Karl Rove axed from Fox News

Moonlight Graham · December 10, 2012

Fox goes way beyond editorial bias though. They are an actual arm of one political party, that campaigns, fund raises etc.

Agreed. ALL news media has bias, but that bias is on a continuum from perfectly objective on one end (impossible to achieve) and 100% subjective propaganda machine on the other. Fox is closer to the subjective extreme than any other msm US news media outlet claiming to be "objective" (fair and ballanced!)

GostHacked · December 10, 2012

Agreed. ALL news media has bias, but that bias is on a continuum from perfectly objective on one end (impossible to achieve) and 100% subjective propaganda machine on the other. Fox is closer to the subjective extreme than any other msm US news media outlet claiming to be "objective" (fair and ballanced!)

I agree with this assessment.

TimG · December 10, 2012

ALL news media has bias, but that bias is on a continuum from perfectly objective on one end (impossible to achieve) and 100% subjective propaganda machine on the other.

I disagree completely. There is no continuum that allows one to rank sources from objective to subjective since all media are biased in different ways for different subjects. Any such ranking is a merely a reflection of the subjective biases of the person doing the ranking.

You could rank media sources based on accuracy (i.e. the number of untrue statements presented as truths) but even then most of the bias is expressed through the choice of narrative - not by the presentation of untrue statements.

Edited December 10, 2012 by TimG

WIP · December 10, 2012

Canada's state financed and controlled broadcaster for television, radio, and web consolidates such power far more efficiently than more numerous and diverse "bias" in the USA.

We have five corporations controlling 80 to 85% of our private broadcast media, while the U.S. has six; while both Canadian and U.S. Governments are considering further mergers. I could find the link if you really need it, but the FCC Chairman is quietly at work (no public hearings this time) trying to change media consolidation rules that would allow one major media mogul (like Rupert) to own all of the major TV, radio and newspapers in the same market....like Murdoch is trying to do in L.A. right now. When the Bush Administration was trying to pass these rules in his 2nd term, there were demonstrations outside the hearings, and Democrats in Congress (including then Senator Obama) rose up in opposition and declared that they would not allow it to pass. Now, under a Democratic Administration, they are about to do the exact same thing in almost complete secrecy, because, aside from the fringe left media, none of the mainstream - even supposedly liberal media sources are talking about it!

This further underlines a point made by radical leftwing black activist - Glen Ford (Black Agenda Report) that Barack Obama was not "the lesser of two evils," as portrayed in campaign strategies to get alienated leftists back, "he was the more effective evil," because he would carry out most of the same policies that a Republican president would do, with just a little tweaks and adjustments on the social issues. So, maybe the minority voters had no choice other than to support Democrats this last time around, since the Republican Party was running directly against them, but a lot of liberals and left-leaning Democrats who were coaxed back under the hope that an Obama - freed from having to campaign and raise money again, will be free to follow a real progressive agenda, are going to see more disappointments in the future, besides what the FCC is doing, and the recent failure of the Obama Administration to provide any leadership at the latest waste-of-time climate talks!

bush_cheney2004 · December 10, 2012

We have five corporations controlling 80 to 85% of our private broadcast media, while the U.S. has six; while both Canadian and U.S. Governments are considering further mergers.

The US goverment does not have a state funded and controlled broadcast and web concern like the CBC. PBS is partially funded through a public corporation, and it certainly does not broadcast professional sports as in Canada. In short, the CBC is media funded and controlled by the state, a far graver condition than privately owned corporate bias. Add some CRTC protectionism rules, and worrying about media in a foreign country gets rather silly.

and the recent failure of the Obama Administration to provide any leadership at the latest waste-of-time climate talks!

The US has shown leadership, as in FORGEDDABOUTIT !! Economics not only trumps virtue, but it also trumps climate change alarmists.

guyser · December 10, 2012

The US goverment does not have a state funded and controlled broadcast and web concern like the CBC

Edited December 10, 2012 by guyser

WIP · December 10, 2012

The US goverment does not have a state funded and controlled broadcast and web concern like the CBC. PBS is partially funded through a public corporation, and it certainly does not broadcast professional sports as in Canada. In short, the CBC is media funded and controlled by the state, a far graver condition than privately owned corporate bias. Add some CRTC protectionism rules, and worrying about media in a foreign country gets rather silly.

The way the agency running the CBC is set up, at arm's length from Parliament, it takes a long time before a government could replace directors with people of their own liking....and hopefully Harper won't be in power long enough to make that happen! If anything, he will try to follow the path of crippling the CBC through budget cuts....the same tactic that Republicans started under Reagan in the 80's with PBS.

