Ted Turner called FOX an arm of the Bush administration and compared FOXNEWS's popularity to Hitler's popular election to run Germany before WWII.
Turner made the controversial comments in Las Vegas before a standing-room-only crowd at the National Association for Television Programming Executives's opening session.
His no-nonsense, humorous approach during the one-hour Q&A generated frequent loud applause and laughter, BROADCASTING & CABLE reports.
While FOX may be the largest news network [and has overtaken Turner's CNN], it's not the best, Turner said.
He followed up by pointing out that Adolf Hitler got the most votes when he was elected to run Germany prior to WWII. He said the network is the propaganda tool for the Bush Administration.
"There's nothing wrong with that. It's certainly legal. But it does pose problems for our democracy. Particularly when the news is dumbed down," leaving voters without critical information on politics and world events and overloaded with fluff," he said.
A FOXNEWS spokesperson responded: "Ted is understandably bitter having lost his ratings, his network and now his mind -- we wish him well."
In 1996, Turner apologized to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) for comments he made comparing FOX head Rupert Murdoch to Hitler.
Blue Hobgoblin said:but Fox is little more than a Republican propaganda machine.
It seems as if some of those Jane Fonda genes must have migrated to Ted during their romps on the marriage bed.vauge said:Source: Drudge
HighSpeed said:Isn't that the truth.
Yeah, more of that talk really helps the dialogue.aquapub said:Yes, the real fascists (Mussolini, Mao, Stalin, Castro, Hitler, etc.) ALWAYS can be identified by one thing: They all wear liberal labels.. kind of like, Democrat.
SourceFox News Corp Chairman Rupert Murdoch served as vice finance chairman for a Gore fund-raiser in 2000, and contributed $50,000 to the Gore campaign. He also signed off on a deal allowing the Democrats to use the Staples Center for the 2000 Democratic Convention in Los Angeles at no charge. That was worth $10 million.
CorpWatch, a group that monitors corporate influence in campaigns, notes the influence in the Kerry campaign of Ivan Schlager, an attorney for Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. This is a legal firm that represents News Corp. Schlager once worked for Kerry as the Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director to the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. He arranges meetings between industry lobbyists and the candidate.
This year, Peter Chernin, president and chief operating officer of the News Corporation, parent of the Fox Network, is listed as having raised over $50,000 for the Kerry campaign. The Center for Responsive Politics' website, OpenSecrets.org, discloses Chernin contributions not only to Kerry but to Reps. Richard Gephardt and Howard Berman.
If you think Fox is one sided news, you are delusional. You do not speak for all liberals, and there isn't one liberal that I have met in person, or on the net that doesn't hate Fox. Democrats can be more objective, and many of them do watch Fox. This is a free market system. If Fox is as bad as you say, they wouldn't be getting ratings. There were a lot of Democrats that voted for Reagan, so that doesn't mean Murdoch is a Republican.So, Squawker, you will find that most liberals do not HATE Fox News or its owner for being conservative and spreading the conservative viewpoint. We dislike its intentions to misguide viewers who don't know better when they tune in....those who are seeking an unbiased outlet only to be given one-sided news.
aquapub said:Yes, the real fascists (Mussolini, Mao, Stalin, Castro, Hitler, etc.) ALWAYS can be identified by one thing: They all wear liberal labels.. kind of like, Democrat.
Delusional you say? Talk about denial! Prove to us Democrats with FACTS that Fox News Channel is fair & balanced! Go ahead, prove it with FACTS. No BS supposition, no personal belief, plain and simple facts.Squawker said:If you think Fox is one sided news, you are delusional. You do not speak for all liberals, and there isn't one liberal that I have met in person, or on the net that doesn't hate Fox. Democrats can be more objective, and many of them do watch Fox. This is a free market system. If Fox is as bad as you say, they wouldn't be getting ratings. There were a lot of Democrats that voted for Reagan, so that doesn't mean Murdoch is a Republican.
Yes, the real fascists (Mussolini, Mao, Stalin, Castro, Hitler, etc.) ALWAYS can be identified by one thing: They all wear liberal labels.. kind of like, Democrat.
Squawker said:Champ, how could I convice you, of all people of anything? What would you call fair and balanced? Show me where the goal post is.
