Fox News: A 24/7 Political Operation, from Media Matters

Run time: 02:49 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRx5ethd8JU   Posted on YouTube: October 20, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: October 20, 2009 By DU Member: ProfessorPlum Views on DU: 2197

 
This pretty much proves what we all knew: that there is no difference between Faux's "opinion" shows and its "straight news".

this? No slant there, I'm sure.

they just record what the right wingers say and play it back. The only slant is seeing for yourself just how ridiculous the GOP/Faux is/are.

with no slant, no "perspective" going in? Don't think so. It's a progressive organization, like Heritage is a conservative organization. Each comes at the material from a view point. Are you really saying that Media Matters is completely objective?

Did they produce the clips themselves?

I don't question the clips, but a lot can be done with clips info in terms of context, questions asked or not asked, etc. I just think it's good to keep in mind where the viewpoint starts--like here. No one would call du objective, anymore than anyone here would call a conservative site objective.

And I think we all know what Faux's viewpoint is, too, thanks in large part to MediaMatters careful documentation. Do you have some other point?

and one that should be kept in mind--at least in an open mind.

Faux's bullshit, if that makes you feel better. thanks for the much needed reminder.

:eyes:

Or Baier's?

What about the "death book" lie--one that was propagated on Fox news and Fox News Sunday?

How much cheerleading of the teabaggers do you consider appropriate--including Fox saying it is going to be having "a virtual tax day tea party"?

What do you find appropriate about the Russian music playing behind their "straight news" coverage of the "czar" "controversy"?

and wonder why that's a problem.

and consider that....noble?

I do differentiate between what I consider true and not true, and feel that I can personally make that distinction better if I understand what different points of view ARE.

The last thing I want to be is a Fox apologist! By my gosh, what evidence do you have that Fox tells lies, and outlets coming from another point of view don't? I'm perfectly capable of looking up info on either side and making a decision, and I'm stunned that the prevailing viewpoint here would be to simply dismiss without question a significant voice. No problem with disagreeing, but these sweeping statements are really troubling. Does one have to be a look-straight-ahead-liberal-Democrat-hate-faux-at-all-costs here in order to have any credibility? That's just silly.

We hate the lies that they tell, the fear that they spread, and the hate that they foster.

MediaMatters documents their lies, their fearmongering, and their hatred. And yes, generally, most any outlet for information that you can name is a more credible source than Faux. That isn't because of Faux's (obvious) political bias, however. Just from their incredibly long LONG list of lies that they have told, and continue to tell, over the years.

They really are just incredible liars. Check out the MediaMatters' archives sometimes, if you have two minutes. You'll be amazed at just how untruthful they are, since this is apparently something that has never occurred to you before.

And welcome to DU and the world of the truth and facts, rather than lies and smears.

the lies but also the way they slant the news they report against Dems all the time and whatever the repubs are for they promote as great.....plus they ask softball questions to repubs and shout at dems.....Their news reporting is always from the repub perspective....but hell yeah...they lie and lie and lie....too many to list.

...fox's lies. Factcheck.org has PLENTY to offer!
Cheers
Sandy

The statutory rape allegations about Kevin Jennings? False.

The "death book"? Phony.

The Russian music playing as they tease the "czar" "controversy"? Not only infantile, but bad journalism.

So, yes, you are playing the role of a Fox apologist. Or better yet: you never answered my question about which circumstances would make it appropriate to make those allegations, to cheerlead for the teabaggers, or to play Russian music while talking about the "czars." Perhaps you can answer that.

You're welcome to your opinion and point of view. There's a long history of disagreement about "facts", and I'm not here to try to change anyone's opinion, just to express mine. I don't think MediaMatters is all good, and I don't believe Fox is all bad.

correct, truthful, factual, versus incorrect, deceitful, false, and lying.

Please provide an instance where Faux has been RIGHT about something (not GOOD, however you happen to measure that) and where MediaMatters was WRONG (not BAD).

Right and wrong, truthful or deceitful, are not value judgments like good and bad. I'd never try to convince you that MediaMatters was good - just that they are a healthy tool for the debate among people who use FACTS, not their gut feelings.

