(This article was written by my husband, a journalist who received his masters degree in journalism from the Northwestern University Medill School of Journalism in Chicago.)
I KNOW that the Fox News Channel is a Republican owned and operated lying machine. Nobody had to tell me this. I saw it for myself. Here is my proof.
I have a bachelor's degree AND a master's degree in journalism. I worked as a journalist for 15 years.
In August 1996, we closed our small business and I went back as an editor for WBBM Newsradio 780 in Chicago for a few years. As editor, I had access to all the wire services and three radio networks. I would debrief correspondents as they prepared to do their reports on our station. I also had six television monitors, allowing me to watch what anybody else was reporting.
On October 7, 1996, the Fox News Channel debuted. I had read about how Rupert Murdoch had partnered with former Reagan advisor Roger Ailes to create the network to compete with CNN and HLN (Headline News). Ailes would run FNC. Right-wing think tanks would help fund the operation by providing "experts" and pundits to be interviewed.
I had access to the same information that was flowing into the newsroom at the Fox News Channel. And I watched as the Fox "News" Channel would twist, distort, ignore, and lie about what happened that day. It was stunning how different the world looked through the eyes of FNC.
Regardless of what happened, FNC would say anything to make democrats look bad and republicans look good.
But FNC went beyond that on their evening "opinion" shows. They demonized democrats, progressives, and liberals. They weren't just someone to disagree with. They were worse than terrorists - out to destroy the country.
As the years rolled by, FNC would refer people to web sites set up to agree with FNC - sites like Matt Drudge, NewsMax, and NewsBusters. As the media-watchdog and fact-checking sites pointed out that FNC was lying, FNC personalities would attack the sites as "left-wing smear sites."
For example, mediamatters.org posts video or audio clips, and show the documentation proving what the truth is. Yet, FNC has gone out of its way to attack the organization.
What you need to understand is WHY the Fox News Channel was established.
In the 1960's, billionaires and big businessmen (most of who were conservative republicans) lamented the fact that they could not call the shots - do whatever they wanted to do. They started looking for ways to regain control of government and the public discourse.
As they looked for ways to do this, they researched countries that had control over the population - communist countries. These governments had control over the media. The media would further the agenda of the government regardless of the truth.
As they studied these countries, they looked for ways they could apply the lessons learned, but in a democratic republic with constitutional restrictions. They came up with a plan, launched in 1971 during the Nixon Presidency. On one hand, it is brilliant in how well it has unfolded. On the other hand, it is diabolical in how much it has subverted the public discourse and the tone of campaigns.
1. Re-establish a conservative, biased media. This media would promote the conservative agenda through lies, if necessary. This would include magazines, newspapers, radio, TV, and eventually cable and Internet.
2. Redirect people from the mainstream media to this conservative media. Attack the most trusted outlets of the media. Claim that these media outlets are "liberally-biased."
(The premise was put forth in the 1971 book The Media Elite by Edith Efron. Later studies showed that the book lied. Independent studies proved the objectivity, fairness, and balance of the media. In fact, these studies showed a very slight conservative bias overall. But conservative pundits kept repeating the charge of "liberal bias" until people start believing it. (If you hear it enough, there must be something to it. "If there is smoke, there must be fire.")
3. Get the government to lift restrictions on media. Lift limits on how many newspapers, radio or TV stations can be owned by one company. And most important: eliminate the fairness doctrine (done in 1986 under Reagan).
4. Misdirect the public discourse. The public will never support politicians that favor big business and billionaires at the expense of the common man. So get our politicians to 1) campaign on the issues of basic needs (even though we do not plan to deliver them): patriotism, autonomy, integrity, need for community, and protection from crime and other harms. and 2) appeal to base instincts: fear, racism, sexism, and class warfare.
5. Get the conservative message onto the media unfiltered. If a reporter filters out the lies and untruths of our messages, nobody hears them. Start demanding "equal-time" not only on radio and TV, but also in the newspapers (and we'll work behind the scenes to eliminate the requirement for equal time by eliminating the fairness doctrine).
6. Get large corporations to purchase the networks (GE bought NBC; Disney bought ABC; Leows and Viacom bought CBS). Slash the budgets of the news divisions, effectively reducing the number of reporters, editors and fact-checkers. Force them to rely on research institutions and pundits.
7. Media report the results of studies done by research institutions. So, create and fund phony research institutions. These phony research institutions will create research "studies" that support our conservative views -- even if the research is never done.
8. Recruit and train people who have the gift of persuasion and agree with the conservative view. Fund their activities by paying them (fellowships) to be experts at the above research institutions. Offer their opinions free to media outlets.
9. Use the "If there is smoke, there must be fire" syndrome. Convene weekly telephone conference calls of conservative pundits - led by Grover Norquist, president of the anti-taxtion group "Americans For Tax Reform" - to distribute lists of talking points every Wednesday. If everybody is talking about it, it must be true!
Who are the billionaires (and their foundations) who started this movement?
- Harry Bradley of the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
- Joseph Coors , Colorado Beer magnate
- Fred Koch (and his two sons) of Koch Industries in Kansas
- Richard Mellon Scaife, heir to Mellon bank and oil fortune
- William Simon, former treasury secretary under Richard Nixon.
Other conservative foundations include the Olin Foundation and Smith Richardson foundation. They funnel the money through the Philanthropy Roundtable, which also receive funds from foundations at Amoco, Alcoa, JM, Rockwell Int'l, and the Ford Motor Co.
These ultra-conservatives have established more than 500 phony research institutions or "think-tanks." A former Heritage Foundation official estimates that conservatives had spent more than $1-billion on the top 20 think tanks alone. The biggest, and most influential, is the Heritage Foundation.
