Join 3,559 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Mmmm.... Journalistic Integrity
March 29, 2003 8:17 AM   Subscribe

Fox News "revises" its own news scroll during New York war protest. "The news ticker rimming Fox's headquarters on Sixth Avenue wasn't carrying war updates as the protest began. Instead, it poked fun at the demonstrators, chiding them. 'War protester auditions here today ... thanks for coming!' read one message. 'Who won your right to show up here today?' another questioned. 'Protesters or soldiers?' Said a third: 'How do you keep a war protester in suspense? Ignore them....' Still another read: 'Attention protesters: the Michael Moore Fan Club meets Thursday at a phone booth at Sixth Avenue and 50th Street.'" Fox claims the network "didn't mean to insult anyone."
posted by XQUZYPHYR (95 comments total)

 
Good lord, if you can't insult someone who is protesting you, who can you insult? I mean, did they expect Fox to say, "Gee, you're right, we're evil. Sorry!"?
posted by Slithy_Tove at 8:24 AM on March 29, 2003


The bank where Mara Liasson cashes her checks must have a drive through confessional as well.
posted by machaus at 8:25 AM on March 29, 2003


I have never watched Fox News until the war started. Frankly, it seems to regurgitate the same crap that I see on MSNBC and CNN.
posted by Juicylicious at 8:26 AM on March 29, 2003


Anyone else think it is refreshing to see a company with a sense of humor? I know even in the little five man shop for which I work, we couldn't do something like that without first consulting dozens of lawyer drones.

Maybe it's just me, but I applaude Fox-- even if I don't necessarily agree with them.
posted by tsitzlar at 8:27 AM on March 29, 2003


It's good that there is some sane response to these people. If this collective would put efforts towards electing officials under the laws we all agree to live under, they could truly carry out their agendas! Instead, they engage in these pointless tactics. It's demeaning to those who hold opinions of opposition.
posted by effer27 at 8:28 AM on March 29, 2003


Very very funny.

the display [Fox] .. ridiculed the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

Oh come now Fox has a right to freedom of speech too. If anything it was a PR disaster for Fox they just alienated %50 of America. They have the right to do that.
posted by stbalbach at 8:29 AM on March 29, 2003


Re. insulting other people, I guess there weren't any placards amongst the demonstrators condemning corporate media such as Fox, then ...
posted by carter at 8:31 AM on March 29, 2003


It would be funnier if there weren't millions of people in this country who actually believe that Fox is a "less-biased" news source than CNN et al. "We report, you decide."
posted by Armitage Shanks at 8:34 AM on March 29, 2003


they just alienated %50 of America

I think they accomplished that a long while ago.

FOX: The good old fashioned values company. Next: Married By America!
posted by zaack at 8:34 AM on March 29, 2003


But they're OBJECTIVE.

What a laugh. How anyone can try to defend them as anything other than a billionaire financed mouthpiece for the conservatives is ludicrous.

The day the bombing began, I flipped over just to see if any of their anchors were actually masturbating on camera. It was actually much worse than that. Their art department had worked up a nice "Attack of the Clones" poster that showed Bush as Anakin and Condoleeze Rice as Padmae. The news anchor introduced it as a new leaflet they were dropping over Iraq or something, and they started gushing over it. It was embarrassing. I wonder if the anchor ran home and wrote in his diary about how George W. is "dreamy". And the anchor was a guy.

FoxNews is anti-journalism.
posted by Ynoxas at 8:36 AM on March 29, 2003


Yep...alienated 50% of America...which explains whey Fox News Channel is kicking a** against CNN, MSNBC, etc.

That's one of the great things about FNC: it does the exact same thing as every news organization -- report the news -- but it's done with style, humor, and "personality."
posted by davidmsc at 8:37 AM on March 29, 2003


Fox makes me want to puke. They shit on all journalistic principles, and do so proudly.
posted by tr33hggr at 8:39 AM on March 29, 2003


I'm also struck by the irony of the intellectual giant who went through the trouble of putting How do you keep a war protester in suspense? Ignore them.... on the display.

On preview: the reason FoxNews is "kicking ass" as you say is because conservatives generally are hawks and are glued to their tvs enjoying the "war pr0n".

Of course they want to watch the network that digests the news for them and regurgitates it back to them in Bush/Rush/Church friendly language and viewpoint. Of course they want to watch the network that waves flags every 5 minutes and virtually felates the president.

Most sane people are doing something besides watching war coverage all damn day.
posted by Ynoxas at 8:43 AM on March 29, 2003


It would be funnier if there weren't millions of people in this country who actually believe that Fox is a "less-biased" news source than CNN et al.

