Insider "Reveals" FauxNews "Ideological Interests"

[UTUSN]

We knew it, but they had bent our minds so much about how they REALLY ARE "fare UNbalanced" that we might have been questioning our sanity, or at least our perception. But here's the scuttlebutt from the inside.

******QUOTE*****

http://poynter.org/forum/?id=letters#foxnews

.... at Fox, if my boss wasn't warning me to "be careful" how I handled the writing of a special about Ronald Reagan ("You know how Roger feels about him."), he was telling me how the environmental special I was to produce should lean ("You can give both sides, but make sure the pro-environmentalists don't get the last word.")

Editorially, the FNC newsroom is under the constant control and vigilance of management. The pressure ranges from subtle to direct. First of all, it's a news network run by one of the most high-profile political operatives of recent times. 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. For the staffers, many of whom are too young to have come up through the ranks of objective journalism, and all of whom are non-union, with no protections regarding what they can be made to do, there is undue motivation to please the big boss.

Sometimes, this eagerness to serve Fox's ideological interests goes even beyond what management expects. ....

But the roots of FNC's day-to-day on-air bias are actual and direct. They come in the form of an executive memo distributed electronically each morning, addressing what stories will be covered and, often, suggesting how they should be covered. To the newsroom personnel responsible for the channel's daytime programming, The Memo is the bible. If, on any given day, you notice that the Fox anchors seem to be trying to drive a particular point home, you can bet The Memo is behind it. ....(Continues into next section of Link)

*****UNQUOTE****

[Spazito]

1. This certainly confirms what we already know..

It is good to hear it from the "inside" though.

[yolatengo]

2. I wonder...

Why is this necessarily a bad thing?

In the magazine world there's MoJo, Z-Mag, The Nation,
and there is Am Spectator, Weekly Standard, The Economist.

They all have ideological bents.

In the past, every town had several newspapers, some of
which were diametrically opposed to one another. There were
'workers' papers in the '30 with a socialist/unionist bent.

It seems to me the only 'downside' is that in a perfect
world, all news would be objective and an educated populace
could then make informed decisions about things that effect
them.

Personally, I don't believe the hype. Maybe Faux has
increased it's viewership; it's still jack sh*t, compared
to the Big Three network's news. I rarely watch ANYTHING
Faux besides The Simpsons. Still, there seems to be something
inherently 'jerky' about deliberately constructing a news
organization to deliberately slant the news towards the
party in power. Question Authority? Provide a fourth estate
check? Fight The Power? Naw, the pay's too good and we LUV
EVERYTHING the Boy King does!

Even hardcore Nazis realized Hitler was a piece of sh*t
when they were standing in the ruins of their once great
nation....others were so ideologically bent they fought
to the death even when it was utterly hopeless and they
literally were watching their world crumble around them.

Bigby

[AP]

because millions of people get the "facts" upon which the base

decisions like whom to vote for on things like Fox News.

You saw that study a few weeks ago, right? The one that said that lots of people thought lies were true and the people who primarily watched Fox were most uninformed?

Well, it's in the interest of all Americans that your fellow America is making decisions based on facts, not lies. How are we supposed to have a rational relationship with the rest of the world, and how are we supposed to make decisions which maximize social health, wealth and happiness if we're making basing how we think on lies?

[Skittles]

5. HELLO

if FOX SAID they were a piece of shit repug org bent on fooling people into voting for repugs, that would be fine. BUT THEY CLAIM TO BE FAIR AND BALANCED; THAT IS A F***ING LIE.

[Mountainman]

11. If there were news organizations who were the opposite of FOX

then I wouldn't have as much a problem as I do now. I use to love to watch the news before the days of news as entertainment. You really did see a story and made up your mind about it because you had both sides of the story to decide upon. Now you get the right wing view on every channel. The news use to be about informing people not about pushing a political agenda.

Our democracy is as good as the people's knowledge about what is really going on. We need a well-informed electorate.

[bspence]

3. Fantastic article

I hadn't heard of Poynter before, but it certainly isn't some biased news site. Alan Colmes was on C-SPAN this morning talking about how great Fox is. Oddly enough, I found Colmes to be quite a good liberal on C-SPAN, even though he's such a loser on Hannity & colmes.

[grannylib]

4. Shocking but not at all surprising

Been clear as crystal to most of us all along that Faux is spinning dizzily and consistently to the right...
Wonder what kind of spin the network will put on this story if/once it gets out??
You can be sure they will do whatever they can to discredit the author and "disavow any knowledge" of such activities.

[UTUSN]

6. Kick for the Lunch Crowd n/t

[maine_raptor]

7. Now, Now..........

Remember these are the same folks that almost sued "The Simpsons" over a satire because they thought it would "confuse Fox News viewers".

Of course they need direction via "The Memo" in the newsroom, otherwise they are lost, helpless and totaly incapable of finding their butts without hunting dogs and a hand mirror.

[in_cog_ni_to]

8. I'm shocked!

shocked, I say! <sarcasm> It's nice to have validation of what WE already knew.

[UTUSN]

9. Last Kick. Supper. n/t

[knight_of_the_star]

10. This would be NASTY if widely distributed to the entire public.

I wonder how Faux would like having their dirty little secret exposed?

[UTUSN]

12. Here We Go - Faux Sez He's a DISGRUNTLED Ex-employee

Same link, the link gets updated.

*********QUOTE*****
From SHARRI BERG, VP-News Operations, Fox News Channel:
Like any former, disgruntled employee, Charlie Reina has an ax to grind. He was employed at Fox News Channel for six years as the Producer of NewsWatch and of many different specials, including shows on MLK, Robert F. Kennedy, John Glenn and Newt Gingrich. During that entire period, we were unaware that anyone at Fox News was holding a metaphorical gun to his head.

Earlier this year, Mr. Reina objected to an adjustment in his assigned duties -- duties which he was qualified to perform and paid to do. That very inaction is what affects morale and sends the wrong message to the entire newsroom. If you asked any of the people he refered to as "grunts" but we refer to as "producers," "writers," "desk assistants," they resent his characterization. One of them said this morning, "Charlie actually NEVER had a job in the newsroom. He worked out of some space up on 17 or 18 reserved for overpaid feature producers on career life support. The 'grunts' knew him mainly as one of any number of clueless feature producers who would call the desk at random and ask 'do we have...' The kind of calls where after you hang up you say to the phone 'go f-k yourself.' In fact, its not editorial policy that pisses off newsroom grunts -- its people like Charlie."

How could Mr. Reina have worked at this company for six years if the picture he paints of life at Fox News is true?

Mr. Reina's premise about "the memo" is unfounded. People are proud to work here. They are proud of the product we produce and understand our daily and future goals. Among many, many others, Mr. Reina's memo has a glaring omission, in that Fox News Channel has a very low turnover rate and very high morale. In other words, people who work here WANT to work here.

**********UNQUOTE*****