The truth about Faux news: an ex FNCer speaks

EX FOX NEWS PRODUCER SAYS HE WAS DIRECTED TO SLANT THE NEWS

Today's Headlines | Previous Headlines

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A former Fox News producer who says he spent six years at the cable news network claims he and other personnel were bombarded daily with memos and direct recommendations about how politically sensitive news stories should be treated. Charlie Reina, a onetime producer of Fox News Watch, has posted a message on the Poynter Institute's website claiming that he was under "subtle to direct" pressure to slant the news so that it would please Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes. "Everyone there understands that FNC is, to a large extent, 'Roger's Revenge' -- against what he considers a liberal, pro-Democrat media establishment that has shunned him for decades," Reina wrote. Regarding the channel's reporting on the Iraq war, he says that in an effort to please Ailes, a newsroom chief once ordered the removal of a graphic quoting U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix as saying that no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. On another occasion, "I was not surprised when an eager young producer killed a correspondent's report on the day's fighting -- simply because it included a brief shot of children in an Iraqi hospital."

http://www.showbizdata.com/contacts/picknews.cfm?id=33813

Faux news. We spin. You lose.

Gee, the same thing that was said about CBS slanting the news for the last years since Rather started. Remember the book written by the guy who worked for CBS for all those years. Now you find something about Fox and you post it. Why didn't you post when the word about CBS came out if you were so concerned with slanted news reporting? It is still going on at CBS but nary a word from you about that. Wonder why?????

You mean Bernard Goldberg?

You mean when Goldberg took a quote of John Chancellor's completely out of context and then Al Franken bitched slapped him with it on Donahue?

That must be the one.

Here's a little tidbit for you: Bias in the media is everywhere. However, with Faux News, you've got an orgnaization that claims to be fair and balanced when it's actually fairly unbalanced. They tried to sue Franken, and they even tried to sue themselves over the Simpsons.

Faux News is actually just a subsidiary of BushCo, or perhaps you prefer Orwell's term, the Ministry of Truth.

Faux News. We spin. You lose.

If you watch international cable news and compare Fox with CNN, CBS, MSNBC, BBC or Sky News, Fox is way out in a class all its own. Well, "class" is putting it a bit high. I don't think some Americans begin to understand how embarrassing Fox is for their country, and how much it reinforces stereotypes of the ignorant American bully stalking the world. I would have thought the State Department would have an interest in doing something to counter the extremely negative view of America created abroad by Fox News. Obviously not censorship, but perhaps encouraging an expression of the diversity of American opinion and thought.

About half of the people in the US are Conservative/Republican. But Fox is the only Republican friendly news network. By becoming Republican friendly, Fox quickly became the leading cable news network, leaving all the liberal newtworks to fight for the remains. If Fox allowed itself to be dominated by liberals, it would just be one of the pack and would quickly lose audience.

Any news organization that takes Ann Coulter seriously, as Faux does, is in danger of not being a serious news orgnaziation. Bill Maher at least knows she's a dipshit and uses her for the pure train wreck vibe she provides.

http://www.fauxnewschannel.com/spinlose.gif

are you SURE you're not French?!?!?

Bill Maher, being as dipshit himself, should be in a position to recognize others.

>If you watch international cable news and compare Fox with

>CNN, CBS, MSNBC, BBC or Sky News, Fox is way out in a class

>all its own.

You are not the beacon of political objectivity. To the contrary, you're a raving leftist. You think that there is no moral distinction between Al Qaeda and the United States. So of course you love CNN and CBS and hate Fox. All that proves is that CNN and CBS share your views and Fox does not.

Why is it so fucking hard to understand that liberals love CNN and CBS because they're primarily liberal, and conservatives love Fox because it's primarily conservative? Why must you try to pretend that one side - your side - is "neutral" and the other side is biased?

>I don't

>think some Americans begin to understand how embarrassing Fox

>is for their country, and how much it reinforces stereotypes

>of the ignorant American bully stalking the world.

I don't think you understand how little Americans give a flying fuck if left-wing Australians who equate Al Qaeda with the U.S. like our news channels or not. They are particularly sick of you trying to impose your left-wing agenda on our politics by prattling on about how "embarrassed" we should be becasue foreigners don't agree with what we're doing. The last thing Americans will ever be - other than those who share your America-hating agenda - is "embarrassed" over the fact that you dislike our news broadcasts.

And you are not in the majority even in your own country, because your politics have been rejected even there. So you are in no position at all to pretend to speak for your fellow countrymen.

