Media Thread

http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/31/media/fox-news-employees-russia-mueller-coverage/index.html

'I want to quit': Fox News employees say their network's Russia coverage was 'an embarrassment

Some employees at Fox News were left embarrassed and humiliated by their network's coverage of the latest revelations in special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian election meddling, according to conversations CNN had with several individuals placed throughout the network.

"I'm watching now and screaming," one Fox News personality said in a text message to CNN as the person watched their network's coverage. "I want to quit."

"It is another blow to journalists at Fox who come in every day wanting to cover the news in a fair and objective way," one senior Fox News employee told CNN of their outlet's coverage, adding that there were "many eye rolls" in the newsroom over how the news was covered.

The person said, "Fox feels like an extension of the Trump White House."

The employees spoke to CNN on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly on the matter. A Fox News spokesperson told CNN the network covered the breaking news accurately and fairly across both news and opinion programming. :lol:

On Monday, it was revealed that President Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manafort and another associate Rick Gates had been indicted by a grand jury on 12 counts, including conspiracy against the United States. Unsealed court records also revealed that another Trump associate, George Papadopoulos, had pleaded guilty to making a false statement to the FBI weeks ago.

The revelations jolted through the news media, and Fox News -- the highest rated network in the country -- did cover it as its top story. But in contrast with CNN and MSNBC, which aired non-stop rolling coverage throughout the day, Fox News found plenty of time to cover other topics, like the NFL protests, North Korea, and tax reform.

Additionally, Fox News aired segments that questioned Mueller's credibility and many were framed around how Trump and his allies were responding to the news. On Fox News' homepage, the lead story at one point was focused on Trump slamming the indictment. Another lead story cited Manafort's lawyer, and asked, "Mueller's 'ridiculous' claims?"

"This kind of coverage does the viewer a huge disservice and further divides the country," one Fox News personality told CNN.

Fox News journalists took significant issue with their network's opinion hosts, who deflected from the news and, in Sean Hannity's case, characterized Mueller's investigation as a "witch hunt," a term Trump used on Sunday in a angry tweet to describe the probe.

"That segment on Outnumbered [questioning Mueller's integrity] was absurd and deserves all the scorn it can get," a Fox News employee told CNN, referring to the network's noontime talk show.

The person added that it was "laughable seeing Hannity and [Laura] Ingraham," two Fox News opinion hosts who are openly supportive of Trump, "tripping over themselves saying [Mueller's team has] found nothing thus far."

"It's an embarrassment," another Fox News employee echoed to CNN. "Frankly, there are shows on our network that are backing the President at all costs, and it's that short term strategy that undermines the good work being done by others."

This story has been updated to include comment from a Fox News spokesperson.
 
MrMarcello said:
http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/31/media/fox-news-employees-russia-mueller-coverage/index.html

'I want to quit': Fox News employees say their network's Russia coverage was 'an embarrassment

Some employees at Fox News were left embarrassed and humiliated by their network's coverage of the latest revelations in special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian election meddling, according to conversations CNN had with several individuals placed throughout the network.

"I'm watching now and screaming," one Fox News personality said in a text message to CNN as the person watched their network's coverage. "I want to quit."

"It is another blow to journalists at Fox who come in every day wanting to cover the news in a fair and objective way," one senior Fox News employee told CNN of their outlet's coverage, adding that there were "many eye rolls" in the newsroom over how the news was covered.

The person said, "Fox feels like an extension of the Trump White House."

The employees spoke to CNN on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly on the matter. A Fox News spokesperson told CNN the network covered the breaking news accurately and fairly across both news and opinion programming. :lol:

On Monday, it was revealed that President Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manafort and another associate Rick Gates had been indicted by a grand jury on 12 counts, including conspiracy against the United States. Unsealed court records also revealed that another Trump associate, George Papadopoulos, had pleaded guilty to making a false statement to the FBI weeks ago.

The revelations jolted through the news media, and Fox News -- the highest rated network in the country -- did cover it as its top story. But in contrast with CNN and MSNBC, which aired non-stop rolling coverage throughout the day, Fox News found plenty of time to cover other topics, like the NFL protests, North Korea, and tax reform.

