Memo to the media: Fox News is now the Opposition Party
Fox News has changed the rules. Now the press needs to change the way it covers Fox News.
Rupert Murdoch's cable cabal is now, first and foremost, a political entity. Fox News has transformed itself into the Opposition Party of the Obama White House, which, of course, is unprecedented for a media company in modern-day America. That partisan embrace means the news media have to expand beyond typing up Fox News-ratings-are-up and the White-House-is-angry stories, and it needs to start treating the cable channel for what it is: a partisan animal.
The press needs to drop its longstanding gentleman's agreement not to write about other news outlets as news players --not to get bogged down in criticizing the competition -- because those newsroom rules no longer apply. Fox News has exited the journalism community this year. It's a purely political player, and journalists ought to start covering it that way.
I understand Fox News still wants to enjoy the benefits of being seen as a news operation. It still wants the trappings and the professional protections that go with it. But it no longer functions as a news outlet, so why does the rest of the press naively treat it that way?
Fox News is now at the forefront of a political movement. As blogger Glenn Greenwald tweeted at the time of the Sept. 12 Washington, D.C., rally:
Seems like a fairly new phenomenon that we now have a political movement led by a TV "news" outlet -- that usually happens elsewhere.
In a follow-up email to me, Greenwald noted the similarities between Fox News' overt role in U.S. politics with places like Venezuela, where the opposition TV station led the failed 2002 coup attempt against Hugo Chavez, as well as Italy, where Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, a media magnate, uses his TV ownership to agitate. "Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch are really using that model to organize and galvanize this protest movement," wrote Greenwald. "It's a totally Fox News-sponsored event."
Completely detached from traditional newsroom standards, Fox News has become a political institution, and the press needs to start treating it that way. The press needs to treat Fox News the same way it treats the Republican National Committee, even though, frankly, the RNC probably can't match the in-your-face partisanship that Fox News flaunts 24/7. Think about it: Murdoch's "news" channel now out-flanks the Republican Party when it comes to ceaseless partisan attacks on the White House.
Truth is, in recent years the RNC used to use Fox news to help amplify the partisan raids that national Republicans launched against Democrats. It was within the RNC that the partisan strategy was mapped out and initiated. (i.e. it was the RNC that first pushed the Al-Gore-invented-the-Internet smear). But it was on talk radio and Fox News where the partisan bombs got dropped. Today, that relationship has, for the most part, been inversed. Now it's within Fox News that the partisan witch hunts are plotted and launched, and it's the RNC that plays catch-up to Glenn Beck and company.
And I'm sorry, but the Fox News defense that it's a just a few on-air pundits who (relentlessly) attack the White House and that the news team still plays it straight is, at this point, a joke. What kind of "news" team, in the span of five days, airs 22 clips of health reform forums featuring only people who oppose reform? What kind of "news" team tries to pass off a GOP press release as its own research -- typo and all? What kind of "news" team promotes a partisan political rally? (Or did I miss the 100-plus free ads that CNN aired in 2003 promoting an anti-war rally?)
As Media Matters has meticulously documented this year, there is no real difference between Fox News' Obama-hating pundits and Fox News' Obama-hating news team. They have become a seamless operation at this point.
A few years ago, the dumbed-down debate surrounding Fox News was whether it truly was fair and balanced. (It wasn't.) Today, it's whether Fox News is truly a news organization. (It's not.) Yet journalists remain way too timid in spelling out the truth. Spooked by right-wing attacks about the so-called liberal media, Beltway media insiders, who certainly understand Fox News' brazen political maneuver in 2009, continue to play dumb on a massive scale and cover Fox News as a news media organization.
There are small signs that the Beltway press corps is catching on. "The United States has two parties now -- the Obama Party and the Fox Party," Newsweek's Jonathan Alter recently noted. And in the pages of The New Yorker, Hendrik Hertzberg was quite precise in spelling out the extraordinary changes under way [emphasis added]:
This sort of lunatic paranoia -- touched with populism, nativism, racism, and anti-intellectualism -- has long been a feature of the fringe, especially during times of economic bewilderment. What is different now is the evolution of a new political organism, with paranoia as its animating principle. The town-meeting shouters may be the organism's hands and feet, but its heart -- also, Heaven help us, its brain -- is a "conservative" media alliance built around talk radio and cable television, especially Fox News. The protesters do not look to politicians for leadership. They look to niche media figures like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, and their scores of clones behind local and national microphones.
