Rupert Murdoch Calls Fox News Viewers Morons & White Trash

Thanks for sharing your opinions & those links. I appreciate the work y'all do to uncover the truth about Rupert Murdoch & his cronies.

www.foxisevil.com

Had enough of the lies, propaganda, and blind conservative opinion stories being offered as legitimate news? Tired of Rupert Murdoch’s campaign to brainwash the World? Fed up with the current administration and their disdain for the average American? Sick of watching George and his militia break our fundamental Constitutional rights and make up their own to further their Dictatorship regime? Do you think that Bush and Fox ARE rolling back American progress and pushing us towards global war and death? Well Me too. Stop Fox from perpetuating Bush’s lies, Bush’s crimes, and Bush’s indifference for the truth.

Fox News Blows Its Cover

If CNN ever issued a memo to its anchors telling them what the news SHOULD be before it happens, well, there would be no CNN.

But then what Republican gives a sh[!]t if the news is a lie? Life is easier when you don't bother yourself with complex thought.

Fair and balanced my ass.
I went to journalism school; I work with people who watch this bullsh[!]t religiously.

It's pathetic.

Fox News Fair and Balanced: lets see

Shows how fair and balanced fox news really is.

...we expect every American to support our military- and if they can't do that, to shut up. --Bill O'Reilly

And it is 'our duty as loyal americans' to shut up once the fighting begins. --Bill O'Reilly

Fox News...Fair and Balanced???

Fair and balanced.I don't even think they can say it with a straight face anymore.

[edit on 9-5-2008 by ChadAndrewATS]

Let's remember why this thread was started.

The member reported "Rupert Murdoch Calls Fox News Viewers Morons & White Trash". Has anyone found any evidence of the opening story elsewhere and at a date earlier than Monday, September 25, 2006?

Earliest dated source - assimilatedpress.blogspot.com

Or is it the consensus that the article was offered as an amusing prank on a humorous website?


After all, in the interests of being fair and balanced it is the truth that matters, not convenient propaganda, right? That is what this is all about isn't it?

Jak

[edit on 9/5/08 by JAK]

reply to post by JAK

That article or the event mentioned in that article hasn't been confirmed or denied by Rupert Murdoch, Bill O'Reilly, or Sean Hannity. There are plenty of reasons to suspect that Rupert Murdoch & his cronies don't respect the 'FOX Viewers'.

reply to post by ChadAndrewATS


That could be because it is a joke and they consider that fact so obvious that they don't feel the need to respond. Or perhaps they aren't aware of it.

Either way it doesn't add any validity to the claim does it? Nor does your suggestion that

There are plenty of reasons to suspect that Rupert Murdoch & his cronies don't respect the 'FOX Viewers'.

It is quite apparent that you dislike Fox. Are we though to take it that your dislike is not based upon a consideration that the vast majority of information they offer propaganda but rather that it goes against your personal political viewpoint?

If that is not the case and you dislike any and all shoddy/biased journalism then shouldn't you be looking to lead by example here and striving to find some solid legitimacy for the story you presented? It's always a pleasure to see Bertrand Russell proved wrong.

If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence.

Surely it would be better to refuse any and all propaganda and search for the truth behind this story?

Jak



[edit on 9/5/08 by JAK]

Why would an internet blogger "hoax" this? And regardless of the initial post's authenticity, I think it has been more than established through subsequent posts that Murdoch, Turner, and other media moguls CONSTANTLY degrade and denounce the general public.

reply to post by freight tomsen


As to the question of why? Perhaps for a joke, perhaps to spread damaging information about FOX due to a personal dislike, perhaps it's a parody of OMGz panic headline/story they might imagine from a left wing source. Who knows? That is not the point though is it.

It is te validity of the quote that is in question. This thread was not started along the lines of 'Isn't FOX terrible.' but a specific quote. The matter of the initial post's authenticity' may not be pertinent in offering your opinion, but it is the central issue here.

Surely any false propaganda is undesirable? Are you happy to take it as face value just because it suits you or would you like to know the actual truth whatever that may be?

Jak

This article is a satire, the Ann Coulter defense fund part tipped me off. Good one though. I think this thread has some valid points about big media news these days.

From my time in the army I saw first hand that whatever makes the news is only a point of view of what happens at best, and at worst lies to push an agenda.

reply to post by JAK

The fact is that Rupert Murdoch hates 'FOX Viewers'. Question: How do we know that? Answer: FOX News is unfair & unbalanced. I don't hate Rupert Murdoch or the fact that you refuse to believe that particular blog-entry has the truth in it.

You could be right about that blog, you could continue to support & defend Rupert Murdoch & his associates at FOX News, or you could admit that it's very possible that Rupert Murdoch was caught insulting his audience during the event, which is mentioned in that controversial article.

I don't like FOX News or Lies. I like reporting what I see & hear from reliable sources, such as yourself.

why would a billionaire be hanging out with his employees?

This is garbage, they would not get caught saying this...

reply to post by ChadAndrewATS


Firstly I do believe the article was made in jest. That is not to say that it sits impotent of further, deeper content of course, we are all aware that comedy can be very poignant and with the laughter carry political messages. I'm sure many here would point to Bill Hicks or George Carlin as examples.