Oh, and by the way - Fox is owned by an Australian, which is one of the few things that I can think of that has come from your country in a long, long time that actually matters.

>I would

>have thought the State Department would have an interest in

>doing something to counter the extremely negative view of

>America created abroad by Fox News. Obviously not censorship,

>but perhaps encouraging an expression of the diversity of

>American opinion and thought.

You just named four television networks in the US that you approve of. Fox is the only one you don't approve. How is there a lack of diversity of opinion?

RE: CBS News lies about history

It's one thing to "slant" the news. It's quite another to just make it up.

CBS is about to broadcast a TV movie which pretends to depict the Presdiency of Ronald Reagan, even though it's filled with quotes that everyone admits he did not utter, and false facts replete throughout the movie designed to make Reagan look bad.

Talk about the "Ministry of Truth - a major television network broadcasts a film about a recent President and makes up quotes and has him say them in order to disparage his reputation.

How much lower can it get?

RE: CBS News lies about history

>CBS is about to broadcast a TV movie which pretends to depict

>the Presdiency of Ronald Reagan, even though it's filled with

>quotes that everyone admits he did not utter, and false facts

>replete throughout the movie designed to make Reagan look

>bad.

It's called poetic license. Do you really think everything every character says in a TV bio-pic (like 2001's Emmy-winning "Me and My Shadows," about Judy Garland) was really said by that person in real life? Or does it only matter to you if it involves one of your political heroes? If we could only use words that the person was known, through recorded devices, to have spoken, then we could only have documentaries, and no biographical dramas.

Ronald Maxwell, director of the 2003 Civil War film "Gods and Generals" has this to say about the poetic license used in his film: "Audio tapes of conversations between Harriet Beecher Stowe and her brother Henry Ward Beecher are not available. But there are letters and speeches and diaries and novels written by one or the other. This suggests that their dialogue be derived, inspired and freely created from what they actually thought and wrote, not imposed on them with a sensibility that is not their own. Poetic License demands a recreation of what Harriet and Henry might have said, could have said, within the context of their own times and their own moral universe."

The line from the film that has everyone "up in arms" is what Ronnie says to Nancy when she tries to get him to do something about the AIDS crisis: "They that live in sin shall die in sin." The screenwriter says that while there is no evidence that he actually spoke those exact words, "we know he ducked the issue over and over again, and we know she was the one who got him to deal with that."

By the way, the movie is still in post-production, Doug, so how do you know it is filled with "false facts replete throughout the movie designed to make Reagan look bad"? All any of the critics have been able to see are a brief CBS clip reel and a description from an Oct. 20 New York Times article. Do you have a friend at CBS or something? I know you're too smart to just blindly believe what you read on the Drudge Report. :*

Personally, I am not a fan of these bio-dramas, but I wouldn't criticize something I've never seen. I am hoping, however, to get a bit part in The Mary-Kate and Ashley Story someday, as the crazed fan. :+

RE: CBS News lies about history

The whole purpose of the false quotes and scenes in the Reagan movie is to disparage Reagan, and by extension, Republicans in general. Poetic license is one thing calculated lies are another. Fortunately, it is backfiring. The producers are being forced to revise the movie, and the residue will either be boycotted or rejected by a large share of the public.

RE: CBS News lies about history

>...will

>either be boycotted or rejected by a large share of the

>public.

With all that advance publicity, it will get high ratings, no matter what they end up doing to it.

RE: CBS News lies about history

>It's called poetic license.

Actually, it's called lying, and it doesn't get to be called a nicer name just because it's liberal Hollywood producers doing it to a politician whom liberals hate.

A couple of months ago, a few conservative producers produced a disgusting, rancid spectacle of a TV-movie glorifying George Bush by depicting him as this stalwart, courageous hero fighting bad terrorists when he heard about 9/11. It was complete with false quotes and false scenes.

Liberals were furious about this, accuing them of propagandizing and creating false history. I agreed with those criticisms, for the same reason as this CBS movie is vile. How did you feel about THAT "poetic license"?

Do you really think everything

>every character says in a TV bio-pic (like 2001's Emmy-winning

>"Me and My Shadows," about Judy Garland) was really said by

>that person in real life? Or does it only matter to you if it

>involves one of your political heroes?

The fact that you think Ronald Reagan is "noe of my political heroes" all because I object to putting repulsive words into his mouth which he never said reveals alot about you - namely, that you will defend anything that is done to politicians whose views you don't like, and criticize anything that is done to politicians whose views you do like.

