A fresh change blows across the land

[uc50ic4more]

Originally Posted By: MarkC
I don't need to point out anything, since I'm not arguing that anyone else is biased or not. I'm talking about Faux News.


Just for whatever this is worth, MarkC: In any arena of debate, public or not, using childish belittlements against those with whom you are in disagreement is a detriment to only your arguments.

I watch F-a-r-t-s News (See? *That made me look petty*) from time to time more for the entertainment of the outrageous commentaries than anything else ("terrorist fist pump" still gets a laugh at a party), and I hold the value of their "news" below that of the rest of the "news" business, but disrespect gets us nowhere, fella... Especially when the anonymous cloak of the internets eggs us on further into bravado.

Please don't get me wrong: *I can see why liberals get really ticked watching this [censored]*, but 1) you're acting like they are with this "faux" business (although it *was* funny the first time I read it) and 2) O'Reilly finds it amusing when he gets you to act like that.

It might also be worth noting that I had never tuned into Fox News until I had heard liberals *hatefully* deriding them. There is no such thing as bad publicity, and I doubt that concept is lost on the Fox people.

Originally Posted By: MarkC
It they have THE TRUTH and if, as they claim, most Americans feel as they do, then they should soon dominate the ratings and become the lone behemoth of American news media.


Sadly, this is from the Drudge Report:

1/28/09... VIEWERS...

FOXNEWS OREILLY 3,891,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY 3,034,000
FOXNEWS BECK 2,306,000
FOXNEWS SHEP 2,299,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 2,155,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,581,000
CNN COOPER 1,559,000
CNN KING 1,420,000
CNN BLITZER 1,490,000
CNNHN GRACE 1,435,000
MSNBC MADDOW 1,398,000

The case could easily be made, of course, that the behemoth monolith that is Fox is the sole conduit through which the right can talk amongst themselves, whereas the "left" "news" has to split the difference... Kinda the same thinking behind why Conservatives win and election from time to time up here in The People's Republic of Canadastan.

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
We've been told by the radicals and reactionaries to WAKE UP for a very long time. Both accurately identified that there was an enemy ..but they mistook each other for it.

It was never a tug-o-war for supremacy. The tug-o-war was the tool that kept you occupied while you were being taken to the cleaners.


+1. Let's all stop insulting each other, turn the news OFF and flip over to reruns of The Office.

Regards and much respect to all,
uc50ic4more

 

[MarkC]

So with all these numbers , why all the obligatory moaning?
Watch and be happy.

 

[Drew99GT]

Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah
Originally Posted By: MarkC
How many non-Conservative commentators does it have in a day?
Please point out the Conservative commentators on;
ABC
NBC
CBS
CNN
MSNBC
PBS
(I'm sure I'm missing some channels)
and all the shows like;

Meet the press
20/20
Today
Good Morning America
The View
Oprah

and any other "balanced" "news" shows.

Then we add in the so "balanced" rags like Time, Newsweek and others.

It's ok, we are saved..

Name ONE liberal commentator on FAUX (sorry, that was just for Pablo)

Shepard Smith and Gredda Van Facelift don't count - they're clearly not liberal or even moderate anymore.

This argument is really stupid anyhow. My main point is journalists should seek the truth about government. The only thing Fox did over the last 8 years was try and discredit journalists seeking truth about the government and it's policies.

 

[Drew99GT]

Oh, and I hope the quote on quote "liberal media" holds the new government equally accountable if and when they stray off course.

 

[JHZR2]

I'm not seeing it yet, and I get insight from relatively high levels...

but I cant venture there.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
So you are saying government control of the press is a good thing?


Never said that at all.

Pointed out that OUR govt owned ABS and SBS while funded by the Govt as a competitor to the Free to Air are hated by the politicians, as they have no control over content or editorial.

Govt ownership does not equal control.

Unlike Murdoch

 

[crinkles]

swith the TV and broadcast channels off. we will all feel more relaxed and we wouldn't be sitting through all that carp.