For my position here though there is no need even for agreement over that, so I will be happy to ignore that possibility. Let us for the moment simply be content that the accusation was made and bear no mind to the possible reasoning behind it.

You say "I like reporting what I see & hear from reliable sources". In reply to this I would offer the following.

What support does the article have?

Looking around we can see that just as surely as FOX has it's supporters there are many who find it repugnant, I think it fair then to assume then that such a story would be widespread indeed; where else does it appear then? Can we find this information offered somewhere that does not reference assimilatedpress as it's source?

Presently (for I am quite prepared for my concerns to be proven incorrect, it would have no bearing on the validity of my point here) the answer to the above appears to be no, we cannot find this article on offer anywhere where the source is other than the earliest one we know of here. That alone is enough to raise concerns over accepting this incident as fact. I find it hard to believe that, if it were true such an event would be not subject to far more coverage. (It may be of interest to note that in a Google search it appears the second most noted source for this story dated Monday, September 25, 2006 is this very thread.)

Possibilities do not equal truth.

I happily grant you that it is 'possible' that the comments in question here were said but then many things are possible. We should not sit and accept news stories as fact due to the possibilities that may exist in this world. Are we really supposed to say of a report 'Yes, that is possible.' and with that grant total acceptance and belief? I would suggest this is a scenario that Fox News itself would find most desirable, even in this instance. For while leaving ourselves open to happy consumption of any propaganda we leave ourselves open to all propaganda. The result of which could deteriorate to whatever media network offers the slickest, most impressive presentation of their stories will be automatically accepted as the most legitimate purveyor of factual reporting with no need for concern over the actual validity of the content. Perhaps the situation might degrade to: Bill O’Reilly screams and shouts, his anger and fury left me gasping in concern for the raging, ageing gentleman's health! My GOSH - such a passionate display must surely be indicative of truth in his words. That it may be possible is not a good argument for acceptance as fact.


While I apologise for repeating myself I would offer the Bertrand Russell again here:

If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence.

It appears you immediately exclude the possibility that my questioning of this accusation be open to any other interpretation than that which suited you most:

Originally posted by ChadAndrewATS reply to post by JAK

... you could continue to support & defend Rupert Murdoch & his associates at FOX News

Questioning of the facts does not have to automatically and unequivocally come from a support for FOX.

If, as your words suggest, you find much about FOX News undesirable and you allow your viewpoint to colour my words I would not be surprised that through my questioning of the veracity of this accusation I should be seen as 'supporting & defending Fox', and I did wonder when making my previous posts how they would be interpreted. Instead of grabbing the flag and running with it though, which would be an easier and no doubt more popular move, (Boo FOX, sucks to you!), I took the stance I did. As I imagined at the time it appears there are those who saw the purpose of those words to 'support & defend Rupert Murdoch & his associates at FOX News'.

Alternate perspectives should always be of interest when evaluating our thoughts and reasoning though. You mentioned possibilities, look again then at the subject here, at what I said in previous posts and ask yourself is it possible those comments were not offered in support and defence of FOX and if so then what?

Jak

[edit on 12/5/08 by JAK]

Originally posted by JAK
reply to post by ChadAndrewATS

 

It appears you immediately exclude the possibility that my questioning of this accusation be open to any other interpretation than that which suited you most:

Originally posted by ChadAndrewATS reply to post by JAK

... you could continue to support & defend Rupert Murdoch & his associates at FOX News

Questioning of the facts does not have to automatically and unequivocally come from a support for FOX.

I guess it isn't only Rumsfeld (and boss and co) who divide the world into two halves, those "with us" and those "against us"...

This is a pointless thing to say (it obviously doesn't need saying, but I'm going to anyway), but that is a very nice piece of written reasoning.

Of course, it could just be that it happens to give me an excuse for acting the way I do and I am, consequently, far more open to its point of view...

Did you ever debate at school?

I fail to understand why none of the other, big-time, tv news teams did not bring it up. Fox's on air people have completely stopped trying to blend in so to speak. They slam democrats openly. Listen to their radio broadcasts some time. WOW, it is the "right" way or the highway big time.

CNN and MSNBC do lean a bit to the left, but at least they try to show a complete story. A story that if factual vs one that has to lean one way or the other. The best way to find out about us is to read or watch European news casts.

reply to post by JAK


Jak, Did you ever get good confirmation about whether this was a hoax OR if a real recording exists somewhere?

interestingly enough, this "legitimate account" of what transpired at this possibly made-up event, claims that the account comes from audio picked up by a microphone that was accidentally left live; yet was also capable of an accompanied visual play-by-play, including the bit where murdoch raises his glass. how could a microphone also account for a visual play-by play?

And this is now suppose to make Murdoch a hero.

Geez, y'all better think hard before you react.
A media giant is speaking because he is getting ready to make a huge transition, and the sheeple are playing right into his plans.

The article has something in common with the Bible. It isn't about facts, but truth (what the writers believe to be the truth anyway). The point is that the writers of the article believe that Murdoch and his sidekicks are cognizant of the fact that they are shoveling out fresh horse manure for public consumption.

I cannot stand the Fox broadcast "entertainment" channel either.