Others include: Accuracy in Media, American Enterprise Institute, Analysis Research Corporation, Cato Institute, Center for the Study of Popular Culture, Center for Security Policy, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Hudson Institute, Landmark Legal Foundation. Liberty Lobby, Manhattan Institute, Phillips Foundation, Rocky Mountain Legal Foundation,
The FCC formerly prohibited foreigners from owning broadcast stations. Ronald Reagan allowed foreign billionaires like Australia 's Rupert Murdoch (NewsCorp and FOX Networks), Korean Sun Myung Moon of the Unification Church (Washington Times), and Canadian Lord Conrad Black (Hollinger International).
Other conservative owned publications include: American Spectator, National Review, New York Post, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, and Weekly Standard.
Other media outlets controlled by conservatives include the FOX News Channel, and internet sites like NewsMax and the Matt Drudge Report.
Cable networks have become primary source of news for 45 percent of Americans while only 22 percent chose the broadcast networks ABC, CBS, NBC.
Conservative cable talk shows are sure to load the deck in their favor. They pit a trained conservative against a mainstream journalist - ensuring that there is nobody willing to advocate the other side of the issue. It also reinforces the misperception that mainstream journalists are liberals.
As I mentioned earlier, conservatives got the FCC to kill the fairness doctrine in 1986 under Ronald Reagan. The following week, ABC radio executive Ed McLaughlin (another conservative) offered Sacramento radio personality Rush Limbaugh FREE to any station willing to try his show for several months. Once the show established an audience, they started to charge stations for syndication rights.
The effect of this conservative initiative is staggering. A 1996 survey showed that 24 percent of radio listeners hear a political talk show at least once a week.
In 1981, there were 82 all-talk stations in the USA . By 1995 there were 1,308. By 2000, 400 conservative talk shows were on the air. By 2003, there were 1,700. Yet, there were only 40 talk shows classified as liberal or moderate.
The reason that we know all of this is because several conservative pundits have stepped forward since 2001 and revealed the secrets of this 30-year strategy.
Now, conservatives are countering these revelations by attempting to turn the tables and blame democrats. They claim it is really the democrats that have done all this. And that they are trying to take over the government by misleading America . They hope the claim will prevent the curious from checking out the facts.
The end result is an electorate that thinks it knows what is going on. FOX News Channel advisor Chet Collier said in a candid memo, "people don't want to be informed; they want the illusion of being informed." That is the problem. Conservative media has provided many people with the illusion of being informed.
~ By Bob Uhlar
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 257
thanks for sharing....
Have you seen the documentary "outfoxed"? They talked about this too. They mentioned too how many newspapers and TV stations Rupert Murdoch owns, it was a really staggering number.
Yes, Ellen, it is staggering.
This just makes the blood run cold. That such diabolical plans worked so well in the supposed "BEST" country in the world is very disturbing. I belong to Media Matters and spent two months voluntarily monitoring Fox News and jotting down dates and times when their "reporters" were parroting the current catch phrases of the week.
I got so depressed I had to quit listening to them. My father died for the USA in 1944. It feels to me as if they have dishonored his sacrifice and that of all the other killed and maimed military personnel. Actually all that served even if they returned home, because I believe their lives will never be as they would have been. Fox started the inane phrases such as calling even one soldier "troops" or "a troop" to dehumanize and trivialize the losses so that the public would support forever, eternal war.
And it's terrifying how successful they have been with their propaganda project. The recent rulling by a Federal Judge that the laws passed after 9/11 effectively allow the administration to hold anyone they wish for as long as they wish without ever having to prove any claim made about them in a court of law. And then these destroyers claim they "believe and follow the rule of law."
The new catch phrase I heard on NPR talk radio today from a Conservative ranter was "Obama's lawless emotional rulings" on the Supreme court. The man said this many times in a 2 minute rant. I could feel my stomach roiling. It will be on EVERY Fox News program tomorrow, wait and see.
And the entire legislative branch looked the other way when the Bush Administation PAID to have government propaganda broadcast from TV station Comentators. No accountability at all.
Thanks for this detailed, factual, article on what has happened to our country, Bob. Won't you write a book about this, please? Thanks for posting this to your readers, Carla. Keep writing, keep holding their feet to the fire. We need to hear this.
Sandy, he is writing a book about it. And thanks for reading the article. Even Debra, who worked for Fox admits that Fox is not about news but about propaganda.
Thanks for your kind words. There is already is a fine book on this "The Republican Noise Machine" by David Brock, a former right wing pundit. His first book, "Blinded by the Right" should be required reading in any US History Class.
Fox started the inane phrases such as calling even one soldier "troops" or "a troop" to dehumanize and trivialize the losses so that the public would support forever, eternal war.
Originally, "troop" comes from a Germanic word meaning "village", and it's cognate to words like "dorf" in modern German and "troupe" in French. Gradually, it came to refer to a "troop", which is a unit of soldiers consisting of several platoons. We still use that term in the US Army Cavalry, as do several other national armies.
The members of a troop were "troopers", and "trooper" was later shortened to "troop" as early as 1843, according to the Oxford English Dictionary.
Oh damn! I went and factchecked. Sorry.
“This is a terrible book,” reads the first line of David Brock‘s newest book. He’s right. And it‘s all downhill for the next 287 pages. But it’s not a complete loss. Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative is a pretty damn good train wreck.