Additionally, Fox News aired segments that questioned Mueller's credibility and many were framed around how Trump and his allies were responding to the news. On Fox News' homepage, the lead story at one point was focused on Trump slamming the indictment. Another lead story cited Manafort's lawyer, and asked, "Mueller's 'ridiculous' claims?"

"This kind of coverage does the viewer a huge disservice and further divides the country," one Fox News personality told CNN.

Fox News journalists took significant issue with their network's opinion hosts, who deflected from the news and, in Sean Hannity's case, characterized Mueller's investigation as a "witch hunt," a term Trump used on Sunday in a angry tweet to describe the probe.

"That segment on Outnumbered [questioning Mueller's integrity] was absurd and deserves all the scorn it can get," a Fox News employee told CNN, referring to the network's noontime talk show.

The person added that it was "laughable seeing Hannity and [Laura] Ingraham," two Fox News opinion hosts who are openly supportive of Trump, "tripping over themselves saying [Mueller's team has] found nothing thus far."

"It's an embarrassment," another Fox News employee echoed to CNN. "Frankly, there are shows on our network that are backing the President at all costs, and it's that short term strategy that undermines the good work being done by others."

This story has been updated to include comment from a Fox News spokesperson.
Click to expand...
Both CNN and Fox are birds of the same feather imo, just on different sides of the divide.

Both extremely biased to the point whereby it negates most of their reporting, each trying to outdo the other in defending their own stance.
 
K2K said:
Both CNN and Fox are birds of the same feather imo, just on different sides of the divide.

Both extremely biased to the point whereby it negates most of their reporting, each trying to outdo the other in defending their own stance.
Click to expand...

So CNN is a staunch left wing channel?
 
K2K said:
Both CNN and Fox are birds of the same feather imo, just on different sides of the divide.

Both extremely biased to the point whereby it negates most of their reporting, each trying to outdo the other in defending their own stance.
Click to expand...

CNN are fairly middle of the road.
 
K2K said:
Both CNN and Fox are birds of the same feather imo, just on different sides of the divide.

Both extremely biased to the point whereby it negates most of their reporting, each trying to outdo the other in defending their own stance.
Click to expand...

Only brainwashed Americans who can't think for themselves and depend on TV to get their news think that.
 
K2K said:
Both CNN and Fox are birds of the same feather imo, just on different sides of the divide.

Both extremely biased to the point whereby it negates most of their reporting, each trying to outdo the other in defending their own stance.
Click to expand...
I think you're mixing up CNN with msnbc. I refuse to watch Msnbc as it's literally fox news in the other direction. As much as the President would like to push the opposite, CNN is as balanced as it can get with the major news networks.
 
Raoul said:
Manafort's daughter apparently had her cell convos hacked

https://www.yahoo.com/news/paul-manafort-apos-daughter-texted-174134840.html
Click to expand...

That reads like it might well have been the daughter who leaked that. Good to see that he has the full support of his loved ones though :D

K2K said:
Both CNN and Fox are birds of the same feather imo, just on different sides of the divide.

Both extremely biased to the point whereby it negates most of their reporting, each trying to outdo the other in defending their own stance.
Click to expand...

Il Prete Rosso said:
Only brainwashed Americans who can't think for themselves and depend on TV to get their news think that.
Click to expand...

Agreed. One is purposeful misinformation, the other just a bit obnoxious (CNN). False equivalency if there ever was one.
 
If I was to put the channels on a scale of left to right it would be something like this. Fox is incredibly right and unabashed about it bar their fair and balanced BS. Some balanced shows on MSNBC but too many far left shows. CNN not quite in the middle. Fact is, the current GOP isn't really right wing more like they are batshit crazy so any sane person would be viewed as against them.
Left----MSNBC-----------CNN---------------------------Fox-Right
 
Otero-Chart.jpg
 
In which world does Fox News 'Meet High Standards' ? How does this person know what all local Newspapers and TV News are like? Don't really agree with graphs like that because the left/right thing isn't quantifiable. Being 'left' isn't opposite to being on the 'right'.

