Fox's revealing Oscar coverage: Parental guidance suggested
SUMMARY: During various news reports covering the 78th annual Academy Awards, Fox News Channel removed the on-screen text that normally appears at the bottom of the screen -- offering unobstructed views of female Fox News correspondents and commentators in revealing attire.
During various news reports covering the 78th annual Academy Awards, Fox News Channel removed the on-screen text that normally appears at the bottom of the screen -- offering unobstructed views of female Fox News correspondents and commentators in revealing attire.
The 10 a.m. ET March 5 edition of Fox News Live featured a report from Fox News entertainment correspondent Bill McCuddy from outside the Kodak Theater in Los Angeles, where the Academy Awards ceremony was held. For the entirety of McCuddy's report, the on-screen text remained up, even when the camera panned away from McCuddy to people in the crowd behind him:
Later in the day, during the 4 p.m. edition of Fox News Live, Fox News entertainment correspondent Lisa Bernhard filed a report -- also from the Kodak Theater -- in a revealing black dress. Unlike McCuddy's report, Bernhard's report featured no text or graphics at the bottom of the screen, but instead featured text in the upper left corner:
During the report, however, Fox News aired footage from the film Brokeback Mountain, at which point the familiar Fox News on-screen text and graphics reappeared, announcing the theme of Bernhard's report: "Hollywood walks on the darker side":
When the shot shifted back to Bernhard, the text and graphics once again disappeared:
At the end of Bernhard's report, anchors Gregg Jarrett and Jamie Colby commented:
JARRETT: And you get the award for best-dressed.
COLBY: And if you'll notice, Gregg, she has that hand-held mic. Lisa, I think her sound guy was afraid to mic her in that dress.
JARRETT: (laughter)
COLBY: Looking good, Lis!
JARRET: Have a great time!
BERNHARD: It's a little tight. Thank you.
Fox News then aired a report on the film Paradise Now, a Palestinian movie nominated for best foreign film that drew protests for allegedly "glorif[ying] Palestinian suicide bombers." On to discuss the film were US Weekly style director Katrina Szish -- in a low-cut dress-- and Townhall.com movie critic Megan Basham -- not in a low-cut dress.
When the camera cut to Szish, the on-screen text and graphics remained up for 16 seconds, then disappeared:
When the camera cut to Basham, the text and graphics reappeared and remained for the entire minute Basham occupied the screen.
However, once again, when the camera cut to Szish, the text and graphics were on-screen for 11 seconds, disappeared for the remaining 22 seconds she was alone on-screen, and once again reappeared when the camera shifted off her. When the camera again cut to Basham, the text and graphics remained on-screen. At the end of the segment, Colby commented: "Megan Basham and Katrina Szish, who I think Gregg will agree gets the second-place award for the most beautiful dress."
Media Matters for America previously documented numerous instances in which Fox News aired photographs and videos of scantily-clad women, and blurred images of nude women.
The sky is blue
Fox is a right wing propaganda network.
Good Catch Guys!
I thought for a second that this abuse of the media was going to slip right on past the attention of the People of America.
was watching with keen interest.
Fox News doesn't like Hollywood's "dark side". But they're ready and willing to lighten-up certain parts of it for the Bill O'Reilly-esque Fox fans.
The gall of FOX news to show women dressed this way. Everyone knows that when women dress up like this they don't want to be seen by anyone, much less put on television. It's a travesty.
No wonder they are a cable show.
MM: "offering unobstructed views of female Fox News correspondents and commentators in revealing attire.
"Unobstructed views"? Really? How much "more" did anyone really see? An inch or two of more shoulder?
I'm not impressed by this post.
Just MHO.
You don't think people tune in for cleavage? What would convince you, a nipple?
"How much "more" did anyone really see? An inch or two of more shoulder?
I'm not impressed by this post. "
To me, this is not about women's cleavage, it's about Fox "News" staff people who blatantly temporarily modify their format simply to show some cleavage.
TV is synonymous with exploitation of woman, but Fox always takes the "high moral" road with their reporting.... until they have a chance to titialize themselves.
