The FOX Network

[Matti]

Damn, did anybody watch "Outfoxed - Rupert Murdoch's War On Journalism"?

After watching the movie I understand why Bush was elected a second time. The aggressive right-wing propaganda of the network is so obvious, stupid and extrem I can't believe it. And since it reaches about 96 % of the USA (=102 million households) I guess it has an enormous impact on society.

Doesn't turning on FOX immediately leave you with a serious braindamage? I know, TV is stupid everywhere but this is the ultimate exaggeration...

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

I don't disagree.  Murdoch openly declared his support for Hillary before the race even began.  When you've got THE man behind Fox saying that, are you really going to believe this 'fair and balanced' bullshit they try to feed everyone?

Are you?

[Stupot]

They say (certainly of British general elections) that whoever Murdoch wants to win will win (Thatcher, Major, Blair all had his backing). I'm sure that goes for America, too.  He's just as powerful there, if not more so.

[TerranRich]

Democrats have Comedy Central (Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart).

Republicans have FOX News. Both are hilarious.

[Makeout Patrol]

I've seen Outfoxed, and I think it's clear that Fox News is pretty heinous, but it has to be said that Fox really isn't anything more than a more extreme version of CNN, MSNBC and all of the other major TV news outlets.

[voh]

Fox is heinous. They cancelled Firefly and Futurama! I don't care about American politics much, but that deserves at least some Fox-related knees to be beaten with a baseball bat.

Grmbl mumble mope 

[Andail]

That's one thing I've wondered about. Liberal, democratic media has such wonderfully talented comedians/journalists such as Colbert and Jon Stewart, and heck, even Letterman and O'Brien have liberal streaks in them.

The right-wing has utter nutjobs like O'Reilly, who instead of comedy employs sheer agression to convey his messages.

I'm not taking political stands here, just commenting that it must be really hard to find humourous, intelligent tv entertainment if you're dedicated right-wing?

[markbilly]

They say (certainly of British general elections) that whoever Murdoch wants to win will win (Thatcher, Major, Blair all had his backing). I'm sure that goes for America, too.  He's just as powerful there, if not more so.

And Brown does too (I'm fairly sure), which will be interesting...

[Stupot]

They say (certainly of British general elections) that whoever Murdoch wants to win will win (Thatcher, Major, Blair all had his backing). I'm sure that goes for America, too.  He's just as powerful there, if not more so.

And Brown does too (I'm fairly sure), which will be interesting...

Hmmm... he could prove an exception to the rule 

[Pumaman]

Murdoch doesn't really have that much power -- if he came along today and said he was supporting the Lib Dems, there's no way they'd win the election as a result.

But he can subtly influence people in one direction or another through his various media outlets ... however I think it's more that he's good at spotting the winner and supporting them; rather than his influence actually changing the result.

As for news outlets, well they're all biased at the end of the day. We have Sky News (the UK's version of Fox) which has a right-wing bias, but you need that to counter the BBC and their left-wing bias. So as long as you don't just rely on one source for your news, it's usually possible to work out that the truth lies somewhere in the middle...

[Sam.]

. We have Sky News (the UK's version of Fox) which has a right-wing bias, but you need that to counter the BBC and their left-wing bias. So as long as you don't just rely on one source for your news, it's usually possible to work out that the truth lies somewhere in the middle...

Chris, thats true of TV and Radio sure, but how many people do you know who buy more than one newspaper? My grandad was of the ilk, if it is in the Times, it is true. And couldn't be argued with. Most people believe the "news" that dribbles out of the Daily Mail and the News of the World. No matter if the truth is in the mix of the papers, most people only read one partisan opinion.

So if one person has control over the opinion of a newspaper, he will generally have control over the opinion of the readers of that newspaper.

[Nacho]

Personally, and only speaking about the humour topic, if I see politic related humour, I switch the TV off... I simply can' t understand how humourists can make fun of politics that are going to represent around 45-55% of your audience. If you attack the political wing that is leading the polls, you are an idiot which can' t stand how democracy works, and how majorities choose a party. A party that you have no right to "attack" for having the possibility to do so.

If you "attack" the party that is below, you might know what majorities are, but you are bing a coward who makes jokes knowing that is going to have the safety net of the majority of the audience clapping your show. A humourist simply goes to 0 in my respectometer if gets into politics...

[Andail]

Are you serious Nacho? I'm reading your post over and over again and there's not a single sentence I agree with 

Political comedy is essential in any type of society, especially when the political arena is so distant from the lives of ordinary citizens.
How can it make you an idiot to appreciate smart, witty political satire?

In my book, people like Jon Stewart deserves all the respect he can get.

[Nacho]

Political comedy never made me laugh... sorry...