I don't care for MSNBC or HUFFPost but they don't go out of their way to deceive their viewers/readers (From my limited exposure to them).
 
Il Prete Rosso said:
Only brainwashed Americans who can't think for themselves and depend on TV to get their news think that.
Click to expand...
Do you desperately lack in emotional maturity that you need to throw around insults instead of just making your opinion like a mature adult would?

Nothing I said should have triggered your outburst.

Is it so difficult to have different viewpoints without resorting to insults?
 
K2K said:
I disagree.

Maybe I am underestimating the rightwingness of Fox(dont watch it enough), but CNN are certainly not middleground.

For me the level of impartiality I am talking about is BBC level. Give the news, not your opinion. CNN doesnt do that.
Click to expand...

Neither does the BBC.
 
K2K said:
I disagree.

Maybe I am underestimating the rightwingness of Fox(dont watch it enough), but CNN are certainly not middleground.

For me the level of impartiality I am talking about is BBC level. Give the news, not your opinion. CNN doesnt do that.
Click to expand...

They do give news all day. They are simply contextualizing it based on journalistic norms and giving a pretty broad swath of pundits from both parties a chance to contribute to the debate. The format of simply reciting facts is generally a thing of the past at the present, as it doesn't engage audiences anymore. News today has to have a bit of contextuality and entertainment value in order to compete with rival networks.
 
Jon Stewart called them out a long time ago. CNN has long move away from just reporting news. They are now in the business of manufacturing consensus. It is great for ratings, but sets the bar low for quality journalism or just letting the viewer make up their mind.
 
Raoul said:
They do give news all day. They are simply contextualizing it based on journalistic norms and giving a pretty broad swath of pundits from both parties a chance to contribute to the debate. The format of simply reciting facts is generally a thing of the past at the present, as it doesn't engage audiences anymore. News today has to have a bit of contextuality and entertainment value in order to compete with rival networks.
Click to expand...
That's one thing I don't like.

And it's not necessarily because they are saying things I disagree with. But I hate to be led to an opinion.

I will read an opinion piece on some thing I don't necessarily agree with for example. But you expect opinions in that(not the news). I just want my news neutral.
 
K2K said:
That's one thing I don't like.

And it's not necessarily because they are saying things I disagree with. But I hate to be led to an opinion.

I will read an opinion piece on some thing I don't necessarily agree with for example. But you expect opinions in that(not the news). I just want my news neutral.
Click to expand...

When I said entertainment, I was generally talking about their other shows - Anthony Bourdain, United Shades of America, the Wonderlist, Declassified etc. They have 30 minute original programs that are entertainment based and have nothing to do with news.

As for their actual news shows, there's no such thing as complete objectivity so you're always going to be led a bit here and there. CNN are far better than fox in terms of adhering to journalistic standards. They've been fantastic in standing their ground against Trump, which is imo as good as it gets in journalism these days. Contrast that with the BBC or PBS who simply report what Trump said and allow him to get away with his BS without properly contextualizing or fact checking it.
 
MrMarcello said:
Otero-Chart.jpg
Click to expand...

The most objective indicator of media bias is the background of the journalists employed by various media organisations. By that measure the impartiality and high standards attributed to newspapers like the NYT and the Washington Post, and to electronic news media like abc, in that chart, is a joke. These organisations are full of ex-Democratic party staffers. There's a kind of revolving door with personnel going both ways, from the ranks of the Democratic party to the mainstream liberal media and back in the other direction.

To claim that newspapers like the Times and Post, whose front pages for the last 12 months have hardly for a single day been free of hostile blasts against Trump, his administration, and the Republican Party, are objective analysts of US politics is quite laughable.

As for CNN, any news organisation which prostitutes itself during a national election by violating the ethics of its role as a debate host, and leaking details of questions to the Democratic campaign, has lost all claim to integrity.
 
