.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;} <$BlogRSDURL$>

Thursday, February 09, 2006


There's a link to this site just to the right of this post, Hue put it there for me, and today he sent me this link.

FOX is not news, it's propaganda. There should be a law about how to represent reality on a 'news' broadcast.

Fox News = Propaganda

Discussing partisan politics during a eulogy for Dr. King's wife = incredebly huge assholiness.

Since I was home sick Tuesday, I caught much of the SIX HOURS of the service and I gotta say in this rare instance the President out dignified these sanctomonious jackasses (Lowery & Carter) and took it all in stride. Even the local Dem's here in Atlanta though it was in extremely poor taste to discuss such matters during a funeral service. Is this the new strategy being deployed to get Dem's elected? Whether it was 100 or a 1000 who aplauded, it was embarassing and shameful.

If Ted Kennedy can maintain the dignity of the event it should have been a no brainer for a "man of the cloth" and a former president.

"There should be a law about how to represent reality on a 'news' broadcast."

I'm reading Stolen Valor by BG Burkett. Take the time to read it. It may change you mind on exactly what propaganda is.
Sure. Take Fox off the air. Will they be taking CBS News off the air for broadcasting "fake but accurate" stories? Will they be taking CNN off the air for censoring their reporting of Iraq because of an agreement with Saddam?

What's that silence I hear?
Wheather what these people did was 'cool' or not, it happened, and was reported by FOX in a doctored manner.

That's all I'm saying.

I couldn't agree more that a funeral is a poor choice of a venue to vent political grudges. But what actaully happened is news, and should be represented by FOX the way it went down.

I didn't say take Fox off the air, just don't call it news if your not giving a fair and actual account of the events.

Propaganda is the misrepresentation of fact, or the representation of fiction as fact for political purposes.

It's a very simple concept.

I am not clear on the references to CBS and CNN, but if those news agencies aren't reporting factual information, then they too should be reprimanded, and forced to comply.

I'd love to know more about CNN's agreement with Saddam. If your reference to CBS has anything to do with Dan Rather or 60 minutes, well then I couldn't agree more, they are an irresponsible bunch.
1. to say this is "partisan politics" is ridiculous. Some people in this country feel misled by their leaders. Some people feel they need to stand up and say something about it. That's what Dr. King stood for, and he was killed for it. That's also what his wife stood for. To edit out the response this received for the sake of making a point is par for the course for FOX "News", so there's no news there. Anyone who thinks they are a fair and balanced news source is more than a bit naive. Same with CBS and CNN.

2. Reducing his comments to a strategy to gets Dems elected is meaningless. Why, whenever a liberal says what they think, is it called "partisan"? Is it JUST POSSIBLE that people in this country have viewpoints? And that they might be controversial or even (gasp!) in bad taste? Was Dr. King controversial? Was it in bad taste to shoot him dead?

3. There is a system to keep news reporting actually "fair." It's called journalistic ethics, and it's extinct. People don't watch the news for the news, they watch it for a) entertainment or b) to have the views they already believe reinforced.

4. George W. Bush had no right to even be at the funeral.
Chrispy -

Isn't the system that keeps journalism fair the open market of ideas? Competition from various new sources?
Jackson -

CNN admitted that it had censored its reporting about Iraq in the pre-war years to avoid angering Saddam.

All of what you said may very well be correct with exception of the fact that it was a f'in' funeral!!!

I don't see it as being any different than someone saying something as idiotic at Ted's funeral, "While Ted was alive, he though Chris's mix of The Wall sucked ass...". It was a crass and stupid move on behalf of these guys.

I don't like the President all that much either, but to say he had no right to be at that funeral sounds a bit sanctimonious. Does that mean attendance should have been restricted to only those who agree with Carter and Lowery's politics? What is this, the Ellen Jamsian Society? The president sure didn't take the opportunity to slag anyone.

Nobody's looking to squelch anybody's right to say what they want, feel free to disagree as you will, but I'm sorry, to drag this shit out during a funeral is just out of line. There were plenty of press outside who were more than happy to take a news conference and any of them would have been happy to put their rhetoric on the air.

BTW... Ole Bill Clinton was delieved a great eulogy.
I actually think competition from various news sources makes it more likely for the sources to jump the gun on reporting stories, to do less research, and to report the sensational over the meaningful.

Journalism is not about an open market of ideas, it's about reporting what happened. If everyone just reported what happened there wouldn't be any advantage to getting your news from one source vs. any other.

This would be the best thing for the "consumer" of the news, but not for - you guessed it - the shareholders.

Once you sell out to the money, the bottom line and the ratings and the readership become the most important thing. Who cares if it's accurate, if it sells? We can always run a retraction tomorrow.