I totally agree that MediaMatters is an extremely healthy tool in the debate. Just spent a few minutes there again, though, to make sure that I was accurate about the point-of-view issue. Very strong point of view. Do you not see it? You can say they just report what's being said, but introduction, headlines, phrases used to describe people and events, are very much a part of their point of view. I'm not criticizing that, and agree that it's not an issue of good or bad. But without really listening to opposing viewpoints, then checking them out independently, aren't you in danger of getting a skewed and biased picture?

it makes.

The usual format is something like this:

(Fox Corporate Whore) repeats (Some) lie: Says Obama is (name your slur)

Today (Whore) repeated the lie that Obama was a (slur). But that lie was disproven by (link) (link) (link).

Follow the links, my friend, and judge them by their reliability. Fox, on the other hand, usually has nothing, and if it does link, it is too Jerome Corsi or Dick Morris or some other well documented liar.

Are you saying, then, that MediaMatters is always right, and any given conservative site/news organization/individual is lying?

However, I've not know MediaMatters to be wrong about anything. They have a great and very reliable record.

I didn't think so.

missed your last comment. Was there Russian music playing on a straight newscast, or on an opinion show? As for the tea parties, I see Fox as being the balance to the other outlets, which were not reporting, underreporting, or ridiculing the tea parties. Just want to know both sides.

And re: the teabaggers...it wouldn't have BEEN a story if Fox hadn't attempted (but failed, largely) to create a zeitgeist in conjunction with RW think tank Freedom Works. Glenn Beck tied it to his stupid 912 project, after all, and Fox kept encouraging people to go out and "celebrate" at the teabagger events. That's not news: it's advocacy.

So, under which circumstances is it OK to slander Kevin Jennings?

is a big boy. I don't think questioning whether or not he should be in the position he's in, given some of his expressed attitudes or philosophies, is out of line. But he line between questions and slander often depends on the point of view in these highly-charged times. Jennings has made some very provocative statements, so let him defend them.

especially when the facts of the case contradict such a claim. But that doesn't stop Fox from going on, despite the debunking of their lies in other media outlets.

And precisely which attitudes and philosophies has Jennings expressed that are so out of line? His support of LGBT teens?

of statutory rape himself, but rather of condoning what could be called the statutory rape of a young man. Whether you support LGBT teens or not, there are parents who are concerned about his alleged reaction to the information. Whether the young man was actually 16 rather than 15, or the fact that it was a "consensual relationship" isn't comforting.

Are you defending him because he's supportive of LGBT teens? Or just because you don't like the news outlet who's riding him? Like I said, he's a big boy, and if Fox isn't really a news organization, then there's really nothing to worry about.

He has said so himself. I believe--I may be wrong--he even has said that he didn't in fact have sex, but merely talked to Mr Jennings about it. And, at any rate, 16 was then the age of consent in MA and, while it may not be "comforting" to you that a 16 year old would have sex with someone older than himself, it happens. A lot. So my defense of him is based on the fact that the young man has said that the reports Fox is pushing are fiction--or, we might say, "smears"--and they are doing it despite plenty of evidence to the contrary, including the fact that the EARLIEST the young man could have come in contact with Mr Jennings was in late 1986; the young man was born in 1971. That is and will always be a difference of 16 years.

I'm still interesting in hearing about the terribly out of line attitudes and philosophies Mr Jennings has expressed. What might they be?

which I think I said in my earlier post. I stand by the fact that sixteen is too young for anyone, male or female, gay or straight, to have a truly consenting sexual relationship with someone several years older. You're right, it happens all the time, but that doesn't make it safe. Remember that Roman Polanski's victim didn't want anything more to be done to him. But when it comes to protecting children and youth, the fact that the victim (or potential victim) doesn't see his or her own vulnerability isn't really the point. I thought, when I was 13, that I was smart enough to avoid all the pitfalls. I still thought that when I was 16, and even when I was 18. I was wrong.

My main objection to Mr. Jennings is that he had any praise whatsoever for Harry Hay. Don't care if the man is considered a the original gay rights activist, I believe his pedophilia outweighs any good that he might have done for gays in general.

please stop slandering him like that.

He believed that NAMBLA should be allowed to be included in GLBT rights marches. But he was NOT a pedophile. Try to get your facts straight, so to speak, next time.

By my gosh, what evidence do you have that Fox tells lies, and outlets coming from another point of view don't? I'm perfectly capable of looking up info on either side and making a decision, and I'm stunned that the prevailing viewpoint here would be to simply dismiss without question a significant voice.

