Jordanian Correspondents Refuse to Work for Biased Fox Net

How dare they insult FOX news, next stop...Jordan in the WOT

You're aware that Jordan is one of the US's most reliable allies in the Mideast, right?

That Jordanian intel has played a major role in helping the US in Iraq, including supplying information that lead directly to the elimination of Abu Musab Al Zarqawi?

EDIT: nevermind - in a cranky mood and missed the joke

As for Fox, it's a source that goes out of it's way to pander to the right. And to the weird self-perception of the right as both a "silent majority" and as an ignored minority. Let's not kid ourselves, thats the basis of their marketing, and it's been a big success.

[edit on 8/12/06 by xmotex]

I guess they will now go and work for Al Jazeera. Such a quality channel, only showing the plight of arabs, and skips past everything else.

I guess the main problem with Fox, is that it claims to be impartial. People wouldn't be so strongly against them if it wasn't the case. This is always a mistake, no man, organisation or group will EVER be impartial. And this is why I also hate the BBC back in Britain (which despite being 'state' owned (not controlled) has a leftist bias) it takes millions of the publics money in the tv-license, claims to be impartial (as dictated by law, answers to parliamentary commitess on allegation of bias etc) and well, is far from impartial. Nearly all of its top dogs have been associated with the old labour party and do most of their recruiting in papers like the Guardian and Independant.

Before obtaining a home computer I listened to foreign broadcasts on Shortwave Radio when they broadcast in English. It was from this source, Shortwave Radio, that I became aware that there was actually a heavy "paper curtain" over the United States. THe media was heavily controlled. THe media was a change agent and used or misused on a gulliable controllable public...especially in the emotional arena.

No Fox News Is not unbiased....they too have thier biases. THe problem the other media outlets have is that they do not represent the bulk of Americans and Fox does. This is clear by the ratings. All the whining and complaining by the others desiring market share will not change this simple fact.
Whoever began the Fox network was very astute in noticing and calculating that the bulk of the American outlets did not represent accurately the views of most of Americans. No matter how you want to debate this issue ...people are obviously deciding and voting with their remote controllers. Americans are not as liberal or "Continental" as someone out there would like us to be.

As to these Jordainian Reporters....I am aware of how Many of the Muslim countrys themselves manipulate and control the news media. This is a problem here with outlets like Fox news. I suspect that the owners of Fox are not as easy to persuade with "motivations and enticements " by Muslims as are our politicians and public education systems. For public education systems you can substitute "Television/Radio Education." Which brings us back to the media.

Muslim media appears to be highly and emotionally charged...for control of people.
In like manner our media has been heavily and quickly emotionally charged...for purposes of control. When not heavily and emotionally charged you are bombarded by the constant drivel of polls to persuade you to join the herd mentality or be outside looking in. This too sickens me.
This is tabloid journalism and much of our electronic media is going or actually heavily involved in this ..especially close to election time. "The Victim Dictim" is a favorate ploy by the media to galvanize unthinking ignorant voters to pull the correct levers in the booth. IN this manner they are no different than the Muslim/European type "unbiased media.

I am dubious about Fox news and observe it closely with my particular biases...
I am very conservative...I am "NOT" a Republican. There is a difference.
I am however ..quite sure of what the other media outlets are ... They are not conservative...and like Fox...they are not looking out for you.

They are all looking out for thier ratings.

Thanks,
Orangetom

I'd agree with that.

I think people who throw about the term 'Corporate Media', do so in the belief that they are controlled by businesses and so push a neo-con/conservative agenda.

True, the MSM in the US are not only controlled by corporations, they ARE corporations. They need to make money, that is their corncern. They will go for the most shocking story, the one that pulls on the heart strings, the controversial scoops. Why? To make money and boost their ratings. Just because they are privately owened, doesn't automatically make them biased towards one side. Ratings, awards, profits, respect and reputation are the main concern.

What is the alternative. Nobody stops anyone from using 'independant' media on the net, which are usually even more biased than the MSM. But to deliver 24/7 news coverage, from every corner of the globe, and in every area of interest (politics, weather, sport, business etc) the organistations need to make profits to keep the thing going. They hire thousands of people to work for them, need satelite top of the range equipment etc etc.

What is the alternative? A public sector service, something which in theory and under the right constitutional arrangments, can effectively be the mouthpiece of government. A service that can still force out biased or incorrect reporting, whilst being subsidesed and kept afloat by taxation, which could quite easily go to things more important, like Healthcare.