I read through it rather lasciviously wondering if Brock -- the now repentant former bad-boy ink-slinger of the Gingrich Revolution who smeared Anita Hill and helped invent the “Troopergate” story -- could reveal himself to have been any more cynical, calculating, craven and corrupt. No disappointment on that issue. Nor was I ever able to find any further evidence of that “conscience” he mentioned in the subtitle.
What I found instead was the rather staggering story of a little snot who as soon as he enrolled at UC Berkeley in 1981 came up with a plan to trade his soul for recognition and cash; managed to do so just about on schedule; and now -- facing middle age -- has deployed Plan B, which is to garner an equal amount of cash by confessing what a shit he was. Like he said, it‘s a terrible book.
Though I suppose for hardcore Bill Clinton lovers -- those soft-headed among you who actually still believe that Slick Willy was a victim, that he was caught in a “perjury trap” and that “it was only about sex” -- this is a great book. Here are all your bogeymen, all the major players of the “vast right-wing conspiracy,” revealed by ex-co-conspirator Brock to be just the conniving, double-dealing, amoral Clinton haters you always knew they were.
Conservatives wont check facts because truth is a Democrat and Communist plot. I saw this coming in the early '80s, which is one of the main reasons I got out of journalism.
You don't need a master's to know that Murdoch and FOX are lying through their teeth. You just need a modicum of common sense and to be awake for more than 15 minutes a day.
Sounds about right, Walker!
Thank goodness for Fox News, otherwise we'd have that "unbiased" news of CNN and MSNBC...you know...where they talk about how Obama makes them giddy and makes ripples up their legs and spine? Thank goodness for Fox News that reported about the Tea Parties without calling the participant ignorant and filthy names, like CNN and MSNBC. Any informed person should watch the liberal media, the conservative media, and some foreign media to get to the truth. Sadly, the only ones I know who actually do that are conservatives.
Chet Collier's memo, "people don't want to be informed; they want the illusion of being informed." is mantra at Fox News (I worked in a Fox outlet for a while). It isn't about research, it's about finding something easy to use either to support the chosen point, or something easy to cut to shreads.
And so it is with all news media now, Debra. It's about money and ratings, and liberal media thinks it's just peachy for their "news" people to have funny feelings running up their legs about the presidential candidate and to tell everyone about it...as if it's news.
Marilyn, I'll bet you didn't even read the article. You wouldn't acknowledge the truth if it bit you in the face.
Debra, thanks for commenting. It's good to hear from someone who actually worked for Fox. And you certainly have confirmed the mentality of Fox.
Of course I read it, Carla.
As for talk radio? Oh please. I have never known any liberals willing to listen to talk radio. It's no wonder there are no liberal shows.
Air America still broadcasts
Marilyn, this is just another example of how uninformed you are.
Oh really? I have never lived in an area where liberal talk shows survived. Have you? But conservative ones thrive. You know why that is? Because people want to listen to conservative talk shows and not liberal ones. So why should radio stations lose money?
Marilyn, Air America is a liberal talk radio show. As for the conservative ones...well, we liberals like to listen sometimes and laugh at how ridiculous it is.
But seriously, Marilyn, look at the Republican party right now and the fact that the Democrats are now the majority party. Does that tell you that the people in this country are conservative? I don't think so. Most liberals have better things to do with their time. They read newspapers and get their information from multiple sources. You conservatives listen to your menu of Fox, Limbaugh, etc. and get the same old recipes of prejudice, hatred, bigotry, gun rights and Republican propaganda.
No, Carla, as I've said before most of the liberals I know - in real life and here - don't get their news from multiple sources. Some here even admit to not watching any news or reading any papers. Instead they rely on blogs and Gather. How smart is that? Of course they'll be misinformed.
Conservatives that I know all get news from multiple sources. But we have to rely on conservative news stations to keep us informed about things about which we care. The liberal media neglects so many important topics.
So, Marilyn, the liberals you know here on gather don't their news from multiple sources, huh? I'm just wondering how you know this?
Because they admit it, Carla. A majority of liberals will say, "I'll never watch Fox!". Okay, so how can you know what the conservative view is if you don't watch for yourself. Many also admit to not watching any news or reading any newspapers, Carla. I've seen the comments.
As I've said before, the only way to get the whole story is to watch some liberal news, some conservative news, and some foreign news from Canada or the UK. Then one can draw one's own conclusions about what is the real story.
Just because they don't watch Fox doesn't mean that they don't get their news from multiple sources. What a crazy thing to assume, Marilyn.
Excuse me, Carla. I forgot you had reading comprehension problems.
1) Many liberals at Gather admit that they do not watch multiple sources for news.
2) Most liberals claim they would not be caught dead watching Fox, and I wonder, then, how do they get those multiple sources. What other conservative news are they watching, if not Fox?
3) Repeating - As I've said before, the only way to get the whole story is to watch some liberal news, some conservative news, and some foreign news from Canada or the UK. Then one can draw one's own conclusions about what is the real story.
4) If all of one's multiple news sources are liberal, that's not really getting a well rounded idea about what's really happening in the world, now is it, Carla?
1) Marilyn, why don't you give me the names of these liberals that you are talking about.
2) As for not watching Fox, it is because we have watched Fox and that's why we don't watch it anymore.
3) Repeating... Marilyn, the problem with this logic in what you are saying is that you believe that every other network is liberal other than Fox.
4) I watch CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, and the BBC. I'd say that is pretty well-rounded. The fact that I don't watch Fox doesn't make much difference. I don't like being spoon-fed Republican propaganda.
1) Carla, you know who they are.
2) And if you don't watch any conservative news, how do you think that you're getting the real story about what conservatives think and believe?
3) Yes, that's exactly what I and most other conservtives believe and know, Carla. The rest of the news media is liberal. You bet!