Not everyone is that way. Some people can be objective and condemn things or praise things based on the merits, not based on who the target of the tactic is. The fact that I hate this film and think it's unethical has nothing to do with my feelings about Reagan. It has only to do with the fact that I think this tactic is wrong.

If we could only use

>words that the person was known, through recorded devices, to

>have spoken, then we could only have documentaries, and no

>biographical dramas.

If the purpose of the fictitious quotes is to convey a sense of what we know actually happened, then it's not offensive. If the purpose is to destroy someone's reputation by attributing to them Nazi-like hatred which they never conveyed, then the practice is vile.

>The line from the film that has everyone "up in arms" is what

>Ronnie says to Nancy when she tries to get him to do something

>about the AIDS crisis: "They that live in sin shall die in

>sin." The screenwriter says that while there is no evidence

>that he actually spoke those exact words, "we know he ducked

>the issue over and over again, and we know she was the one who

>got him to deal with that."

There's a pretty fucking big difference bewtween "ducking the issue" and saying that all faggots deserve to die of AIDS, wouldn't you say???

Bill Clinton did nothing to intervene in the war in Rwanda while hundreds of thousands of people hacked themselves to death. Do you think it's a fair inference to conclude that he must have thought they all deserved to die?

RE: CBS News lies about history

If Reagan didn't say that, it would be pretty inexcusable to put those hideous words into the record as coming from him. That is not poetic license, it is trash of the worse sort. I didn't like Reagan and hated his inaction on AIDS, but we don't have to make stuff up to make him look bad.

RE: CBS News lies about history

>Liberals were furious about this, accuing them of

>propagandizing and creating false history. I agreed with

>those criticisms, for the same reason as this CBS movie is

>vile. How did you feel about THAT "poetic license"?

I have no problem with it. I don't usually get angry or upset at TV-movies. Oh, except for the Lifetime movie about Barbara Mandrell, as portrayed by Maureen McCormick of the Brady Bunch, who is now in her 40's but played Barbara as a teenager with deep lines in her forehead. That one got me groaning at the TV. :o But anyway, I never saw that Bush movie, so I can't comment. It's interesting, though, that you can call the Reagan movie "vile" when it hasn't been completed and you haven't seen it.

>you will defend anything that is done to politicians

>whose views you don't like, and criticize anything that is

>done to politicians whose views you do like.

Thanks; I just love generalizations. :7

Goodness me, I have upset somebody haven't I?

Let's deal with some of your nonsense.

My politics are not left but centre bordering on right. Only a right wing American would think I was a rabid leftist.

Despite what you may think, opinion polls in this country show a solid majority - two thirds or more - opposed to the war in Iraq and particularly our involvement in it. They also show - by the same majority - that people think they were lied to by our government in getting involved. They also show - by the same majority - that Australians are deeply embarrassed to be described by President Bush as "America's Sheriff in Asia". And the most recent opinion polls have the opposition leading the Howard government.

So don't believe the fawning sycophancy of our Prime Minister as he tries to become Bush's best mate: most Australians don't go along with that, even if they happen to like some of Howard's domestic policies. The PM does not speak for the majority of Australians in his foreign policy, and while foreign policy does not often dictate the outcome of domestic elections, if Howard is not careful he will lose the next election by being uncharacteristically very badly out of touch with the views of his constituents.

You resurrect an old thread about 9/11. You have consistently failed to understand that 9/11 happens also to be the anniversary to the day of the coup that brought about the overthrow of the Allende government in Chile in 1973. That coup was masterminded by the CIA (there is no longer the slightest doubt about that, as the proof comes from American sources, not Chilean), and in the process killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians.

It is appropriate, then, to pause on 9/11 and remember the thousands of innocent civilians who died in the New York and Washington attacks - and ALSO pause to remember the thousands of innocent civilians who died in the US-sponsored coup in Chile.

One of the hardest things for any person to acknowledge is that one's own country has done bad things as well as good. My own country, for example, has done many bad things in the last 200 years - to aborigines, to Chinese immigrants, to Pacific islanders, to name but three. I am very proud of my country and I couldn't imagine living anywhere else. But I know that I have to take this country warts and all. I have to acknowledge its sins as well as glorying in its achievements.

Le Monde was therefore quite correct to remind us on 9/11 that everybody - even the USA - is capable of committing evil. It's not a matter of equating morals or evils of particular nations or groups. It's a matter of not forgetting the innocent victims of misguided interference in the affairs of others.