I've had someone tell me not only that Fox News is the least biased of the major news networks, but that this article is an editorial. It must be great when the world is a certain way because you believe it is.

(on preview) Also, I wish they'd stop using the terms "homicide bomber" and "dirty nuke." I know they're incorrect, but John Q. Audience probably doesn't.

Fox News: We report so that you decide what we want.
posted by oaf at 8:46 AM on March 29, 2003


Yep...alienated 50% of America...which explains whey Fox News Channel is kicking a** against CNN, MSNBC, etc.

Look at the ratings...for any cable news station. What do they have, maybe a million viewers? (I don't really know, I'm guessing.) That's a far cry from 50% of the nation watching them. So if 3% watches and 47% aren't alienated but just generally don't give a crap, maybe 50% is a fair number.

... it's done with style, humor, and "personality."

HAHAHAHAH! (cough cough cough). That's the funniest damn thing I've read in a while. Not that I think any of the other nets are great at those three things, but come on. Or maybe you don't realize -- those people on Fox are serious. They actually believe all that crap they spout. Just FYI.
posted by zaack at 8:47 AM on March 29, 2003


That's the funniest damn thing I've read in a while.

In a way, I think he's right. If the really extremist right-wing nutjobs ever succeeded in their culture war, I fully expect that Fox is what would pass for style, humor and "personality".
posted by Armitage Shanks at 8:55 AM on March 29, 2003


Fox News: fair and balanced. Yes, this looks fair and balanced to me, pick one side in a critical national debate and then ridicule them, that's balance for you.
posted by caddis at 8:57 AM on March 29, 2003


Imagine the opposite for a second. Some other network running, "Go home flag wavers" during a pro-war rally. The pro-war crowd would be in conniptions. There would be boycotts on top of boycotts, congress would openly speak out against them and Joe Sixpack would be getting emails to petitions to pull FCC licenses.

This is editorializing on an absurd degree. I wouldn't care so much if they just dropped that damn "fair and balanced" bullshit. Conservatives have done a great job of installing themselves into the mainstream. Bush is a "compassionate conservative" and a "uniter not a divider." Whatever happened to actually being open about your ideology and opinions?

>billionaire financed mouthpiece for the conservatives

You nailed it.
posted by skallas at 9:03 AM on March 29, 2003


Fox averages 4.5 million viewers since the start of the war to CNN's 3.75 million. For those of you involved in the "kicking ass" debate.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 9:09 AM on March 29, 2003


What a laugh. How anyone can try to defend them as anything other than a billionaire financed mouthpiece for the conservatives is ludicrous.

Duh. You expect objectivity from Fox news? From any of the networks? Get a grip.

That said. I'll admit it's kind of funny. As repugnant as I find the war, I find a whole lotta the protesters to obnoxious and vapid as well. And if any of them get their shorts in a a bunch over a few jokes, they need to check themselves. People who carry signs (correctly) ridiculing the president need to be prepared to take a little ribbing themselves. What is this really, "Mommy, Rupert Murdoch's picking on us!!" There's that Warriors Of The Revolution spirit, huh?

Not to mention, blocking traffic with their "die-ins?"

Why is it that groups who claim to speak for "the people" seem to everything in their power to annoy "the people?" Unlike a lota the protestors, "the people" pro- or ant- war, mostly have to work on thursday afternoons, so perhaps you could get out of their way.
posted by jonmc at 9:09 AM on March 29, 2003


As seen on the Simpsons, so seen in life...
posted by holycola at 9:10 AM on March 29, 2003


Doesn't everyone have satellite tv by now? I bought my big dish 20 years ago when it cost $2500 and I got one of the first DSS dishes by getting on a waiting list and paying $775 about ten years ago. Now they are pretty much free and the choice of channels shows what a joke cable really is. Yesterday I watched News on BBC, CBC, FOX, and a show called Mosaic on the LINK channel. This show is a compilation of war reporting from Arab countries + Iranian TV. I think FOX is at the gung-ho end of the spectrum, then MSNBC, then CNN, but the crap I saw on LINK was outright propaganda, nothing neutral (fair and balanced) about it, following the official party line of their govenments. Like FOX, they are playing to their audience, difference being that FOX also has to consider its advertisers.
posted by Mack Twain at 9:12 AM on March 29, 2003


JOURNALIST EMBEDDED WITH FOX NEWS
posted by CunningLinguist at 9:16 AM on March 29, 2003


As if Fox was ever contaminated with objectivism. Their display is trite and predictable and it's sad that so many folks still insist on believing that network media are "fair and balanced."
posted by moonbird at 9:19 AM on March 29, 2003


Well, if nothing else proves 'journalism' has become synonymous with 'stand-up comedy', this will.