 

[jsharp]

Originally Posted By: Drew99GT

Name ONE liberal commentator on FAUX (sorry, that was just for Pablo)

Shepard Smith and Gredda Van Facelift don't count - they're clearly not liberal or even moderate anymore.

This argument is really stupid anyhow. My main point is journalists should seek the truth about government. The only thing Fox did over the last 8 years was try and discredit journalists seeking truth about the government and it's policies.


Juan Williams

Your turn. Name one commentator on Fox that's as biased as Chris "My job is to help Obama" Matthews.

 

[Turk]

I'll give another Liberal commentator on Fox News:

Mort Kondrake.

And another:

Lis Wiehl.

 

[GROUCHO MARX]

Originally Posted By: tpitcher
I'll give another Liberal commentator on Fox News:

Mort Kondrake.

And another:

Lis Wiehl.







Geraldo

 

[Drew99GT]

Originally Posted By: jsharp
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT

Name ONE liberal commentator on FAUX (sorry, that was just for Pablo)

Shepard Smith and Gredda Van Facelift don't count - they're clearly not liberal or even moderate anymore.

This argument is really stupid anyhow. My main point is journalists should seek the truth about government. The only thing Fox did over the last 8 years was try and discredit journalists seeking truth about the government and it's policies.


Juan Williams

Your turn. Name one commentator on Fox that's as biased as Chris "My job is to help Obama" Matthews.


Pat Buchanan, Mike Smerconish, Heidi Harris, Frank Gaffney, Peggy Noonan, Ed Rogers, Todd Harris, and David Brooks - all conservatives who regularly appear on Chris Mathews show.

Sean Hannity. Propaganda vs. journalism. Glenn Beck as well. Orielly heads up the rear. Infinitely more biased then Chris Mathews.

Fox News was created with right tilting bias as it's goal. Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch profess to it.

 

[Drew99GT]

Originally Posted By: GROUCHO MARX
Originally Posted By: tpitcher
I'll give another Liberal commentator on Fox News:

Mort Kondrake.

And another:

Lis Wiehl.







Geraldo


Mort Knodrake liberal?

Bahaaaaaahaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

 

[Turk]

Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Originally Posted By: GROUCHO MARX
Originally Posted By: tpitcher
I'll give another Liberal commentator on Fox News:

Mort Kondrake.

And another:

Lis Wiehl.







Geraldo


Mort Knodrake liberal?

Bahaaaaaahaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!


Ah,sorry, I meant the other guy next to him, (I can't remember his name...) he's the Liberal.

Mara Liasson is also a Liberal.

 

[Nickdfresh]

I'm not commentating on this issue specifically.

But in a general sense, just because a media outlet is owned by the gov't doesn't mean it can't be at least somewhat objective. The Pravda (which is now an opposition paper) are hardly ideal nor even a valid example as it was started by a totalitarian state, not bought by it. I think the BBC has an excellent track record and is hardly a shill for the UK gov't, as they have reported on embarrassing stories and scandals (their revelations on collusion between the British Army and Loyalist/Unionist terrorists would be a specific, recent example)...

I would argue that the BBC is far more critical of its gov't masters than Fox News ever was to the Bush Administration and it's UK counterpart, Skynews, which is also owned by Murdoch...

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
Orielly heads up the rear


Didn't you misplace an "s" and forget a " ' " there

 

[uc50ic4more]

Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
I'm not commentating on this issue specifically.

But in a general sense, just because a media outlet is owned by the gov't doesn't mean it can't be at least somewhat objective. The Pravda (which is now an opposition paper) are hardly ideal nor even a valid example as it was started by a totalitarian state, not bought by it. I think the BBC has an excellent track record and is hardly a shill for the UK gov't, as they have reported on embarrassing stories and scandals (their revelations on collusion between the British Army and Loyalist/Unionist terrorists would be a specific, recent example)...

I would argue that the BBC is far more critical of its gov't masters than Fox News ever was to the Bush Administration and it's UK counterpart, Skynews, which is also owned by Murdoch...