4) Again, you don't have a balanced news view if you're ignoring conservative news. Sorry, Carla. I watch conservative, liberal (all of those you mentioned) and BBC too. If you're ignoring conservative news, you're not getting the entire picture.
1) Marilyn, if I knew I wouldn't ask who they are. You're obviously making it up.
2) I have my brother to tell me what you conservative believe. And the problem is it is usually about racism, prejudice, gun laws and how terrible Obama is. I really get tired of it.
3) And that is why I feel you are so out of touch with reality. To think that every other news network in the world is liberal is so unbelievably biased and without logic that it blows my mind.
4) See number 2.
Seems that the liberals that Marilyn describes are the exact opposite of me. I've certainly never said that I don't watch multiple sources of news. I watch news on the major networks and cable stations and I watch C-Span. We subscribe to a local newspaper and two national ones. I have said that I only watch Fox for comic relief but that is only true half the time and the other half the time I'm just wanting to toss my shoe at the TV screen. As for talk radio, my husband can listen to the big mouths and laugh but it gives me a headache and I switch to MPR. I'm not terribly interested in the opinions of uneducated djs. I don't read political internet blogs. Oft times when I've expressed an opinion I've gotten a snotty reply from a conservative like "If you'd read something besides the Huffington Post." Actually I think in all of the years I've been online I've only read an article there once and that was one that was linked from Gather. Ok, I'm finished. I'll let Marilyn get back to her generalizations.
I understand completely, Kay. I've been tempted to throw a few shoes myself while watching Fox News. That is one of the reasons I don't tune in anymore.
I have been tuning in to Fox lately, so I can be prepared to answer the bigotry seen here on Gather. It isn't easy listening to the lies and twists-of-truth. But it has helped me understand why Marilyn and a bunch of other right wingers think the way they do. They are so utterly brainwashed, they will never wake up. It's so pathetic, so demoralizing, and so dangerous to our country. And unfortunatley, they see themselves as Patriotic. I think they are all idiotic.
Thanks, Elsie. You are right. It seems that many of us see that they are brainwashed, but they don't. Maybe some de-programming is in order.
Carla, it blows my mind that you're too blind to see how biased and liberal the MSM is. Talk about brainwashed. It's sad.
And there's the proof positive!
Marilyn
Librals do listen to radio - Air America and NPR are popular all over the country. As to BBC Radio 4 - funny that in order to get honest-to-god news about US affairs one must go OUTSIDE the country to get it.
Garrison Keillor has a very liberal show on sunday, ever REALLY listen?
For your most studied consideration: Some liberals are american christian; some american christians are liberal. Not all the air waves are taken up by american christian programming.
"Excuse me, Carla. I forgot you had reading comprehension problems."
Good on you, Carla, You did not fall for her bait. A commonly used right wing tactic.
Really? {she says as she takes notes}
Thanks for your comments, Joyce. I love Garrison Keillor. I haven't heard his show but will try to catch it soon.
There have been studies that show that people who regularly watch Faux Nois are less informed about matters than the average person. A large portion of Faux viewers still think that WMD were found in Iraq.
And the MSM is so left wing that it helped lie the USA into and illegal, aggresive war in Iraq. God, what would they do if they were Right-wing like the Shrub/Cheney Administration.
I used to watch the local fox news in the morning, but it's terifying to me. I'd make my hubby check our smoke and carbon monoxide detector CONSTANTLY. All they ever reported was how this whole family was found dead of a fire, how that whole apartment building went up in flames, how these people died in their sleep due to carbon monoxide. Then they went after one of their own reporters, she was having an (alledgedly) having an affair who was somehow connected to a Detroit scandal.
I READ news all the time. I read the paper online, I get Newsweek in the mail, and I watch BBCA news sometimes. I will admit that I have trouble comprehending things that are read or told to me, I'm much better at reading things. That's just how I personally "learn".
Did you read the latest NewsWeek and see how they are changing their format and approach to news?
Come on, Carla. This is all bullshit and you know it. Susan Roesgen and her lies about the Jena 6? Tea parties?
Good Morning, America choosing to interview Hillary Clinton for her critique of Sarah Palin's debate with Foot-in-his-mouth Biden? Plus lies from Biden about Louisiana having one of the worst employment records when it's the exact opposite? Then refusing to retract the lie?
None of them are any good, they are all liars and have agendas they want to push. They ALL make profits on stirring the pot. Are you truly that naive?
For heavens sake, quite the whining about this news network and that news network. Listen to the news and do your own comparisons, then fact check.* They ALL are liars. God, I can't believe you would post this as factual news.
*Oh, fact check, another sore point. I'm a conservative and I fact check. Quite trying to portray yourselves as superior. For pete's sake, I can't believe you posted this trash.
Believe what you want, Cathi, since I know you will anyway. Like Marilyn, I doubt that you actually read the article.
As to your first sentence, why not? You believe what you want. Yeah, I fact check, both sides of the spectrum. It's apparent from articles like this one that it's an alien idea for you.
As to your second sentence, 'tis always nice to assume, isn't it Carla? That way you really don't need to learn and can shield your views from anything behind the cozy and comfortable.
Cathi, I'm glad you fact check but you've obviously missed some things. And where do you fact check, NewsMax?
Actually, Cathi, I'm 58 years old and have been around a long time. I was even a Republican at one time. So don't assume anything about me.
And where do you fact check, NewsMax?
LOL Interesting. You don't want assumptions about you yet you delight in giving out assumptions on others.
I'm 58 years old and have been around a long time.
And that's supposed to me what to me?
FOX is the biggest propaganda machine ever developed.