Still, damn funny.
posted by WolfDaddy at 9:21 AM on March 29, 2003


Network and Cable News rating trends from 200-2002.
posted by Ron at 9:39 AM on March 29, 2003


Fox does have a sense of humour and I'm always glad to see the critiques of it and Rupert Murdoch on The Simpsons.

But in political terms it's pretty anachronistic, with Murdoch's right-wing beliefs being channeled down to every media outlet he owns - especially the pro-war gung-ho Sun tabloid here in the UK.

Michael Moore's fan club, much though Fox might hate to admit it, could easily fill Sixth Avenue. Rupert Murdoch's fan club is the one which meets in the phonebox.
posted by skylar at 9:41 AM on March 29, 2003


Alright, it's indefensible from a journalistic point of view, but it is pretty damn funny. I, for one, welcome the knowledge that at least some of our new fascist overlords have a rudimentary sense of humor.
posted by umberto at 9:42 AM on March 29, 2003


Can we make them take the "News" out of their name now?
posted by aaronscool at 9:46 AM on March 29, 2003


Fox Sports sucks too!

C'mon, that is funny though, the guy may have been in his cups. Heh-heh.


Hey Fox, what's that brown spot on your collective noses?

Probably left after a consultation with a heavy hiting advertisor. BooHa!
posted by alicesshoe at 9:48 AM on March 29, 2003


My working rule has always been if it's on TV it counts as entertainment. If you want "news" go read a newspaper.
posted by photoslob at 9:51 AM on March 29, 2003


quelle jerks. remind me to boycott fox if i ever get a tv!
posted by kv at 9:53 AM on March 29, 2003


Good lord, if you can't insult someone who is protesting you, who can you insult?

They weren't anti-Fox protestors, they were anti-War protestors.

I mean, did they expect Fox to say, "Gee, you're right, we're evil. Sorry!"?

I would sort of vaguely expect Fox News to, y'know, report the news. How does this sound to you:

Dateline: 1920, Women march for the vote. Fox runs ticker saying things like "Get back in the kitchen".

Dateline: 1963, Marchers for Civil Rights in Alabama. Fox runs ticker saying things like "Go back to Africa and take those white n-----r lovers with you".
posted by George_Spiggott at 9:56 AM on March 29, 2003


stbalbach: "Oh come now Fox has a right to freedom of speech too. "

I thought individual Americans had that right not corporations. Constitutional experts: do companies have the same "rights" under the Constitution?
posted by ?! at 9:58 AM on March 29, 2003


Here, here, photoslob is right. People who work on a set, look into a camera and read lines from scripts that somebody else wrote are actors, whether they work for FOX, one of the alphabet nets, or a Hollywood studio.

If you want anything other than press confrences and splatter scenes, you need to look to print, both electronic and dead tree.
posted by Jos Bleau at 9:59 AM on March 29, 2003


the reason FoxNews is "kicking ass" as you say is because conservatives generally are hawks and are glued to their tvs enjoying the "war pr0n"

puhleeze! All news is pr0n, left, right and indy.
posted by Fupped Duck at 10:04 AM on March 29, 2003


I started getting less mad about this when I thought about the huge temptation it must be to be in charge of the ticker--imagine the thrill of being able to tell all passersby that YOUR FLY IS OPEN or SOMETHING WEIRD IS STICKING TO YOUR CHIN.

Granted, the political nature of the actual messages makes them hit a bit closer to home, but there's still something funny about someone taking advantage of their position in the most obvious way.
posted by nicething at 10:15 AM on March 29, 2003


Jos Bleau: News can be "entertainment" in newspapers too. Why do they run little upbeat or sometimes quirky feature stories on the front page? Because they're so darned newsworthy? Why do they all have "style" sections, etc.? Why might they put cheerleaders on the front page before big football weekends?

I don't think that putting some personality and style into a paper is necessarily wrong in all cases anyhow. Most newspapers are horribly stuffy and boring, and could use a little more life, not only in how they write about things but what they cover. At the same time, newspapers also cover pseudo-events such as press conferences as much as TV, just in a different or perhaps less obvious way.

There are only a couple of reasons I find this questionable, really: 1) Fox's stupid claim to be "fair and objective," which is sincerely believed by many people; and 2) No matter what you think of protesters, they're exercising their rights under the 1st Amendment, and a news organization should have at least a *little* respect for that. (People blocking traffic, by contrast, are open to ridicule.)
posted by raysmj at 10:17 AM on March 29, 2003


They weren't anti-Fox protestors, they were anti-War protestors.

