Murdoch: "We Tried" to Shape Iraq War Agenda

so much for any claims of "fair and balanced"

from JoeUser Forums
Last month, Rupert Murdoch made a revalation at the World Economic Forum in Sweeden that went largely unnoticed. In a 1/2 filled hall, in a seminar about "who will shape the agenda in the future?," the media mogul, who owns Fox News , The New York Post amongst others, admitted to trying to assist the administration in it's efforts to "gin up" the Iraq War.

Murdoch said "We tried [...] We basically supported the Bush policy in the Middle East."

Tried? No point in being humble now Mr Murdoch, you succeeded!

So again, it turns out that the critics of the Fox Noise Channel who accused them of not being so "fair and balanced" as they claim, were right. There was a diliberate effort to be used as a propoganda tool for getting us into a needless war in Iraq.

But that comes at no surprise to most of us, who have long clearly seen thru the neoconservative vehicle for the administration posing as a legitimate "news service." A trend that continues today with Fox blatantly accusing potential candidate Barack Obama of being educated in radical Islamic educational institutions. The story, put out by Fox one morning, was completely discredited by the aftrenoon. Fox then tried to blame it on a leak from the Clinton camp, despite absolutely nothing to back the accusation up. They still haven't retracted that one and allow Dick Morris to call her a "monster" on thier airwaves and serve as his vehicle in his anti-hillary hate campaign which has been going on for many years now. Their correspondents, like Dick Morris, continue to "report" the bogus Obama story despite the network quietly issuing a retraction. And Fox stands silent as their reporters repeat lies over and over again, so long as it serves theri purposes, and the administration's. They haven't even taken Morris or anyone else who is shamelessly repeating the bogus stories off the air for a minute, let alone permenantly.

Hopefully, this will serve as a wake-up call to their viewers, those who haven' t quite finished their dose of kool-aid. This doesn't make any other news service any kind of "unrefutable gold standard" of facts. But most of them, unlike Fox, at least attempt to get at the truth rather than serving as a government propoganda tool for great portions of the day and evening.
20,580 views 36 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top

Yep!  So much for fair and balanced.  on your part.  260 hits on Google and everyone a blog.  No major news chain is running this.  So basically you are trying a hatchet job on an innuendo by some loony left winger.

Now I can see where you get your "facts" from.

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
No major news chain is running this.

wrong again pundit...i know at least MSNBC has reported on it. and there will be more...
Offworld Trading Company
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hmm... MSNBC... Now there's fair & balanced for ya.  
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
wrong again pundit...i know at least MSNBC has reported on it. and there will be more...


Link to it. You provided none, and Google apparently does not scan MSNBC - the only website in the known world they are apparently ignoring.

Oh well, here comes sthe VRWC and the spin.   
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
But most of them, unlike Fox, at least attempt to get at the truth rather than serving as a government propoganda tool for great portions of the day and evening


Thats all I needed to hear right there.  If you want to at least pretend to be fair, don't sit there and tell us the "rest of the media" is after the truth.  We have listed countless examples of how the "rest of the media" has lied, forged documents, forged pictures, and many other things in order to smear Bush and republicans. 

Dick Morris is a guest that appears on random shows during the week, he is not a Fox News reporters or anchor.  The same as the other media using far left guests on their shows. 
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
This doesn't make any other news service any kind of "unrefutable gold standard" of facts.

ya wanna question MSNBC daiwa, fine....but look at the facts,,,did murdoch say what i quoted him on? he certainly did admit to "trying to" help the administration and it's drumbeat for war. you can try to throw mud all ya want,,,but he said what he said. anyone is free to bury their head in the Fox sand, but the facts are clear.

and like i said above, fox's role as a goverment propogandist doesn't make anyone else an infallible source. but in this case, msnbc, and the others who have reported on this, are right. fox has been exposed a little more. maybe not enough for some of the punch-drunk audience of theirs, but some will hopefully see the light.



Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
but look at the facts,,,did murdoch say what i quoted him on?


Hard to tell since you didn't post the transcripts.  All you quoted is Murodch saying they supported the policy, thats hardly grounds for being labels propagandists. 


Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Dick Morris is a guest that appears on random shows during the week, he is not a Fox News reporters or anchor.

wrong...from fox's website....Dick Morris serves as a political analyst for FOX News Channel and often contributes to FOX News Sunday .
Link

If you want to at least pretend to be fair, don't sit there and tell us the "rest of the media" is after the truth.

thanks for misquoting me. i never said the rest of the media is after the truth. and do you know of any other news services that have the moniker "fair and balanced" draped all over them yet are admittedly guilty of being propogandists for ginning up the iraq war? once again, this article does not endorse anyone else inherently as you want to imply. but i don't believe ted turner or bill gates or most other news service leaders are working for the government as fox has been doing since bush took office. all the news channels have a mix of conservative and liberal and other views. we can argue about individual biases and whether or not a bias effected objectivity on a story, and too often it does. but that is a far cry from essentially "working for the government" as fox is doing and has been for quite some time.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Link to it. You provided none, and Google apparently does not scan MSNBC

it was on air last night. msnbc usually takes a day or 2 to get their transcripts up on their site.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
wrong...from fox's website....Dick Morris serves as a political analyst for FOX News Channel and often contributes to FOX News Sunday .


Like I said, he is not a report or anchor.


and do you know of any other news services that have the moniker "fair and balanced" draped all over them yet are admittedly guilty of being propogandists for ginning up the iraq war?


Fox News is a media outlet like any other.  The problem is you are not holding any of them up to the same standard.  I still don't see where he admitted they are propagandists for the war. 


but i don't believe ted turner or bill gates or most other news service leaders are working for the government as fox has been doing since bush took office. all the news channels have a mix of conservative and liberal and other views. we can argue about individual biases and whether or not a bias effected objectivity on a story, and too often it does. but that is a far cry from essentially "working for the government" as fox is doing and has been for quite some time.


This is where you are taking it out of context.  Fox News is not "working" for the government.  Working for the government would mean they are a state run news service, which they are not.  This whole obsession with Fox News is quite ridiculous I must say.

Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Like I said, he is not a report or anchor.

if you are gonna sit there and nitpick words, then i have no use for you....he's a fox analyst. a term that is pretty much used interchangeably with reporter nowadays. you charachterized him as someone who just popped up "randomly" on the channel. fox cuts him a check for being their analyst and contributor...nitpick all ya want...he works for Fox.

This is where you are taking it out of context. Fox News is not "working" for the government. Working for the government would mean they are a state run news service, which they are not. This whole obsession with Fox News is quite ridiculous I must say.

no, they are working for the government by proxy. hell, they already sent up one of their anchors to be the bush press secretary. fox news personalities and other outlets that promote them get special and private audiences with the president and vice president. murdoch has admitted "they tried" to promote the bush administration policy and agenda. this isn't judge ito's court, i don't need to show "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" to show what many already know and there is all kinds of evidence over the years to support the fact that Fox news is a government tool in the end.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
The Internet helps to get out the facts and quickly correct wrong information. If one takes media as a generic term, it is more powerful today. But as a new organization, one cannot change everything. Murdoch said he considers public opinion important, but there is also a time for leadership. (Rupert Murdoch @ The World Economic Forum)

according to murdoch, people feeling a certian way is ok, but sometimes the public needs to be told what to think and believe. fortunately, even murdoch realizes he can't fool all of the people, all of the time.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
if you are gonna sit there and nitpick words, then i have no use for you....he's a fox analyst. a term that is pretty much used interchangeably with reporter nowadays. you charachterized him as someone who just popped up "randomly" on the channel. fox cuts him a check for being their analyst and contributor...nitpick all ya want...he works for Fox.


LOL...whatever.  There is a difference from someone who is an "analyst" or guest, than someone who is actually a reporter or anchor. 


no, they are working for the government by proxy. hell, they already sent up one of their anchors to be the bush press secretary. fox news personalities and other outlets that promote them get special and private audiences with the president and vice president. murdoch has admitted "they tried" to promote the bush administration policy and agenda.


Oh goodness.  Now it's they are "working by proxy".  If you want to claim that Fox is promoting the administration, then I hope you will acknowledge the rest of the MSM is promoting the democrats agenda.  Like actively trying to sway elections, and giving democrats a free pass on their crimes. 

And as far as Tony Snow, I didn't realize Fox was the ones who sent him to work for the Bush administration.  From what I last remember, the administration hires its own. 
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
it was on air last night. msnbc usually takes a day or 2 to get their transcripts up on their site.