Too often, though, journalists have danced around the obvious. It's important that this trend now stop. The self-evident truth needs to be told, and news consumers need to understand the extraordinary forces that have been unleashed -- forces that dramatically altered the media landscape. News consumers also need to understand why it's becoming increasingly impossible to maintain any kind of public discourse regarding the issues of the day, especially health care reform, when a major so-called news organization is devoted to spreading as much misinformation as possible.
And succeeding:
In our poll, 72% of self-identified FOX News viewers believe the health-care plan will give coverage to illegal immigrants, 79% of them say it will lead to a government takeover, 69% think that it will use taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions, and 75% believe that it will allow the government to make decisions about when to stop providing care for the elderly.
Instead of telling the truth, too many journalists have ducked the issue of Fox News. That trend was especially rampant during this summer's health care mini-mobs, which were egged on by Murdoch's team. For instance, look at this passage from Newsweek, as the weekly tried to detail the anger behind the mini-mob madness while politely turning a blind eye to Fox News' central role in it:
In contrast, there is no shortage of groups, politicians, and just plain folks intent on proving that health-care reform will lead to, say, the rationing of medical treatments, and they all seem to have a Web site, blog, and/or Facebook page. Given that people who are sure that the U.S. government faked the moon landings (and that Obama was born in Kenya) can find support for their view online, how surprising is it that you can Google your way to "evidence" of all the evils of Obama-care?
See? According to Newsweek, people were going "online" and using "Google" to find proof that Obama's health care proposal was pure evil. Perhaps. But guess what? All Obama haters really had to do was flick on the TV, plop down on the couch, and watch America's most-watched cable "news" channel fear monger with dire warnings about health care. But Newsweek made no mention of Fox News.
Instead, it was simply "groups," "politicians," and "just plain folks" who were behind the wild anti-Obama rhetoric, according to Newsweek, which forgot to mention that the country's most-watched cable news channel was driving that bus.
Indeed, this summer, Fox News was the (literal) elephant in the room. The press kept trying to explain who or what was the behind the health care mini-mobs craze; who or what was whipping people into such an unhinged, anti-Obama frenzy just seven months after the mainstream Democrat was sworn into office. Yet time and again, refusing to acknowledge the cable channel's purely political play, journalists politely declined to point the finger at Fox News.
For example, The New York Times belatedly published a detailed look at how the death panel lie was spread into the mainstream press. The article was approximately 1,200 words long. Exactly seven of those 1,200 words were set aside to acknowledge Fox News' role. (And only Glenn Beck was singled out.) Again, I'm not overstating anything when I say if it weren't for Fox News there wouldn't have been a death panel "debate" this summer. Period. It was bought and paid for by Fox News, and the whole news crew; not just the nighttime hosts. But the Times only set aside a fragment of a single sentence to highlight the cable channel's irreplaceable role.
Time and again this year, the Beltway press has politely refused to call out Fox News' new political role. Look at this Politico passage, which was utterly typical of this year's fare:
By doing so much, so fast, Obama gave Republicans the chance to define large swaths of the debate. Conservatives successfully portrayed the stimulus bill as being full of pork for Democrats. Then Obama lost control of the health care debate by letting Republicans get away with their bogus claims about "death panels."
All the highlighted phrases, of course, are placeholders for "Fox News." But Politico politely declined to mention Fox News. Politico would never place Fox News front and center of a political movement, because it's just a media outlet. They don't do politics, right?
It's clear that in 2009, Fox News is no longer in the business of journalism. Fox News isn't trying to inform people, it's trying to misinform them. That's not journalism. It's propaganda. But as long as the press continues to hold up the façade of journalism, Fox News will try to hide behind it.
Follow Eric Boehlert on Twitter.
Fox is a cult. In fact, two years ago I wrote a piece called The Cult of Foxonality that illustrates how Fox has become an end unto itself. Their viewers/disciples are more loyal to Fox than to Republicans or conservatism.
It seems to me that it's interesting how you all in this line of comments can act as if the general media is NOT liberal.
So, let's (be honest) and say that 90% of cable and other T.V. news outlets are Liberal and the entire difference that is 10% is Fox and Conservative. On top of that, you have to remember Radio is dominated by liberal people its just 5 to 10 Conservatives in AM radio left to be conservative.