The private sector provides choice and competition. No-one force anyone to watch Fox. There are several MSM outlets for a reason. And we are, and should be intelligent enough to take news from several outlets, asses it, analyse it, and make an informed opinion on the current events.

Peyres...good post your last one.

One of my peeves withe the media in this country is what I call a default setting to play through with a silent dogma which they use on a very ignorant or unperceptive public and you seldom hear any objection to its misues or abuse of the public trust.

This peeve is about the misdirection often used in the media that New York or more appropriately the City...and California or the Los Angeles area....represent the bulk of American Opinion. Want to know what Americans believe ..poll these areas. These high population areas are America ...nothing else between even comes close or counts. Want to know what Americans think take the polls or surveys from these areas. When I see this type of silent implication I get sick. I want to puke ..at whatever media makes this silent implication.

I never want to know what a New York politician is doing or thinking. SAme with California.

THe most sickening and ignorant thing I saw to pass for entertainment or even political commentary is Randi Rhodes on that film "Left of the Dial " where election returns came in in the 2004 elections and they were for the "Non Democratic " candidate and from a mid western state. Her comment to show high intelligence and political savy ..was "no one lives there."

This was a political statement from a representative who was speaking for a party running for the highest office in the land..."no one lives there!!!" You have to go to school to get dumb enough to make a statement like that and think your party is going to represent all of America...on "no one lives there." This is entitlement...We ..deserve because we are good people. We deserve the office...sickening. Real ordinary Americans are not that dumb. Only a public education teaching entitlement mentality can dumb a people down this much.

I consider this type of insult no different than much of what the media does with New York and California when they try to play through as if these two states are all of America.

One of the most overdone storys I recall in the media ...actually two..is the story fo that woman who was killed in California...and her body found..the Peterson case..Lacy Peterson .if I recall the name correctly. I never thought this case deserved nationwide mention in the media as long as it did. Dont misunderstand me.. I dont approve of what happened to her or her unborn child..I just never believed it merited the on and on and on and on ...it did in the media. THis struck me as the media looking for ratings and it became obvious after awhile. THey really wore this case out. It became a sickening macabre fascination...sort of a sickness in the media..to me.

Same with that girl killed.or missing in Aruba...on and on and on and on..especially on Fox news. My sympathys go out to the surviving parents. I just never considered it front page news for so long. It became obvious to me it was like the Peterson case..for ratings.
I am not a Matt Drudge fan but one night I heard him broadcast ...Greta Van Sustern will be talking about this Holloway case two or three years from now. he had a point.

Well..I think you folks get the idea...SAme with this Ramsey killing or the person claiming credit for the killing. Not front page news to me. Especially in never ending broadsides. But like a politician..its good for ratings...ie..votes.

What I began to sense about the media and its tabloid sensationalism ...is that it is, over the years, tending twords the lowest common denominator in public appeal...and control.

A bit off topic here but you get the idea..

Thanks for your posts,
Orangetom

Originally posted by Peyres
I'd agree with that.

I think people who throw about the term 'Corporate Media', do so in the belief that they are controlled by businesses and so push a neo-con/conservative agenda.

As a reporter for a large regional dailey (McClatchey News - formerly Knight-Ridder) I can assure you that the US mainstream media is absolutely corporate. It is neither "Republican" nor "Demcrat". It is ruled by the bottom line. And by and or the interests of those who directly profit (at the top).

It is also nearly irrelevant b/c of the massive and rapid information available on the internet. Daily, it shoots itself in the foot by not covering the most important issues; or by covering just enuff of an issue as to appear relevant - and by not making the powers that be uncomfortable. That little tactic is becoming more and more difficult as the internet now drives demand. Enter the net neutrality debate.

Fox "news" and the likes of Rush Limbaugh have been very succesfful in manipulating the public into buying that old liberal media canard. It is to them, that anything left of hard-right (i.e. balanced) is "liberal."

How very scary... an opposing opinion, or God forbid, cold hard fact..

Staunch supporters of Fox "news" and of the president's clique, thankfully only number in the thirty-some percentile, despite what O'Reilly and his ilk would have us believe. That is a very low number in all actuality. And as for their shows' numbers of late, they have been steadily deteriorating. Some of this has to do with the fact that its summertime; but b/c, they are increasingly out of touch with mainstream Americans. And people aren't buying their bile the way once did. Thankfully.

*This thread in no way promotes or defends Al-Jezeera and its ilk.