Results 1 to 30 of 30

Thread: New story about the early days of Fox News's transition to state media

  1. #1

    Default New story about the early days of Fox News's transition to state media

    Interesting story in the New Yorker:

    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...ws-white-house

    Will be interesting to see this story unfold. I mean, Fox is clearly the closest thing the US has to state media, but this story predates some of the worst insanity.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  2. #2
    Interesting article. (Note that Fox retired its "Fair and Balanced" motto in 2017.)

    Fox News used to be seen as the 'conservative alternative' to the 'liberal media', and would routinely cover Republican Party politics in a favorable light, with a positive spin. Now it's just a cog in a propaganda machine, along with Sinclair News and conservative talk radio, that pumps Trump.

    Fox News rightly became known as Faux News....but now Trump routinely relies on Fox News for his 'daily briefings' and calls everything else Fake News. Irony is dead

  3. #3
    State media != media that likes the POTUS. If it did we'd see CNN, CBS, ABC, MSNBC all be called state media during the Obama years. Also Shepherd Smith and Neil Cavuto have both bashed Trump at times.

  4. #4
    I read this story yesterday on the way back from Londonistan and found it interesting, but weak. The jaw-dropping case of the article seems to be-

    1) News organizations have a particular core audience that is narrower than the majority population (achem The New Yorker). They throw red meat to that core audience in various ways.

    2) Media barons like Rupert Mudroch allow content (EG anti-immigration coverage on Fox) that is antithetical to their personal beliefs and this somehow is a bad thing.

    3) TV news is terrible.

    By far my favorite "but somehow this is different" part of this story was this part:

    At the 1960 Democratic National Convention, Philip Graham, the co-owner of the Washington Post, helped broker a deal in which John F. Kennedy selected Lyndon Johnson as his running mate. But now a direct pipeline has been established between the Oval Office and the office of Rupert Murdoch


    ***

    Wait, Aimless, you live in a place that has state media. The thread title wouldn't seem to be an insult to you.
    Last edited by Dreadnaught; 03-13-2019 at 02:16 PM.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    5,826
    I can't speak for Sweden, but our state media is (far) less connected to/controlled by the government than your non state media. That should show you how extreme this is and which is the point you conveniently left out from your 3 points.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Wait, Aimless, you live in a place that has state media. The thread title wouldn't seem to be an insult to you.
    I'm sure you understand what the term "state media" usually connotes.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  7. #7
    I find it pretty rich that y'all think having a large media organization funded by the state isn't itself part of the bureaucracy.

    Drive an hour outside of London and you get nothing but nine BBC radio stations and something Welsh.

  8. #8
    Okay, now I'm confused. Are you really unironically confusing the concept of "state media" with the very different concept of "public sector media"?
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  9. #9

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Are you suggesting they are that different?
    Of course they are different. The term "state media" connotes high degree of editorial control/influence on the part of the state. Public sector media in the west is editorially independent.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    Of course they are different. The term "state media" connotes high degree of editorial control/influence on the part of the state. Public sector media in the west is editorially independent.
    So can you provide me examples of Leftist run state media during the Obama or Clinton years?

  12. #12
    This Vicious Cabaret Unheard Of's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    404
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Drive an hour outside of London and you get nothing but nine BBC radio stations and something Welsh.
    I guess your hire car didn't have a working radio.
    Last edited by Unheard Of; 03-14-2019 at 09:24 AM.
    Greetings, citizen! THE COMPUTER has made you a protector of the underground city of ALPHA COMPLEX. You will have lots of fun rooting out Communist mutant traitors. The Computer says so.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    I find it pretty rich that y'all think having a large media organization funded by the state isn't itself part of the bureaucracy.

    Drive an hour outside of London and you get nothing but nine BBC radio stations and something Welsh.
    Dread used y'all as a pejorative, that's pretty rich

    Drive an hour outside any major US city and see what you get on the radio....

  14. #14
    https://gizmodo.com/report-national-...oth-1833395379

    No, Dread, it's not normal for a media company to pay big money for an embarrassing story just to kill it (in the case of Trump) or use it to go after the president's opponents. This is the kind of practice we see in dictatorships. And it's embarrassing that you're once again pretending this is business as usual. Do you even believe the things you post here?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    https://gizmodo.com/report-national-...oth-1833395379

    No, Dread, it's not normal for a media company to pay big money for an embarrassing story just to kill it (in the case of Trump) or use it to go after the president's opponents. This is the kind of practice we see in dictatorships. And it's embarrassing that you're once again pretending this is business as usual. Do you even believe the things you post here?
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...-hacking-story

  16. #16
    Slight difference between a reporter willingly doing something and the owner of a company ordering all his reporters to do something. You really need to up your whataboutism game, Lewk.

    Speaking of state media: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/19/form...t-company.html
    Hope is the denial of reality

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Slight difference between a reporter willingly doing something and the owner of a company ordering all his reporters to do something. You really need to up your whataboutism game, Lewk.
    There are some differences (scale for instance) but IMO it would largely be the same thing. That's not what happened according to the story that Lewk links to, though, even if the writer of that story opines that it is. A reporter did not bury a story. A guy researching for a book discovered something while writing that book on a broader subject and he reasonably (and ethically) chose to hold onto the information until it could be used to sell his book. There is no reasonable expectation for someone (even someone who usually works in the "fourth estate") to rush to the presses with literally anything that might be newsworthy that they discover while they're not on the clock with their day-job . If he'd been writing an article (or a series of articles) on this group for Reuters it would be different. But you are being paid (or paying yourself, as you are when writing a book you hope to sell) for content in another medium, the reasonable expectation is that it goes there, not on the wire. The information is being released now because it plugs the book.