We'd be happy to be honest. Too bad you won't behave the same way.
It's a lie that was first expressed about 30 years ago that there's a liberal media bias. It was never true. It was simply a misstatement of reality used to allow the advancement of a few rightwing media sources and to scare neutral media into avoidance of anything that might look like liberal media bias!!
I respect opinions that are based on reality.
You had me interested until you tried to make a dig at "my reality..."
Unfortunately for you, I have to explain that your "reality" is not based on any statistics or empirical data. So this proves that your reality is really just an opinion based on perception.
Can another reader explain to "us" why is it that when people have a weak argument they try to insult?
I still respect your opinion Dell, even though I think its incorrect. Maybe all the conservatives should have their opinions taken away?
Where did I insult you? I told you, and everyone else, that you weren't being honest and you weren't being fair. If I saw you set a building on fire and then I called you an arsonist, would that too be an insult?
Pew Reseach Poll in 2008: By a margin of 70% to 9%, Americans believed the media wanted Obama to win. 70 to 9!
Americans overwhelmingly felt the media wanted Obama to win
I guess 70 percent of Americans are delusional, right? Unreal...
Same organization -- Pew Research-- shows historical views of the media by perceptions of political biases. Here's a chart from 1985-2009: Read it and weep...people have historically felt and continue to feel that the media is Liberal-biased
There's some "reality" for you. Whether you choose to take off your rose-colored glasses is up to you. We won't hold our collective breath waiting, lol.
This has nothing to do with Obama, he won. People wanted a change and they got that for sure. I am not talking about Obama so don't try to bring that in on this conversation. We are talking about whether the media is liberal or conservative.
So the Reality based on your link, well lets use your synopsis: From DaTruth "Read it and weep...people have historically felt and continue to feel that the media is Liberal-biased" is that people feel that the media is liberal biased, right? And that's what I said.
And if they continue to feel that way (about the media) in spite of the "fact" that Liberals have the majority it proves my statement even more that the Media is liberal by the majority.
So where are the rose colored glasses?
In November 2001, a majority of Americans beleived that Bush and Co. had no forewarning that an attack was imminent.
Of, course, nothing was further from the truth.
Does that make their belief false? No, they beleived it...but they were wrong.
People thinking that the media is biased towards liberal doesn't mean it is.
That's not "reality". That's opinion formed after years of the lie being repeated over and over that there is a liberal bias in media!
That is just one of their Programs, I realize that's true. But by the same token all of the others: CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC..they are as liberal as fox is conservative.
I do watch more than Fox, ex (Anderson Cooper ) last night. I don't only watch FN by any means.
MSNBC would the closest to the opposite, but they aren't in a couple of very important ways. First off, they have 3 hours of Joe Scarborough. Then they have Andrea Mitchell. Then they have Chris Matthews. That's the first major difference - unanimity on FoxNews, not so much on MSNBC. Then we go with the content of the programming on Fox's new programs versus that on MSNBC. FoxNews, sexist, pushing rightwing slant even on their news segments, pushing the 9/12 marches with multiple promotions, etc. MSNBC, not biased or bigoted on their news segments, not pushing an agenda. Then we get to their opinion shows. FoxNews, full of lies, smears, distortions, on top of slanted coverage of events. MSNBC, slanted coverage of events only, very few lies or distortions.
They aren't equivalent. The fact that you don't know this, or won't admit this, defines your bias better than anything else.
Everything you are saying is again just your opinion again. I feel the opposite exactly about say MSNBC..
You are just reiterating your message and adding more words to it. You have not proved anything more. We all understand your Views and Bias against Fox already.
That's like someone who has to proclaim they're a Christian. Or someone having to brag about their manhood.
It's usually not true.
This has moved beyond personal beliefs about journalistic entities sir. Fox News has simply thrown all caution to the wind and has chosen to "come out of the closet" (so to speak). Those on talk radio love to talk about the "liberal Media", yet I have yet to see one attempt to support their claim as Boehlert has done here. Laura Ingraham calls CNN the Communist News Network? Sure, but let's see her support her ridiculous assertion as Boehlert has done. Fox needs to understand that one who lives by the sword, dies by the sword. I would be worried if they were in the business of convincing people to a new way of thinking. That just isn't the case. Take away the south, they got nobody watching. Boehlert is dead on here. You can't prove otherwise.
team . . . ?" samples, Eric. I would add: What kind of "news" team frames a president's pending Europe trip as "an apology tour," then doctors post-trip footage to reflect that preferred narrative? Fox would have us believe Obama omitted European nations' mistakes while alluding only to American ones.