I don' t think there' s a problem in you not agreeing in a single sentence with me, there must be tons of topics we would agree 100% And anyway, "level of agreement" never was an important aspect for me to decide if I like a person or not, I simply do, or not! I think you are more or less the same, so, don' t put that embarrased emoticon!

[Makeout Patrol]

Murdoch doesn't really have that much power -- if he came along today and said he was supporting the Lib Dems, there's no way they'd win the election as a result.

But he can subtly influence people in one direction or another through his various media outlets ... however I think it's more that he's good at spotting the winner and supporting them; rather than his influence actually changing the result.

As for news outlets, well they're all biased at the end of the day. We have Sky News (the UK's version of Fox) which has a right-wing bias, but you need that to counter the BBC and their left-wing bias. So as long as you don't just rely on one source for your news, it's usually possible to work out that the truth lies somewhere in the middle...

The media doesn't have the power to control public opinion, but they do have the power to set the political agenda, and since Fox is such a powerhouse, the other networks are going to follow Fox's lead whenever they "break" a story (that is, whenever they are fed a story by the government). Additionally, while England might have networks that have starkly opposing ideologies, the US does not. People hold up CNN as a Fox alternative, but CNN is really just not quite as far to the right as Fox is.

[Stupot]

Murdoch doesn't really have that much power -- if he came along today and said he was supporting the Lib Dems, there's no way they'd win the election as a result.

You're probably right there CJ, getting the Lib Dems into office would take a bit more effort, but when it comes to the Reds and the Blues he certainly has the power to swing it.

When Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister, Murdoch’s newspapers were her biggest cheerleaders, urging and applauding the Conservative government’s push to privatize industries. His reward came in 1981 when Murdoch acquired the upmarket Times and Sunday Times and the required investigation by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission was ignored. In 1990, his new satellite service was also exempt from cross-ownership laws at a time when other media groups were banned from owning additional newspapers and television stations.

Murdoch shifted his newspapers’ influential favor in 1995 to Tony Blair’s Labour Party, which went on to win three straight general elections. But such support came with a price. Desperate to keep Murdoch’s endorsement, Blair avoided pursuing policies the media baron disagreed with. The public’s concern about Murdoch’s power came to a head with the Labour Party’s 2003 Communications Act, which contained the controversial “Murdoch clause” that further loosened media ownership rules.

Freedom of information files released to the Guardian reveal how the media tycoon Rupert Murdoch wields extensive lobbying clout over the Blair government.

Mr Murdoch secured private reassurances from ministers during heavy lobbying that he would be able to buy Channel Five if he wanted to, according to partly censored documents released by the culture secretary, Tessa Jowell.

In previously undisclosed meetings, representatives of the Murdoch empire were able to lobby ministers six times in a crucial five-month period when an important bill was passing through parliament.

...

Les Hinton, the chief executive of News International, led a group of newspaper industry executives who met Ms Jowell on February 13. Top of the agenda were proposals in the bill to reform the rules under which newspaper owners could buy other papers.

Ten days later, on February 24, Ms Jowell went to a News International drinks party for the outgoing Sun editor, David Yelland. Shortly afterwards, she had a private lunch with Mr Hinton, on March 5.

It seems to many people, myself included, that he has the power to swing public opinion and then demand political favours from those people he has helped into power.

If only we could all get a private audience with Cabinet Ministers everytime we wanted law reforms to swing in our favour

http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/73/The_Resistible_Rise_of_Rupert_Murdoch.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/jan/03/uk.freedomofinformation

[Nacho]

You are a conspiranoid, Stupot... You called the wolf too many times before. You are not reliable. ^_^

[Huw Dawson]

Murdoch doesn't really have that much power -- if he came along today and said he was supporting the Lib Dems, there's no way they'd win the election as a result.

More accurately, we'd refuse to let him support us. That said, if the Times, the Sun, the News of the World and all of the other pies he had fingers in suddenly started putting Nick Clegg's face on the front cover, that would certainly swing the vote. It would be like being able to knock on 30 million doors all at once from now until the General Election.

Think about it. Before the Falklands, Thatcher was on her lowest ebb. Tony Benn (Lefty Labour Shadow Cabinet Minister in the early 80's) gets hundreds of letters from concerned Brits saying they don't like the idea of the war. Then the far right swung their weight behind Thatcher, and suddenly the Sun had the word GOTCHA plastered on the front. Jingoism breaks out. If the press had set a harsher tone, then more than likely the Falklands wouldn't have saved Thatcherism.

- Huw

[shbaz]

A humourist simply goes to 0 in my respectometer if gets into politics...

You also don't like The Simpsons or Family Guy, if I remember right.  I think you blew a funny fuse.

[Nacho]

I loved the Simpsons since, probably, season 8. After that, they simply were unable to make me laugh. Re-cycled jokes, for me it was like seeing the same program again, and again. I never even smiled watching family guy, I think it is the most over-rated show ever.

I like Futurama and Monty Pyton