Fair and Balanced? Rupert Murdoch Backs Bush
- Thread starter Capulet
- Start date
Sims2789
Fool me once...
However, I must say that owners of media outlets are entitled to their own beliefs. But it's when they are biased and lie and pretend that they are honest and unbiased is when I start to have a problem with them.
Sims2789
Fool me once...
he has the right to speak his mind, as does Murdoch. the only difference is that Turner's newstation(CNN) is unbiased, unlike Murdoch's.
Ocasionally is the keyword.
Oh, and I'll tell you whats wrong with Reagan. He backed Prop 13 while he was governer of California(it cut housing taxes at the expense of education). Not to mention it was him who started charging people to go to public Californian colleges.
Sims2789
Fool me once...
Funny how no conservatives ever try to rebutt my statements when I post a link of a study showing the media's bias.
I recall the old line about journalism and media - complete and unbiased, reporting just the facts. It was a load of tripe when it was first rolled out, and always has been.
Unfortunately, some media institutions still claim to this position, and even more people still expect it - even me
At least if a media institution is open about it bias, that allows a person to pick and choose and compare source and bias - which appears to be one good thing to be said about Fox. At least it's obvious. The worst thing is organisations that continue to pretend to impartiality, or, sorry, worse, say they go one way, when actually it's another.
Unfortunately, some media institutions still claim to this position, and even more people still expect it - even me
At least if a media institution is open about it bias, that allows a person to pick and choose and compare source and bias - which appears to be one good thing to be said about Fox. At least it's obvious. The worst thing is organisations that continue to pretend to impartiality, or, sorry, worse, say they go one way, when actually it's another.
Pontiuth Pilate
Republican Jesus!
Reagan took a prosperous California and left it billions of dollars in debt. Then he went on to become President, and did the exact same thing on a larger scale. Of course, this is all coincidence, because "the President has no effect on the economy", except when job numbers are up 
End threadjack.
End threadjack.shaunpress
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2003
- Messages
- 44
Not wishing to defend Rupert but ....
Murdoch is an interventionist owner, but his concern isn't political, but financial. He supports the side that can make him the most money, which is usually, but not exclusively to the right of politics. It is one of the accepted rituals of Australian politics that the leaders of the two main parties (Liberal and Labor) journey to Ruperts property outside Canberra in an election year to kiss his, or his son Lachlan's, ring.
In fact Murdoch was the first major newspaper owner in Australia to oppose our involvement in the Vietnam War, a position his papers consistently maintained until Australia withdrew it's troops in 1973.
Of course when Rupert goes, his heir Lachlan may have a different perspective on the role of the media, being a more flamboyant individual than his father.
If you are looking for the source of bias in Fox News, don't neccesarily look at Murdoch, look at Roger Ailes instead. His right wing roots are much more obvious (working for Reagan) and his motives far more venal. Fox News is Ailes revenge on what he percieves as the "elite, left-wing" media, and the fact that they didn't take him seriously as a journalist.
Murdoch is an interventionist owner, but his concern isn't political, but financial. He supports the side that can make him the most money, which is usually, but not exclusively to the right of politics. It is one of the accepted rituals of Australian politics that the leaders of the two main parties (Liberal and Labor) journey to Ruperts property outside Canberra in an election year to kiss his, or his son Lachlan's, ring.
In fact Murdoch was the first major newspaper owner in Australia to oppose our involvement in the Vietnam War, a position his papers consistently maintained until Australia withdrew it's troops in 1973.
Of course when Rupert goes, his heir Lachlan may have a different perspective on the role of the media, being a more flamboyant individual than his father.
If you are looking for the source of bias in Fox News, don't neccesarily look at Murdoch, look at Roger Ailes instead. His right wing roots are much more obvious (working for Reagan) and his motives far more venal. Fox News is Ailes revenge on what he percieves as the "elite, left-wing" media, and the fact that they didn't take him seriously as a journalist.
Archer 007
Rebirth
Let us not forget the Soviet attempt to reform their economic and social structures.
Pointlessness
Prince
Some people may be offended by your insults toward an Alzheimer's patient...
Archer 007
Rebirth
His title is a counterweight to RMSharpe's "What if Ronald Reagan could have had four terms? (Imagine there are no Liberals)"
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
How is a media outlet pretending it is unbiased different to, say, a washing detergent pretending it can get my whites whiters than anything else? It's all spin intended to entice the consumer.
Anyway, all media outlets are biased. It is foolish to think otherwise. Every single editor be it for television, radio, or newspapers, have to make decisions. They have to decide what is news and what isn't. They have to decide which news is more important than other news. They have to decide how much time should be spent on which story and where in the order it should be placed. Every single time they make a decision they are showing bias, that's human nature. A right-leaning editor is more likely to favour a right-leaning story with all things being equal. The same for a left-leaning, or whatever label you wish to attach.
I think it is, in fact, dangerous to hold up a golden standard of unbias news. Not only does it shift focus from the news to the presentation of the news but it assumes that bias is bad. I think it isn't. Bias is good. Bias allows every side of a story to be broadcast. Bias allows some stories to see the light of day which they otherwise would not do. Bias shows different points of view and isn't that what a free society is all about?
And another thing. The audience isn't some uninformed sponge. Everyone brings their own agenda and prejudice to the information they recieve from the media. No one assumes that what they read, see, or hear, is the absolute stone-cold gospel truth. We accept some things and reject others. We also get our information from more than one source and use this to interogate the information from other sources. We make active choices about what we believe and that should never be forgotton.
At least that is what I think.
Sims2789
Fool me once...
I disagree with you, but that is your opinion, not mine. However, if I had a newstation, I would either:
A) Make it biased and admit it instead of my motto being "Fair and Balenced."
or
B) Make it unbiased(this is what I'd actually do).
A) Make it biased and admit it instead of my motto being "Fair and Balenced."
or
B) Make it unbiased(this is what I'd actually do).
SeleucusNicator
Diadoch
Which they had to undertake because of the problems brought on by spending so much of their budget on defense to keep up with Reagan's military buildup in the United States.
I don't like Reagan just as much as the next guy, but at least credit him with one of his good accomplishments.
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
What is unbiased though? Even if you somehow managed to tell the whole and complete truth from every concievable angle you still have to deal with the problem that you only have limited space to occupy and unlimited news to select from. It is simply impossible to be unbiased.
Archer 007
Rebirth
The social unrest caused the collapse, and that had nothing to do with military upgrades, so your point is moot.
Sims2789
Fool me once...
You tell it from only one angle: nuetral.
Sims2789
Fool me once...
delete. double-post.
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
There is no neutral though. It is not a case of truth vs fiction. It is a kind of your truth vs my truth. All journalism is subjection. You cannot be unbiased no matter how hard you try. The best you can do is piss off everyone equally.
Yes, neutrality is impossible - if you are human, you will have a bias. This is the inevitable result of being human.
On the otherhand, it may be a good thing for some institutions to claim impartiality - as it simply shows us that they may, in fact, have very little interest in honesty.
On the otherhand, it may be a good thing for some institutions to claim impartiality - as it simply shows us that they may, in fact, have very little interest in honesty.