I was more surprised to see on one of the on-screen graphics that FOX is still trying to push the term "homicide bombers." It's not working, guys.
It really isn't newsworthy that Fox like to put attractive female newsreaders front and center on their broadcasts, but unless this is selectively cherry picking certain scenes - this appears a little selacious, even for Fox.
And for the record Rusty, although off topic -what would you call those that strap bombs to their chests in order to kill people if not homicide bombers? Backpacked, misbehaved youngsters?
Until recently when Fox started calling them homicide bombers I had always heard them called suicide bombers. What about you?
Continuing the off topic thread, a suicide bomber would be one who straps a bomb to their chests and stands alone in their garage. A homicide bomber would be one who walks on a crowded bus or into a busy restaurant.
But as I said before they were always called suicide bombers....no matter how off topic the subject is. So, regardless of your definiton, did you ever hear the term homicide bomber before Fox started using it?
I can't recall, but it really doesn't matter anyway because it is a far more apt term.
That wasn't the question.
I said I don't remember where I first heard it - I answered your question.
Now, are we off topic or what - to go from women's breasts to homicide/suicide bombers in one thread has to be a record, of some sort.
what suicide bomber means. tommy, get a life.
yes, homicide bomber might be more 'apt', but it's not all that informative. If you hear that a 'homicide bomber' has killed 15 people, you left wondering what happened to the bomber. If you hear that it was a 'suicide' bomber, then you know.
Simple, no?
Thanks for the exact problem of why the term "homicide bomber" is not a "more apt" description. The far right likes to use this as propaganda to lighten the fact that the person was so willing to die for whatever cause, that they took their own life as well. Neither term is inherently more descriptive than the other:
A "homicide bomber" could setup a car bomb that was triggered upon ignition, while they are miles away in safety. The right trys to say this is more informative because it says the intent of the bombing was to kill someone.
I don't agree that it is anymore informative than when I see the term "suicide bomber". Here I know he was willing to die to achieve his goal, but I don't know what he was bombing.
Not ONCE have I ever seen the media use this term for someone whose intent was to only commit suicide with a bomb (and not to hurt others). I have always seen the media phrase that like: "A man comitted suicide by blowing himself up bomb, no one else was injured."
In either case, you need more context as to get to the heart of the matter. Homicide highlights the act of killing others / Suicide highlights the depths the person would go to commit the act.
So please Tommy, don't try to pass it off as more "apt" because it's simply not.
So how would you write the history books about the Kamikazee program in WWII? Would you call it a homicide program? You are ignoring the very thing that distinguishes the program from other ones. Almost all war programs are designed to kill the enemy, thus they are all homocide programs by nature.
Our military aircraft have dropped millions of tons of ordinance over Iraq. Many of those bombs killed people. Does that make the pilots homicide bombers simply because they intended to kill others as the term homicide bombers suggests?
The point of calling them suicide bombers is that the bomber was fanatical enough to blow him/herself up just to prove a point. I don't see where calling them what they are is a disservice to the victims or flattering to the person who uses such methods. However, Fox's aversion to do just that seems to suggest Fox and their viewers believe this silliness.
A homocide bomber would be one who plants a bomb that kills other people. A suicide bomber would be one who kills himself, usually along with as many other people as possible. Fox is using it as a perjorative term in order to diminish the sacrifice of the person doing the bombing. Don't want to give that person any "credit" for being "brave". But no matter how you look at it - the suicide bomber is showing more bravery than a homocide bomber - who can look upon his work from afar.
The administration, of course. Then they sent the memo to Fox instructing them to start using the term. Any clarification of the issue that may have been achieved is far outweighed by how it reinforced the fact that Fox is simply Rightwingnut TV.
And when was the last time that you heard a Kamikazee pilot referred to as a "homicide bomber". Ridiculous.
Both names are wrong.
A homicide bomber would walk into that bus or restaraunt, plant the bomb, then leave.
A 'suicide/homicide' bomber would stay and blow up with his victims.
As I said earlier, I prefer to go with the term that best describes their primary motiviation - that would be homicide, not suicide.
Their motivation is to be accepted into paradise by God, sacrificing themselves so that they can be judged as martyrs. Their motivation is mutual between suicide and murder.