No wonder the administration is steamed at Fox. At the cable news leader (NOT the television news leader) the Obama-hating pundits and the Obama-hating news team indeed have grown seamless.
At MSNBC, still trailing Fox ratings by a sizable margin, the
self-description is "The Place for Politics." In the credibility ratings, that surely beats Fox's "fair and balanced."
Jerry Elsea
The Fox News Washington managing editor, Bill Sammon wrote numerous partisan books including: Misunderestimated: The President Battles Terrorism, Media Bias and the Bush Haters
The Fox News chief White House correspondent, Major Garret wrote: The Enduring Revolution: The Inside Story of the Republican Ascendancy and Why It Will Continue.
The rest of the Fox hierarchy is just as biased. Do they really think that anchors like Neil Cavuto, Steve Doocey, and Megyn Kelly are politically neutral? And reporters like Carl Cameron, William LaJuenesse, Brian Wilson, and Griff Jenkins are supposedly fair and balanced?
The myth about Fox having regular news during the day and an electronic editorial page at night really needs to be busted. It is an outright lie.
With all that talk over seven years of Bush's presidency (post 9/11) all we kept hearing on Fox was that we needed to support our president at all times and if you did not you were somehow un-American or was told you hated your country!
I got tired of hearing self-righteous circus clowns questioning my patriotism... I'm tempted to do the same now that the roles are reversed... but I am better than that.
Well, I'm not. As Jon Stewart observed, these people have made it plain that they hate President Obama more than the love (or "love", in my opinion) America.
himself has said he stands for. Redistribution of wealth, open borders
and bailing out every company that has put itself close to bankruptcy
through poor management. In a climate where every critcism of Obama is chalked up to "racism" these hollow jibes at Fox are almost as funny as Obama receiving the Nobel Peace Prize for what, exactlty?
Giving a good speech?
Because if they didn't, Obama is not responsible in the way you imply for 'redistribution of wealth'.
And 'open borders'? That's con speak for bigotry against Mexicans.
And I am not happy that you think that failing to stop our nation from going into a Depression would have been a good choice. Because that's why Obama bailed out banks and some corporations - the effect that failing to do so would have had on our economy is frightful.
Every criticism of Obama isn't chalked up to racism. But the personal attacks on him that don't have a basis in reality (hint - yours is a prime example of that) are overwhelmingly tinged with racism.
And we've explained why Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize. Because dummies like you haven't been able to grasp why, the committee that gave him the prize has come out in an unprecedented way to explain why they chose to do so. You'd be better informed if you read and learned before you came here and proved that you aren't well informed.
To those who say a Nobel is too much too soon in Obama's young presidency, "We simply disagree ... He got the prize for what he has done," committee chairman Thorbjorn Jagland told The Associated Press by telephone from Strasbourg, France, where he was attending meetings of the Council of Europe.
Jagland singled out Obama's efforts to heal the divide between the West and the Muslim world and scale down a Bush-era proposal for an anti-missile shield in Europe.
"Alfred Nobel wrote that the prize should go to the person who has contributed most to the development of peace in the previous year," Jagland said. "Who has done more for that than Barack Obama?"
On CNN, by contrast, there was a 22-point disparity in the percentage of negative stories on Obama (39 percent) and McCain (61 percent). The disparity was even greater at MSNBC, according to Pew, where just 14 percent of Obama stories were negative, compared to a whopping 73 percent of McCain stories -- a spread of 59 points.
There ya go now you prove MSNBC, CNN, CBS with there tingly feelings in there legs arent in the tank for Obama.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/12/white-house-escalates-war-words-fox-news/
Considering that, the favorable coverage disparity in the SCLM reflected reality, not bias.
But see, that's where you would have been tripped up, because FoxNews got it wrong. It's not a Pew study, it was a PEJ study. And MMFA knocked it silly last year. The Pew study was from this past spring.
MMFA has debunked the methodology on these kinds of 'studies' a few times apparently. So have others.
It is you who needs to wake up to the unpatriotic way you behave and the dishonesty you support.
The White House's forthright honesty about Fox News takes courage. Few politicians are brave enough to call out powerful media conglomerates in this way. I am proud of them.
