redfred18t

iTrader: (1)

Pretty much since the beginning of the News of the World phone hacking scandal, Fox News has covered it with less teeth than some of its rivals. But a segment on Fox & Friends on Friday morning may have been one of the most creative spins on the scandal -- or, to hear two personalities on the network describe it, even a tempest in a teapot.

Early on in the segment, tucked bizarrely into a story about an unrelated hacking incident at the Pentagon, show host Steve Doocy expressed wonderment at the "piling on" that was happening in the media. "The company has come forward and said it happened a long time ago, at a tabloid in London, somebody did something really bad," he said.

Doocy's guest, media consultant Robert Dilenschneider, nodded and wondered why people couldn't "get beyond" the scandal.

"Murdoch has apologized but for some reason the public, the media, keeps going over it, again and again" -- eliding completely, of course, the fact that the British government and the FBI were going over it too, which may be one reason not to get beyond it. (Not long after, embattled News International executive Rebekah Brooks and Dow Jones CEO Les Hinton resigned, suggesting that News Corp. itself hasn't come close to getting beyond it either.)

The Fox & Friends pair then went on to make a comparison between a number of banks that had been hacked into, head-scratchingly confusing those being hacked and the ones doing the alleged hacking. "Citigroup, great bank. Bank of America, great bank. Are they getting the same kind of attention for hacking that happened less than a year ago that News Corp. is getting today?" Dilenschneider said.

Doocy didn't challenge his guest's comparison. But later that day, the pundits did, with Mediaite among the sites to jump on the conflation.

"So, let me get this straight," wrote the site's Jon Bershad. "A News Corp. outlet has admitted to hacking into citizen’s phones and has been accused of bribing politicians and police and this is the same thing as other companies being the victims of computer hackers?! How on earth did you get there?"

Of course, for those who want an, ahem, more aggressive take on the scandal, there's this: Current's Keith Olbermann, known for going hard after Fox News and News Corp., has just announced that on Tuesday he will offer several hours of live "coverage and analysis" of Rupert and James Murdoch's testimony in front of the British Parliament.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/ente...-scandal-.html

Blaize

Love it. Not surprised at all to see Fox downplaying it (and I actually mean that rather frankly), But having the clowns on that channel reveal how little they understand what is on the teleprompter is pretty funny.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Ever heard of the Les Moonves scandal? Or the Pinch Sulzberger debacle? Do you know why McDermott had to pay John Boehner more than $1 million?

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Oh yeah, I remember that, when Keith Olbermann camped out in front of CBS headquarters for days on end to provide live coverage on Les Moonves who was responsible his rouge employee Dan Rather reporting on phony National Guard documents to discredit our President.

Oh yeah, this was when our hero Keith Oblerman again, camped out in front of the TIMES headquarters this time to cover Pinch Sulzberger's role in allowing his employees to go rogue. But it was more than once. It was last when Pinch Sulzberger allowed his rogue employees to publish classified government documents illegally obtained by Julian Assange. And then again when he cmaped out to cover the story in 2006 when the Times published illegally leaked classified documents concerning a government program following terrorists' financial transactions. And agin in 2005 when the Times printed illegally obtained information about a top-secret government program tracking phone calls connected to numbers found in Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's cell phone. And the first was in 1997 when the Times paper published an illegally obtained phone call between Newt Gingrich and Republican leaders.

Hellz yeah I do, because Olbermann reported on it! (if you dont know, its linked to the story he reported on in 1997)


Kieth Olbermann is a real journalist, always there to report and analize.



Now, while I'm not downplaying what took place, but pointing the blame at Murdock is silly, but he allows Fox News to exist so he's evil and needs to be punished, he has no other role in the story.

The story on Fox and Friends was about protecting yourselves from hacking and talking about the pentagon and other examples of companies that have been hacked resently, so the quotes are a little out of context.

The also didn't print Dorsey's full quote which finished: "...and the company reacted. They closed that newspaper, all the people got fired, even though 99 percent of them had nothing to do with it"

Blaize

they closed the paper a month ago. the phone hacking and bribing of police officers has been going on for CLOSE TO A DECADE (that we know of so far). And old Murdoch was well aware of it 5 years back when it last came up regarding celebrities and royals. While I agree that he certainly has no involvement regarding the day to day operations of any one of his news outlets, that doesn't absolve him of responsibility for his employees particularly when this isn't the first time.

and the reason the OP was funny is because they are comparing hackers hitting banks with DDOS attacks or stealing card numbers, to listening in to phone messages of dead girls and bribing the police to locate celebrities via cellphone triangulation (that last bit is part of this scandal, but admittedly not part of the hacking). but as far as the morons on that show are concerned, if it has the word "hack" in the name its all the same thing.

If they want to downplay that they work for a company with loose ethics, then more power to them. I would expect nothing less. But they are too ******* dumb to even understand what they are trying to downplay. Mind you the target audience probably didn't realize either.

Having said all that, am I the only one that thinks Rebekah Brooks is kind of hot? I bet she is into leather.

redfred18t

iTrader: (1)

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

Are they equating the two? I can see how it could be read that way, based on the phrasing of the blog's author and selective quoting. I am not saying they didn't, but I am suggesting that you not fall in to the same sort of trap you might accuse most Fox & Friends viewers of.

Without a full transcript or a video of the entire segment (not just an edited clip of those few lines), it would be difficult to say definitively.


That said, based on the few times I have flipped passed that show, I would not be surprised if they did equate the two. However, I would suggest it had less to do with soft-balling a cousin publication and more to do with lack of intelligence.

Then again, please note that we are discussing morning show hosts and not "journalists." It might be like saying Anne Curry soft-balled someone from the Obama administration on a question about the economy in a segment from the Today Show.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

see post #4

Blaize

Actually, I should have said this before, I have heard the audio for the whole segment (un-edited). All the left wing podcasts were falling all over themselves with glee making fun of it. The inflection was clearly that the paper was shut down as soon as it was discovered, and that what happened to the banks was the same thing that NOTW did. Neither of these are true of course.

I do however agree wholeheartedly that this has lees to do with them protecting the parent company, and everything to do with them being hired because they are good looking not because they are very bright.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

no, doubt about that.

the rest of my post #4 is still win.