And finally, like every country, you must always be conscious of the way others see you. Australians present a mixed image abroad, with good and bad images coming from the last 10 years. Americans, too, present a mixed image. One of the worst images is the swaggering arrogant "fuck you" American abroad. If you want to know why so many people in the Middle East hate America, it's because that image tends to dominate their understanding of America, overshadowing all the positive images of a free and democratic state doling out billions of dollars in humanitarian aid.

Even the Bush Administration has recently come to realise that America needs the rest of the world and it particularly needs friends and allies. America might be the most powerful nation on earth, but Vietnam and now Iraq are showing that military power can't solve everything.

Fox News presents a sad picture abroad of American values and interests. There are many thoughtful right wing Americans whose views are not embarrassing but are quite challenging and respected. What Fox does is trivialise those into the swaggering arrogant "fuck you" American best exemplified by the diatribe of hate, ignorance and arrogance I'm responding to at the moment. America is not well served by such an image, no matter what your political complexion.

RE: CBS News lies about history

>I hate this

>film and think it's unethical

You hate a film you've never seen? Is that fair and balanced? :+

Here's the "untold story" as reported in Newsweek: http://www.msnbc.com/news/987895.asp?0cv=KA01

Excerpts:

"'The Reagans' was always meant to be a warts-and-all portrait of an American icon, with ample attention to the president’s hands-off approach to governing, his wife’s behind-the-scenes power plays and their estrangement from their children. Still, CBS thought the movie was, so to speak, fair and balanced. It credits Reagan with defeating the Soviet Union, and its central theme is the First Couple’s love affair."

"As of late last week, the film had been through at least three edits. The most incendiary line—where Nancy asks the president to do more for AIDS victims and he replies, 'They that live in sin shall die in sin'—has been cut. So has footage of a young Ron Reagan Jr. doing ballet. (Go figure.) Most of the other cuts come from Nancy’s scenes. For all the concern about how the president is portrayed, Davis’s take on Nancy looks like Lady Macbeth in a couture dress. 'The film version is so milquetoast compared to what her daughter wrote,' says Carl Anthony, a producer of the film who once wrote speeches for Nancy. 'It’s odd to me when people get all worked up, because it’s called a dramatization. They forget what that means.'"

"Will the changes satisfy skeptics? Don’t bet on it. 'I had some Republican call me yesterday,' says Jeff Wald, Brolin’s manager. 'He said, ‘You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. He has Alzheimer’s and can’t defend himself.’ Could Jackie Kennedy defend herself when they did the movie on her?'"

"...some who worked on the film worry about the long-term implications of 'The Reagans' controversy. 'This is censorship,' says one source. 'A pressure group has had a major network rip this movie to shreds.'"

>You are not the beacon of political objectivity. To the

>contrary, you're a raving leftist. You think that there is no

>moral distinction between Al Qaeda and the United States. So

>of course you love CNN and CBS and hate Fox. All that proves

>is that CNN and CBS share your views and Fox does not.

And just where did Pyell write of his love of Al Qaeda? Or is that just the Faux News spin?

>Why is it so fucking hard to understand that liberals love CNN

>and CBS because they're primarily liberal, and conservatives

>love Fox because it's primarily conservative? Why must you

>try to pretend that one side - your side - is "neutral" and

>the other side is biased?

It's not about that. Faux News is the one that pretends to be neutral. Why do you think they constantly barrage everyone with the "Fair and Balanced" alogan? Anyone who has to tell you over and over how fair and balanced they are is trying to cover for their lack of being fair and balanced.

>The PM does not speak for the

>majority of Australians in his foreign policy

of COURSE he doesn't! how silly to assume that a duly elected prime minister would more speak for his country than the escort-hiring male australian version of carla del ponte! what were we thinking?!?!?

>9/11 happens also to be the

>anniversary to the day of the coup that brought about the

>overthrow of the Allende government in Chile in 1973.

my chilean ex-boyfriend, who has been decidedly left in his politics since he's been here in the US, states EMPHATICALLY that the coup against allende was a necessary evil & that although his rule was brutal, pinochet saved his country. but why should i listen to a chilean on the matter when the australian del ponte who speaks for all of australia is holding forth?

>It is appropriate, then, to pause on 9/11 and remember the

>thousands of innocent civilians who died in the New York and

>Washington attacks - and ALSO pause to remember the thousands

>of innocent civilians who died in the US-sponsored coup in

>Chile.

a small point, but, THOUSANDS of civilians did not die in the coup, but rather throughout the dictatorship that followed. let's don't forget, though, that le monde wasn't suggesting that we merely include thoughts of dead chileans when we pause to remember.

