions: but it's a fucking rag of a paper and I can't remember the last time it engaged in any real journalism.

The problem with Fox isn't just the bias (though that does seem absoutely blatant), it's the way it presents news.

In Britain, TV news is usually pretty balanced. There are some mild biases but they are very heavily regulated. The newspapers however have been left almost to their own devices and the result is the tabloid press. Fox news is like our tabloid press. Unaccountable, peddles lies and innuendo, engages in media vendettas against individuals and organisations, sells itself for political influence.

Fair enough. I listen to BBC World News on a regular basis as well, and when I lived in NJ I bought the Village Voice every week. I still buy the NYTimes when ever I travel, but I also buy a WSJ as well. I try to read all the different views, even when I disagree with them.

[infinite monkey]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Can you recall the current slogan of any other cable news channel?

Precisely.

And brilliant. Congratulatory to the viewers, incendiary to the non-viewers. They got the non-viewers to promote the channel. You can think of that as using your powers for evil instead of good, if you prefer, but here we are, talking about the channel.

Sure I can. The Morgue Channel: You Stab 'em We Slab 'em.

Good point, UT. Unrelated to the point that I don't think a reasonable person could actually claim, without tongue firmly planted in cheek, that they don't misrepresent themselves and that they blatantly let us know of the bias.

Fox News: Yeah, We're Biased. But It's Working For Us.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by infinite monkey

Fox News: Yeah, We're Biased. But It's Working For Us.

I love it! I would support an online drive to get them to change their name.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by infinite monkey

I don't think a reasonable person could actually claim, without tongue firmly planted in cheek, that they don't misrepresent themselves and that they blatantly let us know of the bias.

Let me rephrase for you - I find their bias blatantly obvious.

[infinite monkey]

It was a legitimate point. What a child.

[Undertoad]

[infinite monkey]

Goofball. I can't help that men fall for me so. It's a curse, really.

Hey, you know how choosy mothers choose Jif? Other peanut butters tend to attract like, college students or single guys, but at least Jif doesn't represent itself as the choice of choosy mothers. Except for maybe IN THEIR ENTIRE MARKETING CAMPAIGN.

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by infinite monkey

Fox News: Yeah, We're Biased. But It's Working For Us.

Fox News: Yeah, we're biased. So are you. That's why you like us.

[Griff]

Heard on Morning Edition

July 13, 2011 - [POST-BROADCAST NOTE: Reuters issued an advisory indicating that the column written by David Cay Johnson, on which this interview with Johnson was based, was wrong. We will provide further clarification as information becomes available.]

STEVE INSKEEP, host:

As British investigators dig for details in the News Corp. scandal, a columnist for Reuters looked at some financial figures that were already public. News Corp. is a publicly traded American company, meaning it must disclose financial information. So columnist David Cay Johnston ran the numbers on how much News Corp. made in the last four years and the taxes it paid on those earnings.

Mr. DAVID CAY JOHNSTON (Columnist): Murdoch's company News Corporation made over $10 billion in profits over the last four years, and their tax came to $4.8 billion negative. That is they made $4.8 billion from tax refunds.

INSKEEP: Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. I've heard of people eliminating their tax burden down to zero. General Electric was criticized for getting its tax burden down to zero. But you're saying that News Corporation was actually paid by the United States government?

Mr. JOHNSTON: Almost $5 billion, which would increase their profits, if you looked at it that way, by almost 50 percent.

We'll see what, if any, part of this is wrong but right now it looks like the US has two public broadcasting systems. As we sit at a budget impasse, I'd say the Democrats could make hay with an anti tax haven argument.

[glatt]

They did a correction on that story the next day. I hadn't heard the original story but I did hear the correction. David Johnston was absolutely mortified at how badly he fucked the story up. He was reading the financial report wrong and read negative numbers as positive. News Corp paid $4.8 Billion. They didn't get a refund of $4.8B.

The correction was amazing. These NPR reporters kept trying to explain how they made the mistake and were absolutely mortified at how wrong they got the story.