Thanks for posting this Carla. Nice job by your husband, Bob. It's full of specifics and factual information rather than biased generalities and supposition.
How does anyone watch that nonsense and actually come away thinking it's news, let alone "fair and balanced?"
From my observation, it's about 90% editorial masquerading as news and about 10% news that selectively presented. Example: during the campaign season a segment about McCain's history as a POW followed by Obama bowling badly, and looking unpresidential.
After the beginning of the Iraq war, the University of Maryland polled viewers of various networks about seven mistaken conclusions widely held by the public in spite of the absence of any evidence. For all seven questions, viewers of FOX News ranked highest in belief in wrong conclusions. 67% believed a clear link had been established between Saddam and al-Qaeda, in spite of absolutely no evidence to support such a conclusion, and after the invasion, 33% of Fox Viewers got it wrong that WMD were actually found in Iraq. While Fox News viewers had the highest statistics of wrong conclusions for all seven questions, viewers of public media (PBS, NPR) had the lowest numbers of wrong conclusions for all seven questions. Now just how would all of those Fox News viewers taking in all that "fair and balanced" content come to those mistaken conclusions?
Wrong to whom? We saw the trucks leaving Iraq. We listened to the general who used to work for Saddam about the WMD they did have. He spoke of the bunkers, and lo and behold those bunkers were found. And so was all that yellowcake that was shipped out of Iraq.
You're illustrating my point Marilyn. The statement was: “67% [of FoxNews viewers] believed a clear link had been established between Saddam and al-Qaeda. Was there ever a clear link established?” No. The other statement was: “33% of Fox Viewers got it wrong that WMD were actually found in Iraq.” Were WMD ever found in Iraq [other than buried relics of antiquity of the ‘80's]? How do you know what the other question were? Or do you? And regarding the trucks leaving Iraq: This sounds like Colin Powell’s drawings of mobile weapons labs. How does anyone know what was in any particular trucks that were observed? If they were suspected to be carrying WMD, why weren’t they followed to destination? And, “lo and behold bunkers were found” – Nobody ever said Saddam didn’t have bunkers. He probably used bunkers to house the WMD we supplied to him when we supported him decades earlier. And the general? Was he another version of Chalabi who we paid $300,000.00 to say (falsely) what the administration wanted to hear? And, yellowcake, huh? Was that the yellowcake from Niger described in the famous 16 words that George Tenet advised Bush to remove from the State of the Union speech because the story had been discredited, but Bush used anyway? You know, the one with the evidence of Niger government document with all of the misspellings and signed by a Niger official who had been out of office for 10 years.
Thanks, Robert. These people are still brainwashed from the Bush administration.
I was once told by a man I know to be very intelligent and well respected that when people start using phrases like "these people," it shows an incredible lack of thought and a great amount of prejudice. I'd drop the "broad brush," Carla, truly, it doesn't serve you well.
Cathi, you should be an expert on prejudice by now having read some of your comments.
Awww, now, don't cut yourself short. Afterall, you're 58 years old and have lived a long time. I'm only trying to follow your example!
Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels would have been envious of the success of the public manipulation that has been achieved through Fox News and right wing talk radio. The most amazing result they have achieved is that eight years of indisputably disasterous right wing leadership in the country is now widely being blamed on liberals and even George W. Bush is disowned as a conservative. It wasn't primarily liberals who voted him into office.
One of the saddest aspects of it all is the appeal to the worst side of people, to our lowest instincts and emotions. They stoke fear to get people upset and worried, then they target a scapegoat and direct hatred at them (hating what we fear is a natural response). This hatred is fed daily with a rabid volley of judgemental condemnation for all "others" (liberals, immigrants, Arabs, Muslims, communists, whoever). They spew this garbage constantly and help people who are filled with hatred, fear and rage to feel justified in spewing it also.
I have no doubt that all Aryan Nation and White Power supporters watch Fox News and listen to right wing talk radio. They have found a home there.
Great article. Ididn't know the details but the overall is no surprise. I woud only suggest that these people are not conceratives at all but Facists
...otherwise know as "neo-conservatives".
Yes, John! Exactly. That point has been made by many people.
This is a great but chilling article, Carla.
My politco friends tell me that all cable news is now biased, and you need to go to public TV or radio if you want unbiased news reporting. I'm hoping that some of my favorite print publications are still "safe"-- the New York Times, The Economist, and U.S. News and World Report.
that all cable news is now biased
Thank you! Excellent comment!
Exactly.
There is a glimmer of hope in FOX's ratings and audience numbers: They out perform most other outlets by 2 to 1 and they worked tirelessly to promote Republican candidates and issues. Yet the GOP got a "thumpin" in 06 and lost the farm in 08. And FOX's numbers still remain strong. One must conclude that A: most people who watch FOX don't vote or B: most people watch FOX as you would cartoons or soap operas, mildly entertaining but not relevent. I don't see any other way to interpret their numbers with the political climate. Look at Obama's ratings, 60+% and FOX has endlessly bashed every move he's done. If they are so powerful and influential I would suspect they'd be far more effective at the ballot box.
There are people who watch Fox for things other than the news. I am one of them. That explains their ratings.
There is a big difference between the "Fox News Channel" and the "Fox Television Network." The Network simply wants to make money by offering a diversity of TV programming
Or C: The liberal media mesmerized people with their "tingle up the leg stories" and convinced them that Messiah Obama was the answer to everything.
Marilyn, you really seem to be taken with that "tingle up the leg" thing. What's up with that?
Elsie, I've wondered about that too.
