- Home
- Politics, News & Issues
- Have you ever been out Foxed?
Have you ever been out Foxed?
- By Vital Germaine
- Published 01/29/2008
- Politics, News & Issues
- Unrated
Vital Germaine
Vital is a multifaceted individual who was born of biracial parents in the former Belgian Congo during a horrific civil war. He was raised in London before moving to Belgium during his late teens where he was introduced to the world of entertainment. Vital soon moved to New York to further his entertainment career. After two years in the Big Apple, he auditioned for Cirque Du Soleil. He performed for over 5 years in Cirque’s productions of Mystère and Quidam. A tragic injury forced him to prematurely end his acrobatic career. He has since become a published artist, a business owner, and an author with his first book on the verge of publication. For more on Vital log onto http://artofvital.com
View all articles by Vital Germaine
What the Fox was that?
Is Fox news considered journalism? Is it fair and balanced? Let’s start by asking the question as to how does one define the word journalism. What are the prerequisites to be the ideal journalist? The word journalism is a typical “ism” that has a dictionary definition from which to reference, but is in reality accurate only in theory and not in practice. If we analyse the word, its root form is “journal,” which according to the Oxford Concise Dictionary is a daily record of events. This definition suggests objectivity, but I believe objectivity to be an unattainable goal of humankind in general and, therefore, professionally impossible. If history is based on facts, yet, subject to personal interpretation, and the Bible is subjective, as is politics, art, literature and taste, then logic suggests that journalism is by default also subjective.
So the question regarding journalism is not if it should be objective or subjective. The appropriate question is to which degree are the facts subjectively presented. Moreover, how subjectively will the individual digest those same facts? For example, the term “sniper” has in essence the same meaning as “sharpshooter”, but one has a negative connotation, where as the other suggests a superhero of sorts. So which of the two words will give the truest of pictures for both reader and writer?
I believe journalism to be nothing more than politically correct propaganda, and Fox News is according to the documentary “Out Foxed,” a specialist in the field of subliminal seduction. Fox News has been able to blind America with their carefully orchestrated slogans, whilst simultaneously keeping their audience highly entertained and oblivious to the spin they claim to not apply. The cold truth about journalism is that it is a business like any other. It is aimed at making a profit, and buyers are essential to the survival of any business. How can the buyer best be bought in today’s fast-paced society with information being processed faster than “breaking news?” Sensationalised gimmicks, that’s how. Entertain them and they will return. Journalism
has now become as much about entertainment as it is about information--and that is okay for the educated mind that can see beyond the glamour and spectacle. The un-educated mind, however, becomes an oblivious Pavlovian dog, salivating at a networks masqueraded rhetoric.
My estimation of journalism has not been tainted by viewing the “Out Foxed” documentary, which in itself presented a hypocritically lop-sided perspective of a lop-sided subject. The truth is probably to be found somewhere in the middle of both extremes. When watching Fox News, I keep in mind who and what I am watching. The same applies when reading the National Inquirer. A spade is a spade. If a Jehovah’s Witness knocks at one’s door, one should know what to expect. Well, apply that knowledge when watching Fox News or any other journalistic presentation for that matter. Do not be blinded by the alleged “no-spin zone.” The key is for the reader, viewer or listener, depending on the media source, to come to a conclusion knowing that facts may be politically motivated and biased, and not completely accurate. We must absorb the news from several different sources, filter the content and balance it out as best we can, because Fox won’t. Then, and only then, can we come to an intelligent open minded conclusion which might still be far from truth.
Pointing the finger at Fox is not the solution to the dilemma of defining journalism. Everybody is a journalist to some degree, and we all present the facts from a personal perspective. Even the most banal water cooler accounts: include, “what had happened was. . . and then he like said. . . and then I said. . . he did. . . so I kicked his ass dude… wor-r-r-r-d.” We all put spin on a story, so why would we expect a journalist to be an Ubermensch, impervious to a little subjectivity. If a network happens to have the power and resources to influence the masses through journalistic influence, as it appears Rupert Murdoch has (CEO of News Corporation - Media & Entertainment Company), then good for him and congratulations. Do not be disappointed that I do not fit the demographic of your gullible market Mr. Murdoch, but I am all the same entertained.
Works Cited
“Journal.” The Concise Oxford Dictionary. 7th ed. 1985
Rupert Murdoch Biography. 12 April 2007
Is Fox news considered journalism? Is it fair and balanced? Let’s start by asking the question as to how does one define the word journalism. What are the prerequisites to be the ideal journalist? The word journalism is a typical “ism” that has a dictionary definition from which to reference, but is in reality accurate only in theory and not in practice. If we analyse the word, its root form is “journal,” which according to the Oxford Concise Dictionary is a daily record of events. This definition suggests objectivity, but I believe objectivity to be an unattainable goal of humankind in general and, therefore, professionally impossible. If history is based on facts, yet, subject to personal interpretation, and the Bible is subjective, as is politics, art, literature and taste, then logic suggests that journalism is by default also subjective.
So the question regarding journalism is not if it should be objective or subjective. The appropriate question is to which degree are the facts subjectively presented. Moreover, how subjectively will the individual digest those same facts? For example, the term “sniper” has in essence the same meaning as “sharpshooter”, but one has a negative connotation, where as the other suggests a superhero of sorts. So which of the two words will give the truest of pictures for both reader and writer?
I believe journalism to be nothing more than politically correct propaganda, and Fox News is according to the documentary “Out Foxed,” a specialist in the field of subliminal seduction. Fox News has been able to blind America with their carefully orchestrated slogans, whilst simultaneously keeping their audience highly entertained and oblivious to the spin they claim to not apply. The cold truth about journalism is that it is a business like any other. It is aimed at making a profit, and buyers are essential to the survival of any business. How can the buyer best be bought in today’s fast-paced society with information being processed faster than “breaking news?” Sensationalised gimmicks, that’s how. Entertain them and they will return. Journalism
My estimation of journalism has not been tainted by viewing the “Out Foxed” documentary, which in itself presented a hypocritically lop-sided perspective of a lop-sided subject. The truth is probably to be found somewhere in the middle of both extremes. When watching Fox News, I keep in mind who and what I am watching. The same applies when reading the National Inquirer. A spade is a spade. If a Jehovah’s Witness knocks at one’s door, one should know what to expect. Well, apply that knowledge when watching Fox News or any other journalistic presentation for that matter. Do not be blinded by the alleged “no-spin zone.” The key is for the reader, viewer or listener, depending on the media source, to come to a conclusion knowing that facts may be politically motivated and biased, and not completely accurate. We must absorb the news from several different sources, filter the content and balance it out as best we can, because Fox won’t. Then, and only then, can we come to an intelligent open minded conclusion which might still be far from truth.
Pointing the finger at Fox is not the solution to the dilemma of defining journalism. Everybody is a journalist to some degree, and we all present the facts from a personal perspective. Even the most banal water cooler accounts: include, “what had happened was. . . and then he like said. . . and then I said. . . he did. . . so I kicked his ass dude… wor-r-r-r-d.” We all put spin on a story, so why would we expect a journalist to be an Ubermensch, impervious to a little subjectivity. If a network happens to have the power and resources to influence the masses through journalistic influence, as it appears Rupert Murdoch has (CEO of News Corporation - Media & Entertainment Company), then good for him and congratulations. Do not be disappointed that I do not fit the demographic of your gullible market Mr. Murdoch, but I am all the same entertained.
Works Cited
“Journal.” The Concise Oxford Dictionary. 7th ed. 1985
Rupert Murdoch Biography. 12 April 2007