For the Sake of Free Speech, Censor Fox

That's the argument of Julian Petley, chairman of the ironically titled Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom in the UK:

I'm not in favour of censorship,
but Murdoch would like to do with British television news what he has done
with newspapers, which is to force people to compete on his own terms.

So if we allow into Britain the kind of journalism represented by Fox, that
would bring about a form of censorship.

Comments

[Sean]

Murdoch had a failed attempted to buy controlling interest in Manchester United a while back (shot down by Britain's version of the FTC). He currently owns %10 of this franchise, I'm sure this has the Brits more worried. Priorities, gentlemen, priorities.

[Stel]

AGGGHHHH... My head hurts from just thinking of the phrase "for the sake of free speech, censor fox". I looked in here for a good explanation to this phrase. But no, alas there is no good explanation as to WHY someone would be in favor of censorship, in the name of preventing censorship. Where's my damn asprin at, its gonna be a long day when I start it out reading something like this.

[Mr. Stinker]

"But no, alas there is no good explanation as to WHY someone would be in favor of censorship, in the name of preventing censorship."

It is nonsensical. It is a shameful dodge by those who favor censorship but dishonestly cloak it in deception.

My position is simple: All media is created by human beings and is naturally biased. Saying CNN or State TV (NPR, BBC) is "less biased" than Fox is crap. Don't like Fox? Don't watch it. But stealing this choice from others in the name of "preventing censorship" is totalitarian bullshit.

[Stel]

My heads still hurting, but I just can't drop this one for many reasons. One, I think Fox gets waayy too much critisizm for being right-wing. What is wrong with that? They allow both sides of the story. I personally don't agree with a lot of the commentary I hear from the likes of O'Reily or Hannity (and Colmes). But do we really want news shows with just facts?? I personally find it informative to find out what reporters think of a situation. How can anyone possibly feel secure about their own opinions if they don't hear and contemplate oposing views?? At times I think a good friend of mine has it right when he says "most people are just content with being lemmings"... (actually the only segments on Fox I really like are when Gretta has her legal team together discussing a case, that can be informative/entertaining)

[Mr. Stinker]

The ONLY libertarians I havesee on TV, including editors of Reason, are on Fox News. Yeah O'Reilly disagrees with them on dope, etc but they get a forum. As do commies and every one in between. It isn't like they hide their bias either. I find it very dishonest when the liberal media claims to be "unbiased." (But I don't think the Govt should censor them either).

[Sven]

I can't think of any reasonable wingnut talking about censoring CNN or NY Times.

No cognitive dissonance there.

[Matt W.]

I would think more who read Reason would support the existence of Fox, it may be conservatively partisan, but then again they seem rather open about that. Fox is partisan, but then again so are almost all other news networks, don't kid me and say they are balanced, because they have been reporting in bias of the left for decades. Even if it isn't the type of network libertarians would want, it at least offers an alternative political standpoint than the rest of the media, and thus a wider market. And not to sing its praises or anything, but when I read their opinion pieces on Fox's website, they usually have a strong free market view. But as far as that fool Petley is concerned, he seems most interested in maintaining a monopoly on information through the BBC, and the fact they are unwilling to face competition suggest how biased they really are.

[Sven]

But do we really want news shows with just facts??

Or there.

[Mr. Stinker]

"No cognitive dissonance there."

Still waiting for a cited reference proving me wrong...

[Sven]

Cited reference? How about "reasonable wingnuts," posted by Mr. Stinker at May 8, 2003 11:54 AM.

[Billy Oblivion]

This was reported in the *GUARDIAN* people.

THE FSCKING GUARDIAN.

Now *THERE* is an unbiased source.

[Mr. Stinker]

Dear Billy, here he says much the same:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1972519.stm

Here are their positions from their own mouths:
http://www.cpbf.org.uk/

[Sir Real]

Brit's aren't an unsophisticated people- they have a paper for every flavor of political thought (Guardian-Independent-Times-Telegraph), and manage to purchase the one that reinforces their prejudices the best- some read two or three... (that's a lot of prejudice, but I digress..)

