Well, maybe. But the source of the info for this article is Matt Groenig, who is a satirist. Isn't it well within the realms of possibility that his entire assertion is satire over the Al Franken fiasco?

Or it could be intentional (this time) free publicity for The Simpsons?

I didn't even know that Fox was in news. Hopefully that thing they are trying to call news is just part of the clever satire their network is known for.

Tim,
Hmm, you must be the last person in the United States to have heard this:
There is a Fox News Channel.
It tends to do things like report news, unlike CNN and the New York Times, who report DNC propaganda. In fact, CNN has been known to advertise on the Fox News Channel, knowing that's where more intelligent, thoughtful people actually go to get news.
Sure, there's a more convservative bias to many of their programs, but the bias is acknowledged, and it doesn't change the facts that are reported.
The problem is, you are too used to getting your news "pre-digested" for you, and obviously cannot handle a news channel that doesn't tell you how to think.
Because, remember, CNN deliberately didn't report the true situation in Iraq. The Baghdad head even admitted it.
Nothing even remotely similar has ever been demonstrated about FNC, baseless emotional rants like yours notwithstanding.

from the Wash Post:

Names & Faces

Friday, October 31, 2003; Page C03

The Simpsons vs. Fox News

Doh! "The Simpsons" creator Matt Groening may have crossed the line with his comment last week to National Public Radio's Terry Gross that Fox media empire almost sued itself. (Now that takes some talent!)

The story goes that Fox News Channel execs were none too thrilled last year when the wildly popular cartoon, which is on Fox Broadcasting, featured a fake news ticker mocking the station's conservative rep. The headlines included gems such as: "Do Democrats Cause Cancer? . . . Study: 92 percent of Democrats are gay . . . JFK posthumously joins Republican Party . . ."

"Fox fought against it and said that they would sue the show," Groening told Gross. "And we called their bluff because we didn't think that Rupert Murdoch would pay for Fox to sue itself. So we got away with it," he said, proud of the accomplishment.

Fox News, however, denies reports that they ever threatened to sue. "We were all scratching our heads and thought it was hysterical," spokesman Rob Zimmerman told us yesterday. "It's not the first time we've been spoofed, you know."

Maybe not, but Groening told Gross during the interview that ". . . Now Fox has a new rule that we can't do those little fake news crawls on the bottom of the screen in a cartoon because it might confuse the viewers into thinking it's real news."

Nonetheless "The Simpsons" (the show, not the characters) issued an apology yesterday: "Matt was being satirical and certainly there was never any issue between the show and Fox News. We regret any confusion."

nathan,

You don't know ANYTHING about me. Your COMMENT is criticizing my comment by using the same logic you oppose. In my opinion, Fox "News" is a joke. Did I even state that CNN was an intelligent alternative - no, you ASSumed it. Did I even mention where I get most of my information - again, NO. Sure, most journalists tend to lean left or to the liberal side of issues. Have you ever honestly asked yourself why or do you trust Rush to give YOU all the answers?

Journalists also tend to be educated, not well paid (at least in the begining) and have close contact with the working middle-class and working poor. This gives them the perspective slightly different than those more affluent. If it comes down between choosing which side to join (and thankfully it doesn't in a stable nation) I'm siding with the workers and not the CEOs. Ah, before you ask, I'm not a communist.

Tim the Soldier

I'll only say that I saw that episode and thought the spoof of Fox News enormously funny. Gotta be able to laugh at yourself, Fox....

Tim, there you go again... (shaking head)

Heh.

You might have been a wee bit harsh on nathan (but just a wee bit), since your original post did look -to me- to be a serious comment that you didn't know about Fox News. Please recall that voice tone and facial expression don't always translate well into prose, and the best we can do is our little smiley faces. :)

That said, I really have to take issue with some of your following comments.

First, you state that Fox News is a joke. I take it, then, that you are an expert in judging the form, content, and professional behavior of a major news organization? Especially one that has been showing dramatic increases in its audience base every year?

