字幕列表 影片播放 列印英文字幕 In the great 1974 film Godfather II. There’s a scene about halfway through where Hyman Roth and Michael Corleone and all the American gangsters are gathered in a patio in Havana and it’s Hyman Roth’s 67th birthday, and he’s giving a slice of cake to each gangster got - Louis from Chicago you run the Copacabana, Frankie you get the prostitutes, he’s dividing up the island among all the American gangsters and appropriately enough the birthday cake has an outline of Cuba on it, he’s giving them a slice of Cuba. And while Hyman Roth is doing this he says: “Isn’t it great to be in a country with a government that respects private enterprise?” And that’s how media policies have been done in the United States for the past 50 years and it’s increasing in the last 20 years. Extraordinarily powerful lobbyists duke it out behind closed doors for the biggest slice of the cake. The public knows nothing about it, it doesn’t participate. And that’s the problem we face. Media is the nervous system of a democracy. If it’s not functioning well, the democracy can’t functioning. We’re heading towards an election where most people are never going to be in a room with Kerry or Bush. What they learn about the candidates is what the media shows them or tells them. Decides not to show, not to tell. People are faced with critical choices about the future of the country when they go into the voting booth. And I go in. And I have been, through the course of a campaign cycle subject to false, distorted, caricaturing, And I may not even know where it’s coming from because often there’s an echo effect off places like cable and like radio and those wrong pieces of information are repeated and repeated, by the time it reaches me, I don’t even know what the source was. This is the environment we’re living in and it’s really, it’s fundamentally undermining democracy which is based on knowing some good and solid information so I can make an informed choice. When you see the properties Rupert Murdoch owns around the world, the strong, conservative point-of-view that those properties often reflect, it’s different than ABC or CBS or NBC. Sure, they reflect a point-of-view but not nearly as strong or consistently strong from one ideological perspective. Murdoch actually bought the station in 1985. And actually left us alone for at least the first three years of his ownership, partly because we were so successful and prosperous that there was no reason to monkey with us. At WTTG our success insulated us to a certain degree. And it was kind of like being in an office and seeing people come down with the flu around you. We knew the flu eventually might reach us, but we were hoping if we took enough vitamins that we’d never catch the flu. It was clear during those years that Murdoch, who had absolutely adored Ronald Reagan, adored him, had a lot of admiration for the group of Republicans that controlled Congress and certainly on Capitol Hill. We received an order from one of Murdoch’s apparatchiks, if you will, that we should cut away from our newscast and start carrying a fawning tribute to Ronald Reagan that was airing at the Republican Convention. We were stunned because up until that point we were allowed to do legitimate news. And suddenly we were ordered, from the top, to carry propaganda; carry Republican right-wing propaganda. There was a cultural underpinning to what Murdoch wanted. Race issues, AIDS. I constantly remember complaints that there was too much being done on AIDS. He also couldn’t stand the Kennedy’s. Ted Kennedy, who was a long-time opponent of Rupert Murdoch, and, and one celebrated occasion, we were ordered to run a long uncut piece from A Current Affair that was rehashing the whole matter of Chappaquiddick. It had zero news value. We were told, ‘you had to run this thing uncut’. You could not even edit it down and just run a snippet of it. I think they evolved in later years and especially after Roger Ailes took over and, and really got the Fox News Channel up and running into a far more sophisticated kind of operation. What we saw, in my era, was, was really the, the birth of this sort of thing and the roots of what came later. I’d just like to say how delighted I am that we’ve now reached this moment, when we can firmly announce the starting of a Fox News Channel and a much greater effort on a build up of Fox News in every area. We’d like to be premier journalists. We’d like to restore objectivity where we find it lacking and ah, certainly there could be that interpretation because of my background but I left politics a number of years ago and have running this organization for the last two years. So we just expect to do fine, balanced journalism. I was a Fox employee for 3 years. I worked in the News. On air or behind the camera? I’d rather not answer that. I think I’d rather keep myself anonymous. You’ll disguise my voice right? Larry Johnson Former Fox News Contributor I’ve heard directly from folks, both as correspondents and as bookers, who have expressed very grave reservations, almost as if they’re being monitored by a Stalinist system, afraid to be seen talking to the wrong person or having the wrong kind of email exchange. You’re either one of us or one of them, and in leaving Fox News, for example, there were a number of people at the organization, at the head of the organization, tried to ruin my career simply because I was leaving, because I didn’t leave on their terms, because I refused to sign a confidentiality agreement, that was another reason for them Americans Trust only One. The Only Place. American’s Newsroom. Fox News.” It’s very much a, an environment of fear. It was made very clear to us that our activities were being monitored and if someone wasn’t watching it live they were at least recording it and they would review it after the fact to see what we did. We weren't necessarily, as it was told to us, a news gathering organization so much as we were a proponent of a point-of-view. Anonymous 2 Former Fox News Reporter Fox has already been successful in sort of branding me as somebody who can't be trusted. And as a result, I'm already sort of on thin ice regarding my current employer. I’d been warned by people. There were a number of people who pulled me inside and said, “Look, you know, I don’t know, I mean, I know that you want to work and I know that you need a job, but you might want to think twice about taking this job because, really, it is a very conservative news network.” Now that I’ve learned comedy writing at the Fox News Channel I guess I should be doing stand up in the clubs.’ I think that if you don’t go along with the mindset of the hierarchy in New York, if you challenge them on their attitudes about things, you’re history. I suspect your research has discovered, the memoranda that were written by John Moody and by Roger in terms of setting the tone for the day. The message of the day is a very political device. Date: 5/9/2003 From: Moody Let spend a good deal of time on the battle over judicial nominations, which the President will address this morning. Nominees who both sides admit are qualified are being held up because of their POSSIBLE, not demonstrated views on one issue – abortion. This should be a trademark issue for FNC today and in days to come. There was nothing covert about the way the managing editors in New York or Washington operated. They made it perfectly clear what they expected from us. The so-called 9/11 commission has already been meeting. In fact, this is its eighth session. The fact that former Clinton and both former and current Bush administration officials are testifying gives it a certain tension, but this is not, “what did he know and when did he know it” stuff. Don’t turn this into Watergate. Every morning there was a detailed list of subjects to talk about and not talk about. Kerry’s speech on the economy at Georgetown is likely to move onto the topic of Iraq. We should take the beginning of Kerry’s speech, see if it contains new information (aside from a promise to create 10 million jobs)and see if other news at that time is more compelling. It is not required to take it start to finish. They were just actually issuing edicts to the reporters to control what they could say and how they could say it. Let’s refer to the US marines we see in the foreground as “sharpshooters” no snipers, which carries a negative connotation. When Headquarters sent the memo every morning and said, “we want to touch on the following issues, we want to cover the following stories, we want to do them in this particular way”, our job and our objective then was to execute the plan. The pictures from Abu Graib prison are disturbing. Today we have a picture – aired on Al Arabiyn – of an American hostage being held with a scarf over his eyes, clearly against his will. Who’s outraged on his behalf? The real revolutionary breakthrough of Fox has been its eliminative journalism. That’s the thing to understand.