And it's funny but I've never heard a Democrat talk about Obama being the messiah, but the neocons refer to him as such all the time. Next thing you know, they'll have him crucified. In fact, from what I hear from my brother who watches Fox, they're already working toward that.
Darren, this is hysterical! ROFL. Thanks for sharing this.
The fact that neo-cons are the only ones to describe Obama as a "Messiah" doesn't surprise me. The only politician I ever heard use the term "New World Order", which seems to be so feared, was George the First.
Very true!
But then, the CNN and other American media also twisted, distorted, ignored, and lied about the WMDs in Iraq.
The Fox News is by far the worst, but the others are not innocent....
I agree that none are perfect, Savo. But Fox is by far the worst, as you say.
I also agree, Savo, that the others are not innocent, not by any means. Why the focus is on one and not all who have "twisted, distorted, ignored, and lied," is amazing to me. News isn't supposed to be slanted to either side. Instead we have people on the right defending FOX and people on the left defending their own little piece of the pie. And so the blame game continues. Each time someone discovers that one isn't rosy and clean, articles pop up as if the author has discovered something new! Yet its apparent they only see the part they are comfortable with; partial truths. Just like the news media, the writers of these articles are only interested in ways of refuting one side. Gee, sounds like a political smear campaign.
Cathi, at least we're willing to acknowledge that none are perfect. You Fox fans believe they can do no wrong.
You Fox fans believe they can do no wrong.
I see you are in the blind attack dog mode, huh Carla?
Blind, Cathi? I think not. I see things very clearly. Speaking of blind...maybe you should read the book, "Blinded by the Right" by David Brock. It might open your eyes to how blind you conservatives are to what has been going on.
Blind, Carla? Your presumptuousness prevents you from anything more than a cursory glance at the comments here. How blind "you conservatives" are? Wow, you are either unable or unwilling to perceive or understand anything. If you can't accept blind, how about dim?
As I said in the article above, Corporations bought these networks. They slashed the budgets for the news departments, firing reporters. If there is nobody out there covering the news, how are we supposed to get the information?
By being active citizens on the issues important to you. For war reporting I depend on embeds and word of mouth from those actually a part of it. But hey, as your wife has said, all conservatives are brainwashed, not that I'd EVER say such a thing about liberals.
The news media has abdicated it's responsibility to the American people. Going back as far as the fall of the Soviet Union, the "entertainment news" we see from both sides has been simple-minded and sensationalistic. There's been impotent attempts at improvements but if you think any of them are reliable and without bias, or that many don't leave out facts that would not be advantageous to their slant, then you are as blind as your wife.
Good of you to come in for her.
Come in for her, Cathi? It's my article.
Darlin', who posted the article and who have I been commenting with? Not you.
Hey, sweetie, be careful calling me darlin'. My wife reads this stuff too.
;)
ROFLMAO
Bob u trixter did you go an right this?
When you look at all this relative to how media oultets handled the Iraq events they all got it wrong (about Iraqi threats) except the Knight-Ridder newspaper group - but they weren't in the major markets. Embedded reporters led to coverage with representatives unobjectifying the event (how many times was "we" used when their batallion moved wherever). All the media now has about five owners and it's all biased to serve their interests. Fox News though is in another league - it's out and out propaganda pretending to be "fair and balanced." It's the US version of Pravda.
Absolutely, Robert!
Kinght Ridder was bought by another fine newspaper group - McClatchy. Check out www.mcclatchydc.com, an excellent site for news.
So you give liberal media a pass for the embedded stories and the kooky presidential campaign stories because.....?
Marilyn, I was criticizing ALL the media for the embedded "we" stories as unobjective, and I don't believe I've said anything about kooky campaign stories originating from any organization.
I'm asking, Robert. You did say that you thought Fox had more propaganda. You don't think the the liberal media had tons of propaganda during the presidential campaign?
M the very FACT that you say "liberal media" in defence of Fox proves the point.
The more people become aware of this, I wonder what "the people" will do about it.
Before cable news spread propaganda... I remember going to movie theaters, where people watched political propaganda before the movie started.
Debra, sadly most of the conservatives are too brainwashed to actually think for themselves and believe the facts that have been presented by people who know the truth.
And you're right about the propaganda at the movie theatres. War propaganda was a big thing and of course we saw that under Bush too, but thankfully not at the movie theatres.
It's becoming more and more difficult to decipher the truth, even on the internet. You have to wade through a lot of garbage.
Thanks for the article, Carla.
One of the most effective things we could do is to pressure congress and the president to re-instate the media ownership rules from 1979. A Media company was restricted to owning 2 TV Stations, 5 AM radio stations and 7 FM radio stations. The company could not own more than one of each in any media market. AND a Newspaper could not own a broadcast station within the same market unless there were two daily newspapers in that market.
Guess who signed the bill killing that provision: Bill Clinton in 1996!!!!
Now virtually ALL the media is owned by five companies
But Obama would prefer a state owned media, Bob, I'm sure.
ya like NPR or the BBC we wouldent want that would we M? then we would have to here the real stuff.
Marilyn, when I read comments like your last one I realize how far gone you really are. Talk about fear and paranoia....
I hope what we all will do is to pull our subscriptions, find another way to get the grocery store ads and let the industry reap the rewards of their actions.
Then new newspapers and news media can rise up and show a decent respect for the profession of journalism and news reporting. Good reporting, unbiased and truthful is the base of a democratic republic. The people can't make intelligent decisions without hearing all sides.
I'm fine with columnists being biased and presenting one side and I read a variety of those on line but I will not support the current metamorphysis of news into propaganda. I get the store ads locally through the little free shopper papers. I read the local headlines on line. I WILL NOT put money into the pockets of these corporations who purposely and directly tried to take this country down. Especially when they are owned by Australians with obviously a sick need for power and no loyalty to this country.
