Monday, July 19, 2004

Overfoxed

 - I ignore FOXNews and its factors. Watching Outfoxed last night was like receiving an oil tanker of AIDS-tainted blood, one 1/2-cc injection at a time.
 
 - Greatest strength of the film: O'Reilly.
 
 - Greatest omission: footage of Murdoch, O'Reilly, Hume and company as they decline to be interviewed for Outfoxed (assuming they were asked - were they?)
 
 - Weakness: by attempting to subscribe to an idealized standard of journalistic objectivity, Outfoxed is constrained in its journalistic vocabulary. It can show, repetitively, Fox's various gestures - its scowls, its bullying Busholatry, its daily mantras. But it doesn't penetrate the character of Murdoch or his minions, because that requires interpretation, which could be construed as a departure from the veil of "facts." That would belie the standard imagined by the film's critique.
 
 - Petition protesting Murdock's Orwellian trademark of "Fair and Balanced."        
   
 - Later: I propose that every blog, every media outlet, and every parrot adopt "Fair and Balanced" as a sobriquet. If Merdle sues, it'll bleed him dry. 
 

3 Comments:

Blogger DeanLand said...

One of the pleasant features of the Directv satellite service is the ability to program one's remote so that only the channels one wants to see actually appear as one scrolls.

Thus I am able to live almost entirely Fox-free. I do watch the Seinfeld reruns on Fox's local Channel 5 in NYC, and sometimes I watch when the Fox Network carries the baseball game of the week (of course turning down the sound and tuning into the radio if there is coverage of the game audible here in NY).

But otherwise this feature enables me to deFoxify my viewing. This is an appreciated feature.

7/19/2004 5:02 PM  
Blogger Tom Matrullo said...

Hi Dean - my way is somewhat more primitive. I don't watch TV. But getting together last night with 30,000 others, including a few presenting actual atoms in Florida to catch this flick, was fun.

7/19/2004 8:58 PM  
Blogger Steve_Jobs said...

I agree with concerns about Murdock. But considering who owns CNN and MSNBC I have the same concerns regarding their influence on news broadcasting. Quite franky I think they're all guilty of the new "infotainment" which doesn't casually, but in general, ignores the basic teachings of any journalism school in college I've ever seen. The soundbites they all deliver as their standard format, whether during a "commentary" or "controntatin" or supposed actual spot coverage rarely resemble anything of the basic tenents of journalism.

And it's not especially surprising for me to see FOX continually taking potshots at their "opponents" just as the liberal media, or organizations like moveon.org, take potshots at FOX. THEY'RE ALL DISGUSTING. TV MEDIA is in general biased and the "news" is rarely involved in their reportage except on an idirect, sometimes, incidental basis.

I have XM digital satellite radio and flip back and forth between these three all day long trying to find the news (when I'm not tuned into NPR doing the same thing), then I try to sort through the four to find out what the "news" actually is. Disgusting. All four have clear bias. "Swing voters" like me are in that position precisely for these reasons. There are times when I prefer on of these four, but as soon as the spin begins I'm off to another channel.

This article could be cloned on a conservative blog (I play mix and match with those too) in some attempt to obtain honest and timely news information. Or I throw a dart at my dart board and cross my fingers.

7/23/2004 1:10 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home