"Outfoxed"

[Smartypants]

I just got back from this new film, 'Outfoxed", about how Rupert Murdoch's Fox News (the "Fair and Balanced" people) slant the news and manipulate the facts to perpetuate their right wing agenda.

It's truly disturbing -- the way Fox silences and threatens opposing voices while presenting their own conservative propaganda as legitimate journalism.

It also shows how effective Fox's tactics can be in making the public think whatever Fox likes. It turns out that while 16% of those who get their news from NPR and PBS believe that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, 61% of those who watch Fox news think it did!

Moveon.org is arranging screenings of the film on DVD in thousands of homes all over the country on Sunday. You can type in your zip code at their site and get a list of screening parties in your area.

Let's hope this, along with Farenheit 9/11, is part of a growing trend of outspoken opposition to what this administration has wrought upon our country.

The film is a great call to action for people to fight back.

Check it out!

[Magpie]

I'm dying to see 9/11, haven't had a chance yet So instead I sat in the theather next to the one showing 9/11 and sat through I, Robot w/my kids Only redeeming point in I, Robot is Wil Smith's naked ass.

Thanks for the reccommendation Mr. Pants... going to read up about it now

[nycwriters]

Every news entity has a (political) slant -- by the mandate of the person who owns it. But that typically only shows up on the OP/ED page. If the media is worth anything, that is.... it's the nature of the beast. You own the paper, television outlet, radio station, you get to slant the opinion pieces.

The rest of the news, however, should be fair and impartial.

It's stuff like this with Fox that makes it hard for the rest of us. Particularly those of us who believe in a fair an impartial press.

[topcat]

sorry nyc, there is no such thing in the u.s.

[Smartypants]

Ain't that the truth, TC, and ain't it sad? And what's scary, is that with all its bias, our press is still probably the most impartial there is (except maybe some outlets in Britain).

Originally posted by nycwriters
Every news entity has a (political) slant -- by the mandate of the person who owns it. But that typically only shows up on the OP/ED page.

NYC: I can't say I agree with you. I think it most overtly appears on the OpEd page, but more insidious is how it appears in the news section while giving an illusion of objectivity.

For example, a month or so ago on NPR's "On the Media," someone was talking about having totted up the column inches devoted by some major paper (I can't remember which) to campaign speeches made by Bush and Kerry. Both candidates -- at first glance -- had been given nearly the same amount of ink, within an inch or two in total inches.

The difference was that in the articles about Kerry, they reported on whatever it was he said, and then quoted opinions about it by a number of Bush people whom they had interviewed. When they reported on Bush, they devoted very little space to opposing opinion, and never interviewed anyone in the Kerry campaign -- only made reference to Kerry's basic position on the topic as stated in Kerry's campaign literature.

So, while the papers could say that both campaigns were given equal space in its pages, in reality half of the articles about Kerry were really stating Bush's message, while Kerry's views constituted just a passing mention in the Bush coverage.

There really IS a bias, even on the news pages, and the opinions of the public are seriously ill-infomred based on the manipulative coverage of candidates by the press.

I don't think it's my liberal paranoia talking when I see Bush's approval rating as high as it is. Even though he seems to be losing ground, I believe he'd be slipping a lot farther if the media -- including the "legitimate" oulets like the NYT, Washington Post, CBS, etc. -- were truly fair and balanced.

--------

BTW, I am not sure if you paid much attention to Bush's speech in Michigan last week, but it was heavily covered on TV and radio. I saw three TV reports and heard one NPR report in which they played tape of him telling the crowd that Kerry, despite having voted for the war and subsequent funding of the war, stated in a speech the previous day that he was "proud" to have cut-off funding to the troops. Bush got his audience all worked up by telling them how happy Kerry told his audience he was to have voted to leave our boys hanging, in harm's way, without the resources they required to remain safe.

The News Hour on PBS was the ONLY program to follow Bush's speech with the speech by Kerry that Bush referred to, so anyone could see that Bush was telling bald-faced lies. (TNH made no comment, they just ran the speech.) The reprehensible omission by the other media (including NPR, from which I'd have expected better) is a sorry testament to the American press's impartiality.

And I still have no idea why they want to support Bush! It only means another four years of gag orders and media censorship if he wins.

[madasacutsnake]

So I am flicking over to 60 Loads of Sh*t every ad break eagerly awaiting the promoted Michael Moore interview, if only to see the Rupert sledge he was probably in for.

To find that three minutes of heavily edited interview was tacked on at the end after the idiotic viewers' letters had been read out. I may add that naturally, his comments regarding his opposition to the Labour Party's mooted pull-out from Iraq was covered thoroughly.

Congratulations to all involved at 60 Loads of Sh*t for that nasty little piece of propaganda.

[masterofNone]

i don't know what any of this means. is it an aussie thing?

[madasacutsnake]

Unfortunately, it's a worldwide piece of crap reporting masquerading as serious issues television. Otherwise known as 60 Minutes.

[madasacutsnake]

Duh. Got hit on the head by a bit of 2 x 4 yesterday. Not quite right yet.

I reckon you know about 60 Minutes.

What you are less likely to know is that the opposition (Labour) party here made a grandiose promise of withdrawing all our troops from Iraq by Christmas if they were elected.

[Smartypants]

Originally posted by madasacutsnake
What you are less likely to know is that the opposition (Labour) party here made a grandiose promise of withdrawing all our troops from Iraq by Christmas if they were elected.

How Spanish of you Aussies!

Well, if Labor gets elected, I guess it will be evidence that your one truly disgusting export (other than Vegemite), Rupert Murdoch, holds less sway over the opinions of his own voting countrymen than he does over American voters.

(I have to insert here my delight for Australia's law requiring citizens to vote! Here it would violate Americans' Consitutional right to be apathetic sloths, so it could never be, but I just love the concept.)

[madasacutsnake]

How Spanish of you Aussies!

Just counting the days till the Madrid style attack here. Safer world my *ss.

Well, if Labor gets elected, I guess it will be evidence that your one truly disgusting export (other than Vegemite), Rupert Murdoch, holds less sway over the opinions of his own voting countrymen than he does over American voters.

For the record, I like Vegemite. I have it on toast every morning. Rupert, however - sucked in. He's all yours since he denounced us and took out expediated US citizenship to make more money.

(I have to insert here my delight for Australia's law requiring citizens to vote! Here it would violate Americans' Consitutional right to be apathetic sloths, so it could never be, but I just love the concept.)

Yeah, I'm for it but it's not a panacea. I am constantly amazed by the lack of political awareness in this country. And as for international politics....it's an island thing. What's your excuse?

jeez there are like 20 outfoxed parties in austin

a lot