If you read the article, they were also protesting the news networks' coverage of the war. So yes, they were anti-FoxNews protesters.
posted by gyc at 10:22 AM on March 29, 2003


insulting other people, I guess there weren't any placards amongst the demonstrators condemning corporate media such as Fox,

the entire article is crap, and the quote above illustrates why. fox is not a person. fox is a corporation, which itself is a legal abstraction created for financial purposes. there is a REAL story in here somewhere about a few actual human beings ideating, justifying and acting. who were they? what were they thinking? is it being perceived as they intended? certainly all fox employees don't hold the same opinion? what do those who disagree think? how do they feel?

tons of human interest angles here, gone totally ignored. boatloads of facts moldering unreported. actual human beings want to know! are there no journalists left who understand that the anthromorphization of abstract constructs like corporations is a prime example of orwellian reality-alteration through redefinition of language?

there is no such thing as 'fox network'. there's just a bunch of people. we'd like to hear about who put the slogans on the ticker. the answer "a faceless legal abstraction did it" is profound bullshit.
posted by quonsar at 10:22 AM on March 29, 2003


I love how, whenever FOX gets criticized, someone jumps in to say "They have good ratings," as though that's somehow a defense of their journalistic integrity. The Weekly World News has double the readership of Newsweek; does that mean we should trust Bat Boy to bring us the latest from Iraq?

The Hearst papers had high readership, too, in their day, and for much the same reason.
posted by ook at 10:48 AM on March 29, 2003


The Weekly World News has double the readership of Newsweek; does that mean we should trust Bat Boy to bring us the latest from Iraq?

Yes
posted by Stynxno at 10:52 AM on March 29, 2003


neon vs cardboard
Times Square
be there.

I notice Peter Jennings is nicer to Tony Cordesman lately, correlation? None

They weren't anti-Fox protestors, they were anti-War protestors.

the proper PC term is "Candle People".
an anti-fox protester?
that just reels with images of red suits on horseback, pack of 'WhORTWhORTWhORTWhORT' in the foreground.
posted by clavdivs at 10:56 AM on March 29, 2003


People who carry signs (correctly) ridiculing the president need to be prepared to take a little ribbing themselves.

That's true, jonmc...but when the ribbing is coming from the mouth of a "news" organization that constantly claims to be "fair and balanced", it kind of gives the lie to those claims.
posted by Vidiot at 10:56 AM on March 29, 2003


Three questions:

1. Anyone have a link to a story regarding who exactly instigated the ticker snickers? I.e.: Was this the act of a handful of guys that program the ticker, or was it blessed from upper management.

2. Were the ticker displays planned or spontaneous?

3. Is this "Fox" something you'd need a television to appreciate?
posted by Dunvegan at 11:21 AM on March 29, 2003


[off-topic, kinda]

I'm *so* tired of the "I-don't-have-a-TV" meme.

[/off-topic, kinda]
posted by Vidiot at 11:41 AM on March 29, 2003


of course, the onion has something to say about that as well.
posted by reverendX at 12:12 PM on March 29, 2003


Michael Moore's fan club, much though Fox might hate to admit it, could easily fill Sixth Avenue. Rupert Murdoch's fan club is the one which meets in the phonebox.

The difference being that while Moore's fan club can fill Sixth Avenue Murdoch's fan club owns it.

Still it is fun to see a protester complaining that a news network doesn't believe in speech because of something the network said!
posted by srboisvert at 12:15 PM on March 29, 2003


First they ignore you. Yep FOX has done that for a while now. Then the laugh at you.

Need I say more?
posted by Kovax at 12:46 PM on March 29, 2003


I was just wondering, if FAUX news advertises themselves as "fair and balanced" but they are not, specifically that, could they not be sued for false advertisement? Just a thought. No claim to be a great legal mind here by any means.
posted by SweetIceT at 12:52 PM on March 29, 2003


Best use of a ticker... ever.

Funnier still, how some in this thread scream "Fox News sucks because [insert arguement which can be applied to any TV news channel here]!"

"Fair and Balanced" makes sense when you look at Fox News as being a conservative balance to liberal TV media. This was especially true when the network started in the late 90s, when the vast majority of people in TV news were slanted to the left... and "the news" reflected that bias.

Fox News brought some balance to the liberal TV channels by simply representing a largely under-represented side.

I'm still surprised by the number of people who use the Fox name as a way to discredit FNC. That's like saying that MSNBC releases trash, by default, because NBC airs stupid daytime dramas.