"simply dismiss" ... "significant voice" :rofl:

Stunned... stunned I tell ya!

Your circular arguments all over this thread definitely are in defense of Faux, whether you have noticed it yourself or not.
For example, look what happens when I change your question above to this...

What evidence do you have that Fox doesn't tell lies, and outlets coming from another point of view do?

(Edited to fix typo)

Media Matters does not OPINE, they just reprint or replay what others have done. How can that be "slant"?

calls itself a progressive organization, which is great. But if you call yourself a progressive voice, that's the slant, right from the start. Isn't that the big beef about Fox, that there's a huge question about the world view/slant it comes from? Why isn't it okay to just start from a particular viewpoint openly, and run with it, and then let the chips fall where they may. I watch Olbermann and Maddow, and O"Reilly and Hannity, just to get the contrast. Sometimes I agree with one side, and sometimes the other. I do my best to understand where each of them starts from so I can better interpret not only what they're saying, but why they're saying it. Why would that be a problem?

Media Matters points out the hypocrisy, spin and outright LIES of other media outlets. It happens that most of that material id from FOX, well, because FOX is ANYTHING but fair and balanced. I see what you are getting at, but how else could this topic be presented without appearing biased?

whether it is Olbermann or O'Reilly, Maddow or Hannity that is lying to you? That is the true test of your critical thinking.

I too watch Ed Keith and Rachel and then I sometimes watch Billo or Hannity. (briefly) Generally, I find that what KO or Rachel are saying I am in agreement with and find that Billo and Sean are basically 'kin crazy with a capital C!!!! So, then if and when I read something on Media Matters, I can probably guess where they are coming from but I do so anyway to get some info that may or may not be available somewhere else. But, in the end of the day for me, watching Fox is really not necessary because IT'S NOT REALLY THE OTHER POINT OF VIEW, IT'S THEIR VERSION of a reality that only some can grasp... It might be like the old saying: there is the right way, the wrong way and the Faux news way. Their "reporting" is not slanted, it is a word that I unfortunately don't have in my vocabulary. Slanted does not begin to describe what they do over there 24/7.... TO ME AT LEAST....

Conversely, Media Matters are open and frank about what they do...

About Us

Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.

Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time.

Using the website mediamatters.org as the principal vehicle for disseminating research and information, Media Matters posts rapid-response items as well as longer research and analytic reports documenting conservative misinformation throughout the media. Additionally, Media Matters works daily to notify activists, journalists, pundits, and the general public about instances of misinformation, providing them with the resources to rebut false claims and to take direct action against offending media institutions.

http://mediamatters.org/p/about_us/

They have got one thing wrong though. They are disseminating Faux's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation">disinformation not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misinformation">misinformation.

made up the videos of the FOX News clips? hahahaha.....

The great thing about media matters is they simply replay videos of right wing bullshit.....that's it!

plays videos of something the other outlets aren't covering. What's the problem with that? Do you think Fox, or CNN, or any of the other news organizations fake videos?

but they don't fake the news....Anyone who is objective and watches FOX News for a few days cannot deny that they are the media/marketing wing of the Republican party....you cannot say that about MSNBC....They have buchanana and Scarborough for 3 hours in the morning, their news reporting is balanced and fair, and even their liberal opinion shows go after democrats....Maddow and Olbermann have slammed Obama on numerous issues in the past 9 months....FOX News creates false stories, runs with it like its true and keeps repeating the lie so that people will believe it.

It's been a long time coming.

It worked for Bush/Cheney

And it works for Murdoch. Of course its obvious to us here. The evidence is so overwhelming. (A shout out to Media Matters for all their hard work)

But it is laughed off, even by the other networks, who you would think would benefit from the 'smear'. The idea that a billionaire would spend his billions creating a news network and print empire as fronts for spreading false information and NOT reporting other stories specifically to further a fascist agenda to increase the wealth of the already obscenely wealthy, and demonize any public spending on things like health care for the average citizen... A purposeful agenda to help weaken the middle class, or destroy it altogether, in order to have greater control over the desperate poor scrambling for bread crumbs that are left.

...is too big a lie to fight against. Media Matters does it, but they are dismissed by the MSM as some looney left propaganda site on the unreliable internetz.