Sky News | The Fox News of Britain

Sup yall. Forgive me if this is already posted...

I had a discussion with a few of the regulars in ATS Chat today, and I mentioned that Sky News was a "sister network" to Fox News. It came to my attention that not everyone may know this. So I decided to post here and remind/inform everyone about it,, esp. since many ATSers check them frequently for news.

I am not Fox bashing, nor do I intend for anyone else to in this thread. I just wanted to make sure everyone knew that Sky and Fox are both owned by News Corp. (see, now I'm denying ignorance FOR you! You're welcome. )

www.newscorporation.com...

I'm sure many of you already knew about this, but this may be new for others. What does everyone think about Sky? Do you think they share the same characteristics of their counterpart, Fox News? Overall, how do we at ATS feel about Sky? If you didn't know about this before, does finding out change your opinion of Sky?



[edit on 9/16/2007 by damajikninja]

We usually have either SKY news or BBC News24 on the Tv in the office all day, just to keep up on current events (global corporation). I can honestly say that SKY is the more sensationalist of the two and the level of reporting and questioning by news anchors is really inane and skewed towards speculation rather than facts.
I have seen some real corkers as well on SKY, the one that immediately springs to mind was from the reporting of the police raid in which the two alleged bio belt bombers were raided in London(which later turned out to be 2 innocent guys). Anyhoos, twice within the space of about 20 minutes, their reporter outside the hospital where one of the suspects who had been shot in the raid was taken, said that "the suspect shot dead in the raid was not thought to have life threatening injuries" or similar. The first time my ears pricked up and I had a chuckle, the second time I was gobsmacked! And no, it was not a repeat of the first clip again, it was a different report.

The "experts" they wheel out are worse than those of other channels, especially the "security" and "anti-terrorism" experts who seem to like to add nothing but wild speculation and then expand some small event into a potential world ending atrocity
So, in summary, having seen FOX many times on visits to the US, I can say SKY are maybe not as bad as FOX but they come close.

[edit on 16-9-2007 by Britguy]

[edit on 16-9-2007 by Britguy]

I saw this posted on ATS in another thread



I found it pretty interesting, I'm not the biggest fan of "Gorgeous George", but found interesting his point that they named all the Israeli dead, but couldn't name a single dead from a family on the other side killed. Regardless of who is right/wrong in the Israeli conflicts, it does often appear the news is biased towards Israel. Also interesting is that they call a group "terrorists", the BBC (with a few exceptions in the past) always refrains from using language like that, and tries to use more impartial language. I quite like the way George fights back by using his own impartial words like "kidnapping" and "dungeons"

I'm British and have a very low opinion of Sky news. The only element that separates it from some American news shows that I have seen is the accent.

As a previous poster pointed out, sensationalism is the drive and in my opinion some of the reports seem laced with biased agendas.

BBC news is more 'real' and raw to me. I have a great deal of American friends and I'd say 9 out of 10 of them actually visit the BBC news website daily for their news updates.

*removed a line, that may have been taken out of context.

[edit on 16-9-2007 by not_fazed]

There's a good reason why there's a similarity and that is Rupert Murdoch. He's pretty much tied up mainstream media in Australia. His political influence is far reaching and obviously biased, he says the word and politicians fall in line.

Rupert Murdoch

In 1999, The Economist reported that Newscorp Investments had made £1.4 billion ($2.1 billion) in profits over the previous 11 years but had paid no net corporation tax. It further reported, after an examination of what was available of the accounts, that Newscorp would normally have expected to pay a corporate tax of approximately $350 million. The article explained that the corporation's complex structure, international scope and use of offshore havens allowed News Corporation to avoid tax.

It's pretty clear what is wrong with this world, global corporations that find themselves unaccountable for criminal behavior and political engineering by a filtration of the media and lending vast financial support to politicians who fit their agenda.

Well, they're sister stations. SKY covers UK news for FOX and vice-versa.

As for SKYNEWS, it has a social conservative agenda, it hates David Cameron and everything Liberal. Notice how it RARELY allows any Liberal Democrats on to their network. It LOVED Tony Blair to bits.

Hates the BBC. Has something against Channel Four too (I dunno why)

Very "Middle England". Rarely comments on other parts of the United Kingdom.

It's pushing the agenda for Iran.

SKY hardly airs "real news" stories, I mean, it gave 20 mins to a man who lived with a hippo in South Africa Come on...

It's favourite words are "terrorism","Muslims" and "immigration".

Ohhh...shall I continue

Some stories are pushed beyond sensationalism, bordering on provocative in order to get extreme views from viewers who mail in opinions.

Now, the guests. OMG.

WORSE THAN FOX.

Nick Griffin (leader of the far right BNP), Religious extremists, neo conservatives, radial left wing groups, etc.

Certain guests, like anyone left wing or liberal, is giving a tough time and made to look like an idiot. SKYNEWS made the head of the National Secularist Society as a man who hates anything religious and wanted to ban Christmas! It makes anti-war figures to be traitors to the United Kingdom and painted George Galloway as someone who hated the British army.

But, I still watch it for a giggle.

[edit on 16-9-2007 by infinite]

Originally posted by squiz
His political influence is far reaching and obviously biased, he says the word and politicians fall in line.

I once heard a British political commentator come right and say words to the effect of "you don't get to be Prime Minister in the UK if Rupert Murdoch doesn't like you."

I am of the opinion that Murdoch needs to be reigned in. His political influence is damaging to the democratic process of every nation his corporation has powerbases in, particularly the UK, the US, and of course, his native Australia.

Originally posted by John Percival Hackworth
"you don't get to be Prime Minister in the UK if Rupert Murdoch doesn't like you."