Finally, I'm surprised that some think of news organizations as individuals instead of outlets for the hundreds of individuals employed by each respective channel... all with varying degrees of political thought...
posted by cinematique at 1:25 PM on March 29, 2003


Then advertise it as a supposed balance to what others are reporting, and not "fair and balanced." Otherwise, you're changing the meaning of words, something conservatives constantly accuse liberals of doing. Have the guts to stand by what you're doing, rather than play cute about it.
posted by raysmj at 1:31 PM on March 29, 2003


Not really, SweetieIceT. What court would judge against them? Who would get the award?

That said, the "Real Journalism" ad campaign puts me off my feed. (Faux News: We distort. You deride.)

And as far as the ticker thing goes, never mind whether it was legal or not. It was just plain rude.

Especially when it's done by a faceless person in a big building.

Unless Fox is going to issue a statement taking credit for their little bullying exercise (I'm not holding my breath), or take the individual whose hands were actually on the tickertype keyboard and bring them out front, I'll just consider this more proof that the real cowards in this exchange were the ones hiding anonymously in the big building.

And none of the other networks have stooped this low.
posted by chicobangs at 1:37 PM on March 29, 2003


Fox has people just as idiotic as the worst of the protesters anyway, apparently.
posted by raysmj at 1:40 PM on March 29, 2003


>"Fair and Balanced" makes sense when you look at Fox News as being a conservative balance to liberal TV media.

Does anyone really thing thats what Fox means behind "fair and balanced?" You're really reaching here.

Not to mention, what liberal media?

>I'm still surprised by the number of people who use the Fox name as a way to discredit FNC.

I see the opposite. Before Fox got big into the "news" business they were a network striving to find a niche in the early 90s. They produced some amazing TV like the Tracy Ulman Show, The Simpsons, In Living Color, etc. They also produced some crap, but that's what happens when you take chances. Now that they're nice and established they have unwatchable cookie cutter shows and "news for conservatives." Err, no thanks. My Tivo wouldn't go near Fox if it wasn't for the Simpsons.
posted by skallas at 1:41 PM on March 29, 2003


Then advertise it as a supposed balance to what others are reporting, and not "fair and balanced." Otherwise, you're changing the meaning of words, something conservatives constantly accuse liberals of doing. Have the guts to stand by what you're doing, rather than play cute about it. - raysmj

"Fair and Balanced" isn't a distortion of words. Fox regularly has debates, albeit shitty* ones, between both sides. But you never watch it, so you wouldn't know that, right?

Chico, which is worse... forcing one's political thought upon others, which is what a protester is doing by blocking a busy intersection... or Fox, for making fun of their pointless actions...?

*Most of the debates I've seen were too constricted due to time issues inherent with television...
posted by cinematique at 1:55 PM on March 29, 2003


Oh, for the love of God, people, lighten up. It was FUNNY. One charge conservatives always level against liberals is that they have no sense of humor. This just highlights that point.

I don't take Fox seriously, nor do most people I know. As far as I'm concerned, they are a network with some mildly entertaining shows and a news network that plays by the good ole' boys rulebook. If you don't like it, switch it off.
posted by tgrundke at 1:55 PM on March 29, 2003


Fox is great. They're just pro America, and that enrages you.

Iraqfilter
posted by Beholder at 1:59 PM on March 29, 2003


Constitutional experts: do companies have the same "rights" under the Constitution?

Yes.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 1:59 PM on March 29, 2003


neon vs cardboard
Times Square
be there.


Ginsberg? Corso?


Anyway: the whole point of Fox's "fair and balanced", "no spin" BS is to anger people who don't agree with their Republican agenda.
Reading this thread, looks like it's working
posted by matteo at 2:04 PM on March 29, 2003


"Does anyone really thing thats what Fox means behind "fair and balanced?" You're really reaching here." - skallas

Reaching... because you don't agree with me, or reaching because my comment has absolutely no merit?
posted by cinematique at 2:07 PM on March 29, 2003


cinematique, both sides are doing a little forcing. (A large billboard over a public square making fun of you is exactly that, and I live about 5 blocks away from there, so I know the area.)

The only difference is that Fox has many, many other ways of reaching millions of people through their network, while the protesters have no other way to get their voices heard, and once the protest ended, they disappeared.

That, combined with the fact that the protesters actually showed their faces and owned up to what they said, unlike whoever it was trying to crack jokes in the Fox building, is what convinced me that Fox were the ones being bullyish and cowardly here.


(By the way, to clarify, if people were protesting for the war and a rolling billboard started mocking them, it would be just as rude as what happened here.)
posted by chicobangs at 2:07 PM on March 29, 2003


Fox regularly has debates

If the word "debate" is synonymous with "Bill O'Reilly or someone with similar political leanings telling 'guests' to shut up,", then you're right.
posted by oaf at 2:12 PM on March 29, 2003


chico - are you suggesting that freedom of speech should cease when you cross some sort of arbitrarily set "rudeness" line? Am I reading too much into your statement?