Which is why I'm bumfuzzled at Mr. Petley's remarks- unless Mr. Petley isn't talking about content, but MONOPOLISTIC competition. Were he to be making some sort of argument against media consolidation or "vertical intergration" (a'la Clear Channel) it would make some sense- but as it is- WTF?

Of course, that would open up state-run media to charges of monopoly, but that's another can of worms.

[Brad S]

Mark S - you're exactly right. Any news source is by definition biased merely by what it defines as "newsworthy" to begin with. The whole point of freedom is that we can choose for ourselves who we want to believe. Just as there should be a free market for goods and services, there should also be a free market for ideas. CNN, MSNBC, Fox, et al are nothing more than part and parcel to this phenomenon.

[Brian]

"The ONLY libertarians I havesee on TV, including editors of Reason, are on Fox News. "

To be fair, Donnahue had (libertarian talkshow host) Neal Boortz on his MSNBC show a couple of times. Sure, they advertised him as an "Angry White Man", but at least he was there. And since O'Reily called him (Boortz) a "vicious son of a bitch" on the air last night, you probably won't see him on Fox again.

Or maybe you will, because it's all about getting people to watch.

Fox isn't driven by ideology...it has filled a gaping hole in the market for conservatively slanted news. Just like what Limbaugh did with talk radio. Murdoch would broadcast old Soviet propaganda films if that's what his market research said would make him more money.

[Sven]

Fox News isn't conservative as much as it is jingoistic, simpleminded (not that CNN et al, are bastions of intelligence, either) and most importantly, entertaining. Likewise, the Murdochization of media isn't about ideology as much as it is about dumbing down discourse.

That still doesn't justify Petley's censorship crusade. Stupidity is not a crime.

[Warren]

Brian,
Boortz is not the best spokesman for libertarianism in my eyes. Mostly because of his lovefest with Isreal.

I like John Stossel better. He works foooor ... Oh yeah ABC

[Madog]

The big new fear of leftists is that Corporate Media will initiate the sort of propaganda the counter-culture of the 60s was afraid the government would do. When you try to shift your target from government to a private organization you're bound to say some screwy things...

[Brian]

Warren-totally agree on Boortz...but he's a hell of a lot more libertarian than most other nationally syndicated talk-show hosts (Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage...ugh!) I'm a libertarian in no small part because of listening to Boortz through high school and college in Atlanta.

Stossel is awesome, though. I'd love it if someone gave him a show. Maybe MSNBC will headhunt him in their attempt to compete with Fox.

[Mike E]

Remember, it has recently been published in a Pew Research Center poll that 49% of Fox watchers are Democrats. Rush Limbaugh's numbers are also bolstered by a large minority of leftists and liberals. Why?

Well, where else are they going to get intellectual stimulation absent worn -out, class warfare rhetorical flourishes espoused by the Left? Even they are tiring of 30 -plus years of this garbage.

[Sean]

Brian or anybody,

I turned to fox just as O'Reilly was calling him a vicous son-of-a-bitch, but didn't catch exactly why? A little help.

[Brian]

I missed it myself (quit watching O'Reily a while ago) but Boortz's account is on his webpage at:

http://www.boortz.com/nealznuz.htm

[Brad S]

The instant one tries to censor one's adversary is the same instant that one knows that he has been defeated in open discourse and has no other alternative than to admit defeat or silence the problematic (and superior) opponent.

[Steve]

I'm havin' a little trouble following the logic here. someone elighten me?

[Mr. Stinker]

"I'm havin' a little trouble following the logic here. someone elighten me?"

Classic Leftist doublethink. The Left supports censorship to prevent censorship. Fox News is rightwing, rightwingers support censorship, therefor we must censor the rightwingers. Disgusting!

[Ig]

Huh......?!

[Sven]

Yeah. Those crazy leftists and their moral relativism. They should shut the hell up.

[JDM]

Sven,

Good point. They should.

[Croesus]

I've heard similar arguments by some on the right on why CNN, the NY Times, etc. should be censored. Censorship is hardly a monopoly of the left.

[Brad S]

Censored - no. Taken with a grain of salt due to their not-so-hidden agendas - yes.

[Steve]

Anyone who watches, reads or listens to a news story and DOESN'T take it with a grain of salt, regardless of the source, is a fool.

News is a BUSINESS. Needs to sell a PRODUCT to make a PROFIT. The more "interesting" the story can be made, the more people will watch.

Duh.

[Mr. Stinker]

"I've heard similar arguments by some on the right on why CNN, the NY Times, etc. should be censored."

Please cite a reference, as this smells fishy.

True the Left doesn't have a monopoly on censorship, but the Right's wrath tends to be porn, violent content, etc. (which is also a target of the Left, e.g. Tipper & Al Gore).

I can't think of any reasonable wingnut talking about censoring CNN or NY Times. They bash the hell out of the content (which is their right). Meanwhile the Left advocates State control of the media (ie protecting the BBC monopoly).

[trainwreck]

Donald Rumsfeld on believing the news:

"You're going to be told lots of things, you get told things every day that don't happen. It doesn't seem to bother people they don't--it's printed in the press. The world thinks these things happen. They never happened. Everyone's so eager to get the story before in fact the story's there that the world is constantly being fed things that haven't happened. All I can tell you is, it hasn't happened. It's going to happen."

[Dylan]

"Or ...am I so sane that I just blew your mind?!" - Cosmo Kramer

[Sean]

A statement that starts with, "I'm not in favour of censorship, but" has the exact same ring as, "I'm not a racist, but." It's a simplistic attempt to defend what follows, by having given a disclaimer before. It's childish, but for some reason, it is sometimes effective.

"Mr. Petley, what you're suggesting is tantamount to censorship."

Mr. P: But of course not, did you not hear my first sentence, I'm NOT in favour of censorship.

"Oh, I see. In that case, your argument for censorship is that much more effective, since you are not for censorship. Carry on."

[Bill]

The Brits are leery of Murdoch for pretty good reasons. His papers are shamelessly one-sided and propagandic in tone and make the National Enquirer look like a serious publication. Murdoch is about as responsible a publisher as Larry Flynt, and if you thought our Larry was about to buy the New York Times or Washington Post - wouldn't you worry?

[Brad S]

Rumsfeld kicks ass. It's nice to see a man's man in Washington for a change.

[Mr. Stinker]

" if you thought our Larry was about to buy the New York Times or Washington Post - wouldn't you worry?"

Nope, it would be an improvement.

[joe]

"News is a BUSINESS. Needs to sell a PRODUCT to make a PROFIT. The more "interesting" the story can be made, the more people will watch."

But Steve, Faux doesn't just sensationalize stories. It also takes some stories that have aroused public interest or that could be sensationalized, and plays them down or makes them seem less interesting or important than the public they're selling to believes. And they do these things with a distinct bias, based on their partisan usefulness. I don't ever see this happening on CNN, NPR, or Jim Lehrer. This is much more sinister than the idiotic "Is your _____ killing your children?" stories that appear on the local news.

[Mr. Stinker]

" I don't ever see this happening on CNN, NPR, or Jim Lehrer."

Bullshit

[Jag]

Here's a Brit leftist in the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,950613,00.html), giving advice to Tony Blair:

"Stand up to the rightwing press. Ridicule it and those who read it. Confront the enemy, expose it for the paper tiger it is. Refuse to be intimidated. Laugh at the Mail and deny the Sun and its owner any further media gains. Show who is the master now; bring in laws to limit media ownership concentration."

See. Economic liberty is directly linked to personal and political liberty. And the left knows this. They know they can use economic regulation to stifle free thought. And it can be done now, in Britain. "Show who is the master now." Scary.

[L. Weel]

Pegging a particular ethnic group as being in the habit of stealing hubcaps is definitely NOT Bill O'Reilly's style.

I've listened to him long enough to know that Bill (who's lived in almost every country) looks THROUGH the packaging and goes for a person's inner character instead.

Kneel Boor (excuse me) Boortz was fishing for reasons and was hitting below the belt, the way he usually does.

[Micha Ghertner]

"Pegging a particular ethnic group as being in the habit of stealing hubcaps is definitely NOT Bill O'Reilly's style."

Yet he did say it. I can't find the original news story which I saw a few weeks ago, but from Boortz' website:

There was a group of young black children called The Best Men who were supposed to perform on stage. When the time came for their act they were nowhere to be found. O?Reilly is reported to have said ?Does anyone know where the Best Men are? I hope they?re not in the parking lot stealing our hubcaps.? Oops.

http://www.boortz.com/may8-03.htm

[Micha Ghertner]

After searching on google, I found the link to the original story:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A27484-2003Apr15&notFound=true

[Croesus]

Murdoch journalism is 19th century journalism. What used to be called "yellow journailsim" as I recall.

[Mr. Stinker]

It seems to me that the same people who hate Fox also hate hillbillies, NASCAR and professional wrestling. In other words, snooty city folk who like to demean country folk as uneducated bumkins to make themselves feel better. These dingbats are the same drones who think they are smart cause they watch West Wing.

Mr. Stinker, not a hillbilly

[Phil]

"I've listened to him long enough to know that Bill (who's lived in almost every country) . . ."

Oh, he has not, either, so stop it. There are nearly 170 United Nations member countries, and I'm quite certain that Bill O'Reilly has never stepped foot in 90% of them, let alone lived in them.

[L. Weel]

Micha, give me a break, will you. Here you go responding tautologically by quoting the very sources that came up with the slander about Bill O'Reily in the first place.

Phil, I did say "Bill lived in ALMOST every country," didn't I? I did not say he lived in EVERY country on this planet.

What I meant was, he lived in MANY countries. In other words, he lived in enough countries to qualify himself as an educated man-of-the-world, who has shed any parochial tunnel-vision (hence, prejudices) he might have had, because traveling the world makes one realize that people everywhere have essentially the same hopes, needs, desires -- regardless of their packaging.

Compare such an outlook with that of a country bumpkin like the Kneeling Boor.

[Micha Ghertner]

L. Weel,

I made it a point to post the original source as soon as I found it, and it shows Boortz' claim to be accurate.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A27484-2003Apr15?Found=true

And I just love your proof that O'Reilly can't be a racist because he has traveled to other countries. David Irving, Holocaust denier extraordinaire, has spent time in England, Ireland, Australia, Canada, Germany, and South Africa, among other countries. I guess that proves he's not a racist, right?

It's especially humorous when one realizes that you are generalizing (prejudging) all world travelers to be open-minded, non-prejudicial kind of people. I guess you haven't spent much time traveling the world, eh?

[L. Weel]

Micha, FYI, as a retired Air Force colonel, I happened to have traveled to about 70% of this earth's countries.

"David Irving, Holocaust denier extraordinaire, has spent time in England, Ireland, Australia, Canada, Germany, and South Africa, among other countries."

Notice the countries HE visited: All of 'em nice and WASPY, saturated with highbrow European mores.

Bill O'Reilly, on the other hand, rubbed elbows with brownskins in El Salvador, Argentina, The Falklands, several East Asian countries, the Middle East -- on and on.

I'm sure David Irving made great efforts to avoid such elbows while sipping his martinis at the all-white country clubs.

[Davis Nena]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://www.pills-for-penis.com
DATE: 01/25/2004 12:29:30
Buildings burn. People die. But real love is forever.