Raoul said:
When I said entertainment, I was generally talking about their other shows - Anthony Bourdain, United Shades of America, the Wonderlist, Declassified etc. They have 30 minute original programs that are entertainment based and have nothing to do with news.

As for their actual news shows, there's no such thing as complete objectivity so you're always going to be led a bit here and there. CNN are far better than fox in terms of adhering to journalistic standards. They've been fantastic in standing their ground against Trump, which is imo as good as it gets in journalism these days. Contrast that with the BBC or PBS who simply report what Trump said and allow him to get away with his BS without properly contextualizing or fact checking it.
Click to expand...

They have merely dumbed down the news coverage to encash on the public outrage towards the current president. I wouldn't necessarily call it fantastic, if anything it is lazy journalism and nothing more.
 
Will Absolute said:
The most objective indicator of media bias is the background of the journalists employed by various media organisations. By that measure the impartiality and high standards attributed to newspapers like the NYT and the Washington Post, and to electronic news media like abc, in that chart, is a joke. These organisations are full of ex-Democratic party staffers. There's a kind of revolving door with personnel going both ways, from the ranks of the Democratic party to the mainstream liberal media and back in the other direction.

To claim that newspapers like the Times and Post, whose front pages for the last 12 months have hardly for a single day been free of hostile blasts against Trump, his administration, and the Republican Party, are objective analysts of US politics is quite laughable.

As for CNN, any news organisation which prostitutes itself during a national election by violating the ethics of its role as a debate host, and leaking details of questions to the Democratic campaign, has lost all claim to integrity.
Click to expand...

By extending the same logic, an impartial review from you on the bias of news outlet, who is right aligned is quite laughable as well, no?
 
K2K said:
Do you desperately lack in emotional maturity that you need to throw around insults instead of just making your opinion like a mature adult would?

Nothing I said should have triggered your outburst.

Is it so difficult to have different viewpoints without resorting to insults?
Click to expand...

It was hardly an outburst and I wasn't even remotely insulting. I'm of the opinion that the media in America has contributed to a serious lack of thought, ideas and intelligence in addition to not holding elected officials accountable for their actions. For example...over the past 7 to 8 years a certain group of people managed to convince another (brainwashed) group of people that Barack Obama tried creating some sort of Bolshevik plot to get them affordable healthcare. They didn't really care about the facts so certain people in the media who refused to hold elected officials accountable, continued reporting consistent lies. The outcome: Many people actually believed these lies. Fast forward to 2017 and you'd see these same group of people crying over the same healthcare they didn't want. My point is this..I've seen CNN news anchors question blatant lies reported by elected officials in the US. I don't think I can recall seeing that of Fox News. I know CNN isn't a bed of roses but the idea that there's an equivalence between the two is just plain untrue. I don't think anyone (if being true to themselves) would believe that.
 
ravi2 said:
There are way more brainwashed people than you think out there
Click to expand...

I knew nothing about that Hillary uranium deal. I researched it and realized, hey, there's nothing there really. I didn't depend on CNN, FOX, ABC, MSNBC or anyone to make that decision for me in determining if it was horrible or not. Was she involved...yes. Was it illegal or deserves investigation...no. I went to college in the US and trust me, even college students are being dumbed-down by the media.
 
Will Absolute said:
The most objective indicator of media bias is the background of the journalists employed by various media organisations. By that measure the impartiality and high standards attributed to newspapers like the NYT and the Washington Post, and to electronic news media like abc, in that chart, is a joke. These organisations are full of ex-Democratic party staffers. There's a kind of revolving door with personnel going both ways, from the ranks of the Democratic party to the mainstream liberal media and back in the other direction.

To claim that newspapers like the Times and Post, whose front pages for the last 12 months have hardly for a single day been free of hostile blasts against Trump, his administration, and the Republican Party, are objective analysts of US politics is quite laughable.

As for CNN, any news organisation which prostitutes itself during a national election by violating the ethics of its role as a debate host, and leaking details of questions to the Democratic campaign, has lost all claim to integrity.
Click to expand...