    The book is available for preorder with vendors and (surprise) Amazon tracks it as their best seller in the category. Hey Lewk, this is the precious free market at work, doing things exactly as they are supposed to be done. Why is that something you might find objectionable? Can you show me where the Enquirer's efforts to spend their money to kill stories on Trump is a free-market endeavor for standard profit-seeking?
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    There are some differences (scale for instance) but IMO it would largely be the same thing. That's not what happened according to the story that Lewk links to, though, even if the writer of that story opines that it is. A reporter did not bury a story. A guy researching for a book discovered something while writing that book on a broader subject and he reasonably (and ethically) chose to hold onto the information until it could be used to sell his book. There is no reasonable expectation for someone (even someone who usually works in the "fourth estate") to rush to the presses with literally anything that might be newsworthy that they discover while they're not on the clock with their day-job . If he'd been writing an article (or a series of articles) on this group for Reuters it would be different. But you are being paid (or paying yourself, as you are when writing a book you hope to sell) for content in another medium, the reasonable expectation is that it goes there, not on the wire. The information is being released now because it plugs the book.

    The book is available for preorder with vendors and (surprise) Amazon tracks it as their best seller in the category. Hey Lewk, this is the precious free market at work, doing things exactly as they are supposed to be done. Why is that something you might find objectionable? Can you show me where the Enquirer's efforts to spend their money to kill stories on Trump is a free-market endeavor for standard profit-seeking?
    lol I guarantee you that if the reporter uncovered juicy Cruz shit they would have pushed it. The problem as always is bias when the vast vast majority of journalists not only are liberal minded but choose to try to help their preferred party win you have issues. Individual actors may of course do their own thing and it shouldn't be illegal, just like politicians rightfully destroying the credibility of the press is also not illegal.

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    lol I guarantee you that if the reporter uncovered juicy Cruz shit they would have pushed it.
    I'm sure he would. Since Cruz didn't have anything to do with the topic he was writing the book about, it would be the only ethical way to monetize the time and effort for that incidental research. Why do you hate the Free Market, Lewk?
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  20. #20
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    5,826
    Also, there's a difference between a story where all sources refuse to go on record without an embargo and a story where you not only have the sources, but buy the rights for the purpose of not reporting it.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    I'm sure he would. Since Cruz didn't have anything to do with the topic he was writing the book about, it would be the only ethical way to monetize the time and effort for that incidental research. Why do you hate the Free Market, Lewk?
    Once again simply because I disprove of something doesn't mean I want it to be illegal. That's the difference between me and you.

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    Also, there's a difference between a story where all sources refuse to go on record without an embargo and a story where you not only have the sources, but buy the rights for the purpose of not reporting it.
    Yeah but the ethics of something only being on the record in the future is the sort of thing Lewk doesn't care about at all. Professional ethics are just a stupid idea keeping him from getting what he wants, unless they're too his advantage in a specific situation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Once again simply because I disprove of something doesn't mean I want it to be illegal. That's the difference between me and you.
    Who said anything about illegal? We're talking about ethics. Well, ethics and the fact that you only like the free market when it's a buzzword you can abuse and not when it leads to behavior you don't like.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  23. #23
    Wow, just wow. Looks like we haven't hit rock bottom yet.

    According to the poll, 78 percent of Republicans who watch Fox News believe Trump has accomplished more than any other president in history.
    https://www.thedailybeast.com/poll-7...president-ever
    Hope is the denial of reality

  24. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Wow, just wow. Looks like we haven't hit rock bottom yet.

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/poll-7...president-ever
    But we keep digging!

    I think it's a mistake for Democrats to shun the Fox network for presidential debates. Understandable, because Fox & Friends has become Trump TV, but it's short-sighted, and just feeds their narrative that 'liberals hate free speech'. It's literally 'free' to have political debates on any cable network. And a decent chunk of Fox watchers that aren't Trumpian sycophants are probably undecided/swing voters.

    It only took a few thousand votes, in a handful of states, to get the required electoral college votes that elected Trump. Fox played an important role, but ignoring them won't make the Democrat's message any louder.

  25. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Wow, just wow. Looks like we haven't hit rock bottom yet.



    https://www.thedailybeast.com/poll-7...president-ever
    Yeah it doesn't come as a surprise that people lie in polls. Trump supporters just picking the option they think most helps Trump. I remember a long ass time ago when people asked groups of Muslims about the holocaust. In one poll the question was "Is the holocaust a hoax the Jews perpetrated?" Got 50+% agreeing with the statement. Another poll in the same region (different people) asked if the holocaust was a good thing. 50+% agreed with the statement. The idea is that any poll answer that painted their opponent in the worst light is the one that people circled. Everyone likes to bring up cognitive dissonance in that example but it isn't that complicated.

    For what its worth I talk politics with a number of people in person in Texas, some are die hard Trump supporters. Not a single one of them would say he accomplished more than any other president. People lie to pollsters.

  26. #26
    Are you calling Trump a liar? Because this is a claim he makes regularly...
    Hope is the denial of reality

  27. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Are you calling Trump a liar? Because this is a claim he makes regularly...
    Of course he is a liar.

  28. #28
    And yet you find it difficult to believe that 78% of Republicans would take that claim - made repeatedly by Trump and Fox - at face value?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  29. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    And yet you find it difficult to believe that 78% of Republicans would take that claim - made repeatedly by Trump and Fox - at face value?
    "Random event will happen" Ok yeah I can see that, this guy has my values so I'll believe it.

    "Moon landing was a fake" Uh...

    There is a difference between regular statements and ones that are truly ridiculous.

  30. #30
    State media alert:

    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •