Rupert Murdoch's War On Journalism

Having served nearly thirty years at CBS News, Mr. Goldberg had earned a reputation as one of the most original writers and thinkers in broadcast journalism. However, when he observed his own industry, he realized the liberal media had completely missed their mission to give honest news. After years of sharing his observations and promoting more balanced reportings, Goldberg soon realized that no one listened because they believed they were doing the right thing. The liberal bias continued, therefore Bernard Goldberg decided to take the situation into his own hands and expose the distortion of the media himself. Goldberg’s breathtaking and shocking best seller book, Bias, reveals the close-mindedness of the news culture and their mission to entertain rather than share facts.

Countless people have criticized Fox News and CNN for political bias, but recently outrage to media bias has resulted in lasting negative consequences far beyond years prior. Donald Trump has convinced a significant amount of his base to distrust the mainstream media, as evidenced by a Quinnipiac poll that reveals 5 in 10 likely voters believe the media is biased against him (Harper). This number jumps to an incredible 9 in 10 with Republicans. Trump supporters have refused to view media they perceive to be biased, even going so far to chant “CNN sucks!” at a rally in Pennsylvania (“10,000 Trump Supporters”). The resentment of a few news outlets affects not only those news outlets, but how the dissenters perceive the world as a whole. When

Although many people may like to think of America as a honest and moral nation, it is no secret that artifice has cemented itself as an indispensable skill, exploited by many to achieve their own ambitions. Artifice, characterized through the usage of cunning devices or expedients to deceive others, is often utilized by politicians and organizations to help push their own agendas. As illustrated by Chris Hedges in his social commentary, Empire of Illusion, “artifice” has emerged to become so ubiquitous and essential throughout American society, whether in business or the entertainment industry. Essential, in the essence that without it, people in any industry are more likely to be disadvantaged in achieving their personal goals. In today’s modern world, no area has seen more abuse of artifice than in the field of media and politics. Its common knowledge that newspapers skew reports to their own biases and politicians often tell half-truths to cover-up ulterior motives. Unfortunately, these politicians and media giants hold extremely influential positions in society, and their usage of artifice is extremely damaging to the integrity and accountability within the United States. As a result, the press as well as the general populace must utilize free speech to expose this behavior. Despite the complete immorality of the usage of artifice, such chicanery remains essential for success in media and politics.

First, Rupert Murdoch discusses how Fox News uses different “techniques” to report their opinion as news. Some of these techniques include cutting of their guest, using God and religion as a mean of standard and “correctness”, and creating manipulated titles. News “anchor” like Bill O’ Reily is known to interrupt his guest and repeatedly using the word “shut up” with the guest has conflicting views with himself and the network. Also shown in the video is another news anchor saying, “my religion didn't

Hosts, reporters, and commentators dug at President Trump and his administration in almost every single story aired over the course of an hour and a half. MSNBC host Rachel Maddow eluded that Trump’s alleged ties with Russia “will come out soon,” but she omitted the word alleged, a move that could trigger a slander lawsuit. This framing by both MSNBC and Fox advance a political agenda. If a media consumer were to watch only one of these outlets, that consumer would hear only one view on the world. I believe these partisan outlets can cause closed-mindedness and advocate against those with different beliefs to work together.

In the article “GOP-Fox Circus Act”, Reed Richardson argues that although both the GOP and Fox have conservative political values, they are ultimately harmful to each other’s agendas because of their differing political goals. Both organizations are lacking popularity in recent years so they are struggling to find new ways to gain an audience. The GOP wants to find a way to get their ideas to a wide variety of people, whereas Fox is promoting more liberal views to increase the ratings of their programs. On one hand, the GOP’s reputation is hurt by the inaccuracy of Fox’s reporting. On the other hand, Fox is tied down by the conservative views of the GOP, thus restraining Fox from gaining a larger audience. Journalist Reed Richardson wrote this article for The National, a liberal newspaper, in 2013, so the events and issues that he is speaking of are still relevant to this day. Due to the differences of political views between the author and the subject matter, there is plenty of room for biased statements and opinions. Does Richardson provide enough evidence of the harmful effects of the Fox and GOP relationship? Richardson clearly and meticulously establishes the problems that both organizations face in the pursuit of their political goals with the use of statistics, reliable sources, and thorough evaluation of events; however Richardson constantly provides the reader with a biased argument when discussing the current state of Fox.

MSNBC’s audience are liberals and democrats who care greatly about saving the environment from global warming. Many of the viewers appear to be both in the middle and left wing who are everyday people who were raised in a more progressive era. Meanwhile, viewers of Fox News are diehard conservatives who believe wholeheartedly that climate change is a tactic orchestrated by liberals to take away their political powers. In a sense, it appears as though Fox News appeals to older and predominantly white, rich males who grew up before the progressive era. Fox News expressed their personal testimony more openly, which allows them to deflect the attention of the audience away from the issue, while MSNBC sticks to the topic at hand and supplies a plethora of statistics for their audience. Fox News logos and pathos appeal is more effect than MSNBC because they make statements that disturb viewers peace of minds. However, MSNBC is clearly more effective in winning over their audience due to the highly educated commentators they use to make their point across. It is apparent after the examination of these four transcripts that broadcast networks apply their own bias opinions into a form of current events that is supposed to remain unbiased and

Within these two popular news channels, stories and changes within the government are altered to fit the watcher’s views. While Fox News focuses on the more conservative points of view of the public, CNN places their informative stories in a more Liberal light. Fox news tends to report stories in a one-sided viewpoint, which creates a lack of space for viewers to establish an opinion of their own. CNN reports their stories in more of a broad spectrum and positive light, which allows its viewers to gain more of a perspective in problems that are persisting in today’s society. I believe that, out of Fox News and CNN, Fox News displays the most of muckraking today because it only provides one side of the story, with only personal opinions as their proof. In the past, muckraking was meant to be more a informative style of journalism but as the years went by, many people use yellow journalism as a form of entertainment and way to make money; this journalism has seemed to emerge in other ways and slowly disappear in

“Fair and balanced” is the slogan for Fox News. Tim Dickinson, the author of “How Roger Ailes Built the Fox News Fear Factory The onetime Nixon operative has created the most profitable propaganda machine in history. Inside America’s Unfair and Imbalanced Network,” couldn’t disagree more. Dickinson, in criticism of Fox News, quotes Roger Ailes, the founder of the news network by saying that “Forget all the facts and figures, and move to the offense as quickly as possible” would serve as a more appropriate slogan. (Dickinson, ’11 p.7) In short the author feels that Ailes is “cleverly camouflaging political propaganda as independent journalism.”(Dickinson, ’11 p. 2)

The national media is instrumental in allowing the electorate to develop opinions about contemporary issues. The media is incredibly influential and its power can be wielded for the benefit of all, or it can become a detriment to society. Some media outlets seek to sensationalize the news, sacrificing informing voters in favor of the bottom line. It is through people and organizations who seek to provide the most accurate and impartial view of an event that popular sovereignty gains much of its power. A commitment to informing the public, even when the information conflicts with a writer’s social and political philosophy, can be a difficult one to maintain. Yet, reporters uphold it everyday. This can be seen in the news site CNN (Cable News Network), which is known for having a liberal bias. Despite said bias, it does not shy away from portraying Hillary Clinton, a democrat, as a flawed candidate in an effort to be unbiased. Such a commitment is essential to creating a political and social dialogue in our nation, and as the saying goes, “when dialogue fails, democracy fails.”

Often media broadcasters tend to lean to this side, therefore giving them the image of being liberally bias. Chris Mathews and Keith Oberman from MSNBC are two examples of broadcasters that have been accused of delivering their news with a liberal twist to it. Journalists tend to vote on the liberal side of situations, but still say that while they are on the job they only tell the news in the fairest way and the way that will be least offensive as well as respectful to who it will be presented. In many cases however, this report can come out with an oddly left sided tone (thatliberalmedia.com). Since 1991 when Katie Couric became co-host of NBC’s Today Show, she has used her powerful spot in the media to praise significant liberal figures such as Hillary Clinton and Jimmy Carter. At the same time however, Couric has never been shy about complaining about “right winged conservatives”

Until the 1980s, the control of the media was in the hands of the national government. From then, the control shifted to private outlets and by the 1990’s, there were more than fifty multinational companies who controlled it (“Mass Media”). Today, only about six major companies control the larger fraction of media in America (Williams, Par. 1). Norman Solomon wrote in the New Political Science Journal that most reporters and editors work for just a few huge companies. These journalists and editors are on the payroll for “mega-media institutions”, of which, only about six exist (Solomon 297). How much will the public learn if these companies generally control the output of information?

The media and the public have had a relationship that has existed for centuries. Through the media, people become aware of events and issues occurring around them. As a result, they make educated decisions. Therefore, the media serve as witnesses of the events happening within our societies and then report them to us. That said, could journalism have a significant political impact in our societies? It is through the media that governments and their citizens communicate. For instance, people communicate by protesting and voting, governments respond by amending the issues affecting the public. It is also through the media that potential political leaders gain recognition. Therefore, the answer is yes, because, journalism causes the spread

In a contemporary society, the role of journalism is a varied one that covers many different aspects of people’s lives. As more and more outlets spring up around the world, many more stories are able to be covered by different outlets, and this means that journalism takes on a more and more important role in a contemporary society. Much of our lives centre on political and social happenings, and journalistic outlets are the public’s way of finding all the information on these event. Journalism also provides us with a way of finding out which of these stories are important and deserve our attention, and which stories can be ignored. The important role of journalism can be well observed in the recent coverage of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) in both New Zealand and around the world. This is a ground breaking economic deal, and holds a great deal of importance for the 800 million citizens of the countries involved, as well as the rest of the world. With worldwide coverage of this deal, it is inevitable that different types of reporting occurs, and that different outlets will provide different accounts. With so many different journalism outlets around the world and locally, many have to have a way of standing out from the crowd. This means that some extremely different coverage of very similar stories can occur. However it can also simply be down to different ownership, differing political views, and different socio-economic environments. Two outlets with

The belief that journalism is in decline has triggered major alarms, because society needs an informational environment that is easily available to all citizens such as newspapers. There is a large body of journalist that suggests that if television has taken over from the press as our main source of news this may limit our capacity to learn about public affairs; newspapers are believed to be far more effective than television at conveying detailed information necessary to understand complex and detailed issues. There is also widespread concern that if journalism fails as a profession it will not be able to reach large sections of the community, particularly younger or less educated readers. This may reinforce a growing gap among citizens between the information that they receive.