FOX News filters Democratic Convention for viewers

[ccharles000]

FOX news likes to tout that they are the number one network for election news, etc. etc. But during the Democratic convention, theya re foregoing coverage of speakers for interviews, commentary, and pre-recorded segments. Bill O'Reilly's program, for example, while broadcasting from prime real estate at the Convention Center, is rehashing speeches from the previous night and hosting right-wingers like Laura Ingraham and Karl Rove to analyze, ignoring the live speeches behind him. Last night, Media Matters notes, FOX News aired just two minutes of Mark Warner's keynote address and instead did a segment discussing the ad they said they wouldn't air (but did, twice) trying to link Barack Obama to Bill Ayers. On FOX, the Democratic convention is heavily censored and filtered.

http://www.newshounds.us/2008/08/27/fox_news_filters_democratic_convention_for_viewers.php

[TechBear_Seattle]

1. That is not necessarily censorship

They have a right to broadcast whatever they want.

Of much more concern is that they have control of ALL the cameras and live feeds (my guess is that they bribed someone in Denver.) If they are preventing other networks from carrying the live speeches, then it is censorship.

[walldude]

3. That is blatantly not true. They do not control "all the cameras"

That is not what the camera pool is. There are certain shots, like the long lens on the podium, where stacking a camera for every network just isn't feasible. So one network has the camera on the podium and they pool that image out to all the other networks. That's all it is. There are a number of Fox cameras pooled for all the networks, the network then use the pooled cameras along with their own to create the show. Each network has it's own cameras and directors. Fox is not "in charge of the coverage" and allowing this falsehood to spread just makes us look ignorant.

I have no desire to defend Faux news but this paranoia about them controlling all the cameras needs to stop. Oh and BTW the pool changes from year to year, next time it will be another networks turn to have the camera pool..

[TooBigaTent]

8. But, is it true that only Fux can feed a podium shot to the others? And do they have control of

all crowd (reaction) shots that are available to the other broadcasters?

If the others can choose to show an entire speech while Fux cuts to Rove for comment, then it is a matter of getting the others to show the entire speech.

But if the liars can control the feed and, e.g., when they cut from the podium, no one can show the podium, that is censorship.

This ignores the fact that they should not have been allowed any closer to the arena than that anti-choice vandalism up on the mesa 10 miles outside of Denver.

[americanstranger]

13. It doesn't work like that.

The pool cameras are hooked up to switchers for each network, as a constantly running camera (as all cameras are when they're hooked up to a switcher). The decision to make one camera live is not the decision of Fox, because all the networks are getting that camera's feed along with all the other cameras on their switcher.

No one is being censored. Each network's directors decide which camera goes live at any particular time. Fox is not controlling what goes out on the air, just supplying a few cameras - as Walldude explained very well upthread.

- as

[TechBear_Seattle]

11. My apologies. I misunderstood what the camera pool was n/t

[damntexdem]

14. Watch CSPAN and see all of the speeches.

Last night, the best speech was by the governor of Montana -- and that was not even on MSNBC, but it was on CSPAN.

[onenote]

4. your guess about how fox got the pool coverage would be wrong

The networks drew names to see which one got the pool coverage. Fox "won" for the DNC; NBC won for the RNC. And they don't have control of "all" the cameras or live feeds. They are responsible for a series of stationary cameras that focus on the podium and other cameras that pan the crowd. The individual nets can and do have their own roving cameras on the floor.

The fact that fox is showing less of the speeches than other networks simply confirms that each net has a choice of feeds and has its own directors/producers making decisions about the coverage.

[TechBear_Seattle]

9. Sorry, but I find it extremely difficult to believe that Faux played fair

Not when it comes to this. It is far too convenient a way for the neo-cons to control the message.

[onenote]

10. how are they controlling the message with a camera pointed at the podium?

And with other networks having their own cameras and their own producers/directors to choose which pool camera shots, if any, to use?

[clevbot]

15. ummm.... right.... i dont think you understand

[TornadoTN]

2. They've given up all pretenses of being a legitimate news agency

To intelligent people at least. I just hope the rest of the country sees Fox for what they are - a propaganda arm of the GOP.

Jesus tapdancing christ, Karl Rove on the network? Laura Ingraham? Sean Hannity? Bill O'Reilly? How is this considered news?

[apnu]

5. They never had those pretenses to begin with. (nt)

[TornadoTN]

7. Sure they did - not to us, but to joe blow consumer

"Fair and Balanced" and all that bullshit that helped them bring people in because they were "new and flashy" with the hot anchors?

Sure, they never were a legitimate news organization, but they sure presented themselves as such for a while.

[Johonny]

6. and on my TV fox is blacked out

[MadBadger]

12. I mean, they are all doing that though

MSNBC and CNN did the same thing.