CNN is great. Been watching them for 35 years and they haven't changed much during that time. They've always been pretty much straight down the middle - and have always attempted to get both sides of issues on their shows since the beginning. Anyone who watched shows like Crossfire and Evans & Novak over the years knows this.

In the Trump era, they are once again dead on target with their reporting, which is to investigate one of the most deceitful politicians in history who has demonstrated mildly fascistic tendencies and is a threat to the fundamental ethics and norms that underpin American law, as well as the global order at large. Their investigative reporting about Trump related issues behind the scenes has been proven correct time after time and frankly its important for any organization (or person) who values secular, liberal, freedom of speech/press type values to get behind CNN and other organizations who are standing up to Trump's authoritarian ways.
 
Last edited:
K2K said:
I stand corrected but they seem largely impartial to me.
Click to expand...

It all depends on where you are standing yourself, as to whether they are impartial.

The BBC has like many other outlets that have moved to try to give 24/7 coverage of the News, indulged itself and 'gorged on' ratings, it now tends to respond, slightly left of centre, or with anything that gets up the Governments nose!
 
Will Absolute said:
The most objective indicator of media bias is the background of the journalists employed by various media organisations. By that measure the impartiality and high standards attributed to newspapers like the NYT and the Washington Post, and to electronic news media like abc, in that chart, is a joke. These organisations are full of ex-Democratic party staffers. There's a kind of revolving door with personnel going both ways, from the ranks of the Democratic party to the mainstream liberal media and back in the other direction.
Click to expand...

Off the top of my head, the editorial staff of the NYT is:
Ross Douthat, conservative Christian and Republican
Bret Stephens, conservative Christian, Republican, neocon, climate change denier
Thomas Friedman, centrist, pro-Israel/interventionist hawk, world-class idiot
David Brooks, centrist, mind-blowing idiot
Paul Krugman, (now) mainstream Dem
Nicholas Kristof, centre-left Dem
Charles Blow, leftist Dem (?, I'm not sure)


The defining issue of the past decade has been the Iraq war. Not just did the Times support Republican Bush and the centre/right of the Dem party in promoting the war, its reporting (Judith Miller) helped build the fraudulent case for the war. The only NYT voice constantly opposing the war was Pat Buchanan, the anti-semitic Christian preacher and politician. It's fair to say Pat Buchanan didn't represent the significant anti-war sentiment in the US in 2003.
Also tellingly, none of their regulars endorsed Bernie Sanders, and those who didn't endorse Hillary were all backers of Rubio-style Republicans.

I think your thesis is largely true - it is the voice of mainstream liberals, who are in line with the mainstream Democratic party. Not just are there mainstream Dems columnists, a good number of the unsigned editorials reflect that position as well. But it is interesting where they will and won't allow deviations from the norm. Homophobia is ok by a sincere Christian; the Times vigorously promoted Rod Dreher and his proposal to retreat to medieval times. Climate change denial is ok even from laymen. Advocating war is not just ok, the more the merrier. Ted Cruz and Rand Paul and the rest of their party is ok. But Trump is not ok. Anything to the left of the Democratic nominee isn't ok either.

So it is the voice of the party in another significant way - the Times is more comfortable debating/talking/negotiating with the conservative-but-polite GOP (it gives them plenty of space) rather than the left-wing of 'their side' or with right-populism.

Edit: the hiring of Bret Stephens is instructive. After Trump, the Times decided that it had misread the country and needed more right-wing writers.
So it went for the populist, Bannon-style right? No. It went and added a Douthat clone in Stephens. Stephens was a vigorous opponent of Trump taking over and vulgarising his party. His chosen candidates were smashed into dust by Trump's popularity. How on earth do you understand Trump's rise by hiring another elite conservative Christian?
 
Will Absolute said:
The most objective indicator of media bias is the background of the journalists employed by various media organisations. By that measure the impartiality and high standards attributed to newspapers like the NYT and the Washington Post, and to electronic news media like abc, in that chart, is a joke. These organisations are full of ex-Democratic party staffers. There's a kind of revolving door with personnel going both ways, from the ranks of the Democratic party to the mainstream liberal media and back in the other direction.