So you see, this is why people like me believe that FNC is anything but fair and balanced. If I'm wrong please use facts to prove otherwise?Still Failing the "Fair & Balanced" Test
Special Report leans right, white, Republican & male
Extra! July/August 2004
By Steve Rendall and Julie Hollar
FAIR’s latest study of Fox ’s Special Report with Brit Hume finds the network’s flagship news show still listing right—heavily favoring conservative and Republican guests in its one-on-one interviews. And, according to the study, Special Report rarely features women or non-white guests in these prominent newsmaker inter-view spots.
In previous studies FAIR has found that looking at a show’s guest list is one of the most reliable methods for gauging its perspective. In the case of Special Report , the single one-on-one interview with anchor Brit Hume is a central part of the newscast, and the anchor often uses his high-profile guests’ comments as subject matter for the show’s wrap-up panel discussion. If Fox is the “fair & balanced” network it claims to be, then the guest list of what Fox calls its “signature news show” ought to reflect a diverse spectrum of ideas and sources. FAIR has studied Special Report ’s guest list on two earlier occasions (Extra! , 7–8/01, 7–8/02). {snip}
Conservative & Republican
Fifty-seven percent of Special Report ’s one-on-one guests during the period studied were ideological conservatives, 12 percent were centrists and 11 percent were progressives.
Twenty percent of guests were non-ideological. Among ideological guests, conservatives accounted for 72 percent, while centrists made up 15 percent and progressives 14 percent. (The total exceeds 100 percent due to rounding.) Viewers were roughly five times more likely to see a conservative interviewed on Special Report than a progressive.
The five-to-one conservative-to-progressive imbalance is actually a marked improvement from FAIR’s 2002 study, which found that “left-of-center” guests—three percent of the total—were outnumbered 14 to one. In the 2002 study, however, conservative dominance was less marked, at 48 percent of total guests.
Special Report ’s guestlist shows a similarly heavy slant toward Republicans. Forty-two guests were current or former Democratic or Republican officials, candidates, political appointees or advisers. Guests who had past affiliations with both Republicans and Democrats were counted as nonpartisan; for example, Dennis Ross—having served under presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton—was classified as non-partisan.
Of the 42 partisan guests, 35 were Republicans and only seven were Democrats—a five-to-one imbalance. Furthermore, of the handful of Democrats that did appear, the majority were centrist or conservative, and frequently expressed views more typical of Republican guests. For example, centrist Rep. Jim Marshall (10/23/03) argued that the media weren’t covering the “good news” in Iraq, while Sen. Zell Miller (11/4/03) talked about his dissatisfaction with the Democratic party and his fondness for George Bush. Thirty-four of the 35 Republicans who appeared were conservatives; only one, Noah Feldman, was classified as a centrist.
The five-to-one partisan imbalance represents a greater slant than FAIR’s 2002 study, which found Republicans outnumbering Democrats by three to two, though it is still better than FAIR’s 2001 study, which found Special Report ’s guest list favoring Republicans by more than eight to one (50 vs. 6). After the 2001 study, the show’s anchor, Fox managing editor Brit Hume, told the New York Times (7/2/01) that, though he had yet to read the findings, “if it is a reasonable question, and we find that there is some imbalance, then we’ll correct it.”
Prove it please. Making brash attacks without proof discredits your post.UConn/SMU said:Fox is closer to the "center" than CNN, CBS, NBC, or ABC.
99% of CNN's staff would rather live in Greenwich Village than a suburb in flyover country.
It was for a movie -- left wing, propaganda fiction. Movies are not reality.This study was commissioned for the film Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism by Robert Greenwald.
26 X World Champs said:Prove it please. Making brash attacks without proof discredits your post.
:2wave: I'm a liberal and I don't hate Fox. I disagree with their attempts to misrepresent themselves as "fair and balanced", but I'm not seeking to get them off the air.Squawker said:If you think Fox is one sided news, you are delusional. You do not speak for all liberals, and there isn't one liberal that I have met in person, or on the net that doesn't hate Fox.
High ratings don't make for "fair and balanced news". Entertaining, maybe.Squawker said:Democrats can be more objective, and many of them do watch Fox. This is a free market system. If Fox is as bad as you say, they wouldn't be getting ratings.
Murdock is neither a Democrat nor a Republican. Actually he is not a voter at all. He's Austrailian.Squawker said:There were a lot of Democrats that voted for Reagan, so that doesn't mean Murdoch is a Republican.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?