Then you should have waited instead of spreading innuendo.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
here's a link w/ some video of the on an on air report of it...Link


Let's see. The source is a hollywood gossip column. There is no statement from Murdoch that we can hear. You are using Keith Olberman, the looniest loon on the left, with an interview with an Air America shill.

Yep! Looks like another Kieth olberman smear job to me, that you bought hook line and stinker! As usual.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
"analyst" or guest,


anlyst and guest are not synonymous. analyst and reporter is much closer to a synonym. MORRIS IS NOT A "GUEST " IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM. he is paid by Fox to contribute, analyze and report on his analysis when called upon.

If you want to claim that Fox is promoting the administration, then I hope you will acknowledge the rest of the MSM is promoting the democrats agenda. Like actively trying to sway elections, and giving democrats a free pass on their crimes.


no, i won't. there are certainly liberal and conservative biases from various reporters. but no organization has ever aided and abbetted an administration in the way that fox does.

And as far as Tony Snow, I didn't realize Fox was the ones who sent him to work for the Bush administration. From what I last remember, the administration hires its own.


yes, they certainly do "hire theri own." my point exactly.

Then you should have waited instead of spreading innuendo


no innuendo, the video isn't good enough? someone has to transcribe it or it's "innuendo?" nonsense!



Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
anlyst and guest are not synonymous. analyst and reporter is much closer to a synonym. MORRIS IS NOT A "GUEST " IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM. he is paid by Fox to contribute, analyze and report on his analysis when called upon.


Do you not understand the difference between an analyst that is brought on, and someone who actually reports the news?


no, i won't. there are certainly liberal and conservative biases from various reporters. but no organization has ever aided and abbetted an administration in the way that fox does.


Right.......


yes, they certainly do "hire theri own." my point exactly.


LOL....too funny.  This reminds me of trying to argue with some other person here.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
no innuendo, the video isn't good enough? someone has to transcribe it or it's "innuendo?" nonsense!


Sorry chawlie. The video showed him sitting and talking, but no sound from him talking. Then Keith does anotehr hatchet job. Of COURSE Keith Oberfuhrer would never tell a lie!   (Let me count the ways!)
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Do you not understand the difference between an analyst that is brought on, and someone who actually reports the news?


He is a liberal! He is still wrestling with IS!
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top

Sorry chawlie. The video showed him sitting and talking, but no sound from him talking. Then Keith does anotehr hatchet job. Of COURSE Keith Oberfuhrer would never tell a lie! (Let me count the ways!)


Be a little proactive Dr Guy - get a Deaf friend to lip-read for you if you're that concerned. I can tell you right now that TV stations don't editorialise VOTs purely because the Deaf community can see exactly what's being said. It's way too easy to get caught out. So if a reporter makes a claim as to what a face in the background is saying then they're almost certainly reporting the truth. There's no end-game profit in doing otherwise.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
Do you not understand the difference between an analyst that is brought on, and someone who actually reports the news?


It's certainly interesting. Let's consider a newspaper. Does a staff reporter who only writes opinion columns qualify as a reporter? They're usually paid as one. Why would it be different for TV? A reporter who is used on news services to provide opinion, and do it exclusively, is not that much different from that newspaper reporter.

Why do the words you use to describe it matter so much?
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's certainly interesting. Let's consider a newspaper. Does a staff reporter who only writes opinion columns qualify as a reporter? They're usually paid as one. Why would it be different for TV? A reporter who is used on news services to provide opinion, and do it exclusively, is not that much different from that newspaper reporter.

Why do the words you use to describe it matter so much?


An analyst like Dick Morris is someone who is paid to offer their opinion and "analysis".  What they talk about is their take or analysis of the news.  Reporters would generally write about the news without analysis or opinion.  There is a difference.


Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
Do you not understand the difference between an analyst that is brought on, and someone who actually reports the news?


do you understand the difference between an employee and a guest?

An analyst like Dick Morris is someone who is paid to offer their opinion and "analysis". What they talk about is their take or analysis of the news. Reporters would generally write about the news without analysis or opinion. There is a difference.


and neither is a guest. analysts alalize and then report on theri analysis. and they are the equivalent of an editorial columnist who works for a newspaper. analyticl reporting is a type of reporting.

run along now...