Cowardice would be submitting to Fox and permitting them to continue to foist their lies on the TV audience.
Oops--your dishonesty is showing.
Earlier this year he said that with the Democrats in power it "make[s] it a little bit easier for us to be the voice of opposition..."
That's as close to a confession as you can get.
Everyone knows MEDIA MATTERS IS LEFT WING PROPAGANDA - pushing OBAMAS SOCIALIST AGENGA! FOX NEWS IS #1 BECAUSE IT PRESENTS BOTH SIDES and sticks with 'THE FACTS' - Media Matters and ALL THE REST of the Mainstream Media are gonna 'die' because AMERICANS want the TRUTH! NEWSWEEK AND NEW YORK TIMES are also LEFT WING PROPAGANDA! IF ANYTHING FOX NEWS BRINGS 'BALANCE' to ALL YOUR FOOLISH IDEOLOGY! THANK GOD AMERICANS (80% CENTER RIGHT)HAVE FOX NEWS!!
And anyone who's crazy enough to think that FoxNews actually presents both sides is too crazy and too ignorant.
*correct spelling.
You my friend represent the aforementioned "troll" that I spoke about in my earlier post!
As expected you offer absolutely NO facts to back up your idiocy!
Your post makes no damn sense. It looks as if it was written by an adult with not much more than a 5th grade education who seems to think he actually understands the real world around hiim.
If America is not to make it in the future, it will be people like you who would be one of the leading reasons as to why!
Now go email that right-wing think-tank that offered you $50 per post, send them your proof, collect your money like a good little slave and move along.
Wow really do you have their email 50$ a post would be sweet.
1. Media matters says that "Fox news has transformed itself into the opposition party of the Obama administration." The article says that Fox news is a "political player," with "ceaseless partisan attacks." You are correct in this one assertion butcher others are doubtful.
2. You say "everyone knows media matters is left wing propaganda." When does checking facts, forming reasonable opinions, and researching the non-factual nature of Fox news constitute "left wing propaganda?" Besides unless you have done a poll and have some conclusive evidence that "everyone" it feels as you do, your statement is incorrect.
3. You say Fox news "presents both sides and sticks with the facts." Apparently, the White House, MSNBC, and media matters disagree.
4. Your statement that "media matters and all the rest of the mainstream media are going to die because Americans want the truth," implies that Fox news and your opinions are not mainstream. The question I have is if the mainstream media are so mainstream, how are they going to be dislodged? I would also expect that if there are "mainstream," that they represent a greater number of people than the people who support the information presented at Fox news.
5. At first when I read your post, I thought "wow what a great piece of parody." Apparently you do not consider this to be a parody. To my mind, that's too bad because your post shows ad hominem attacks, unsubstantiated opinions, name-calling, poisoning the well, and other types of illogical statements that Fox news presents.
And I do wish someone (even a French intellectual lol) would explain to me how Obama manages to be both a Communist and a Fascist at the same time?? That would take some doing!! But hey--if our current President can manage being two different things at the same time, he's already proven himself a better man than the last guy in the White House, who had enough trouble focusing on a single issue without getting it wrong.
And Mr. GAUL--you know nothing about my ideology, the ideology of Media Matters, or anybody else's ideology for that matter.
All you seem to comprehend is Fox's idiology--a conflation of the words "idiot" and "ideology" which I think nicely expresses Faux Noise. And its sore-loser followers.
It is at least a little comforting knowing that the Beck's of the world are actually having almost zero impact. Despite their daily blathering, they couldn't stop the Democratic tide in 2006 or 2008. Sure, they get good ratings (albeit only about 1% of the population) but, frankly, I'd rather win at the ballot box than the idiot box.
To the far left loons on this site, that's just solid journalism by Uberdouche . .. In no way did it exemplify partisan opposition to the administration by a "news" channel. The far left can't see it, but Uberdouche = Beck.
Yeah they were too busy doing this:
jpeagle21
Yeah, you go on believing that the Bush regime actually gave a damn about the issues facing this country! The only thing that collection of neanderthals gave a damn about was how best to screw We the People to further the causes of their corporate masters and themselves!
As for Bush bashing documentaries... they did not go far enough! In fact, I humbly submit (in my opinion) that the few documentaries done exposing Bush/Cheney were rather lame and did not go far enough. Mainly because of the right-wing corporate ownership of the media.
