It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Former FoxNews Reporter Tells You What You Already Know

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 08:50 AM
link   
Coming "clean" to his hometown paper, David Shuster describes his time in the trenches of vastly different news organizations. As you may expect, some news organizations have a strict code of journalistic integrity, while others give "just making stuff up" a fair & balanced shake.

Bloomington native reports the news
HeraldTimesOnline.com
by Mike Leonard
Hoosier Times columnist
October 2, 2005


...Shuster will return to Bloomington this week to speak on the topic, "TV News Rediscovers Its Critical Voice: A Look at the Way That Coverage of the Bush Administration Has Changed Since 9/11." The talk will begin at 4 p.m. Thursday in the atrium of the School of Public and Environmental Affairs on the Indiana University campus.

The University of Michigan graduate said the gist of his address will focus on how the changing mood of the country has driven news coverage to be more critical of the administration. "I don't want to say the media always follow the weather vane of public opinion, but in any administration there is an accumulative effect and the particular circumstances of the past five years have driven the media to examine issues more critically than was the case early on," he said.

When asked whether he would have had that opportunity while working at Fox, Shuster laughed, remained silent for a pregnant pause and said, "No. The answer is no."

He went on to recount his six-year tenure at Fox. "At the time I started at Fox, I thought, this is a great news organization to let me be very aggressive with a sitting president of the United States (Bill Clinton)," Shuster said. "I started having issues when others in the organization would take my carefully scripted and nuanced reporting and pull out bits and pieces to support their agenda on their shows.

"With the change of administration in Washington, I wanted to do the same kind of reporting, holding the (Bush) administration accountable, and that was not something that Fox was interested in doing," he said.

"Editorially, I had issues with story selection," Shuster went on. "But the bigger issue was that there wasn't a tradition or track record of honoring journalistic integrity. I found some reporters at Fox would cut corners or steal information from other sources or in some cases, just make things up. Management would either look the other way or just wouldn't care to take a closer look. I had serious issues with that."


The Bloomington native encountered a markedly different culture when he jumped to NBC/MSNBC in June 2002. "One of the first things that happens is you're given a 50-page manual of standards and practices … and you immediately sense this is an organization that cares very deeply about journalistic integrity."




posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 08:54 AM
link   
So you think he'd ever say anything good about FOX while he's employed by archrival MSNBC? Come on, get real. This isn't a "fair and balanced" source.



posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Being from England I cannot appreciate the 'bias'ness' of US news shows such as Fox.

Our newspapers carry the same type of bias, and this site pretty much says it all:

archive.1september.ru...


“The Times” is read by the people who run the country;

“The Mirror” is read by the people who think they run the country;

“The Guardian” is read by the people who think about running the country;

“The Mail” is read by wives of the people who run the country;

“The Daily Telegraph” is read by the people who think the country ought to be run as it used to be;

“The Express” is read by the people who think it is still run as it used to be;



posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 08:14 PM
link   
Anyone see Outfoxed? Great movie. So is Orwell Rolls in His Grave and Wha??? The Truth About So Called "Liberal" Media.

It goes through all reporters/anchors/hosts and their political whatever, over 70% are Republicans, and all but one is owned by a Republican.



posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Liberal stations such as CNN has lost 3 great reporters to Foxnews..

Greta Van Sustren
Bill Himmer
Mike Wallace

I doubt they went on their knees begging to work at Fox.



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 12:56 AM
link   
Here is a link to the interview footage from "Outfoxed"
Outfoxed interviews
There are some great lines from these former producers, critics, and others. The interviews are offered under a creative commons license, and can be used by anyone in other projects... very cool of the filmmaker if i do say so myself... enjoy!



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 01:05 AM
link   
You say some news orgs have a code, journalistic integrity?

I'm throwing the BS flag on the play with that statement, Rant. Thatwas where you lost me.

Speaking of journalistic integrity....


Mayhaps thread is biased?

I submit to you that none are with honor or code and that all pursue the agenda of their master.



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Mayhaps thread is biased?


Darn right. I'm biased against public relations practitioners posing as journalists that take orders from the government as opposed to reporting on it.