Anyways... here's a senario for you. Let's pretend that the protesters were actually KKK members, staging a rally outside of Fox News.

Would you have a problem with someone at Fox heckling them?
posted by cinematique at 2:19 PM on March 29, 2003


Gee and here I though "Fair and balanced" had a literal meaning of being fair and balanced. But you tell me it means to bring a more fair and balanced slant to all news by being overly conservative.

Silly me for being duped so easily...
posted by aaronscool at 2:19 PM on March 29, 2003


Also silly me for thinking that when news topics were made fun of that it became a comedy show and NOT a news show...
posted by aaronscool at 2:21 PM on March 29, 2003


Also silly me for thinking that when news topics were made fun of that it became a comedy show and NOT a news show... - aaronscool

You working so hard on the sarcasm in that statement, that it ended up lacking a coherent point. Either that, or I'm wee-tall-did. :)

In any event... run that one by me again, please.
posted by cinematique at 2:35 PM on March 29, 2003


Damn typo. "worked"
posted by cinematique at 2:36 PM on March 29, 2003


Let's pretend that the protesters were actually KKK members, staging a rally outside of Fox News.

Would you have a problem with someone at Fox heckling them?



I would defend to the death their right to speak their mind and assemble in public. I might even go down there and exercise my right to assembly myself, right in front of them. (KKK rallies happen all the time, by the way. It might be the same eight idiots in every town, but idiots have their rights, just like you or I do.)

And yes, I would have just as much problem with someone at Fox hiding inside a building and using a bully pulpit to make fun of anyone.

We're talking about a faceless office wonk who won't even own up to their own beliefs taking a metaphorical bullhorn and yelling at people exercising their right to free speech in public. That's what bothers me.

Someone at Fox take credit for this action, please. I don't care who. Stand up. Show some backbone. Anyone? Bueller?
posted by chicobangs at 2:54 PM on March 29, 2003


People think those comments were funny? Wow. Easily amused. You'd probably laugh your ass off if you saw a drunken jock at a party, harassing an ugly girl.

I was very interested in the scroll item: "How do you keep a war protester in suspense? Ignore them." Let's ignore the fact that the writer doesn't know third-grade grammar. Fox just admitted that it ignores viewpoints contrary to the network's political philosophy. That's a pretty amazing admission to make in public.

I'm a journalist, and I try to get comments from all sides of an issue. Fox has announced that its policy is to ignore some sides of vital issues. Now that Fox has informed its viewers that it misinforms them, will some faithful viewers stop watching?
posted by Holden at 2:57 PM on March 29, 2003


My point cinematique is that the scrolly antics of Fox News rivalled that of Comedy Central's The Daily Show or Weekend Update and not the actions of a serious News program.


Perhaps Fox News is now working to provide more "balance" to the liberally biased news satire market?

posted by aaronscool at 3:10 PM on March 29, 2003


if you have to be entertained in order to made to care about world events, then perhaps you shouldn't tax your already ravaged attention span by having opinions.

Fox is great. They're just pro America, and that enrages you.

thanks, O'Reilly! I'm glad I have you around to polarize things for me.

from what I've read of your posts, you seem to be the kind of fellow that can't stand other viewpoints harshing your mellow. or in other words, the stereotypical fox news viewer. also, is your record player broken? tell you what buddy, if you got a problem with metafilter, why don't you pack up and go? LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT, PAL, LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!
posted by mcsweetie at 3:11 PM on March 29, 2003


Who should care about what anyone else thinks anyway?

"Your side sucks."

Face it people, no one's changing anyone's mind here or anywhere else. So rally all you like, insult the tree-huggers, bomb the shit out of Arab cities, follow your heart because in the end, the guy with the most guns left will be the winner and still no minds will have been changed... only lifestyles altered a bit. :)

Peace.
posted by LouReedsSon at 3:26 PM on March 29, 2003


The Daily Show won a George Foster Peabody award for its coverage of the 2000 election, which makes me wonder... what is professional journalism? Is it only found in shows like 60 Minutes and Dateline NBC? The Daily Show? Both?
posted by cinematique at 3:33 PM on March 29, 2003


Mcsweetie on hama7:from what I've read of your posts, you seem to be the kind of fellow that can't stand other viewpoints harshing your mellow.

Pot, meet kettle. Talk amongst yourselves.

they;re actually the same person. Don't tell anyone.
posted by jonmc at 3:45 PM on March 29, 2003


You'd probably laugh your ass off if you saw a drunken jock at a party, harassing an ugly girl.

