Fox News: "Will H'CARE 'NUCLEAR OPTION' NUKE ECONOMY?"
March 06, 2010 11:42 am ET by Media Matters staff
From the March 6 edition of Fox News' Forbes on Fox:
Previously:
Smith ignores Fox's role in perpetuating "nuclear option" falsehood
Luntz inadvertently shows why Fox News prefers to call reconciliation the "nuclear option"
Even in the face of being corrected multiple times by multiple sources, Fox News insists on calling reconciliation the nuclear option. Of course, nuclear option makes for good play on words like the one in this ridiculous headline. Nevermind the facts, make up terms for the policy and make up economics to go with it. Lies all around.
How can Fox News claim to be fair and balanced even though when faced with a choice as simple as which of two words to call a Senatorial procedure, they opt for the most negative term regardless of validity. Nuclear option is reconciliation has been proven false. They continue to use it. That right there shows their bias more than anything else. Just for arguments sake, lets say nuclear option was not proven to be the wrong term for reconciliation. Fox News would have two choices description, nuclear option or reconciliation. If it were a neutral organization, it would not go with nuclear option over reconciliation. At the very least, it would use both terms interchangeably. The fact that Fox News harps on nuclear option and sticks with it for the overwhelming majority of coverage on reconciliation lets you know they are biased. Of course, we already knew that, but some morons still to this day refuse to acknowledge that Fox News is a right wing machine.
Despite calling his company News Corporation, murdoch isn't in the news business, and it's not journalism or reporting or anything like that.
It's more like the public relations industry, it's publicity, not news or reporting.
Publicity for who, for Oscar contenders or to promote particular movies or performers?
I mention them here, because everybody knows how important publicity is to that industry, every production company has it's own publicity department, or else they contract out to a private firm for that service.
Likewise, just about everybody in that industry has a publicity agent, or someone who gets them in the news, on terms that serve them.
So again, who is Fox News Channel running publicity for?
No, not Hollywood, it would seem like it's the Republican party, but in a way, I think even that political party is a subsidiary here, I believe that they themselves are sort of a department, the Politics Department, and they provide a contracted service, Legislative Services you might call it.
News Corporation is in corporate public relations, it is various industrial and commercial concerns they promote, perhaps to the highest bidder, or perhaps to whoever is connected to murdoch and company, connected in a business and social sense, or maybe it's just capitalism and capitalists in general (strange words that I hardly ever use yet they seem applicable here).
Question: If you were in the public relations business, as an owner of a company providing that service, and were seeking publicity for your clients, favorable to them and made to order, would you constantly be tasking yourself with knocking on the doors of news services and newspaper and television and radio stations, and forever cajoling and bribing those people for publicity and spin, in their respective medium?
Or would you just raise the necessary capital, and start up or buy your own newspapers, and your own television and radio stations, and eliminate the subcontractor of the traditional media, by getting into the business directly, and selling whatever industry or commercial interest that benefits you or pays you, selling it directly through the media you own yourself?
Why contract out for public relations and publicity, why not do it yourself, by way of direct ownership of newspapers radio and television?
And sure, you'd have an interest and a tie in with the Political Department, with Legislative Services, otherwise known as the Republican party, and you'd work with them and they'd work with you, and you'd save the day for the private health insurance industry, and for the defense contracting industry, and for the financial services and banking industry...
News Corporation.
It's a corporation, yes, but it's not news and it's not journalism, and maybe it can be defined better than I just did, we'll see.
(*It's possible one might be a weak-kneed, feeble Fox News Democrat.)
And, on top of all that, not only do you have to deal with that Assman guy as a host, but the panels are all stacked with conservatives outnumbering the liberals. It's always like 4 to 2 (or 1), including the host. Pathetic.
Also, for some reason, I always see Mike Papantonio, a great liberal who currently hosts Ring of Fire that WAS on Air America, on Fox Business. He's a great, strong progressive, but for some reason, he insists on going to Fox all the time. I know what he thinks about Fox, because he has voiced how much he can't stand the network, but he always goes back on those wingnut stacked panels. It's strange... I guess they pay him a lot to have him there.
-------------------------------
Visit my new political blog, Liberty In Progress
My guess, from watching other FNC programming, is that he barely gets a word in edgewise.