30 Reasons Fox News Is Not Legit

As much as I, AlterNet and many others despise Fox News, the fact remains that it is STILL a media outlet -- however scurrilous it is.

And in case you've forgotten, ALL media -- the respected AND the despised are protected by the First Amendment from GOVERNMENT attacks.

It's one thing for private individuals and for even corporations to belittle Fox News. It's legitimate criticism. But when GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS attack Fox News, the rest of the media are forced to defend it, however much they dislike it, because if the GOVERNMENT -- even one that I strongly support -- attacks one media outlet, and can get away with it, it can then attack other media outlets, creating a "chilling effect" on the rest of the media's ability to report on AND criticize the government.

That's why the Founding Fathers wrote the First Amendment: to prevent the government from interfering with the free flow of information and ideas -- regardless of who the messenger is, or what that messenger's motivation is.

Fox News SUCKS -- but whether we like it or not, it has a FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT to suck if it wants to.

And whether we like it or not, we have to deal with that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It really is that simple just do not watch it, ask your cable co if they supply foreign news in substitute, they in turn will inform their owners that fox has a problem. Better yet throw out the idiot box altogether, unfortunately that may lead to more legislative action forcing us to more cruder methods of pursuasion. As we enact for those who adore Gramsci's Long march through culture and Big Bro governments the reinvention of the neo-consumer news. Let us enjoy those such free expressive outlets of news and world trivia while we can. Few these days do not nor dare not go against policy nor news templates generated for them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

better yet start charging all television corps and station much larger fees for their right to broadcast on public airwaves like a certain percentage of their revenues how about 15% of ad revenue to start.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I wonder did our author here actually go to journalism school. Doubt it. Otherwise this delicate creature might have learned about Yellow Journalism and Joe Pulitzer and William Randolf Hearst. Versions of all 30 egregious violations of the Sacred Duty of Journalists would have been found in the 1890s newspaper wars. You might have learned about newspapers' role in the Spanish-American War. To go back even further, look to the late 1850s northern newspapers stories about the South that whip the nation up for the War Between the States. Or Harry Anslinger and the War on Dope in the mid 1930s.

Exaggeration in story teasers - oh my gawd, say it ain't so! Have you ever watched the "Coming up at 11" teasers for your local late-night news casts? Especially during ratings sweeps. FOX is simply contemporary commercial media.

Although I could see an opportunity in a Glenn Beck as the Yellow Kid parody.....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

From a deconstructionist perspective, all media are biased. Some are more blatant biases, like Fox's whole programming, but also msnbc's Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, CNN's Lou Dobb's and others.

However, the bias of, say, Wolf Blitzer, Brian Williams, Katie Couric is not so obvious. Those mainstream news shows are deemed neutral or unbiased because they present two sides to an argument.

CNN offers up Donna Brazil or James Carville for the left and Bill Bennett for the right view, and everyone assumes we've heard all the necessary news analysis arguments. But, we haven't.

Simply put, it's not about what's said or stated; it's about what's NOT said or stated that implicates bias. Those of us who turn to alternative news sources understand this best: we know we are missing a variety of sources of analysis when we watch mainstream news.

Personally, I look to programs like Democracy NOW!, or authors like Noam Chomsky, Cornell West, Henry Giroux, Naomi Kline, Ralph Nader, among others for another opinion, another point of view and broader analysis. These authors provide another perspective that's usually unstated in the popular media.

I admit, though, that I don't always listen to right wing pundits, because I don't agree with much of what they say, but we should pay more attention to the right-wing pundits in order to better deconstruct their revisionist views.

Peace

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm no authority about anything, but I do have eyes and ears, and I hate arrogant people. Unfortunately, arrogant people want to run the world, and they will kill to get their way.
That said, I take issue with the charge that the Obama Administration is "attacking" Fox News. It's Fox News that is making that charge and all the idiots are chiming in from the same sheet. Fox News should be called "Arrogant News" because it is owned by and run by arrogant people. They think they deserve to have it all both ways. They want freedom to say and do whatever they want, but deny freedom of speech to others. They want to be right about everything, but want everybody else to be wrong about everything. They want all privilege but viciously suppress their rivals.
I know Media Matters is a little player on the stage, but I shudder to think what pass we might have come to by now without it. Fox News should be and must be called out and opposed for the methods they are using. Ignorance of them and tolerance of them could too easily lead to a point of no return from arrogance as a way of life in America. Once the arrogant secure power, it takes blood to dislodge them. This has always been the case in history, and is even more so now. Therefore, NewsCorp must be contained now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There are those who think the reaction to Faux's absurdities is overdone. But look at YouTube. Any comments on Glennie the Pooh's insanity, or bill o'leilly's outrageousness, or Hannity's lies are treated by the Fauxphiles as blasphemy. My God, it's like--dare we?--criticizing St. Ronald Reagan!

The Fauxphiles also refer to Faux's "ratings." Many of us have reminded that naive lot that pro wrestling always gets good ratings too.

To those who proclaim we should leave the issue alone, I say NO! Faux needs to be exposed for what it is: a complete scam.