Yet another way that the application of the free market to everything in the world isn't always "good" for us.
Dr. Martin Luther King spoke his mind and paid for it with his life.

The right of those at his funeral to speak their minds is what it's all about. Again, King's words were considered as shameful and out of line as you consider Lowery's to be now. He was KILLED for what he believed and represented. Doesn't that mean anything to you?

You use the word "sanctimious" twice, and yet you are up in arms about these statements because they were made at a "f'in' funeral". That sounds a bit self-righteous...

I didn't say that attendance should have been restricted, I said GW had no right to be there. What has he ever done for civil rights? What the hell does he care? The only work he ever did with the poor or disenfranchised was a year with a liberal charity in Texas, allegedly as an informal "sentence" for a coke bust. Thanks, dad!
Funny, I don't remember Dr. King ever slagging the president on foreign affairs at funerals, but if I'm wrong please cite an instance.

"He was KILLED for what he believed and represented. Doesn't that mean anything to you?"

More than you'll ever know Kenya.
Chrispy -

Your analysis only makes sense if the information MUST be out by a certain time and can never be changed. Do outlets like CBS jump the gun and report stories that are not accurate or checked? Yes. But it was competition from other sources (in this case, the bloggers) that fact-checked the shit out of it and got the storied retracted.

That is an extremely healthy thing. To my ears, your concept that journalism is not an open market of ideas is terrifying. I agree that what Fox did here is deceptive, but they are being called on it.
T.A. - nice with the 'Ellen Jamesians', you score a pont for that.

I think GW should certainly have attended, and would have been offended had he not.

I think Coretta's more than happy to leave this earth to the fools. Both the fools who misrepresent her and her husband's legacy, and the fools who have ignored it.

I fully expect somebody to mention Chris' mix of the Wall at my funeral.

"I did not come to praise the mix, I came to bury. I also expect coverage from all news agencies.
Chrispy -

I think network news has always been an unprofitable part of the television business. I think the networks have kept their news organizations for prestige. I could be wrong, but I don't think the nightly news is a profitable part of, say, NBC.

Like I said, I don't know for sure.
I have no idea what you're talking about, Pat.

MLK was never shy about speaking out against the establishment, regardless of where he was.

Dr. King was killed for his controversial statements, which angered those in power. That's my point. If someone making a statement about how our nation was misinformed as a pretext to going to war - a war in which plenty of young, poor people, many of them black are dying - then where better to say it than at a service for the widow of Dr. Martin Luther King? This war is being fought for the rich and the powerful. Someone should stand up at every opportunity and say something about it if they feel that it's the right thing to do.

Did King make these speeches at funerals? I don't know.

from infoplease.com:

"By 1967, King had become a passionate opponent of the Vietnam War. In this speech delivered at the Riverside Church in New York City, King referred to the United States 'the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.'

Dr. King: "Perhaps the more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the war was doing far more than devastating the hopes of the poor at home. It was sending their sons and their brothers and their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of the population. We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by our society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in southwest Georgia and East Harlem. So we have been repeatedly faced with the cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in the same schools. So we watch them in brutal solidarity burning the huts of a poor village, but we realize that they would never live on the same block in Detroit. I could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor."

Hmmm. I think MLK would have agreed with Lowery. Just as he would have agreed with Cindy Sheehan and all the rest of the anti-war folks that the right loves to hate.

Journalism has been grossly distorted in recent years. It always was bad business, until media conglomerates figured out how to make $ from it. Namely, to treat it like the rest of TV.

"Kagan Research puts CNN's 2004 profits at $337.2 million and Fox News' at $274.3 million. In 2003, Kagan says, the networks' profits were $299.2 million and $186.5 million, respectively."

Jim Walton, President of the CNN News Group: "We closed out 2004 with a record year of profit growth in our history. That doesn't happen by accident; you need a business that's running on all cylinders."

Notice there's no mention of journalism there. It's a business before all else. Journalism is a public service.

FOX News is actually a bigger success story, mostly due to its "personality based" "reporting."

Reporting is not supposed to be about "ideas." It's supposed to be about facts. That's the definition of journalism. Anything else is entertainment. Far more terrifying is the idea that people are looking at FOX News - an admitedly right-wing network - as News.

Tony: 2 points. One for style, and one for actually watching the funeral coverage.

Chris: 20 ponits. 10 points for factual accuracy. 10 points for being right.

Dave: 1 point, for admitting he may not know what he's talking about.

Jackson: No points. I am disqualified on account of being the scorekeeper.

Savage Distortion is NOT a news service, and is definately biased.
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?