And speaking of PBS -- it's in a sorry state right now compared to where they were in the 70's. Their news shows were more of the same beltway journalism that the networks ran, but they at least had independent news analysts and documentaries that challenged the status quo. As PBS, and it's affiliates lost public funding and became more and more dependent on endowments and corporate grants to stay on the air, their programming has become more and more pathetic! Bill Moyers was forced to give up his show because of sponsors, and his new show is carried on less than half of the PBS affiliates because of this fear of the corporate directors. He doesn't pull his punches when analyzing the issues that the rest of the MSM won't cover....like the most recent episode on ALEC for example. And NOVA...now there's an example of how "public" television is no longer public, when the Koch Foundation becomes the major sponsor, and for some reason, NOVA ignores the entire issue of climate change!

I confess that I am not a great fan of the CBC, largely because the national network has a schizophrenic mandate. Should the CBC even be in the business of trying to compete with private broadcasters....I don't think so! They shouldn't be bothering with expensive sports coverage like Hockey Night In Canada for example....let private networks spend their money on that stuff. It's trying to be all things to all people, instead of concentrating on what most public networks do in most countries - stick to airing programming that would not be aired by commercial broadcasters and broadcasting in small markets that the private broadcasters wouldn't bother extending service to. So, I don't know about the rest of Canada, but here in Ontario, TVO is what a public television network should be; and they do it on a fraction of the CBC's budget.

Same crap goes on with public radio - NPR and PRI programs are corporate-funded wastes of the airwaves. Real public radio in the U.S. only exists on a handful of fringe low power public radio stations that still remain on the air and are disappearing one by one, as the declining U.S. economy leaves only a handful of wealthy beneficiaries with the money to spend on media.

The US has shown leadership, as in FORGEDDABOUTIT !! Economics not only trumps virtue, but it also trumps climate change alarmists.

The U.S. banking and finance system is about to crash, so forgeddabout trying to run a military/commercial empire too! And a U.S. Military that's largely grounded would go a long way to reducing carbon emissions!

bush_cheney2004 · December 10, 2012

The way the agency running the CBC is set up, at arm's length from Parliament, it takes a long time before a government could replace directors with people of their own liking....and hopefully Harper won't be in power long enough to make that happen! If anything, he will try to follow the path of crippling the CBC through budget cuts....the same tactic that Republicans started under Reagan in the 80's with PBS.

Sure, and I bet that the Chinese would tell me the same thing about CCTV. It looks bad, smells bad, and is bad.

And speaking of PBS -- it's in a sorry state right now compared to where they were in the 70's. Their news shows were more of the same beltway journalism that the networks ran, but they at least had independent news analysts and documentaries that challenged the status quo. As PBS, and it's affiliates lost public funding and became more and more dependent on endowments and corporate grants to stay on the air, their programming has become more and more pathetic!

Better that then state sponsored rubbish.

Bill Moyers was forced to give up his show because of sponsors, and his new show is carried on less than half of the PBS affiliates because of this fear of the corporate directors.

Moyers is one of the biggest partisan hacks out there...no better than any talking head at Fox.

I confess that I am not a great fan of the CBC, largely because the national network has a schizophrenic mandate. Should the CBC even be in the business of trying to compete with private broadcasters....I don't think so!

I don't care what the CBC does...it's your country and most Americans don't even know it exists, let alone watch it. But it is silly to point at American networks (which apparently figure big in Canadian audience share), and have the same delusional expectations about "bias".

Same crap goes on with public radio - NPR and PRI programs are corporate-funded wastes of the airwaves. Real public radio in the U.S. only exists on a handful of fringe low power public radio stations that still remain on the air and are disappearing one by one, as the declining U.S. economy leaves only a handful of wealthy beneficiaries with the money to spend on media.

The US invented something better than radio....the Internet is pull vs. push technology.

The U.S. banking and finance system is about to crash, so forgeddabout trying to run a military/commercial empire too! And a U.S. Military that's largely grounded would go a long way to reducing carbon emissions!

I don't care about carbon emissions, and a majority of other people don't either. Make it worth our while and we might care.

DogOnPorch · December 11, 2012

Any word from Karl Rove??

DogOnPorch · December 11, 2012

Better that then state sponsored rubbish.

Most Western Canadians I know...dunno about East...tuned into PBS/KCTS 9 for one reason and one reason only.

dre · December 11, 2012

Like I said: Fox trashes moderate Republicans. This demonstrates that you are wrong. Fox takes an ideological position that puts it at odds with Democrats but that does not make it part of the Republican "machine".

That doesnt in any way demonstrate that I am wrong.

dre · December 11, 2012

I disagree completely. There is no continuum that allows one to rank sources from objective to subjective since all media are biased in different ways for different subjects. Any such ranking is a merely a reflection of the subjective biases of the person doing the ranking.

You could rank media sources based on accuracy (i.e. the number of untrue statements presented as truths) but even then most of the bias is expressed through the choice of narrative - not by the presentation of untrue statements.

Never mind truths or untruths... follow the money. Fox is basically a hybrid between a super-pac and news network.

Moonlight Graham · December 11, 2012

I disagree completely. There is no continuum that allows one to rank sources from objective to subjective since all media are biased in different ways for different subjects. Any such ranking is a merely a reflection of the subjective biases of the person doing the ranking.

You could rank media sources based on accuracy (i.e. the number of untrue statements presented as truths) but even then most of the bias is expressed through the choice of narrative - not by the presentation of untrue statements.

Well you have a point. But on the other hand, who is more biased: MSNBC and FOX, or the Associated Press? All will have some kind of bias. but 2 of those have an agenda that goes beyond just "reporting the facts". When I read the Associated Press I know there is some kind of bias inherent in the reporting, but I'm confident that it isn't going through as much of a spin filter and leaving out or leaving in info because of a partisan agenda like the others. I trust the AP more in terms of accuracy.

TimG · December 11, 2012

I trust the AP more in terms of accuracy.

I wouldn't.

To judge by recent coverage from Associated Press, the Fourth Estate watchdog has acted like a third-rate pocket pet. Case in point is an 1,800-word AP missive that appeared in hundreds of publications, many carrying it on the front page of their Sunday, Dec. 13 issue with the headline, “Science not faked, but not pretty.” AP gave three scientists copies of the controversial e-mails and then asked them about their conclusions. The wire service portrayed the trio of scientists as dismissing or minimizing allegations of scientific fraud when, in fact, the scientists believe no such thing.
...

There’s a big difference between saying that there isn’t sufficient evidence to determine if falsification of data occurred - and that there should be an investigation - and saying, as AP did: “Science not faked.”

http://www.washingto...icle_top10_read

The AP agenda in this example was to quickly sweep the climategate emails under the carpet. They showed no interest in investigating the issues and separating the facts from the hype. This is exactly the kind of agenda driven news reporting which Fox is famous for.

AP may not favor any one political party but when it comes to specific issues like climate coverage - it is as useful as a Greenpeace press release. That is why it is really important to understand the biases of any news organization that you listen to. If you don't know the biases or think the organization is 'unbiased' then you have a problem.

Edited December 11, 2012 by TimG

Moonlight Graham · December 12, 2012

AP may not favor any one political party but when it comes to specific issues like climate coverage - it is as useful as a Greenpeace press release. That is why it is really important to understand the biases of any news organization that you listen to. If you don't know the biases or think the organization is 'unbiased' then you have a problem.

I'm not saying any news source is free of bias. I agree it's important to understand them.

But there's a clear difference in being, or at least trying to be, objective and being subjective. An editorial piece is more subjective than your average news story. It has a clear slant, and more of a bias. My point is that while all news sources aren't free from bias, some are more subjective than others on the whole. Some editorialize or pick and choose more than others. Some try to be more objective than others in reporting the news.

TimG · December 12, 2012

But there's a clear difference in being, or at least trying to be, objective and being subjective.

You can't use motivation as a separator because every news organization *believes* that it is being objective. The bias only shows up because the people hired to do the job have prejudices that make nominally 'objective' reporting subjective.

That said, a news service like AP who sells to other news organizations will tend to stick to the facts with minimal editorializing (the example I gave was where AP tried to provide subjective analysis of a story instead of simply reporting it). That said, few people read everything produced by AP which means AP stories can be presented in a biased way though the choice of articles that are published in a newspaper.

Moonlight Graham · December 12, 2012

You can't use motivation as a separator because every news organization *believes* that it is being objective. The bias only shows up because the people hired to do the job have prejudices that make nominally 'objective' reporting subjective.

I doubt FOX and MSNBC and Sun News really believe they're being objective.

That said, a news service like AP who sells to other news organizations will tend to stick to the facts with minimal editorializing (the example I gave was where AP tried to provide subjective analysis of a story instead of simply reporting it). That said, few people read everything produced by AP which means AP stories can be presented in a biased way though the choice of articles that are published in a newspaper.