Protesters as ugly girls? Fox can sober up, but the protesters will be ugly forever? That's pretty inventive.
posted by kindall at 3:46 PM on March 29, 2003


Fox averages 4.5 million viewers since the start of the war to CNN's 3.75 million. For those of you involved in the "kicking ass" debate.

CNN also reaches 9 million more homes than FOX.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 3:55 PM on March 29, 2003


Fox averages 4.5 million viewers since the start of the war to CNN's 3.75 million. For those of you involved in the "kicking ass" debate.

In my old days in radio (many years before its death at the hands of Clear Channel), I observed how the "#1" station in each demographic used that status to jack up its advertising rates so much that you would ALWAYS reach more audience for much less money by advertising on BOTH #2 and #3. And Jay Leno always beats David Letterman (except when Dave returns from sick leave). And the Today Show is #1, too. And "Joe Millionaire" delivered ten times the audience in the same timeslot as "Ally McBeal". Big whoop.

Of course, there are advantages to advertising where the audience is (1) more affluent or (2) more loyal (which usually means more gullible), and FoxNews seems to be delivering both.
posted by wendell at 5:10 PM on March 29, 2003


We're talking about a faceless office wonk who won't even own up to their own beliefs taking a metaphorical bullhorn and yelling at people exercising their right to free speech in public.

How is someone supposed to control the ticker from outside on the street? That's the point. There isn't any reason to believe that the person(s) was afraid or not willing to confront the protestors face to face. You're just making an assumption based on facts that just aren't there.

If a man flew by in a bi-plane with a banner in the back making the same jokes, would you make the same assumption about the person's gumption? Come on, THINK!

Fox just admitted that it ignores viewpoints contrary to the network's political philosophy

Anti-war protestors don't HAVE any viewpoints other than the same old dribble. Lots of whining and zero new ideas with any beef to them.

LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT, PAL, LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!

Would you be willing to say that to his face?
posted by Witty at 5:12 PM on March 29, 2003


Anti-war protestors don't HAVE any viewpoints other than the same old dribble. Lots of whining and zero new ideas with any beef to them.

Really? Lots of people oppose the war for lots of reasons. Just as I'm sure the people in favor of the war support it for various reasons. Your claim sounds pretty specious to me, Witty. Care to provide any evidence that a crowd of people all believe exactly the same thing for the same reason?

There isn't any reason to believe that the person(s) was afraid or not willing to confront the protestors face to face.

True, you can't control the ticker from the street. But as far as I know, Fox has declined to comment; they aren't standing behind what their ticker said, nor are they distancing themselves. Personally, I'd love to hear Roger Ailes acknowledge that it happened and state the rationale for "insulting"/"making fun of" people via ticker.
posted by Vidiot at 6:21 PM on March 29, 2003


Mcsweetie on hama7

um... (Beholder!)

they;re actually the same person. Don't tell anyone.

yep. the jig is up, y'all!

Would you be willing to say that to his face?

YES! Beholder, if you're reading this, send me your phone number and the best time to call you and I'll make a recording of me saying this to you and post a link to this thread.
posted by mcsweetie at 6:34 PM on March 29, 2003


There isn't any reason to believe that the person(s) was afraid or not willing to confront the protestors face to face.

I see a reason: where are they? They were willing to broadcast their heckling across the city, but they're afraid to show their face? Fox isn't willing to mention it?


If a man flew by in a bi-plane with a banner in the back making the same jokes, would you make the same assumption about the person's gumption? Come on, THINK!

Alright, Witty, here's what I, uh, THINK: Whether you're up in a plane or hiding inside the building of a "major" "news" "outlet," to anonymously fling words at people who happen to be actively standing up for what they believe in, whatever that happens to be, and then run off and hide, is an act of Cowardice.

And whoever is hiding in the folds of Roger Ailes' skirt, afraid to back up what they so boldly (and, I bet, unthinkingly) broadcast to the city the other day, is beneath contempt.

Own up, little Fox typist. Defend your actions. The protesters are standing behind their viewpoint. Why aren't you?

(Note I've said nothing about the content of the protest itself. The pro or anti argument is immaterial to my point.)
posted by chicobangs at 7:00 PM on March 29, 2003


Face it people, no one's changing anyone's mind here or anywhere else.

Actually, I'm not so sure. There's ...ummm ... me, for one.

In the run up to the war, I was pretty much a fence-sitter. I didn't like the idea of going to war one bit, but at the same time found some of the arguments in favor of liberation and humanitarian benefits were persuasive. The valid question of what the world should do about despotic regimes is not being convincingly addressed by anti-war protestors who claim force is not the ultimate option.