For the last 8 years I've watched Democracy Now! on line as one source of happenings you would never see in the newspaper which citizens should know. They reported redacting, kidnapping and secret flights to torture chambers in foreign nations, Abu Grieb disgrace, and other incidences of fallen USA actions long before any other MSM covered the stories. Some of them were never covered such as police manhandling Amy Goodman and yanking her press credential from her neck when she protested the bludgening of her camera crew trying to film police brutality toword peaceful demonstrators at [one of the] National Political Conventions. It was filmed by MSM cameramen who then gave the film to Amy because they knew their channel wouldn't use it. As my Grandmother used to say, there is no loyalty among thieves.
I know the journalists themselves may not be to blame because they can't get good reporting past their superiors who believe they have a right to choose the news the people will and won't hear. Those journalists can all go to work in the New Media with the old values. "All the news fit to print", "all the news first,""verified and true." Let none use the term fair and balanced because it has been tainted forever by Faux News.
Sandy, I've not heard of Democracy Now! Please give us a link and tell us more. It sounds like an excellent source for news.
Bravo, Sandy. Many good reporters are in the wilderness because the media are failing. See my comment above about breaking up media conglomerates
I would say that Democracy Now! is liberal in that it does not bother with giving news that will be on the MSM. However, they sometimes have an interview with a Conservative of any ilk at the same time as a liberal/progressive/peace candidate, creating a debate forum and a great comparison of the fervor vs calm reason.
During the Democratic race they interviewed Dennis Kucinich several times and gave air time to his full Impeachment speech in the Congress. As we all know that did not happen in the MSM. They do live interviews both in studio and on site. Amy Goodman has also written several books on various political topics. Most news stories are accompanied by an interview, video or something to substanciate what they are reporting. I like that very much, because I want to get to the horse's mouth myself.
www.democracynow.org/
Thanks for the information on Democray Now. I'll have to check it out.
I like reading alternet.org
Thanks for this one too, Robert. It's nice to have alternatives.
The Kernel and Nucleus of American Politics is Race and Racism, or in other words Minorities and the Destiny of Minorities. Everything revolves around Minorities, like planets around the sun.
Enter Fox News and you are hypnotized, mesmerized, suggested and hinted, nonstop 24hours/7days :
That Minorities are lazy, that they live on Welfare, that American Values are destroyed by Minorities. That Western Civilization is doomed if Minorities have some Progress. That Minorities and Foreigners are incapable of Civilization ( Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly ), that Mexicans, Latinos, Africans, etc ... are dangerous lepers with syphilis and other venereals.
They do not tell those lies outright but are always suggesting them in the most Hyprocrital way.
Some people like Glenn Beck speak as if they were the owners of "God" and with a very personal relation to "God" .... and I use quotes for "God" because that is not a Good God but an idiot God created by the deranged mind of a child that was raised in a dysfunctional family as Glenn Beck candidly admits. There may be a Good God, but that is not the God of Fox News Hyprocritally promoted by Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Bill O'Reilly, etc ...
Charles Krauthammer and Fred Barnes are most boring, even if they are not so stupid and idiotic as the other mentioned guys. Unfortunately Charles and Fred use their intelligence and culture to be boring, tiring. With all due respect I call Charles and Fred, the Mummy and the Zombie.
One rare and extraordinary day Juan Williams ( the Black Guy ) spoke up against them and stood up to say that Republicans were degenerating into a White Race Party that did not understand Minorities.
My opinion of Juan Williams changed 180 degrees after that speech. I know that Charles Krauthammer and Fred Williams are highly respected in American Journalism. But for me they are dead corpses with a lot of cobwebs. I do not dislike them like Glen, or Bill, or Sean, or Laura. But my only use for Charles and Fred is to combat insomnia.
I am so happy that I did not use ugly words, or insults in this post.
Thanks Carla and Bob - I love you for being so Kind, Noble and Good.
Milenials.com
Vicente Duque
Thanks, Vincente. My brother is a good example of how the Fox propaganda can affect people's views on minorities. He has never met a black person and has only known one family of Latinos. He grew up in a small town (1,000) people in Kansas where there were only Christians. He now hates blacks and calls them the N-word. He sends me the most disgusting, hateful emails that are circulated by his Republican friends. They sicken me. And yet, these people all profess to be Christians.
If gay marriage was outlawed in all of th states and Row V Wade was overturned, what would the "Conservatives" have to carp about?
John, have you forgotten gun laws? They're still working to make sure that every man, woman and child has the right to bear arms. God forbid that everyone might not be able to buy themselves a new assault weapon for Christmas without a background check and having to register their firearm.
And Brown people! They are coming across the border to take all your stuff!!!!!
Fiscal responsibility, government that is too big, taxes that are too high, certainly not a free market system anymore, and the list goes on. Haven't you heard anything that the Tea Party rally participants said? Oh, I forgot. That wasn't covered on CNN or MSNBC.
Fiscal responsibility like the largest federal deficit in the history of the republic. Like the trust them they are my friends regulatory policy that got us into the largest financial chrisis since 1929. As for the tea party that was about as authentic and professional wresteling. All of these wonderful policies got the Republican tail kicked like never before in history.
Yes, John, but you know the neocons actually believe that trickle down economics work and that under Bush we had a great economy. They also believe in the Easter Bunny.
You can't blame Bush for the horrible budget and deficits that Obama is planning. He's not fixing anything. He's starting a new socialist country.