To claim that newspapers like the Times and Post, whose front pages for the last 12 months have hardly for a single day been free of hostile blasts against Trump, his administration, and the Republican Party, are objective analysts of US politics is quite laughable.

As for CNN, any news organisation which prostitutes itself during a national election by violating the ethics of its role as a debate host, and leaking details of questions to the Democratic campaign, has lost all claim to integrity.
Click to expand...

The notion that CNN is doing a great job "fact checking" or even "calling out the prez on his BS" is laughable. Especially, when they were complicit in giving trump lots of airtime during the early stages of his campaign. If anything, they are merely furthering the narrative that they themselves laid down not so long ago.
 
Raoul said:
CNN is great. Been watching them for 35 years and they haven't changed much during that time. They've always been pretty much straight down the middle - and have always attempted to get both sides of issues on their shows since the beginning. Anyone who watched shows like Crossfire and Evans & Novak over the years knows this.

In the Trump era, they are once again dead on target with their reporting, which is to investigate one of the most deceitful politicians in history who has demonstrated mildly fascistic tendencies and is a threat to the fundamental ethics and norms that underpin American law, as well as the global order at large. Their investigative reporting about Trump related issues behind the scenes has been proven correct time after time and frankly its important for any organization (or person) who values secular, liberal, freedom of speech/press type values to get behind CNN and other organizations who are standing up to Trump's authoritarian ways.
Click to expand...

Such a value judgement is fine; you, and they, are free to make it. But Donald Trump is the elected president of the United States, and that judgement, and the actions it prompts, puts CNN to the left of the American mainstream, which is not 'straight down the middle'.

When a news outlet intends, by fair means or foul, to overthrow the result of a democratic election, it ceases to be a fair and impartial voice, and itself becomes a danger to democracy.
 
Last edited:
Will Absolute said:
Such a value judgement is fine; you, and they, are free to make it. But Donald Trump is the elected president of the United States, and that judgement, and the actions it prompts, puts CNN to the left of the American mainstream, which is not 'straight down the middle'.

When a new outlets intends, by fair means or foul, to overthrow the result of a democratic election, it ceases to be a fair and impartial voice, and itself becomes a danger to democracy.
Click to expand...

That's not what they are doing and anyone who understands the nuances of what is going on knows this.

They are simply doing ordinary journalism against a backdrop of extraordinary circumstances involving a highly deceitful individual . Any news organization that doesn't do what CNN and MSNBC have been doing is failing the public in its role as the fourth estate that is supposed to hold those in power accountable.
 
Raoul said:
That's not what they are doing and anyone who understands the nuances of what is going on knows this.

They are simply doing ordinary journalism against a backdrop of extraordinary circumstances involving a highly deceitful individual . Any news organization that doesn't do what CNN and MSNBC have been doing is failing the public in its role as the fourth estate that is supposed to hold those in power accountable.
Click to expand...

You could have waited to quote me until I had corrected 'new outlets'. :mad:

For what it's worth, I think the truth lies somewhere between your view and mine.

(In partisan debate nuance often goes by the board :smirk:)
 
Will Absolute said:
You could have waited to quote me until I had corrected 'new outlets'. :mad:

For what it's worth, I think the truth lies somewhere between your view and mine.

(In partisan debate nuance often goes by the board :smirk:)
Click to expand...

Do you consider your political views to be right of center ?
 
Raoul said:
Do you consider your political views to be right of center ?
Click to expand...

That's a surprisingly hard question to answer, but I suppose my instincts are mostly conservative, with a strong admixture of realism. I like to see what's there. Dogma is a poor guide to a complicated world.

I don't have many stereotypical opinions of left or right. If my views have any virtue, it's their modest originality. However radical or outrageous, they're all mine.
 
Raoul said:
This graphic has been doing the rounds for some time. Agree with the middle of the road outlets listed there, but some of the more fringe ones are questionable.
Click to expand...

There are multiple versions of it as well. I simply grabbed the one I saw that represented multiple outlets. There are some that only have a few outlets.

Then there's a graph like this.

pbox.php
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.