I don't know how to search for it, but it's an amusing story to listen to if you find it.

[Griff]

Total f-up! Retract all conclusions.

[tw]

From The Economist of 9 July 2011:

Fox was setup by Roger Ailes, a former media adviser to three Republican presidents, specifically to appeal to conservative viewers. Its star hosts, such as Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, offer distinctively right-wing opinion and commentary though the channel insists that its news reporting is unbiased. Fox is famous for being opinionated rather than for being profitable. ....

How profitable? Fox News is estimated to profit $0.8 billion dollars on revenues of $1.5 billion. That is obscenely profitable. Says how opinionated their reporting is. Promoting opinions rather than facts has always been that profitable because so many only want to hear their political agenda. Not a reality that might challenge them to think. To ask and answer damning questions.

These are the people who make advertising so much fun. They can be so easily manipulated. They were told to smoke cigarettes for increased health. Then got angry when the Surgeon General define it as a lie. Angry at the Surgeon General. Not at the liars who first told them what to think.

Same attitude is why so many knew Saddam had WMDs when facts and numbers said otherwise. Saddam only had WMDs because so many only believe the first thing they are told. Profits by manipulating these 'most easily deceived' people can be massive - as Dannon Yogurt has recently proven.

[Undertoad]

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.

Yeeeeahhh. After years of NPR consumption, I'm familiar with this.

It's "polite bias": we, at NPR, are the figureheads of all things properly news, and we are pretending to not have any bias at all.

So we can't do the radio equivalent of a Jon Stewart, and bug our eyes out at this new information or do a faux spit-take. We can't do what we'd do in the real world, which is to say "5 billion, are you shitting me?"

But we can say wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Our listeners understand that it's code for are you shitting me.

[Undertoad]

These NPR reporters kept trying to explain how they made the mistake and were absolutely mortified at how wrong they got the story.

http://www.npr.org/2011/07/14/137840...ews-corp-story

Now, let's follow, in comic fashion, how the columnist attempts to deflect some of the blame onto Fox.

INSKEEP: What happened?

Mr. JOHNSTON: Well, News Corp. reported numbers as positive numbers for cash paid for taxes for three years and then switched to reporting them as negative numbers - that is numbers in parenthesis. And I didn't catch that those were negative numbers.

What really happened?

Journalism students are not required to take courses in Business such as Accounting and Economics. (worse than that: to Journalism students, those courses are SATAN!) So they make these kinds of mistakes all the time, because not only can't they read financial statements, they don't even know what is reasonable. And they don't know the statements are prepared by public accountants, following strict accounting principles.

INSKEEP: You're saying - wait a minute. You're saying you spoke with News Corp. before making this mistake, and they didn't correct you about the mistake?

Mr. JOHNSTON: Absolutely. You know, I've never written a story in my life that anybody who is being criticized didn't know exactly what was coming.

INSKEEP: Although in the end, they said no comment. In a situation where the company is not helpful, did you have an extra...

Mr. JOHNSTON: Well, they didn't comment. I didn't say they said no comment, they did not comment.

(at News Corp) Hey boss, this Reuters reporter says we got a tax refund of $5B, what should I tell him? Nothing. That asshole Johnston is on our shit for everything. Let him report it, and then tell the guys at Newsbusters, and we'll have great fun watching him try to cover his ass.

Also, need I point out that "you're saying, wait a minute, you're saying" is the "wait wait wait wait wait" of this retraction.

But, yes, I was surprised that the company had - you know, they were just nonplused when I said this. Usually, when you have something, if it's off, in even a small detail, companies jump right on that. On the other hand, to be fair to them, remember, they're under siege right now from journalists from all these other issues facing Mr. Murdoch.

"remember, they're under siege right now from journalists from all these other issues facing Mr. Murdoch" is how you shit on the company you just fucked up the reporting of.

It's good work if you can get it.

Do I have to add the disclaimer that I rarely watch FNC these days, and when I do it's "Red Eye", their best program that nobody knows about.

[classicman]

Bravo. Well done.