I am of the opinion that Murdoch needs to be reigned in. His political influence is damaging to the democratic process of every nation his corporation has powerbases in, particularly the UK, the US, and of course, his native Australia.

Quite simply, Rupert Murdoch will NOT be "reigned in", and his empire will continue to grow in size and power - despite any seeming monopoly. Whilst many people deny the existence of such "conspiracy theories" as the Illuminati and by extension the idea of a group of super-powerful and mega-rich people ruling the world, people like Rupert Murdoch tend to confirm such ideas. He is without a doubt one of the most powerful men on the planet. How high up the "chain of command" he actually goes is open to conjecture - personally I think not THAT much higher than politicians, simply because he is visible on a day-to-day basis. But, the fact that it seems to be a given, even among politicians, that "you don't get to be Prime Minister in the UK if Rupert Murdoch doesn't like you" says much for the idea that politicians are simply puppets for other interests.

Let me expand upon this idea a bit. There are many many quotes from many many prime ministers, presidents and other senior and well-respected government officials (people in the know) to the effect that they themselves KNOW they are not the highest power. For example:

"The real rulers in Washington are invisible and exercise power from behind the scenes." - Felix Frankfurter, US Supreme Court Justice, 1960

"From the time I took office as Chancellor of the Exchequer I began to learn that the State held, in the face of the Bank and the City, an essentially false position as to finance. The Government was not to be the substantive power, but was to leave the Money Power supreme and unquestioned." - Chancellor of the Exchequor William Gladstone, 1852

"The international bankers swept statesmen, journalists, and jurists all on one side and issued their orders with the imperiousness of absolute monarchs." - Lloyd George, talking about the Versailles Peace Conference after the First World War

"The state does not function as desired. The car does not obey. A man is at the wheel and he seems to lead it, but the car does not drive in the desired direction. It moves as another force wishes." - Vladimir Lenin

I could go on all day but you get the general idea. Also, probably one of the most important quotes ever from a member of possibly the most important and influential family in modern history tells its own story:

"Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation and I care not who makes its laws." - Mayer Amschel Rothchild, 1790

Simply stated, this means that those who have the power to buy anything they want can have ANYTHING they want - including the Prime Minister they want, the President they want, the laws they want, the treatment of the public they want, etc etc. This, after most of my adult lifetime's observation of political events in the UK and USA, I know to be true - as does anyone else who can shake off the pernicious filtering effect of the media and mainstream "knowledge". The idea that Rupert Murdoch (and similar people in this country and others) has a massive influence on the selection (not election!) of Prime Ministers in the UK is not only 100% correct (you only have to look at the influence the media has on the minds of the public to see the truth in this) but, to my mind, confirmation that there really IS a mega-rich "power elite" who order the world as they want it. The idea that those further down the ladder could in any way "regin in" such people shows a lack of understanding of how the world really works (no offence intended). It is people like Murdoch who do the reigning...

Incidentally, he also owns Myspace. Take from that what you will...

Says it all:

"The main mark of modern governments is that we do not know who governs, de facto any more than de jure. We see the politician and not his backer; still less the backer of the backer; or, what is more important of all, the banker of the backer. Throned above all, in a manner without parallel in all the past, is the veiled prophet of finance, swaying all men living by a sort of magic." - G. K. Chesterton

posted by franzbeckenbauer
Quite simply, Rupert Murdoch will NOT be "reigned in", and his empire will continue to grow in size and power - despite any seeming monopoly. Whilst many people deny the existence of such "conspiracy theories" as the Illuminati and by extension the idea of a group of super-powerful and mega-rich people ruling the world, people like Rupert Murdoch tend to confirm such ideas. He is without a doubt one of the most powerful men on the planet.

Exactly. He won't be reigned in. My comment is more wishful thinking than anything, I'll admit

You are correct though: it is people like Murdoch who confirm the Elitist's existance. To see the power he weilds is quite staggering, and it is staggering even moreso when Joe Public dismisses him as just another millionaire

The idea that those further down the ladder could in any way "regin in" such people shows a lack of understanding of how the world really works (no offence intended). It is people like Murdoch who do the reigning...

No offense taken, because you make an assumption based on one comment. Like I said though, it was made through wishful thinking on my part.

I am fully aware that it's Murdoch and those of his ilk who do the reigning. I will say this though: sooner or later, things will change. They'll get worse before they get better, of course, but no empires last forever.

Oh... and I wouldn't be too hasty to put down the abilities of those lower down the ladder, either

[edit on 17-9-2007 by John Percival Hackworth]

I view sky news as a sort of comic relief from 'real news' channels etc. Their ajenda is so blantent at times its crazy. I can agree totally with the whole 'middle england ' obsession thing. They sem to hvae a love of the middle classes and neo conservative types, obvisouly all crimes are commited by people outside these groups if the are to be belived..(ok I'm exagerating a little but you get my drift.)

Scotland hardly ever gets a mention unless it to poke fun at their parliment, or 'funny stories about guys marrying haggis etc....

The welsh are only mentioned when a story contains catherine zeta jones or charlotte church.

Anything that happens north of watford is immediatly considered less important than lesser stories concerning those from london and the south. (all funny summer stories concern north village customs etc...)

Sky 'experts' are usually the first person they can find who will agree with their adgenda...

Any stories that could be considered 'ATS material' are presented as if anyone not sitting firmly well within the staus quo are all mad and should be commited.

They constantly push an anti muslim slant on every story... I'm not muslim and thats offensive to me for gods sakes. It must drive the decent law abiding british muslims crazy.

Interesting though is that 'sky text' often gives a much truer picture of things than the the actual channel itself. Its news for people who want to be told what to think, how to live and how they SHOULD be.

Wayne...