I understand all their sick and twisted rationalizations for their fanatical extremism and it changes nothing.
They are murderous thugs who corrupt and use religion to excuse their terrorism. Regardless of their motivation, they are homicide bombers who committ suicide while carrying out their evilness.
. . .as it is, they are brought up that way as soon as they learn to walk and talk. In short, they know nothing else. If we don't understand them (and neither you nor I do) how can we find a way to stop this cycle? The illness needs to be identified before it can be treated. Another thought--perhaps this is what generations of conservatism promotes.
This has been discussed by me and other's many times and it is a fundamental disagreement always. I don't view it as an "illness" because it can never be "treated". You said it - it is a way of life. They are taught and groomed that our way of life and what we believe needs to be eliminated, wiped out.......and their fanatical extremist view of their religion allows them, motivates them, to destroy us because of who we are.
There is no couch or program that can treat that form of hatred........so rather than waste our time, we need to stamp out terrorism before it succeeds.
How do we do this? Kill them all? Kill their families? Kill their neighbors? If we don't understand them (and you agree that we don't) then how do we know that we can't treat them?
We don't set out to kill their neighbors, or their families.........we set out to kill them, to create a climate where their evil intentions are not sanctioned nor condoned, but punished.
While you spend your time trying to psychoanalyze their motives, I would prefer we kill them.
"While you spend your time trying to psychoanalyze their motives, I would prefer we kill them."
Then go do it, my boy. I heard the Army is taking anyone now, even the technically retarded.
You sound like a surgeon chastizing cancer researchers for trying to figure out cancer.
Just keep cutting the cancer out and eventually the patient will be healed.
The surgeon has fallen into the silly misconception that to understand cancer is to make excuses for it. The surgeon prefers hasty action to deliberate, rigorous comprehension of the underlying causes of the cancer.
Nevermind trying to figure cancer out, so that people don't have to go through all of that.
...... kill all the terrorists, except Osama Bin Laden, because his family does too much business with the USA.
While you spend your time trying to psychoanalyze their motives, I would prefer we kill them.
Wow, neat. You are a real man. Another real man, Sun Tzu (darling of righty politicians), said that you must know your enemy to defeat him. Guess he should have just said, you don't have to know anything to defeat your enemy.
We plant a seed that grows into more than one. By your logic, we would have to kill a lot of people. Americans don't have the stomach or the inclination to kill on that order of magnitude. These people are religious fanatics. Dying for their beliefs against the Great Satan of The West is what they believe will bring rewards for all eternity. And they are not just in the Middle East. They're on every continent and probably in most countries including our own.
Since World War II we've made the same mistake over and over. We underestimate our enemies. I remember all of the comments about those NVA Regulars and VC with their silly straw hats and sandals. How could they hold their own against America? Meanwhile, we trained and supported the ARVN forces because we'd be turning everything over to them when we left. What we didn't count on was that we faced a determined enemy. The more we killed, the harder they fought. They always seemed to be able to get enough men to join the fight. I believe that because twisted religious beliefs are at the core of the madness today, that it will be even harder to end this war.
Rusty was right to quote Sun Tzu. We don't know our enemy. We don't seem to want to learn to know them either.
"If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat."
Sun Tzu
A statement meant to be an ignorant talking point. Its only servicability is the emotional appeal and superficial tough guy persona it imparts, it isnt supposed to actually make sense, which is a good thing since it obviously doesnt to anyone with the IQ inherent in lint
We cannot drop 2000 lb MOAB bombs on a neighborhood then claim we didnt MEAN to kill the dozen of so people that were also in the nieghborhood. IF you burn a building taking no care the everyone was out of it and someone dies you are guilty of murder NOT just arson. This weak appology will NOT stand. We DO knowingly and with full understanding it WILL happen use ordinance that will kill innocents we cannot wipe that blood off our hands by saying we didnt mean to. Yes we did. IF you want to say that this is the way war is, that innocents get killed that is a reasonable argument saying we dont intend to kill them is hogwash, we do.