>One of the hardest things for any person to acknowledge is

>that one's own country has done bad things as well as good.

we don't seem to be unable to acknowledge it. what we're not willing to do is lay ourselves prostrate before the world and grovel for forgiveness.

>It's not a matter of equating morals or evils of particular

>nations or groups. It's a matter of not forgetting the

>innocent victims of misguided interference in the affairs of

>others.

no, you're wrong. the cartoon DID attempt to create a moral equivalence.

>And finally, like every country, you must always be conscious

>of the way others see you.

conscious yes, but to allow one's country to be guided solely--or even primarily--by such image is folly.

>If you want to know why so many people in the Middle

>East hate America, it's because that image tends to dominate

>their understanding of America

rubbish! it is because the US doesn't support the palestinian terrorists in their attempt to remove the only democracy from the region.

Fox actually does attempt to be balanced. Virtually every program has liberal spokesperson to prevent both sides. The left is so used to having all programs leaning to the left that any presentation of the Conservative point of view is regarded as an outrage. In the Middle East, the US would have not problem at all if we did not prevent Israel from being annihilated. That is the only reason we are hated there, and that is also the primary reason for European animosity.

so are you calling for abandoning israel?

oh, and by the way, we don't need the US to protect us. we've never asked the US to fight for us. we value the US as an ally. we understand the great balancing rols of the US in the UN in regards to us. be we're more than capable of defending ourselves. just ask all the arabs whose asses we've kicked. just ask that feeble-minded shaking idiot in ramallah who is afraid to sleep without a nightlight. just ask axebahia, who is too much of a coward to live with his people.

RE: CBS News lies about history

Amazing. The people who work on the film that is purportedly the true story of Reagan and puts words in his mouth that give a false picture of him complain about censorship. They should have censored themselves to begin with to insure that what was in the movie that was a true story really was true. If it wasn't then the complainers have a valid right to make sure the movie is really true and that is not censorship!!

More Faux News spin. Besides Alan Colmes, who do they have that represents the liberal side and the balance? The majority of their folks are conservative Republicans. How about the "fair and balanced" interview that Cal Thomas did with John Ashcroft that basically served as a GOP propoganda piece for the patriot Act? That's Fox's idea of Fair and Balanced. CNN would never attempt to doa Fair and Balanced show, would they? Oh, wait, Crossfire....

RE: CBS News lies about history

I love what Barbra Streisand, who had nothing to do with the making of this film, has to say:

"What is going on...is that the Republicans, who deify President Reagan, cannot stand that some of the more unpleasant truths about his character and presidency might be depicted in the movie, along with his positive actions. In fact, the film, we're told, presents a balanced portrait of a complicated man who said, when confronted with the AIDS crisis, "Maybe the lord brought down this plague because illicit sex is against the ten commandments." This has been changed in the film to, "Those who live in sin shall die by sin," but clearly the sentiment behind that statement is the same. No less a source than the World Health Organization recently said that Reagan was slow in responding to AIDS as a public health crisis, and could have even stopped the epidemic if he had taken it more seriously. Public records and multiple sources show that everything in the film, including his controversial statement about AIDS, is based on irrefutable facts.

"Reagan is glorified by conservatives because what other Republican leader of recent history are they going to point towards? Richard Nixon? George H.W. Bush? Newt Gingrich? Are these men worthy of exalt? Conservatives love to boast of the 16 million jobs Reagan's economic policies generated. What they are more reluctant to mention, however, is that by cutting taxes and raising military spending, Reagan also created record budget deficits, increased inequality and tripled the national debt. Judged on their own terms, Reagan proponents would have to admit that Bill Clinton, who generated 23 million new jobs in the same amount of time in office and also turned a major deficit into the largest surplus ever, was a more successful president.

"Speaking of Clinton, can you imagine what a biopic of Clinton would include? Of course, Clinton fans understand and accept the truth about the former president. They know that although he was a great president in many ways, overseeing economic prosperity and making great strides in creating a more peaceful world, he was also flawed. They don't try to prevent depictions of the truth from getting out there. Similarly, it is accepted by Democrats that portrayals of the Kennedy Family often include scandals. We must all understand that every human being embodies the good and the bad. There is no one out there who is perfect, not even our most prominent leaders ... and we must be honest in the way we portray them.

"But this is what the Right Wing does when they are faced with a truth that is not 100% positive for their side - they spread vicious lies and attacks and scream and yell until they get their way. Instead of boycotting and trying to have the movie changed, why don't they all just wait to see the film when it airs like the rest of us."