And while I won't proclaim that, say, Keith Olbermann is "objective"--and he wouldn't claim so either--he serves a great purpose in countering Faux, CNN and other media idiocies. And he at least has the ability to examine something. As to Rachel Maddow, I'm impressed with an Oxford Ph.D. Rhodes scholar than I am with high school graduates who won DJ contests, and others who've made an institution out of tabloid lying.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As anybody who watches multiple news stations or sources will tell you, you need to sift through rhetoric on both sides and take their facts to put the picture together.

Fox news does mention a lot of FACTS that Alternet does not, and vice versa. You need intelligence to sift through them. For example, Fox mentions that Iran Parliament leader declared we're trying to cheat them out of their natural rights with this latest nuclear "deal". Alternet will spin it that those crazy Iranians are harboring nuclear secrets while ignoring Israel's lack of being held to the same standard while we threaten to murder Iranians with sanctions or worse their "lack of openness". Any source of information will mention facts and make mistakes in spinning their bias.

Fox news will report that the Anthrax was traced back to US military base bio-research lab Fort Detrick, as the most likely source, which is also true and verified by the FBI's investigations. Alternet will pretend the story does not exist, or sidetrack with windmills and evil cheeseburgers.

Which side is acting like "real news" is subjective, but any "organization" who's main thrust is to systematically convince people to ignore or dismiss by reflex what others say without looking into anything that piques your interest, and pretend to do the critical analysis for you should be distrusted and treated with the same grain of salt as the rest.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

why bother with them? Try making ABC, CBS, MSNBC, etc ... actually progressive. They're catching the Faux Noise disease.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

that a majority of readers and viewers have of Faux "News" has now spread to the rest of the MSM. The reason is partially because of the inability of the MSM to live up to the ideals of journalism. If the other MSM outlets would come down hard on Faux, people might decide that not all of the news networks are the same and that some really do try to tell the news without mixing the lies and propaganda in.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

first, about fox... back in about 2004, a woman reporter had done a show for their version of '60 minutes' about BGH, monsanto's Bovine Growth Hormone which would have exposed much about its negative effects on cows and humans. included in this report was that there was evidence confirming that its introduction of 52 GM hormones into the human body was causing huge numbers of kids to undergo puberty as young as 5... also causing havoc in prescription-making especially for menopausal and post-menopausal women, particularly those on the atrocious horse-killing meds for those problems.

just prior to the night when her show wasto be aired, fox news pulled it. the woman protested and was fired. suing for wrongful dismissal (in this corporatist society, was she kidding?), she won up to the florida appeals court which gave the win to fox news. the ruling said that it was the right of a news group to lie, twist, alter or even report complete falsehood as it saw fit. this i guess is now considered the 'god-given inalienable right to freedom of expression' of mainstream media and government (see the court's similar rulings about bush admin drug lies, etc.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

blatant lying is a way of life for MSM and long has been. consider...

remember the alleged suicide of vince foster, 'friend' and deputy white house consel of the starting clinton admin? according to a wapo articl on that affair, vince's first assignment in DC was to be present while an FBI manditated to a wall street journal editor the entirety of a front page article just the way the feds wanted it. vince told his wife and others that he had not kown thiswas business as usual and it greatly upset him. like me, he was remindedof the stalin and goebells quotesthat the press will say what the government wants it to say. he kept angrily complaining about this and poof, no more vince foster.

closer to personal experience at the 'liberal media,' is this... my wifeand i had a macintosh consultancy from 1986-96 and one of our major media clients was CBS, including CBS news, where my wife trained for a couple of years their exec vp of production. on more than one occasion, amy was there when this exec got phone calls shortly before the news went up and she told my wife that it was the CIA or FBI, NSA or white house person telling her to make last minute changes, take this out, put this in, change this or that. this woman actually boasted of doing this as her 'patriotic duty.' her duty to what, help the govt lie daily to the public?

mcchesney writes for the past 30 years about the effects of an intensely mnopolized global media conglomeracy of oligarchs tied to corporatist-state powers. jefferson wrote that the prerequisites for democracy to exist are a well-educated and truthfully-informed public.well, so much for this being a democracy, eh?

no new thing, really. in 1700BC egypt a common saying was 'if pharaoh's men say it; it isn't true.' (even though they could be executed for saying so...)

consider obama saying on 60 Minutes the night before inauguration that "we don't stand for torture" then on his 2nd day inoffice authorizing the continuation of CIA's rendition program of outsourced torture chambers worldwide. on and on.

by and large, the lie rules and is believed by fools.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Eric Boehlert wrote: "The rush to defend Fox News is an odd one, because I don't remember the same type of the circle-the-wagons defense when the previous Republican administration openly waged war on The New York Times and NBC, two news outlets whose standards far outshine the kind of pseudo-reporting Fox News produces on a daily basis. That Beltway media elites have decided to rally around Fox News of all entities remains as puzzling as it is short-sighted....."

It seems to me most, if not all news outlets have lapses in journalistic standards, biases, etc., several of which Mr. Boehlert detailed in his piece. This is not exclusive to Fox. I look for journalists to be the public watchdog, no matter who is in office. I look for critical, investigative reporting, as there is plenty of corruption to uncover, whether it be Bush or Obama. There were many things about the Bush administration and Bush himself that were simply not covered by news outlets and journalist; perhaps deliberately ignored in order to have access to the president or the White House. I'm talking about corruption; perhaps treasonous behavior. That Fox is doing this with the Obama administration is refreshing. Too bad Fox and the others did not do it with the Bush administration.

That (quoting) "the New York Times and NBC are two news outlets whose standards far outshine the kind of pseudo-reporting (of) Fox News," I suspect is in no small part due to Mr. Boehlert's own sympathies toward left-leaning journalism and journalists; like himself. Few if any are without some kind of bias or either right or left-leaning political perspective.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

made mistakes....Reganomics was the ignition to the whole thing...where he cut taxes he spent a lot of money on the military...a awful lot...and the country was still in a mess, so Bush Sr. fired all his staff, then tried his hand at not raising taxes but wind up raising them cause how messed up the state was in...his handling of Iraq was supurb, for that he didn't make the diasterous call his bone-headed son made...in which wind up making Afghanisistan an barbaric like state, and now Obama and his party may legistate and tax us into the Second Great Depression...Clinton did decent, for the bickering in DC manages us to have a trillion dollar surplus, and then Bush jr. came in and just fuck that all the way up

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If you're young and not liberal, shame on you. If you are older and not a conservative, shame on you...Winston Churchill.
I thin that I am old and seasoned enough to know the difference between journalism and commentary.
The 30 points of Fox news are taken out of context, and frankly, don't mean a whole hell of a lont!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The only thing that I can think of that comes close to being a true news organization is the BBC.

Go to any of our major media webpages. Regardless of which political party they cheer for (they ALL cheer for republicans, by the way, so long as they're controlled by rich, greedy corporate executives). Every single news website has page after page of ads. Everywhere. BBC has none.

Even Alternet, which, I know, is just trying to make money and stay afloat, allows COUNTLESS ads to be posted on their page, many of which from conservative viewpoints.

Apart from the ads all over every news organization's page, most news outlets cannot be trusted, in my opinion.

The days of Cronkite-ish, true investigative journalism are over, and we're left with nay-sayers and yes-men, who ally themselves with certain political parties. Sadly, 9 times out of 10, it's conservative.

Oh, and to laugh at Fox "news," they whine about the white house calling them a wing of the republican party? They ADMIT to it by stating they're the "voice of opposition." Um, if Obama is a democrat, who, pray tell, do you think is the opposition? Republicans, stupid!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alternet proves their similarity to fox, just with a different message. Nothing is or ever can be "unbiased."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

He works for the right-wing Disney corporation, which aired a docudrama essentially blaming Clinton for 9/11.

All of our major media is controlled by the right; of course they will "view with alarm" any attempt to impose any standard of fairness, honesty or reason in the national dialogue.

Branding Fox as a propaganda outlet and marginalizing them as much as possible by attacking them on the facts is a very good start in that direction.

Nobody on the left is talking about censorship - as much as right-wing media wants to portray it that way. What we would like is some fair reporting from at least one media outlet (similar to the BBC) that just ...uh... reports (except for clearly labeled opinion - itself subject to fact-check). We would also like for outlets that are comfortable simply making shit up and calling it news to be so marginalized that nobody with the faintest desire for real news even considers Fox as an option. This only because knowledge of their behavior and bias has become so widespread as to be undeniable fact for all but the truly intellectually challenged.

This process is already well begun by the good offices of groups like Media Matters and Alternet. Ironically Fox's continued high cable ratings are sort of proof of this trend. Fox has well established that it is the home of the factually challenged wingnut POV.

There is simply no place else in the major media to hear the paranoid ramblings of a Beck or the rants of O'Lielly - with complete confidence that you will be troubled by no actual news item to contradict the fabrications.

I would deny press credentials to Fox immediately for any WH event - which the WH has a perfect right to do - and severely restrict (if not ban outright) all appearances on that network (by appointed administration officials). Please don't tell me what a fanfuckintastic reporter Major Garrett is; every question I have heard him ask Obama is of the "When did you stop beating your wife?" variety. In any case, he represents an outfit that specializes in lies and smears of this administration.

Do not confuse my proposed ban of Fox with the notion that I want to see Obama get a bunch of softball questions and nothing else. matter of fact, I have a stack of tough questions - that the MSM are never likely to ask - for Obama myself. There is always, in a democracy, place for a loyal opposition; not for a conglomeration of traitors that would rather see the country fail than Obama succeed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If Fox is the only right wing media source, then the other news networks are either liberal or middle of the road. Add up their viewership, and compare that to Fox. Fox would come in last. They are #1 because they are the ONLY voice for constant conservative spin-the rest of the stations must divide up the majority. The idiots gravitate to fox for the appeasement of their right wing idiocy.

Care for some tea anyone?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Convert MTS with Aiseesoft's ware

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]