You're ignoring evidence which indicates that simply killing one terrorist breeds more terrorists. Assuming this is true then more than just killing "them" needs to be done. Armed forces are fine in some instances but it can never answer all of the problem.
"I prefer to go with the term that best describes their primary motiviation - that would be homicide, not suicide." --Tommy
--------------------------------------------------------------
Assuming US military pilot's primary motivation when they drop bombs is at least sometimes homicide, does that make them homicide bombers as well?
And for the record Rusty, although off topic -what would you call those that strap bombs to their chests in order to kill people if not homicide bombers?
Like most people, I would call them "suicide bombers." Why? Because it's more descriptive. It describes a phenomenon - an ideologically-motivated bombing in which the bomber is killed in order to carry out the bombing - for which there is no other term. "Homicide bombing" could be used to describe a great many other types of bombings, and thus is not as useful as the more specifc "suicide bombing." But if ambiguity is your thing, by all means go ahead and keep using "homicide bomber."
All these will probably be deleted, but I disagree with you. The term "suicide" implies that only the person committing suicide is the victim - that's what it means. When you kill yourself along with many other people you are committing homicide. Just like when someone kills their spouse and then turns the gun on themselves - we don't refer exclusively as being suicidal, they are a murderer first and foremost........their suicide is not the primary motivation.
Yeah, but we typically refer to that crime as a "murder-suicide," not just a murder. "Suicide bomber" may not be a completely descriptive term, since the bomber is committing homicide as well. (And arson. And destruction of property. And vandalism. Etc. etc.) Nonetheless, it is a better description than "homicide bomber" because it is more specific. You say "suicide bomber," and everybody knows what you mean.
Now, if we get a rash of suicides who use bombs to kill only themselves, we might have a problem with terminology. But for now, "suicide bomber" is the better term because it best describes a specific activity without being unwieldy (like "suicide/homicide/arson/destruction of property bomber" would be).
As previously noted, Suicide Bomber is the more apt term.
The term is universally understood because it modifies bomber (one who bombs) with suicide, as it is generally observed that bombers operate remotely. (At least those who wish to bomb another day.) The modifier immediately communicates a clear picture, where "homicide bomber" does nothing to clarify and everything to confuse.
And all in the name of political spin.
Freedom fries with that, anyone?
"The term "suicide" implies that only the person committing suicide is the victim - that's what it means." --Tommy
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong. Suicide just means you are killing yourself. People commit suicide all of the time, but you never hear a suicide case called a suicide poisoner or a suicide shotgunner. Suicide by itself just means someone killed themself. It is you that is inferring some sort of victim status. How can someone be a victim if they do it to themself?
The big word you are avoiding is bomber. Most single person suicides do not employ such methods. Usually (if not always) using a bomb means you don't want to go out alone. The bomber part in conjunction with suicide is entirely descriptive and much more apt than the ambiguous homicide bomber, which does not address the methodology of the attack at all.
What? You are kidding right? See, the point of the term suicide bombers is to describe. Get it? They wrap themselves in explosives and set themselves off. Homicide bombers? They could be confused with Tim freaking McVeigh. You know...the guy that blew people up without commiting suicide? Duh
Well this is important...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Am I wrong, is is Fox the network where the likes of Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Cal Thomas, etc. go on and on about "moral decay" and "family values" and "tradition"? Where holy-rollers like Jerry Falwell, Pat Donahue, Bill Bennett, etc. have gone for years to tut-tut at Hollywood over their "liberal values"?
News Corporation has put more sexuality into our media over the years than just about any other large media corporation. Rupert Murdoch has been giving British readers "Page 3" girls since his early days. Fox is the network has run all manner of cheesey, sexually charged night-time soaps and bawdy reality programs.
Anyone who takes Murdoch's money and then pontificates about "moral decay" - specifically, about rampant sex in our media and culture - is a hypocrite, pure and simple.
By the way, do Ailes and Murdich believe that their programming influences children at all toward having a casual attitude toward sex?
I would have to agree with much of what you say here........Fox and Murdoch prop themselves up as anti-Hollywood because of their "out of the mainstream liberal attitudes towards cultural issues", yet much of their programming and their sly way of infusing "sex" in their news broadcasts is indeed, eye opening.