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 12:10 PM
link   
They aren't ordered, they are just given memos from the White house telling them what they can and can't report everyday...

That's far from ordering, I mean it's not like they cancel your show if you speak out... except they do...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Oops, guy spoke out, and was shot down.



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 07:42 PM
link   
There is a very important lawsuit that allows Fox to blatently lie like they do...
Fox BGH Suit

Though legal since approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 1993, the artificial hormone commonly known as BGH has been linked to cancer and is banned throughout Europe and unapproved in several other countries because of human health concerns.

The never-broadcast report also reveals how Florida supermarkets quietly reneged on promises not to sell milk from treated cows until the hormone gained widespread acceptance by consumers. All major supermarkets now admit BGH has found its way into virtually all the state’s milk supply.


The report was scheduled to appear on a Fox local news affiliate, who were pressured by the Fox home office to cancel the report and later to fire the reporters after receiving a letter promising "serious consequenses" from Monsanto Corp, makers of BGH. The details are facinating, I think most of the court papers are on the above link, but basically it culminated in a lawsuit by the reporters vs. Fox for wrongful termination and violation of the Florida whistleblower act after they made public some details of the report to an advocacy group. The reporters won the initial trial, Fox appealed, and ultimately the verdict was overruled, and the case was remanded (five other major media companies filed briefs with the court in favor of fox).

Here is the ultimate court decision

Because the FCC’s news distortion policy is not a “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102, Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment in her favor and remand for entry of a judgment in favor of WTVT.
Reversed and remanded.


That's right folks, the right of the major media corporations to distort the news is now legally enshrined in our system.



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 03:10 AM
link   
LOL Supermod War !

J/K

But this is a situation where Shuster could say whatever he wants and we would never be able to know the full truth.

Interesting, but hard to come to conclusions.



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 04:05 AM
link   
What is perhaps most interesting about Fox from a cultural perspective is how it does not even pretend to have journalistic ethics or the like. It is tabloid tv - news for entertainment value and to justify political beliefs more than impartial reporting. It is fascinating that it is not just allowed to do this but that it is so successful. The viewers like their world view being re-inforced - they don't want 'boring' impartial news that could challenge them.

Phyxion alluded earlier to the British newspapers and I think he's onto something. Fox is similar to Britain's 'The Sun' and it is no coincidence that this is a publication owned by the same man as Fox - Rupert Murdoch - a man who is notorious for his ultra right wing populist opinions. The Sun is marketed as fun not really news and Fox is only one step above this.

Yes one can doubt the journalist's source as biased but then I don't want to take a post-structuralist view that all sources are then by nature irrelevant because of that bias. You have to acknowledge that sources cannot be immediately trusted and then use them in conjunction with other sources to come to a conclusion.

This journalist is interesting but I think there is more than a hint of snipering by MSNBC going on here (Fox=biased, NBC=balanced). However, I suspect there is a kernel of truth in this or he would be scared that Fox would march him straight down to the courthouse for libel. Fox has a distinct political agenda and it does not surprise me that it would act on reports that counter this agenda. However, all news sources have an agenda of sorts it is just that Fox is more blatent than others.



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 04:33 AM
link   
They're all biased... not because of politics, but because they have a responsibility to the shareholders of their parent companies. They will report what sells. For now, sadly, the public continues to buy it. Fox is at the extreme, but is hardly alone. In general, everything on tv is a commercial for something now, including the NBC nightly news. The tides are changing though as more people go online for a better range of views. In times of crisis, the tv will probably continue to be the center of attention though, and thus ripe for manipulation.



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 06:11 AM
link   
I used to be a Fox News junkie, but I turned off the TV four months ago and haven't turned it back on. I couldn't bear to hear about one more cute little girl kidnapped and tortured to death and watch her parents come on TV begging for their child, or watch Terri being starved and dehydrated to death. It's like the Roman Circus. Instead of watching this stuff happen on TV, we need to stop these things from happening, not sit back and watch them like entertainment.

And I got sick of seeing Sean Hannity covering for Bush.

And O'Reilly is a big phony.

And Shep Smith is obnoxious. He should go over to CNN. He'd fit in better.