Now, however, my perception is that the US administation has an ill-prepared and misguided foreign and military strategy and that they have failed to persude me, for just one, that there is a well-defined exit-strategy defining the achievement of their objectives. Killing Saddam Husein, liberating the Iraqi people and providing humanitarian aid and destroying WMDs are all very different aims. So which is it? All of them? Some of them? If so, which? I'm very unconvinced the US administation has any idea what it's got itself into, right now.

"However long it takes". However long what takes?

My opinion has changed based upon what I've read others say here and many other places. Some people are willing to be convinced either way, with the right arguments, I'm sure.
posted by normy at 7:01 PM on March 29, 2003


I'm *so* tired of the "I-don't-have-a-TV" meme.

hmm you're just jealous you don't have one too!
posted by kv at 9:35 PM on March 29, 2003


Fox News is horrible. We all know that.

The best we can hope for is that they are so bad that it actually becomes funny.

Like this for instance. Nothing funnier than Shepard Smith thinking with "Shepard Jr." on national television.

Shepard Smith On J-Lo.
posted by hipnerd at 1:18 AM on March 30, 2003


I have a TV, I just never use the damn thing. Thinking about getting free satellite to put it to use.
posted by angry modem at 9:11 AM on March 30, 2003


Alright, Witty, here's what I, uh, THINK: Whether you're up in a plane or hiding inside the building of a "major" "news" "outlet," to anonymously fling words at people who happen to be actively standing up for what they believe in, whatever that happens to be, and then run off and hide, is an act of Cowardice.

Please... that's really a stretch. Number one, funny or not, what the person scroll across the ticker were jokes... and jokes don't need face to face defending. No one is hiding because there is nothing to hide from. With your reasoning, then everything you say on this website is no different... unless of course, you'd like to post your real name, address, phone number, etc. But I doubt it.
posted by Witty at 10:56 AM on March 30, 2003


With your reasoning, then everything you say on this website is no different... unless of course, you'd like to post your real name, address, phone number, etc. But I doubt it.

thats really a stretch. the actions of a major "news" outlet deserves the greater scrutiny, but if an individual says something thats hurtful to someone else, then the other person deserves the right to a confrontation. if you wanna hide from that, that at the very least you're a coward and at most just a bad person.
posted by mcsweetie at 4:31 PM on March 30, 2003


They were jokes with a clear political point of view, Witty, coming from a "news" organization that constantly trumpets how "fair and balanced" it is. Don't see the contradiction?
posted by Vidiot at 8:02 PM on March 30, 2003


...the actions of a major "news" outlet...

I suppose. More like the actions of one person or maybe two.

...clear political point of view.

C'mon. Talk about blowing things out of proportion. I don't see the contradiction because I don't lump together the actions of one silly little boy/girl playing games with a ticker and the the entire company as a whole.
posted by Witty at 6:32 AM on March 31, 2003


One silly little boy/girl was using the tools of a major news organization to make political viewpoints they have no intention of backing up. Just because they were jokes instead of -- what exactly? -- doesn't change that fact. And since Fox won't reveal the identity of the one "silly little boy/girl," then they themselves become responsible by default for what was posted. These are stupid people who committed a cowardly act.

I'm through with this argument, but Witty, my contact info is in my profile. Same place it's always been.

(You did know you can click on my name and a little page with all that stuff comes up... right?)
posted by chicobangs at 2:49 PM on March 31, 2003


Name: Tony Hightower
Homepage URL: http://nervousnero.com/chico/eviltwin.html
Email: chico@nervousnero.com
Location: New York, NY
AIM: mapleyanqui

Right... but I need to know where you live exactly so I can confront you.
posted by Witty at 3:40 PM on March 31, 2003


I need to know where you live exactly so I can confront you.

Name: M. Witty
Location: D.C. ish
Zip: 22101

hee-hee. Make with the full disclosure on your end, Witty, and we can have a good ol' duel. Pistols at ten paces, then?
posted by Vidiot at 6:05 PM on March 31, 2003


err..make that "we can watch a good ol' duel." 'Cause I'm not Tony, and he's not me.
posted by Vidiot at 6:07 PM on March 31, 2003


by the way, I finally saw a news source that identified the ticker-writer. (scroll to the end of the story.) One Marvin Himelfarb is responsible. (The story mentions he's a "former Hollywood screenwriter", but there are no credits for him under that name in the IMDb.) Thought those of you who are still reading this may want to make your feelings known to the man directly.
posted by Vidiot at 12:47 AM on April 2, 2003


« Older Scrapbook of the Revolution: Interpreting the Mao ...  |  The Bartender... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments