Then you should have waited instead of spreading innuendo.

Let's see. The source is a hollywood gossip column. There is no statement from Murdoch that we can hear. You are using Keith Olberman, the looniest loon on the left, with an interview with an Air America shill.

Yep! Looks like another Kieth olberman smear job to me, that you bought hook line and stinker! As usual.

anlyst and guest are not synonymous. analyst and reporter is much closer to a synonym. MORRIS IS NOT A "GUEST " IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM. he is paid by Fox to contribute, analyze and report on his analysis when called upon.



no, i won't. there are certainly liberal and conservative biases from various reporters. but no organization has ever aided and abbetted an administration in the way that fox does.



yes, they certainly do "hire theri own." my point exactly.



no innuendo, the video isn't good enough? someone has to transcribe it or it's "innuendo?" nonsense!

Do you not understand the difference between an analyst that is brought on, and someone who actually reports the news?




Right.......




LOL....too funny.  This reminds me of trying to argue with some other person here.

Sorry chawlie. The video showed him sitting and talking, but no sound from him talking. Then Keith does anotehr hatchet job. Of COURSE Keith Oberfuhrer would never tell a lie!   (Let me count the ways!)

He is a liberal! He is still wrestling with IS!

Be a little proactive Dr Guy - get a Deaf friend to lip-read for you if you're that concerned. I can tell you right now that TV stations don't editorialise VOTs purely because the Deaf community can see exactly what's being said. It's way too easy to get caught out. So if a reporter makes a claim as to what a face in the background is saying then they're almost certainly reporting the truth. There's no end-game profit in doing otherwise.

It's certainly interesting. Let's consider a newspaper. Does a staff reporter who only writes opinion columns qualify as a reporter? They're usually paid as one. Why would it be different for TV? A reporter who is used on news services to provide opinion, and do it exclusively, is not that much different from that newspaper reporter.

Why do the words you use to describe it matter so much?

An analyst like Dick Morris is someone who is paid to offer their opinion and "analysis".  What they talk about is their take or analysis of the news.  Reporters would generally write about the news without analysis or opinion.  There is a difference.

do you understand the difference between an employee and a guest?



and neither is a guest. analysts alalize and then report on theri analysis. and they are the equivalent of an editorial columnist who works for a newspaper. analyticl reporting is a type of reporting.

run along now...

sorry if your sound is off,,,mine worked fine,

by the way...fair warning guy,,,stop with the cheap attacks and insults with absolutely nothing else.

hot off the press...for the "sound impaired" ...the complete transcript of the report on this last night...

OLBERMANN: The telegram is part of American history. The U.S. battleship Maine exploded in Havana harbor in 898 and the infamous yellow journalist William Randolph Hearst, Orson Wells‘ model for Citizen Kane, immediately had his newspapers pin the blame on Cuba‘s Spanish masters. Hearst and the Hearst papers insisted this country should attack Spain and anticipating the conflict, the publishing giant sent the famous illustrator Frederic Remington to Cuba to draw the pictures of the battles there.

From Havana Remington telegraphed Hearst that he couldn‘t find any war in Cuba. You furnish the pictures, Hearst telegraphed back. I‘ll furnish the war.

In our third story in the COUNTDOWN tonight, imagine if William Randolph Hearst had owned a cable television network. The first admission from the evil overlord of Fox, Rupert Murdoch, that his news operation tried to lead America into the war in Iraq. Mr. Murdoch‘s remarkable confession coming at last month‘s annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, in Switzerland.

First, Murdoch bemoaning how big media has lost much of its power to set agendas, to things like blogs and news sites on the Internet, then panel moderator Charlie Rose, following up with a question about whether News Corp had managed to shape the agenda on the war in Iraq, to which Mr. Murdoch answered, quote, “no, I don‘t think so. We tried.” Follow up answer, “we basically supported the Bush policy in the Middle East, but we have been very critical of his execution.”