Fred Barnes is a wimp, a conservative but always acts like he's scared he's going to make somebody mad.

I'll bet if I turned the TV back on it would have a whole different climate now because I'll bet Fox was losing a lot of viewers.

George Bush is pure evil and EVERYBODY knows it.



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
I used to be a Fox News junkie, but I turned off the TV four months ago and haven't turned it back on.


Have you seriously not watched any TV in four months? Wow, that's impressive! Do you think that Fox pump some sort of subliminal populist messaging into their broadcasts to keep people watching - a kind of televisual nicotine?



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
Darn right. I'm biased against public relations practitioners posing as journalists *SNIP*


Just one question, did you engage in the same moral handwringing when Bernard Goldberg came out of the closet? Wouldn't be a case of Bias on your part would it?

Just keeping it real...

Journalism Monkeys, not just for being yellow anymore...



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 06:43 PM
link   
GIVE IT A BREAK PEOPLE! Since FNC isn't that profitable ($200 million within the last year), they are hardly that big of a threat as even CNBC is more profitable ($250 million) therefore more powerful. FNC has to come back to earth sooner or later and I'm betting sooner than later especially since the Fox Network is encountering stiff opposition from ABC. Every enterprise and organization can only go as far as the people in charge and the power brokers that are in control of FNC's destiny are crass, too crass in fact to not befuddle FNC's future. Trust me when I say this, the now infamous Fox News Channel is about to run out of luck with either CNN or one of the well backed networks about to axe them down to size again. And oh yeah, let's not forget about the Internet with Yahoo! and Google in particular.

[edit on 21-10-2005 by risitar]



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by kedfr

Originally posted by resistance
I used to be a Fox News junkie, but I turned off the TV four months ago and haven't turned it back on.


Have you seriously not watched any TV in four months? Wow, that's impressive! Do you think that Fox pump some sort of subliminal populist messaging into their broadcasts to keep people watching - a kind of televisual nicotine?


I think Fox was filling a niche. But the only real conservative on the program pretty much was Sean Hannity, and he lost his charm because of having to cover for Bush. Brit Hume was good but they didn't use him enough. Shep Smith is just obnoxious -- what can I say? They had a good thing going for awhile but started to take their viewers for granted and started to get too crazy. I used to send them e-mails begging them to wise up and finally just quit watching.

I think the real reason I don't want to watch anymore is because I see things have gotten so bad that they aren't going to get any better, and I can't bear to watch the country go down the tubes so fast as it's going. It's probably not the fault of Fox News that I'm not watching. It's because I'm broken-hearted to see that everything's imploding. I just want to move to the country and try to get self-sufficient before the ## hits the fan.



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 07:09 PM
link   
All the news groups of the major broadcasters used to be supported by revenue from the entertainment divisions and when that was the case, TV News was pretty much just news. Now; however, news groups are expected to make a profit and have become an extension of the entertainment divisions, with the result that news is now entertainment and not news. Funny how that worked out isn't it?



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
Just one question, did you engage in the same moral handwringing when Bernard Goldberg came out of the closet? Wouldn't be a case of Bias on your part would it?

Just keeping it real...

Journalism Monkeys, not just for being yellow anymore...



While I can't say I've gone out and purchased the book of the award winning sports reporter you linked, I do think I've seen him on Fox saying just these sorts of things.

Book Description

...he exposes a bias so uniform and overwhelming that it permeates every news story we hear and read- and so entrenched and deep rooted that the networks themselves don't even recognize it.


Right. Journalism, like most civilized enterprises, has an ingrained leftism to it that that bugs the ever lovin' hell out of people that think minorities and women are inferior, scientists and experts are homosexual God haters and the little guy is a big drag on evil.

I totally see that. It's a populist enterprise with a duty to use the public airwaves for the public good and to disseminate factual information. Not give a "fair & balanced" shake for the public bad and disinformation.

Here's the situation you may not be grasping Mirth. Liberalism is right. About everything. It's the dominant force in upright walking man for a reason. Everything else is monkey business. Glad we cleared that up.


[edit on 22-10-2005 by RANT]




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join