Nice dodging of my entire post!
Please come back to me with what precisely it is that I wrote in my post which shows my hate and loathing??
I'm rather curious to know just what it is that makes your brain work the way it does that you got hate and loathing out of what I said??
As for how I feel about being me... I feel great about being me. In fact, I'm rather proud of who I am, the kind of father I am, the kind of husband I am. About the only thing that sucks about being me, are my joints... my arthritis is killing me but I can't afford to see a doctor so I live with the pain... how do you feel about being you?
How do I feel about being me? I sleep soundly at night.
As soon as reality peeks its head in the door, balance goes right out the window. If you cover reality you're liberally biased, and that's the end of it.
The bigger problem with Fox, however, is that their "NEWS" shows also lie and obfuscate. They also create stories that fit their idealogical positions.
I second that!
Most non Fox zombies used to give Fox the benefit of doubt but now see the truth because Obama knows Fox for who they truly are, a loud fringe group like the "East Village Other" crying in a shrinking forest.
Matthews hates Hillary and Gore with all his heart and all his soul and all his mind. Name one republican that Matthews hates.
Matthews is madly in love with McCain, Giuliani, and Romney. Name two democrats that Matthews is madly in love with.
For what it's worth, being partisan is okay. Being habitually wrong is not okay. Repeatedly claiming to be nonpartisan when you're partisan is not okay.
1)Roger Ailes and Glenn Beck want Fox to be the Alamo. Hmmm, does that mean they expect to be massacred and overrun? I hopw so.
2)Limbaugh and Beck agree that the former spawned the latter and Rush says his "child" is dead on. Limbaugh will live to regret acknowledging paternity here. Beck has none of Limbaugh's admitted wit and he isn't even tough enough to answer questions by a female newscaster. (Watch the Couric interview with Glenn and compare to Rush's recent romp on NBC.) Beck will flame out by the new year.
Don't be too sure. Becky does a very effective job of appealing to the heartland- and southland-centered "scared-crapless-of-the-black-president" bloc.
If Rush had said this, there be a cry of sexism from you guys.
Like a McDonalds burger and VH1's I Love... series, the ultimate mediocre product wins out.
You had them violate the spirit of the joint Congressional resolution that told them to use all available diplomatic resources before invading Iraq, for example. The UN had weapons inspectors in Iraq, not finding any WMD's, and Bush ordered them out so he could invade!
You had them violating the FISA Act, despite the fact that they could get back-dated wiretapping warrants! They stole a bunch of other personal freedoms in the guise of national security, all the while pretending that no other administration had ever been trying to protect us from foreign terrorists! The fact was, it was the Bush Administration that fell down on the job between 1/20/01 and 9/11/01.
You had them trying to disable all kinds of environmental rules to favor business profits over long-term ecological protections.
I could go on and on.
And it's your side that runs from scrutiny. Cheney claiming that he's not a part of either the executive or judicial branch, and so no one can oversee his behavior. All sorts of WH personnel who avoided subpeonas like the plague, and stonewalled an investigation into the outing of a covert CIA spy. Even FoxNews' latest scoop about ACORN was evidence of this - the people who made the tapes (illegally in at least 2 states) wouldn't appear on any network besides FoxNews! Talk about people who couldn't stand scrutiny - they didn't even vet those tapes to find out what really happened. FoxNews simply showed the edited tapes that made ACORN look bad.
You need help. Sadly it's almost certain that you won't get it. This site is not for you. It's for reasonable people who want the truth. I hope you notice that in the past few years, serious fact-checking has started up, and it's because of the almost-constant lies from your side. If you go to Factcheck.org, Politifact, or even snopes, you'll see that most of the debunked political stuff comes from your side. Not all, but most. You'll see that 80% or more of the "pants on fire" lies are from your side. 20 out of 20 of the most recent "pants on fire" lies on Politifact.com come from the right.
Shameful. A real news team would skew it 17-5 so their spokespeople can play dumb during live chats.
What kind of news team, in the span of one year, fails to run a single significant story providing relevant insights on why the whole world spends half what we do on health care? That would be the entirety of our national media.
Now why is that? Is it that MSNBC, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, AP, etc, etc., never make a mistake? Never slant a story to fit their political agenga?
Really? In all this time none of these news organizations have crossed the line enough to be called on the carpet? Not even once? (Hello Dan Rather)
I get the feeling that this is just a case of the pot calling the kettle black and the writer of this story was well paid by the Obama 24/7 Campaign Machine.