No one would argue that in some specific cases, gov't owned, sponsored or subsidized media outlets have been very effective and have provided quality news coverage.

I think a lot of folks, though, just get the historical willies thinking about one of the branches of *balance* being under the oversight of another. Whether or not it is working now is not the point. Heck, I'll bet points in time of the early 30's in Germany "worked just fine", too. The government of J. Stalin provided lots of jobs, too. And security. *The main point is that government "evil" is something that creeps up slowly, incrementally and almost imperceptibly*. This is why the system itself rather than it's present, specific circumstances has to be designed and maintained to ensure accountability.

No one ever, *ever* has to worry about government's potential to bugger things up when they're on your side. It's when unworthy people are at the helm, and the government finds (often arbitrary) fault with *you* that things get sticky. Do I think that Harper, Obama, Brown *or their bureaucratic proxies*, etc. would pressure gov't controlled media to be their propaganda vessel? *Probably* not; but what about whoever comes next? What about in 20 years? What if we elect the next Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Idi Amin or Pinochet? This latest Bush administration scared me enough to re-double my opinion about government being a hindrance to freedom rather than it's facilitator; and a strong independent media is *our* agent in this mix.

 

[jsharp]

Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Originally Posted By: jsharp
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT

Name ONE liberal commentator on FAUX (sorry, that was just for Pablo)

Shepard Smith and Gredda Van Facelift don't count - they're clearly not liberal or even moderate anymore.

This argument is really stupid anyhow. My main point is journalists should seek the truth about government. The only thing Fox did over the last 8 years was try and discredit journalists seeking truth about the government and it's policies.


Juan Williams

Your turn. Name one commentator on Fox that's as biased as Chris "My job is to help Obama" Matthews.


Pat Buchanan, Mike Smerconish, Heidi Harris, Frank Gaffney, Peggy Noonan, Ed Rogers, Todd Harris, and David Brooks - all conservatives who regularly appear on Chris Mathews show.

Sean Hannity. Propaganda vs. journalism. Glenn Beck as well. Orielly heads up the rear. Infinitely more biased then Chris Mathews.

Fox News was created with right tilting bias as it's goal. Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch profess to it.



I was thinking about people who have regular shows not those that just appear occasionally. I haven't seen Peggy Noonan on Fox in forever. Susan Estrich is on about as often.

Hannity is obviously biased by party in particular but O'Reilly's isn't in the same category. O'Reilly's some kind of a pretend-conservative populist so to speak. All that "I'm just worried about the folks" stuff

He's said a lot more good of late about current pres than our last one.

Fox clearly leans more to the right but I've yet to see them just fabricate things while claiming it's objective reporting. Our old friend Dan Rather won the all time prize for that behavior and Matthews has already stated what the object of his reporting is. Fair and objective journalism is not it. Keith Olberman isn't far behind he's just less honest about it.

 

[MarkC]

What would Lou Dobbs be considered...politcally(!)?

 

[jsharp]

Originally Posted By: MarkC
What would Lou Dobbs be considered...politcally(!)?


I've only watched him a little recently. He's another guy that's some kind of conservative populist. I guess. His issues are conservative I suppose but he's always got complaints about the government not doing enough.

The problem with trying to define these guys is that they aren't driven by principal as much as ratings. Their issues are whatever they think are those of their target audience.

So much for objective reporting.

 

[uc50ic4more]

Originally Posted By: MarkC
What would Lou Dobbs be considered...politcally(!)?


I'd call him a centrist, in that he seems to have the same problems with Dem's that people who disagree with Dem's have, and has the same problems with Rep's that most who disagree with Rep's have, while supporting elements of both. You'd almost call that "common sense", given how contrarian the parties can be. I think when "populist" is used as a pejorative, it is often a euphemism for "centrist".

Libertarians also often take a similar stance (taking equal issue with those elements of both parties that seem egregious); but I have heard Dobbs call for gov't regulation of this and gov't oversight of that from time to time on his program, so I'd surmise that a Libertarian he ain't.