Let's face it the "moral decay" is everywhere& being shown by everyone, BUT yeah Fox goes on and on preaching about the evils, THEN doesn't practice what it preaches.
Morality is selling pretty good these days, but so is sex. Fox just likes selling both.
They simply aren't aware of a contradiction if there is money to be made.
Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, through its subsidiary DirecTV, delivers hard- and soft-core porn to homes via satellite.
As much as conservatives want everyone to believe that sexuality is dirty and forbidden, in the end, it sells.
You may want to narrow your definition of conservatives who think that sexuality is dirty and forbidden - some extremists may believe that, however this conservative does not share that view - at least when talking about sexuality.
how the same people who protested "Married...with children" will support Fox News.
You hit a home run.
It's stunning, really. Murdoch, a huge distributor of pornography, has his minions extoll cheap patriotism on FNC, questioning the ethics of those who opposed the war by insinuating that they don't care about the human rights of Iraqis.
Meanwhile, he works out huge deals out with the Chinese, who practice forced abortions and jail dissidents.
Is there no shame left for this man?
The usually ever-present, flapping, Fox, digital U.S. flag in the upper left corner is present in all of the still frames above-except the one from the "dark" Brokeback Mountain.
It is appearant that you don't understand that gay people are unpatriotic. (sarcasm)
Does that star-spangled banner yet wave?
Um, no. Thanks to Fox News.
I wonder if Fox has a policy on when the flag can be digitally waved on screen and when it can't or if the Brokeback omission was a one-time thing.
I would have loved to be a fly on the wall if the engineers and producers ever discussed this. That would be hilarious. These right-wingers crave ideological consistency to a ridiculous extent.
The raison d’art behind Fox’s dropping their bottoms on the TV screen was to accommodate O’Reilly’s factor in the business. He was gonna show-up everyone and arrive with his brand-new, just for the occasion, really blown–up street rod, “The Mighty BO’s Secret Shimmering Shower Stall” with optional no-stings-attached Soapy-Suds Supply mechanisms. Unfortunately, BO’s biz was as non-existent as his tempest in a teapot swagger on the tube. Of course, he would opine in his stall, he had nothing to work with. And Fox has such a tool? Truly, an Academy Award.
i get the tongue in cheek humor here. but i will tell one thing about fox, they know how to bring the sexy into a news cast. the sexiest women on American news is on that damn fox. it almost makes it bearable. Laurie due is one of the top notches in news.
I'm kind of partial to Molly Henneberg & Juliet Huddy ;-)
Robin Meade on headlineNews
Nobody asked me, but if Fox is in the business of promoting sex appeal than what about the guys? The Fox men are mostly nerdy funny looking types with the exception of Hannity who kind of looks like the evil Superman, but what about Gibson, Hume, Combs, Covuto, Krauthamer, the two nerds on the morning show.....
Very funny, and dead on, Lynn.
In "Outfoxed," one of the former FNC producers claims that Fox's target demographic was suburban, middle-aged men.
What better fantasy for these guys than hot young babes who actually agree with their political rants? "Come here, little lady, and let a real man explain to you how cutting taxes actually increases revenue..."
Hume, Barnes, Kondrake, Gibson, Cavuto, O'Reilly, etc. - they're all stand-ins for the geezers who love Fox. Pair 'em up with Murdoch's electronic "Page 3" girls and the codgers at home get a vicarious thrill!
Are you suggesting you'd like to see BIGGER text boxes in front of FOX's male anchors? I'll sign on to that request!
First, an "exclusive" on Anna Benson's sexy poses while she bemoans the "discrimination" against her right-wing views surrounding her pitcher husband's trade, now plunging necklines . . .
We shouldn't be surprised. This is the news arm of a network that brought us "Married with Children," "Who Wants to Marry a Millionare," and "Temptation Island."
FOX continues to redefine the standard of what is good taste, by lowering the standard.
Nice catch on the disappearing graphics. Very funny.