Why not just say "I can't stand Fox News," or "I hate the way the present the news?" Wouldn't that be more accurate, as well as honest?

Also, you are repeating a hoary old myth about journalists, that they have some special link to middle class and/or (as you say) "the working poor."

No, most journalists don't "tend to lean left," they are very much (probably at least one standard deviation) to the left of most of the country. I'm sure you've seen the studies of their voting habits by now.

You also show a huge assumption sticking out in your comment that journalist's supposed perspective when you say "[it] gives them a perspective .. different than those more affluent." (emphasis added) Now, just which affluent people are we talking about here, Tim? The "all Repbulicans are affluent" or the "all conservatives are affluent?" :)) Stereotyping, Tim. Not good. (shaking head)

People even make the same claims about Michael Moore's "perspective" while he takes rides in corporate jets, and owns a nice place in Manhattan. Yeah...

Again, why can't you just say "I find this side's politics more palatable than that side's," instead of trying to perpetuate old stereotypes?

An aside: claims to special links aren't all one-sided; if I recall, Limbaugh's radio show was, or is, supposed to be representing "the little guy" vs. entrenched liberal/Democratic interests.

P.S. Maybe nathan doesn't get all his news from Fox, any more than you get yours from CNN?

P.P.S. Have you ever wondered just why Fox News has increased so quickly in popularity, while older news organizations have lost readership? Hmmm... :)

Casey,

Good points. I'll take them to heart. Fox News appeals to many people because it punches the infotainment buttons that we as Americans are intrigued with. Using your logic about popularity, we could say that Jason Timberlake and Britnany Spears are the most talented musical performers in the world. Popularity doesn't give something quality or credibility.

Ok, let me rephrase: I prefer other news outlets over Fox News. See, I did it. I do like Fox's coverage of the NFC however.

Tim the Soldier

Tim,
And I was being snarky in response to what I perceived as your snarkiness. Hmm, there should be a "snarky" emoticon.... or is there and I don't know about it?

Actually, my main sources for news and commentary are: Drudge, NRO, Spokane local newspaper, and BBC online.

But when something big hits, like the 2000 election fiasco, 9/11, or the war in Iraq, I find myself having to "read between the lines" far less with Fox than with CNN, BBC or A/NBCBS Evening News. Perhaps surprisingly, I don't read Coulter and have never listened to Rush....

The story is NOT a hoax-- nowhere in the link that you provided is there any proof that the whole story was a hoax. Matt Groening DID go on the air and say what he said. FOX responded by basically saying "It's our word against his".

If the story were a hoax, then Groening's apology would have included bringing up the the initial lawsuit threat from FOX as well. All Groening apologized for was for the comment about how they could no longer use crawling text at the bottom of the screen-- he figured that people would get the joke, that there's no way in hell for a sane person to confuse "The Simpsons" with "real" news shows like those on Fox News Channel, even with news scrolls at the bottom.

Fox can dish it out, but they can't take it.

Hey, Casey, you are a joke, about as big as FNC. Tim has a very good point about how FNC is a propaganda station. You say that their reporting is accurate - um, no its not. They reported that speculative allegations about Iraq, such as that chemical warheads had been found, and when it turned out they were wrong, those stories were simply never heard of again.
A survey was done of a large group of people who received their news from sources such as New York Times, and of a separate group who watched FNC. The FNC watchers tended to believe 3 incorrect ideas: 1) That majority of the world agreed with the US attack in Iraq. 2) That WMDs had been found in Iraq. 3) That the UN had authorized the attack. Over 50% of those who receieved their news from FNC believed these to be true, whereas less than 10% of those who received their news from other sources did.
So it is not just that FNC presents their news differently... THEY ARE WRONG!! The news they report is largely PROPAGANDA!!
Next you argue that they are popular, and use this argument to justify their validity. Um, Hitler was quite popular in Germany at first. That is the dumbest argument I've ever heard. DUH!!