Feel free to create a site that checks liberal media misinformation - not liberal bias, since assigning motives is not something that's easily done or appropriate - just fact check 'em. Prepare to be fairly bored, though. There's no comparison between the distortions on the left and from the right.
Go. Away.
I turned on MSNBC the other day and saw nothing but political propoganda representing the progressive point of view.
There's no hypocrisy in this article or the comments here either. I am not surprised that you make a blanket accusation, trying to pretend that there's equivalency between FoxNews and MSNBC without providing any evidence. And then you imply that two wrongs make a right. They don't. If MSNBC behaved in the way you suggest, they'd be wrong too. But they don't.
"News" organizations have always understood their special place in our society. As with the medical field, the "business" of news is a little different than other business, in which high standards outrank profits. Generally, professionals in that field also understand their special place in society.
Apparently, "news", for Murdoch, does not reside on such a pedestal. Clearly, he views "news" as just another business - with any and all competitive practices being fair game.
It's not "news" for which Murdoch strives. It's viewers.
causes and your crying about Fox !! The people don’t buy newspapers and watch you on TV because they don’t trust your opinions anymore?
Plain and simple your personal views are biased to the left and the people in the middle of the country see it.
Your just sad your falling off your ivory towers !!! lol The media in this country is dead . Your just like Pravda in the old Soviet Union days !! The only thing that will save you is a Government bailout like S. 673 ?? Good Luck !!
There is no comparable leftwing news source to FoxNews.
The liberal media bias myth is just that, a myth. It was created about 30 years ago by people on the right as a first step. It never existed.
And the people in the middle in our nation do see reality, and it ain't pretty for your side, buster.
I cannot for the life of me understand how some on the right in the US say most of the media is "liberal" (what on earth does that mean), so it's ok for Fox to be "conservative".
Let me tell you something. As a former wire service journalist, I can tell you that the difference between AP and Fox journalists is that AP journalists ARE journalists, not propogandists for their proprietors.
Your first role as a journalist is to tell the TRUTH. It would seem patently obvious that Fox has a problem with that, preferring instead to spin lies on behalf of shadowy and paranoid people seeking to advance their insane geopolitical and fundamentalist causes.
Fox is no better than the crudest Soviet-era state-owned propoganda broadcast outlet. That the right in America cannot make the distinction between good journalism and third rate spin says volumes about the state of your political discourse.
They should have exposed Fox for the propagandists that they are long ago. Fox has and continues to lie about "liberal bias" in the mainstream media. It doesn't matter how television news and real journalists respond, Fox will always paint them as "liberal biased."
Real news journalists have been and are being made fools of by Fox.
Fox relies on the lie that the "mainstream media has a liberal bias." They ignore the truth that real journalists have real ethics in regards to fact checking, and adherence to professional standards.
Fox uses this lie as license to bias what they broadcast. Fox is propaganda.
The time has come to expose Fox for the propagandists that they are. Time for real journalists to get a backbone, and do real news journalism.
NOT.
Actually, the only people who need to worry about any substantial tax increases are people who have plenty of disposable income. And those are the exact people who should bear the burden for getting our nation out of the deficit hole we're in.
Fox News is neither liberal or conservative its just a 24/7 entertainment channel which features some high profile show hosts who specialize in making controversial statements to drive ratings. The people who trust Hannity, O'Reilly and Beck for their news probably read very little or watch to much TV.
Fox News coverage of general news events is terrible. Just watching their reporters struggle to cover news events is painfull to watch. Fox News coverage lacks any intellectual depth compared to other networks.
Unfortunately a segment of the population wants the type of news coverage which Fox News provides.
Any input on this vital undertaking would be greatly appreciated, but this site seems way in front in Fox matters.
Greg Critser
critser@earthlink.net
It is clear that the Left agenda is to enslave the masses with Cap & Trade, Government Healthcare and dozens of other acts that clearly violate the Construction. You boys might want to read it. It’s full of good information. I hear the you whiners bad- mouth insurance companies, banks, Wall Street and just about any entity that is in business to make a profit. You don’t like insurance companies, then open your own. You don’t the banks, then open your own bank. Hey, quit whining and start your own companies and run them the way you want. I suspect you will be bankrupt in 90 days. You boys couldn’t produce anything but hate. