BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable

Subject: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: GUEST,stigWeard at work
Date: 04 Feb 04 - 08:33 AM

This is so alarming it's not true.

http://blugg.com/stuff/foxs_view_of_the_bbc_player.htm


Can our American friends reassure us no one believes this sort of propgandist crap?

stigWeard

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Feb 04 - 08:50 AM

Blimey. If that really is the kind of "news" broadcasts you get on TV in America, God help us all. It seems calculated to cause brain damage, as well as hurting the eardrums.

I wish I could believe this was just some kind of vicious parody put together by people who hate the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: artbrooks
Date: 04 Feb 04 - 09:11 AM

Sorry, but my PC would only play the first 10 seconds or so.

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Feb 04 - 09:16 AM

Why are we surprised...America is never wrong, how dare the BBc suggest otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Feb 04 - 09:16 AM

Mine didn't even do that much. And I suspect I missed something because I don't have the speakers hooked up yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: Mark Clark
Date: 04 Feb 04 - 11:11 AM

That is exactly the sort of broadcasts Americans hear constantly if they tune in to Fox News. It doesn't just come from one talking head, it's the whole network all the time.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: Steve Parkes
Date: 04 Feb 04 - 11:14 AM

Can someone give us a quick précis for those who can't listen either for technical reasons or because the boss would object?

Anyway, wghy would the BBC spread lies? That's why we have politicians!

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: mooman
Date: 04 Feb 04 - 11:21 AM

This says a great deal more about Fox than it does about the BBC.

Peace

moo

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: Nerd
Date: 04 Feb 04 - 11:26 AM

Just to calm our English friends down a bit, though: Fox News is a separate channel available on cable TV. It's not the same channel as the Fox network, which is available on the airwaves and thus in every home in America. Fox News is well known among most Americans to have a right-wing bias, so people who watch it are already inclined to agree with it.

However, there are some Americans, particularly in the financial world, who do not know or care that it has a right-wing bias (they watch it for its sunny view of the economy and its reassurance that it's all right for big business to screw the little guy) and therefore might take it seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 04 Feb 04 - 11:28 AM

This type of thing makes me feel very sorry for intelligent, thinking Americans -- they must be so embarrassed.

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: Folkiedave
Date: 04 Feb 04 - 11:29 AM

That's not he same Fox news whose stablemate the Sun makes up interviews is it?

Try typing Fox News+bias in Google. It throws up 80,700 sites.

Here is one of them:

http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/foxbias.htm

Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: Nerd
Date: 04 Feb 04 - 11:40 AM

That's the one, Dave. They are also the ones who sued Al Franken over the title of his hilarious book:

Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them: a Fair and Balanced Look at the Right.

Fox News claimed that "Fair and Balanced" was their proprietary slogan, and that people might mistake the book for one of their productions. They were (almost) literally laughed out of the court, when the judge found their suit to be "completely without merit." They did achieve one thing, though: the publicity catapulted Franken's scorching indictment of their lies to the top of the best-seller lists.

Even in America, we liberals sometimes get the last laugh!

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: John Routledge
Date: 04 Feb 04 - 11:42 AM

Thanks Dave.

Your site puts "Fox News" into perspective

I used to wonder why some cultures have problems with "America"

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Feb 04 - 11:58 AM

Yup. That was the real thing. Welkome to Amerika.

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Feb 04 - 01:19 PM

This kind of thing must be pretty embarrassing to decent people who think on the right.

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 04 Feb 04 - 01:22 PM

This is Rupert Murdoch in the States. Are we to understand that Rupert Murdoch in Britain is a superior product?

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Feb 04 - 01:22 PM

By being patient I was able to get about half of it. But the first few seconds was enough to tell me that this was Fox News, even if I didn't already know. It's the same blowhard, "in-your-face" style that characterizes many right-wing commentators who, on Fox News especially, try to masquerade as news reporters.

The delivery style has been around for a long time and was pretty much pioneered in the political commentary realm by Rush Limbaugh and his disciples. Prior to that, it was generally associated with radio and television preachers of the "Hell-fire and Damnation" persuasion (invariable accompanied by "keep sending in those contributions, folks!" implying that lavish contributions to their program would assure your salvation). The Reverend Herbert W. Armstrong and Brother Ralph J. Sander (whose program always ended with "Keep those contributions coming in, folks! Send them to post office box 888—that's 888, the same backwards, forwards and upside down—") were early exemplars of this style of delivery. Like the Hell-roaring electronic preachers that preceded them, the Fox News commentators invariably distort whatever facts they might be basing their so-called "reports" on and ask you to take most of what they say on blind faith.

Unfortunately, there is a fair number of Americans who buy this crap. They like the "rah rah" Ameicanism and the simplistic approach to often complex problems. Generally they are not on an intellectual level capable of comprehending a conservative commentator such as William F. Buckley Jr., who tries to persuade rather than browbeat, and frequently uses words of more than one syllable. But fortunately, there is also a fair number of Americans, including some conservatives, who consider Fox News to be laughable, if not downright disgusting.

In the realm of news broadcasting, Fox News Channel can be considered the scrapings from the bottom of the Dumpster—or to our British confreres, the dustbin.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Feb 04 - 01:36 PM

Are we to understand that Rupert Murdoch in Britain is a superior product?

So far, yes. It makes the British equivalent look like healthy, moderate and balanced journalism. Which is quite remarkable, considering how bad it is in real terms.

If this is what this stuff is really like, I think that, if I was trying to fire up people to despise and hate America, I'd get hold of videos of the channel's output, and play it to them. That's some potentially very powerful Black Propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 04 Feb 04 - 01:42 PM

A recent study by the Pugh Charitable Trust revealed that among the 71 percent of Americans who believe that Sadaam Hussein was involved in the events of 9/11, Fox news was the most common response when they were asked what the main source of their news was.

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Feb 04 - 01:46 PM

it's funny line we walk, feeling that the "right of free speech" is important, and tolerating distortion for the sake of $$$$. I sometimes watch a bit of Fox news, just to remind me why I don't usually watch it.

(The guy you see/hear giving that diatribe was originally the main 'talking head' when MSNBC was new, but soon proved too far right for THEM and was hired by Fox...and MSNBC has a pronounced right-leaning bias of it's own!)

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 04 Feb 04 - 01:50 PM

I've always wondered where the 71 % of Americans who beileve Saddam was involved in 9/11 are? I can't think of anyone I know that believes that.

No one has pointed out yet either that the "my word" segment is an OPINION piece.

that said - MOST news shows these days are pretty much trash - bias is applied in so many ways that it is next to impossible to believe anything without multiple corraborations.

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 04 Feb 04 - 01:59 PM

>>No one has pointed out yet either that the "my word" segment is an OPINION piece.<<

Very good point. It's like a Rupert Murdoch rep in England spouting off about how zee French are feelthy and use less soap per capita. Don't send the armies into America to destroy us over this, please.

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 04 Feb 04 - 02:09 PM

I understand the surprise at seeing this. But that's exactly what it is for. To generate outrage and controversy and attention. It's trash television, to be sure. Rupee may have asked for it for personal reasons to tweak the BBC.

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Feb 04 - 02:21 PM

Can't stand Fox News, don't watch it, and don't want to deal with it here any more than I have to.

Such an unthinking spouting of trash opinion!

Fortunately, only a minority believe such crap. Please don't think that that is the opinion of everyone in the US, 'cause it ain't.

(I finally did get to see and hear it. It takes real work to do so.)

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Feb 04 - 02:56 PM

Maybe the real worry is the point I touched on above. This kind of thing makes slightly less extreme extremism look like moderation. Nutters like that are extremely useful that way, when extremist want to con people into thinking are mainstream.

Mind it can sometimes all go badly wrong, with the nutters actually taking over, as happened in Germany in the early thirties.

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 04 Feb 04 - 03:04 PM

Can't shut'em up, though. They may be right and we may be wrong. The only thing to do is talk back. See Folkiedave's comment above and the links referenced.

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Feb 04 - 03:04 PM

be glad they didn't show a 'piece' by Joe Scarbourough of MSNBC....who sometimes make Rush Limbaugh look sane..

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: Hollowfox
Date: 04 Feb 04 - 06:58 PM

(just don't go blaming us foxes...)

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Feb 04 - 07:23 PM

Talk back? Talk past them might be better.

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Feb 04 - 07:50 PM

Fox News in the USA has a crucial role to play in war "coverage" and fullfilling the prophesy that every other media outlet is full of liberal bias. It is of course not true but by a process of relativity it becomes true to the true belivers.

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 04 Feb 04 - 07:55 PM

Here's a description of that video, including a complete transcription, as well as some editorial interpretation, from The Independent.

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: Walking Eagle
Date: 04 Feb 04 - 09:20 PM

I listen to the BBC every night. I'm a former journalist and I listen with a different ear, so to speak. I did not detect any anti-American bias in the BBC news reports regarding the war. If anything, I was hoping that the BBC would have been a bit more critical. This has nothing to do with war reporting, but the BBC did a stellar job of covering stories during world wide AIDS week.

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: Amos
Date: 04 Feb 04 - 09:29 PM

This crap is scandalous -- a dramatization of bestial ignorance on the march. Archie Bunker goes bouffant. I spit. It is not even good enough to embarass me -- it is a slapstick farce imitation of a thinking human.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Feb 04 - 09:55 PM

Welcome to George Bush/Michael Powell's America. Screw FCC regs that date back to 1932. If Rupert Murdock and Mickey Mouse want control of the media then what's the harm?

(Ahhhh, Bobert. These folks wanta have one source of information so that you won't be confused with conflicting information... Chill, everything is just fine... Why don't you go down and put a down payment on a new SUV... THat'll maike you fell all better...)

I'm feeling better now. What? No thinking required? Where do I sign up?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 05 Feb 04 - 01:18 AM

Verbal vomit . Was this cretin TOLD what to say, or is he merely typical [as is probable] of the Murdoch-ruled media the world over?
Maybe he's just one more far-right nutter with a secret drug problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 05 Feb 04 - 04:28 AM

I had never imagined that an American network could put that sort of crap out as news. Surely this must have come from the old Soviet Union, or perhaps a product of old Nazi Germany or other places we believe such blatant distortion could occur.

While I am happy in the knowledge that there are plenty of inteligent free thinking Americans who see this broadcast as a load of tripe, it does worry me to some degree that there must be sufficient people believing it for the network to exist - and I wouldn't mind betting Fox make more than just a few dollars out of it.

To balance things up a little, although to a lesser degree, I have similar concerns about our UK readership of the Sun. I do find it amazing that so many people appear to enjoy that sort of (lack of) quality of journalism.

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Feb 04 - 09:12 AM

Well danged, Jon, we Yanks have been dependent on you Brits fir our information? Now yer telling us that it's faulty as well? Hmmmmm? Iz sniffin' a larger conspiracy here than I thought existed.....

Oh well?!?!?.... Do you like my new SUV? Yep, only 96 more payments and I'll have it paid off....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: HuwG
Date: 05 Feb 04 - 10:02 AM

The Fox News article does sound lie a rant, and appears to commit the very sins which it complains about, practically frothing at the mouth itself.

The reasoned legal opinion in the UK was that, had there been any mechanism by which an appeal could have been launched against the Hutton Report, and had the BBC appealed, they stood a 50/50 chance of having Hutton's verdicts overturned or set aside. Unfortunately, there is no such mechanism.

Two British sources on the fight against Saddam which might be worth reading / viewing are:

The book, "The Wars against Saddam", by BBC reporter John Simpson. (pub Macmillan, prince £20.00). Simpson reported from Kurdistan and northern Iraq during the war, and might be assumed to be violently anti-american, given that US aircraft dropped a bomb on him (and Kurdish troops with US Special Forces). However, he exasperatingly fails to come down on one side or the other of the debate, "was it right to remove Saddam ?". He does not take any swipes at Fox News, merely mentioning in passing that their "upbeat" reporting style was popular with US forces.

The broadcasting company, Channel 4 (Nothing to do with the BBC) recently screened a two-and-a-half hour documentary entitled, "Invading Iraq". The subtitle was, "How Britain and America got it wrong". They pointed out the great difference in style between the British and American tactics. The British refrained from storming Basra, since this would lead to unnecessary British and civilian casualties. They waited for a fortnight until the defenders gave up and drifted away, and then occupied Basra, with only three British deaths. (Several dozen die-hard defenders were killed, but there were very few, if any, civilian deaths).

On the other hand, the US forces relied on solely on blitzkrieg speed to stun and confuse the defenders. This got them deep into Iraq without too much trouble, and allowed them to rout the Republican Guard defending Baghdad. However, they followed the same principles when attempting to storm Baghdad and other built-up areas such as Nasiriya, and this led to, at minimum, several hundred civilian deaths, and much damage. (The US Army in Baghdad seems to have tried its best to discriminate between civilians and irregular fighters, but automatic fire and cannon shells in a built-up area will cause death and damage, no matter how carefully pointed. The US Marines appear to have been more aggressive, cared little about collateral damage, and indeed seem to have shot at all civilian vehicles in some positions, to prevent any possibility of suicide bombers getting close).

Channel 4 ignored the queation of whether it was right or wrong to have deposed Saddam, though it did point out that other than the self-serving and members of Saddam's tribal group, nobody in Iraq regretted his passing from power. It did however draw the conclusion that the speed and violence of the Allied (particularly American) tactics was counterproductive. It caused needless suffering, transformed them from "liberators" to "conquerors" in Iraqi eyes.

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: Bob Hitchcock
Date: 05 Feb 04 - 10:03 AM

To put Fox News in it's proper place, let me relate a little joke I heard the other day.

General Patton and Napolean were up in Heaven watching events in Iraq, when Patton says, "If I only had those Humvees in Africa I could have defeated Rommel in three days".

Then Napolean says, "If I only had Fox News, no one would know I had lost at Waterloo"

As an ex-pat Brit here in the USA I look at BBC World News for information and Fox News for Comedy.

Bob.

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Feb 04 - 11:51 AM

While I am happy in the knowledge that there are plenty of inteligent free thinking Americans who see this broadcast as a load of tripe, it does worry me to some degree that there must be sufficient people believing it for the network to exist

You should be worried, Jon. Very, very worried.

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Feb 04 - 12:04 PM

"Those whom the Gods would destroy they first drive mad."

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: Walking Eagle
Date: 05 Feb 04 - 01:25 PM

.....or into dull witted boredom.

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: Wesley S
Date: 05 Feb 04 - 04:31 PM

Like it or not { and I don't } this is what free speech is all about. I'm not embarrassed as an American by this guy. As far as I'm concerned he's speaking for himself - not for me. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 05 Feb 04 - 05:13 PM

I think it was an American, H L Mencken, who pointed out that the freedom of the press is the freedom of a few people with too much money to print whatever the hell they like about anyone or anything. (Or words to that effect.) I'd rather have the press owned by the government of the day. Even Blair's government, or Bush's - though there are many more moderate options for regulation without going to that extreme.

If McGrath is right that Murdoch in the UK is better than Murdoch in the US, it's a fine line. It was Murdoch's Sun that screamed GOTCHA! across its front page when the Argentinian cruiser General Belgrano was sunk with the loss of nearly 300 lives. And it was the Sun that tried to run a picture of mineworkers' president Arthur Scargill, captured in a posture inadvertantly akin to a Nazi salute, under the headline "Mine Fuehrer". (The item was pulled because the print unions wouldn't touch it.)

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Feb 04 - 05:36 PM

As I said, the Sun is a vile paper. If it doesn't quite sink to the level of this broadcast, it's not because there aren't people who'd be quite willing. It'd be because, on balance, they think that it would cost them readers, and make it harder for their friends in Government to cozy up to Rupert. (For example, concessions on multi-media ownership, and things like the leak to the Sun of the Hutton report.)

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Feb 04 - 05:46 PM

He's proud of his flag lapel pin. Well, so were Goering and Himmler, I'm sure.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 05 Feb 04 - 05:54 PM

Yes. The bit about the lapel pin really got to me. It manages to be
laughable and enraging at the same time. An odd feeling.

Don't the Jesuits use the phrase "invincible ignorance?"

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Feb 04 - 05:55 PM

" I'd rather have the press owned by the government of the day"

naahhh...I like having the many choices we have. We have 3 national networks that are 'reasonably' balanced, plus Public TV, which is better yet and in depth..(probably best comparison to BBC) and then Fox and MSNBC...and it is nice to be ABLE to tune in to the enemy and see just what he IS saying...sort of "Know thine enemy". Add to that the ability to find better sources such as BBC online, and one soon learns to find the viewpoints they most trust & respect.....and although the blithering idiots DO have their following and influence, I'd rather see them out in the open where I can keep track of them!

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Feb 04 - 06:57 PM

I'd sooner have them in their natural habitat, the saloon bar. (Unfortunately. in these days of open plan pubs. it's harder to get away from them in most pubs, when there isn't a saloon bar.)

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: Leadfingers
Date: 05 Feb 04 - 08:54 PM

The sad thing from where I am sat is the LOVELY statistical info that
at one point there was a survey which showed that SIXTY SIX percent of Murdoch owned SUN Newspapers readersin UK thought it was a Left Wing Paper. What hope have we in Universal Suffrage ????

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Feb 04 - 09:21 PM

Well, it did back Tony Blair in the last two General Elections. Which under the system we've got, counts as left wing. (Of course in the States, most of our Tories would probably be classed as count as off-the-wall "liberals". It's all relative.)

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 05 Feb 04 - 09:58 PM

I am a beleiver!!!!

Sincerely,

Gargoyle

Rest E_Z...WE-ir-ED The /// "accoutability

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Feb 04 - 10:06 PM

First time I've ever known of someone to misspell a word by shouting it. Amazing!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: Shanghaiceltic
Date: 05 Feb 04 - 11:51 PM

Will his next diatribe be against Janet J for not being patriotic enough to have a Stars and Stripes pinnned in her nipple.

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: catspaw49
Date: 06 Feb 04 - 12:15 AM

Fox news offers the sane and balanced views of all right thinking Amercans. Americans who know that the War on Iraq was justified by the events of 9/11 where a group of Saudis working out of Germany, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, attacked this great country. We know that as a superpower we have a great responsibility and the basic tenets of that responsibility are held dear by the Bush administration who have been shabbily treated by the liberal bias of the so called mainstream press. Fox News supplies the real story, the one and only believable story, to and for the majority of Americans. It is these people who see the fallability of liberal ideals and know that our morals were corrupted and we lost esteem on the world stage by the actions of the former and impeached President, Bill Clinton.

Fox News cannot exist without this significant viewer base of Americans. They are the simple living and working masses, the common clay with which this country could not exist. Assholes.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: LadyJean
Date: 06 Feb 04 - 12:24 AM

I never use the TV news for anything except the weather. (Sleet and freezing rain at present.) It doesn't give nearly enough facts. Murdoch is to journalism as AIDS is to sex.

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Feb 04 - 08:12 AM

More like the clap, Jean. Murdoch, unfortunately, isn't ultimately fatal to his readers and listeners.

If he were, at least there'd be some hope for improvement of the species
through natural selection.

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Feb 04 - 05:17 PM

At first I thought I would post this on the "Janet Jackson's Breast" thread, but since it ultimately filters down to the Great Guru of trash media and his gospel of greed, I decided this was the more appropriate thread.

Before 9/11, one of the main agenda items of the Bush administration was to clamp down on pornography. In fact, John Ashcroft had a whole battle-plan drawn up. Then along came the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and Ashcroft's attention was diverted to matters of Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, etc. It would have been interesting to see this "War on Pornography" develop, because it had some fairly intriguing aspects to it.

Last night's Frontline on PBS dealt with the pornography industry and revealed that, rather than being confined to back alleys and sleazy book stores, pornography is a much bigger business than most people are aware. And pornography the way it's done these days is not just a video with a loose plot providing an excuse for explicit scenes of people having rolls in the hay with Kama Sutra-style variations supplemented with occasional bouts of oral sex for your amusement and amazement, or the occasional video dealing with S&M for them as which likes it rough. That's considered dull and old-fashioned. The main course served up these days consists of such things as abductions and multiple rapes (apparently consensual sex is old hat), what are sometimes called "snuff movies" (the woman winds up dead at the end), and other things that you probably wouldn't believe (involving bodily fluids and excretions of all types). I'm no prude, but I was made a bit queasy by some of the stuff they described on the program. Incidentally, they weren't making this up:   they got much of their information from the people who make the videos and by going along on a couple of "shoots" and observing.

The profits run in billions of dollars. And involved are some of the biggest businesses in the country. I mean the BIGGEST businesses. Big enough so that any "War on Pornography" would have soon lead Ashcroft into confrontations that would result in some fairly ghastly dilemmas for the Bush administration, forcing either a brisk retreat, or pushing the spin-doctors into rotating at unheard of velocities, or both.

Frontline didn't bring out this particular aspect of the situation, but once I got to putting together who were involved in the porn business with what was on Ashcroft's agenda (remember his insisting on covering the bare breasted statue?), I could see a very entertaining collision course developing between the Bush administration and at least one of their closest friends: and this particular friend—well, to say he has access to the media would be putting it mildly. It would quite possibly put him in the uncomfortable position of having to chose between his profits and his continued support of the Bush administration. Or talking Bush (family values and all that) into getting Ashcroft to back off.

Some of the lesser examples are the many hotels and motels that offer porn movies. These include Marriott, Westin, and Hilton hotels. Porn movies piped into the rooms provide more revenue than the hotels' mini-bars.

But moving up the scale, we find AT&T. AT&T's cable division, "AT&T Broadband, distributed to subscribers the explicit porn channel, The Hot Network. But recently AT&T sold its cable company and its connection to pornography to Comcast." Comcast, as I understand it, is the biggest cable company in the country.

Now here's the lulu:— "General Motors [yes, General Motors!] at one time owned the national satellite distribution service DirecTV, which channels pornography into millions of American homes for a nice profit. General Motors recently sold its stake in DirecTV to Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation which continues to offer pornography channels." Yes, THAT Rupert Murdoch! The Bush administration's major spokesman in the media. Cute, eh?

Here's a link to this particular edition of Frontline. Scroll down. Check the links. It makes pretty fascinating reading.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Feb 04 - 07:31 PM

I don't doubt a BIT of it Don...there is just too much money involved for it to go any other way. There are probably plans afoot to make superficial gestures towards seeming to combat porn in general, but they know that, not only do they not exactly want to 'stop' it, they couldn't if they wanted to!
   There are just too many ways to propagate it and they figure they might as well get some of the $$$ as it happens. What we CAN hope for is that the powers that be continue the fight to combat the worst offenders who cause degradation, injury and death to innocent and unwilling victims. There is, at least, some success in trapping those who prey on children and who engage in the most dangerous forms of abuse.

Perhaps the need of Ashcroft & others to 'seem' concerned will do a bit of good.

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 06 Feb 04 - 07:50 PM

Porn has always been a big business -- but it has now gone the way of so many other forms of entertainment, to what might be called XTREME porn. It involves much more than sex now -- it involves scatological experiences, brutality, rapes with instruments, bestiality and all sorts of behaviours that can lead to serious injury, that ALWAYS ALWAYS are performed on or against women.(I also watched a documentary, which is how I learned all this information.)

I don't like John Ashcroft. I think he's a mealy-mouthed, unctuous, holier-than-thou, pious hypocrite. But if he goes after the porn industry that I saw described on that documentary, I will applaud him.

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 06 Feb 04 - 07:52 PM

Sorry, meant to add: the porn industry that I saw on that documentary was selling hate, pure and simple. Hatred apparently sells for big dollars.

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Feb 04 - 09:40 PM

You might applaud something he DOES without applauding him. Assuming he actually does it. I think draping statues at taxpayer expense is about the extent of his committment.

He's still a piece of crap who claims to get direction directly from God. Such men are dangerous...

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 06 Feb 04 - 10:01 PM

Greg -- agreed. But if it takes Satan himself to get rid of images of a woman being raped from behind while her head is jammed down into a toilet bowl, that's fine with me. Sick, sick.

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Feb 04 - 10:16 PM

pdc...it's very complicated. I'm sure many of those images you refer to are posed and faked by women who are paid well to 'look' abused. Yes, it's still sick, stupid and a travesty to display such crap, but whether it is 'illegal' and censorable is another matter.

If there is ANY evidence that the images and acts portray real, non-consensual activities, they should be tracked down and prosecuted if at all possible.

I have seen examples of worse than you describe a few times, but no evidence that it was more than fake and fantasy. I have no idea how to cope with this other than boycott and legal harassment.

What a strange race of beings we belong to!

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: Amergin
Date: 06 Feb 04 - 10:26 PM

also no snuff film has ever been found...

Snuff Films

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Feb 04 - 02:34 AM

What was depicted in the video that the Frontline reporters watched being made was all done by actors and actresses (if I may be permitted a bit of sexist terminology in this context). The abduction was acted, the slapping around was real (the actress involved said she got "turned on" by this sort of thing), the sex with multiple partners was real (with lots of struggling and screaming on her part to make it appear as rape), and the throat-cutting at the end was simulated. So it was a simulated "snuff" film. When it was all over, the actress got dressed and picked up her check.

The question I have is:    what kind of person likes to watch something like this?

Now, I make no brief for censorship. I have nothing against a bit of tasteful erotica, provided it's consensual, and it depicts consensual sex. But apparently the main-stream of the porn industry is currently turning out some pretty gamey stuff. Trying to censor anything is like tap-dancing on the proverbial slippery slope, but some of this stuff strikes me as beyond the pale.

Although these things exploit women in the broadest sense, it's pretty hard to make a case that the women directly involved are exploited. The producers of this stuff say there is no shortage of attractive young women who are more than willing to perform. They generally get paid from $1,000 on up per "act," depending on what they are willing to do, and taping one of these videos rarely takes more than one day or two and often involve several "acts." One of the actresses said "where else can I make $48,000 in one month?"

Well . . . whatcha gonna do?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Feb 04 - 07:57 AM

Surely this type of "news" is really part of the porn industry, in the same way that the Sun with its "page three".

(spaw's post just now demonstrates how using names allows a much more effective way of making a pont than can ever be open to nameless GUESTs.)

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: NicoleC
Date: 07 Feb 04 - 12:35 PM

I think the assertion that just because someone is paid, they aren't being exploited or harmed, is absurd.

Of course there are women who are willing do do these things, but it's because their sexuality and self-worth has been degraded so far that they believe it. If you read the ads, they advertise the job as nude modelling or other harmless activities, then pitch increasing hard core stuff to women -- girls, really -- who have their self-worth whittled away a piece at a time like a frog in a pot on the stove. Many walk away, but many fall for it. 18 -- the age at which these actress are usually recruited, is a vunerable age, not just emotionally but financially. Given the job prospects women face vs. men, it's an enticing carrot to earn a bit of money, but a poisoned one.

Nor does the subject of STDs come up when these women are being recruited. Women are far more likely to get an STD from a man than vice verse, due to the nature of the infection.

A little money makes it all better, right?

There is also no shortage of women who don't leave abusive boyfriends and husbands, stay in dead end jobs where they are routinely humiliated, insulted and sexually harassed by their male bosses, and "choose" to adhere to religious practices which demote them to being worth less than the family dog. That doesn't mean they aren't being harmed by others.

In short, porn is a predatory business that relies on exploiting young, weak women who have been fed a line of crap since childhood, then when they are older it tosses them back into a society which rejects and brands them as useless sluts, even though it was perfectly willing to buy the product in the first place!

I daresay the men are being harmed and exploited as well, but society makes a man's sexual prowess something to be glorified, so they are less likely to be sucked in and less likely to be rejected afterwards.

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 07 Feb 04 - 02:29 PM

Don Firth asked "What kind of people like to watch this stuff?"

I think that therein lies the heart of the matter. The kind of people who watch this stuff probably represent a terrible threat to women. Of course, that statement brings up the old "life reflects art vs art reflects life" argument that has never been answered.

But on a wider scale, a society that calls this "entertainment," and has actors and actresses portraying it, has some big, big problems.

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Feb 04 - 06:44 PM

Nicole, I didn't say that a case couldn't be made for exploitation, but it would be stretching it a bit to say this is always true. With many of the women (note that I didn't say "all"), this kind of brain-washing wasn't necessary at all. They were just as eager as the guys were. These were not women from broken homes or raised in abusive families, nor did they seem to be short-changed in the ego department. Some of them were pretty narcissistic as a matter of fact, and seemed to relish the idea of showing off there bodies and their sexual prowess—the sort of characteristics that are generally attributed to self-appointed studs. Let's face the uncomfortable fact that there are women out there who are just as horny as guys and often tend to be exhibitionistic, and the idea of making a porn video was a turn-on in and of itself—and the fact that they were making pretty good money at it was pure gravy. That's one of the minor points that emerged from the Frontline program:   there is no shortage of volunteers, even when they have lots of other choices.

Now, I think anyone, male or female, who wants to be a performer in a porn video has to have some serious kinks in their makeup, and the producers exploit the fact that there are plenty of people, both male and female, who seem to fall into this category. But I don't see that a woman who either seeks out this kind of work (and there are some) or eagerly agrees when asked if they'd be interested is any more exploited that the male actors involved. One could make a case that among the people who are exploited are the dipsticks who buy the stuff ($49.95 seems to be a fairly standard price, compared to around $19.95 for a regular feature movie). And these people are not just males; they include a surprising percentage of females as well.

In this whole sordid mess, apart from the producers, to say that one particular group is being exploited over and above the other participants is overstating the case.

But to leap on the issue of who is exploiting whom is to miss the point I was making in my post above.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: NicoleC
Date: 07 Feb 04 - 09:16 PM

Don, I will just have to disagree with you. Being female, I was subjected to a lot of brainwashing from birth onward that could easily lead straight to that sort of situation. Many of the women I know who would have you believe that they are impervious to these kinds of slings and arrows and are full of bravado about how free they are, are the most damaged of all. Participating in videos that mimic rape, punishment, bodily harm and even one's death? One needed be a shrink to see the connection between the two. -- acting out what one secretly believes one deserves.

Boys are also brainwashed, but in this particular example it doesn't have the same ramifications.

As I said, there are always exceptions. But just because Frontline found some women to talk about how they like it doesn't mean a) they aren't be exploited and b) doesn't speak for the thousands of women who were too ashamed or too afraid to be interviewed on national television.

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 08 Feb 04 - 09:22 PM

Re: "It's not the same channel as the Fox network, which is available on the airwaves and thus in every home in America."

No, the Fox network is not available in every home in America, because there are more and more people all the time who don't bother with TV anymore. I'm one of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 08 Feb 04 - 09:32 PM

leeneia, I'm with you on that. I tape certain specials that I want to watch, then see them at my own convenience, fast-forwarding through commercials, which is a bonus. Otherwise the TV is off.

And I peruse all the wonderful "good book" threads that show up on Mudcat. Given the choice of a book or a TV programme, it's no contest.

Funny, I've heard more and more people state that they have stopped watching the news on TV -- they find it just too grim. Anyone else in that mode?

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Feb 04 - 01:10 PM

Who is that lying asshole anyway?

If people vote on the basis of "information" from a source capabel of such gross misrepresentations, it's not surprising you've landed yourselves with a régime which has got you stuck in Iraq and your people being killed more or less daily.

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: DougR
Date: 09 Feb 04 - 09:31 PM

Right you are, Mark, better to listen to the major networks, MSNBC, or other liberal like-minded TV, right? No point in presenting both sides of a story, right?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Feb 04 - 10:16 PM

No point in presenting both sides of a story, right?

If what Fox News presents could actually be said to represent a "side of a story", you might have a point, DougR. But they don't. They just make their stuff up out of whole cloth.

Subject: RE: BS: Fox broadcast - unbelievable
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 09 Feb 04 - 10:59 PM

Actually, Fox News represents a major sea change in news broadcasting, which is starting to affect all other media as well, because of its popularity. The news used to be more or less "neutral," with just the facts presented. (At least, we thought it was neutral -- it was actually presenting the mainstream pov.)

Now nearly all media outlets slant the news according to their political perspectives, which is too bad. I tend to look up the same story from all sorts of different outlets, including foreign ones, in order to get -- ready? -- a "fair and balanced" perspective, as much as possible.