I agree. At least you finally admit that some sources editorialize/report the facts more than others and are therefore more objective.

Argus · December 13, 2012

You can't use motivation as a separator because every news organization *believes* that it is being objective.

FOX is not the slightest bit objective and I can't believe anyone there thinks they are. They have a mission set by their wealthy corporate owner to push certain conservative themes. Those themes are focused around small government and lower taxes, especially for corporations and the wealthy. You will see endless stories about incompetence and dishonesty in government, hear endless talking heads speak of the dangers of regulation or taxation of 'job creators', and endless stories about how bad unions are for middle class folks. A story which runs contrary to such themes will not be reported, or will be buried as best they can.

FOX seems to be a propaganda channel for the Republicans, but in reality that's only because the Republicans are owned by corporate America and largely push the same themes. Like FOX, their owners have told them to. In reality, FOX is a propaganda channel for the 1%.

And those who have drank the kool-aid will tell you that tax cuts for corporations that make billions in profits are good, and public health care is bad.

Edited December 13, 2012 by Argus

TimG · December 13, 2012

FOX is not the slightest bit objective and I can't believe anyone there thinks they are.

Want evidence do you have? I suspect this is simply groundless speculation on your part. As a participant in internet discussion boards you should be aware that every political position has people who fervently believe it to be true. It is reasonable to assume that Fox News would attract such people just like CBC/PBS attracts people who fervently believe in government intervention. Edited December 13, 2012 by TimG

Argus · December 15, 2012

Want evidence do you have? I suspect this is simply groundless speculation on your part. As a participant in internet discussion boards you should be aware that every political position has people who fervently believe it to be true. It is reasonable to assume that Fox News would attract such people just like CBC/PBS attracts people who fervently believe in government intervention.

Nonsense. There is a difference between the culture of the media, which I will accept tends to be fairly liberal influencing media coverage, and an organization which has a mandate to promote conservative beliefs. The bias in FOX is deliberate and institutional. It is planned, as opposed to the bias which creeps into news coverage in the mainstream media. FOX seeks out the kinds of stories which will support its corporate propaganda mission, and ignores all evidence which would run counter to the stories it tells. It is a propaganda organization, as opposed to a news organization.

Bonam · December 15, 2012

Nonsense. There is a difference between the culture of the media, which I will accept tends to be fairly liberal influencing media coverage, and an organization which has a mandate to promote conservative beliefs. The bias in FOX is deliberate and institutional. It is planned, as opposed to the bias which creeps into news coverage in the mainstream media. FOX seeks out the kinds of stories which will support its corporate propaganda mission, and ignores all evidence which would run counter to the stories it tells. It is a propaganda organization, as opposed to a news organization.

Until this last election, I would have disagreed. But seeing how they covered the polling data, it can not be interpreted as anything besides a deliberate attempt to mislead.

TimG · December 15, 2012

Until this last election, I would have disagreed. But seeing how they covered the polling data, it can not be interpreted as anything besides a deliberate attempt to mislead.

Who says they covered anything up? They reported the polls that showed the results that they wanted to see. The same thing happens with other media outlets.

Argus · December 15, 2012

Until this last election, I would have disagreed. But seeing how they covered the polling data, it can not be interpreted as anything besides a deliberate attempt to mislead.

I'm not saying FOX is a Republican propaganda organization, though the distinction here is slight. After all, the Republicans are the corporate party, bought and paid for to further the corporate agenda. As such, FOX acts in their interests. Look into the Powell memorandum sometime, or the documentary Heist: Who stole the American dream.

TimG · December 15, 2012

After all, the Republicans are the corporate party, bought and paid for to further the corporate agenda.

How exactly is this is different from the Democrats? The democrats are notorious for using regulation to pay off their corporate backers while they claim these 'regulations' are 'for everyone's good'. Edited December 15, 2012 by TimG

kimmy · December 15, 2012

The unspent superPAC money that Stephen Colbert made vanish on national TV last month has reappeared. As chairman of the Ham Rove Memorial Fund, Colbert has donated it to Hurricane Sandy relief, wounded soldiers, as well as to two political transparency groups. The Center for Responsive Politics receives the donation on the condition that they rename their meeting space "The Colbert Super PAC Memorial Conference Room", while the Campaign Legal Center receives the donation on the condition that they host "The Ham Rove Memorial Conference Room".

-k