Time now to call in Rachel Maddow, the host of the conveniently named Rachel Maddow show on Air America Radio. Good evening, welcome.

RACHEL MADDOW, “THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW”: Hi Keith, thanks for having me.

OLBERMANN: Many will, no doubt, react to our doing this segment by saying, and this is news why? But is there ambiguity here. I mean, we don‘t get access to the actual tape of what he said for a couple weeks, but the print reporting simply says, he was asked if his company managed to shape the agenda about Iraq and he said, no, I don‘t think so, we tried. Is there more than one way to interpret that?

MADDOW: I don‘ think so. It seems to me to be a fairly unambiguous statement, which wouldn‘t be a problem if he was talking about a PR firm, or if he was talking about some sort of ideological think tank with an axe to grind. The problem is that Fox News Channel bills itself as the thing that‘s trying to unspin America. Right, the thing that‘s fair and balanced. It‘s trying to spin Americans away from the supposedly biased, agenda driven news that the mainstream news gives us, and we can only trust Fox, because they don‘t have an agenda.

Now he‘s admitting they have an agenda. So, either they need to change their tag line or he has to back down from that in a much more serious way than he already has.

OLBERMANN: Well, It‘s a sales pitch phrase, I mean, it‘s a catch phrase. It doesn‘t mean anything. It‘s just fair and balanced. It might as well be green and purple. But if the meaning is as obvious as that, why on Earth would Murdoch ever admit it.

MADDOW: To me that‘s the most interesting question here. I don‘t think that he‘s out of it enough at this point that he thinks, oh, I said it in Switzerland. Nobody will know about it in America. I don‘t think it‘s that. I wonder—

OLBERMANN: Ask Eason Jordan about that in particular.

MADDOW: Yes, exactly. I wonder if there is a certain fatalism and a certain kind of flippancy, born of fatalism, among a lot of the really big deal people, like Rupert Murdoch, who did bang the drum so loudly for this war. Nobody in the world thinks this war is going well anymore except for the Cheney family. And people like Rupert Murdoch, who have to know how responsible they were for ginning up the support for it, I just wonder if he is a little bit self-destructive and flippant on this issue, because he feels fatalist.

How else would you feel, were you in his position? He has got to be carrying at least some guilt if he‘s a human being.

OLBERMANN: Well, presumably, there could be some spin forward to the follow-up. Because the follow up that he said was, we basically supported the Bush policy in the Middle East, but we have been very critical of its execution. Is he talking about one of his British newspapers? Is he trying to get people to feel that there has been some criticism of the war. Because I don‘t know of anybody at Fox Noise that would admit they have been very critical of the Bush policy in Iraq.

MADDOW: No, and they continue to be incredibly critical of real reporters. They continue to be incredibly critical of real mainstream media. They continue to be unbelievably critical, and personally attacking toward people who have been critical of the Bush administration.

OLBERMANN: Hi, hello, how are you?

MADDOW: Yes, exactly. I mean, that‘s the thing that we can all document every day that they do. And so the idea that they‘ve somehow come to their senses and yes, they supported the war as a good idea, but they‘ve seen, just like the rest of us, how poorly it‘s been executed. It‘s a farce, and they can try to spin that, but it‘s an absolute farce. And that‘s why I don‘t even that Murdoch could try to gin that up. I like to think of it as kind of a psychological disillusion on the issue.

OLBERMANN: It would be nice to think that. It would also be nice to think that large numbers of his viewers and his readers would hear about what he said and say, well, I‘ve been had. But that‘s not likely to happen. But does it suggest maybe that the trend of the TV ratings—they are not adding viewers. They are not holding their younger viewers— suggests that the fair and balanced claim and all the rest of the promotional stuff, is now rejected in advance by new viewers in the same way that the tobacco claims, tobacco company‘s claim that you can smoke safely are automatically rejected?

MADDOW: Well, they‘re certainly not attracting new and younger viewers. And, I mean, I think there is a reason why Fox News Channel did get giant ratings at one point, and does continues to get some good ratings, because, I think, there is a feel good factor to jingoism. There is something about Father Coughlin style demagogy that quickens your blood, that is enticing, and that is appealing in a populist sort of way.

The problem is that the American public is past that point with this war and that‘s going to be their signature issue. Murdoch, I think knows it‘s their signature issue, that they, more than anybody, helped gin up the case for the war and beat the drums for it. You know, it may feel good to go along with that stuff, but ultimately, you get sick of it.

OLBERMANN: Remember the Maine, William Randolph Hearst learned, probably later on, that it was actually just an accident. Rachel Maddow, the host of, what else, the Rachel Maddow Show on Air America, a pleasure to have you on the show.

MADDOW: Thank you Keith.

Dr. Guy and Island Dog:

Reading you two intentionally waste Scott's time with your petty bull makes me livid. Had I not seen you gentleman blog here for over two years I would have given you the benefit of the doubt and simply thought you stupid.

Maybe, in this case, you aren't stupid or harassing Scott for providing factual information you dislike - maybe you both simply don't wish to acknowledge reality. In an attempt to run away from the fact that, yes, Rupert Murdoch does attempt to steer his massive News Corp. to manipulate public perception of the Iraq war- you attempt - in tired but familiar fashion, to shout people down.

You first deride Scott as a 'conspiracy theorist', then attack the Hollywood Reporter - a trade e-zine that has subscribers from those inside the industry, and even lamestream MSNBC to avoid facing the fact that Mr. Murdoch said what he said.

[Rose]Asked if News Corp. managed to shape the agenda on the war in Iraq, Murdoch said: "No, I don't think so. We tried." Asked by Rose for further comment, he said: "We basically supported the Bush policy in the Middle East...but we have been very critical of his execution."

Yeah, they've been very critical...sure. That's why all the war-heads love Fox. Gag me and send me to Guantanamo.

also this:

Media conglomerates have less influence amid the continued explosion of news sites, blogs and podcasts, News Corp. chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch said in the session moderated by Charlie Rose. "It's so pluralistic," Murdoch said. "We all have less power, much less."

He stated this at the world Economic Forum WWW Link, a group who's mission statement is such:

The World Economic Forum is an independent international organization committed to improving the state of the world by engaging leaders in partnerships to shape global, regional and industry agendas.


Who would be in attendance at a meeting hosted by such an organization?

Among the prominent media and technology industry attendees at the event are Sony chairman and CEO Howard Stringer, Microsoft founder and chairman Bill Gates, Google co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page along with CEO Eric Schmidt, as well as BSkyB CEO James Murdoch. Political figures appearing in sessions included Germany's federal chancellor Angela Merkel, Israel's vice prime minister Shimon Peres, Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, King Abdullah II of Jordan and Brazilian president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

Face the facts, gentleman, if you don't like them, fine but don't waste people's time with your usual living in denial antics. Please.

LOL.  You are trying to twist the words "reporter" to fit your view.  It's hopeless with the left.




Does he try to manipulate the public perception of the war the same way the media that is biased to the left manipulates the perception?  The reality I am acknowledging is peoples mindless obsession with Fox News while totally ignoring the bias from the rest of the media. 

The reality I am acknowledging is peoples mindless obsession with Fox News while totally ignoring the bias from the rest of the media. - Island Dog

I think that most people in journalism and news media are usually left leaning. I also believe that most of them are up for sale and I do think, that the cable news channels, particularly, are neither left nor right ideologically aligned but corporate.

I don't see much of a difference in actual substance in stories between Fox, MSNBC, etc. - they are different flavors but the same ice cream. I think Fox tends to get singled out because Murdoch's reputation is known and they do seem to be a (little) bit more strident in support for this administration.

As for me, I trashed my tv a while back, I listen to NPR (who fail to report on significant stories all the time; National ID card? They started talking about it 10 months after it already passed) check out the AP on the radio and newspapers, but mostly rely on independent news and research from the 'net.

I really think that's the best way to go.