Oh gosh, do I hope so. Democratic Socialism is exactly what we need to overcome what was created by Corporate Fascists and the military industrial complex warned about by Eisenhower. Remember him? A real, moderate Rebublican. Not a neo-con.
Not all socialism is created equal, you know. McCarthy created a fear in those not well educated in forms of government. Since then people equate socialism as the road to communism but it ain't necessarily so.
Sandy, yes, yes, yes!
Funny that helping a family whose breadwinner lost his/her job is welfare, but billions in bailout to banks, insurance and car companies so they can pay out millions in bonuses is good democracy. Screw capitalistic democracy - corporate greed wins out every time. That experiment failed. Let's try socialistic democracy.
Oh, and Marilyn, Obama is not interested in taking over the media in any way, shape or form, you poor baby. All the knowledge in the world is worthless unless it can be applied.
Fox news, huh? I laughed so hard watching Glenn Beck cry on camera that my sides ached. What a hoot!!! Lets all go over to the window open it and yell, "...we're not gonna take it...."! Sadly, if we do that, we leave our fearfully guarded hinies unprotected and anything can happen to it while its exposed like that....
Gotta guard those hinies you know, Joy!
Joyce, I was sorry to have missed Glenn's crying spell. But I'm sure that it was a great dramatic moment in the history of the Fox network.
Carla you are right. Some how I had forgotten about those enlightened patriots who believe that by having a fire are in your posession makes you safe from wicked central government moving into you house also hostile indians
LOL, John. Yes, watch out for those Indians.
I'd tell all those "enlightened patriots" to "REMEMBER THE ALAMO!"
(Remember that EVERYONE died.)
Ponder this. If you are circling the wagons, and insulating yourself under the leadership of one person/voice (e.g. Fox News), I would consider you to be a member of a cult.
By the way. Fox News is not Number one in the nation. Some of their evening shows have the highest ratings of any cable news channel -- about 2-million people for O'Reilly. In a nation of 305-million people , that is a drop in a bucket.
Some might say it is the Fox News Cult.
It may be that Fox News has higher ratings than some other networks because, aside from misguided people who think they're viewing cold news (rather than editorial), there are probably a lot of people who tune in to watch Bill O'Reilly pop a vein, or want a good laugh.
Also that network probably draws from a larger pool. Not just those who want to know what's in the news, but those who want to be pissed off at: Democrats, liberals, Clinton(s), Obama, illegal aliens, immigrents, abortion rights activists, abortion clinics, Jane Fonda... They love to share the self-righteous indignation. That's what it's designed to do which explains why Fox viewers have blood pressure readings 27% higher than viewers of other networks.
In doing the survey, Fox may have been #1 in listeners, however, if you look at Fox, the conservative station, vs all the rest, then Fox dips very low. The rest of us don't just listen to one station, we view them all. CNN, HLN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS NBC vs FOX.
Robert, the blood pressure statistic is great. And yes, I've noticed the anger and rage that seems to show up there. Oh, and fear. They all go hand-in-hand. Got to keep the people angry and afraid.
Elsie, Fox has listeners because of their other shows. It's not their news that has the most listeners or is highly rated.
I thought I saw an article where just the news stations were rated. Fox did come out on top in that article. If you include their other stations, there's no way the news station would. Idol, House, and a few others were very popular. I'll try to find my source. :)
I watch Fox for things like, The Simpsons, Family Guy, American Dad, etc. I wonder if people like me are being counted? If so, it's a false count.
Probably so. I watch "Lie to Me". It's a fascinating show.
A most excellent post this ! I have said for many years now that these folks and their think tanks need to be exposed. It is so sad how brainwashed some folks have became, it shows the effectiveness of the method used.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474976947660
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474976835589
Be careful using the term "brainwashed" Jerry. The neocons get very upset when you mention this. They like to think they're informed from watching Fox News--not brainwashed.
"Fox viewers have blood pressure readings 27% higher than viewers of other networks."
I also believe that Fox Viewers are Older and Whiter than those of Liberal Networks. And they are more "Creationist" and less "Evolutionist".
By the way, I have a Liberal Non Racist site on Human Evolution and the birth of Races. And I have a lot of trouble with YouTube and other sources. Why ??? .... Because of the Immense Tsunami of Creationist Anti Evolution videos or articles.....
You have to wade in a lot of Garbage ... This is the return to the Middle Ages !!
Raciality.com
Vicente Duque
ROFLMBO!
According to Wiki... "A journalist (also called a newspaperman) is a person who practices journalism, the gathering and dissemination of information about current events, trends, issues, and people while striving for viewpoints that aren't biased."
The article seemed a bit biased to me.
Quite the opposite, Tammy. It is a journalist's job to report history, facts and figures, and to put them together in a package that enables the reader to see what this means. I agree, Bob opened with a strong statement about a certain broadcast channel which preports to diseminate "news". And then he proceeded to present facts and figures to back up his statement. This is not straight "news" but rather in feature article format or perhaps more like a columnist might write. I don't profess to be a professional when it comes to journalism, however I am a writer and had to take a general intro to journalism class. Wiki is not a dictionary but rather a collection of articles to share information. It can be very biased as well, hense the committee to require authentication or removal of questionable articles.
I found this about Wikipedia on Wiki. A very intresting statement which bears out the idea the public no longer cares about the crudentials of the source of their "news."
Wikipedia is a free, [5] multilingual encyclopedia project supported by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. Its name is a portmanteau of the words wiki (a technology for creating collaborative websites, from the Hawaiian word wiki, meaning 'quick') and encyclopedia. Wikipedia's 13 million articles (2.9 million in the English Wikipedia) have been written colla