What the hell does that mean "should this show have a delay?" Does she mean that if someone were to say something liberal sounding it could be dumped?
fuuuuuuuuuuuunny
leftwingandunafraid is all over the place. and he's on until about 10 this morning. but not much tommy, if at all. then leftwing disappears today, and tommy? he's back.
*
That suggestion is crazy. LWAU is however the same as sorcerer and kenkong77.
They are very distinct personalities and LWAU/sorcerer/kenkong77 always mention at some point www.frankenlies.com .
I would say that Tommy is politically more libertarian than Republican like LWAU as well (although LWAU claims to be a moderate and/or a liberal sometimes).
LWAU just likes to argue the same stupid thing over and over.
Just for the record, I have never posted under any other name but my own.......nor will I.
There is only one tommy.
BTW in my post above "<>" means does not equal for those not mathematically inclined.
I hope you get a chance to answer some of the posts above about homicide bombers when you get the chance.
Peace.
I have addressed the topic many times here and my position remains unchanged. The term suicide bomber only tells half the story - suicide is killing one's self, so if I had no other information I would conclude that a suicide bomber blew him or herself up, nobody else was harmed......that's the problem I have with that terminology.
To be fair, the best term, in my opinion, would probably be "homicidal suicide bomber".........all bases are covered.
Since when does the word bomber describe someone that blows things up in his back yard? No a bomber is someone like Ted Kozinsky or Tim McViegh that kills people with bombs. The word suicide modifies the word bomber to show that along with being a bomber he also committed suicide no one anywhere is confused and thinking a suicide bomber just committed suicide and didnt try to kill anyone no matter how much you try to pretend they are
Have you heard of people committing plain old regular single person suicide with a bomb that wasn't trying to take other people out as well?
When you hear many injuries resulting from a suicide bomber, do you just think to yourself that these suicides need to be more carefull when they are blowing themselves up, so they don't accidently harm others?
Blurbs this horrible don't come along very often on Fox News.
Homicide Bombers just sounds stupid. It doesn't evoke some outrage at the person who blows themself up because Fox uses the term Homicide Bomber. Its like when Red Fox would get angry at a white person and call him Haunky or cracker: Its just not offensive.
By the way, the post about the scantily clad women on Fox really shows their Hypocrisy on the so-called culture wars. All of their coverage on the Oscars is about the "far left" "Hollywood" crowd who just doesn't get middle america and their homey values. They deliver these lines with Hooters girls. They are like a wacky-zany-crazy local sports talk show that tries to sex it up to keep their male fans attention.
The funny thing I saw this morning on Fox morning shwo was those jokers discussing Madonna's supposed problem with explaining her lesbian kiss to her daughter. That dork with the black hair and that Puff with the blond hair were reveling in any homo problem Madonna supposedly created for herself. As if that blond haired dude aint the queerest guy on TV this side of Shep Smith. Hypocrisy once again at Fox.
Isn't the Oscars all about looking good and promoting attire... What if someone wanted to find out what the females are wearing because it was classy, and revealing? WOW! Afraid of a little black dress and a semi-low cut dress? Go talk to the libs in Hollywood and ask why there are no text bars for the primetime garbage displayed daily...
With all due respect, ALL the networks (local and national, network and syndicated) show "revealing" womens' wear while doing entertainment reporting - because it's about... well ... entertainment reporting.
This is not hard to understand and MMFA should know better. There are much better ways of highlighting Fox's hypocrisy than this.
Faux has always offer eye candy for the "BillyBob" audience. I chuckled a few days ago, when one of their young news bimbos didnt know how to pronounce DeConcini's name. He looked totally amazed that she had NO idea WHO he was, yet had the audacity to criticize his opinions! She REALLY blew it! I watch FAUX just for the laughs!
I say, show the blouse bunnies! Unless FNC is nuked, you'll not be satisfied, will you?
Does Faux news not care about the female viewers? Where's the beef cake? Oh that's right who cares about women and anyway their probably in the kitchen getting their man's meal or cleaning a toilet or something, or at least they should be. Damn women. Wow, only on the Fox - Republican Propaganda and T&A. This is just another reason why Fox is a complete joke in the real news industry.
love cleavage want to see more! jamie colby
want to see more cleavage!jamie colby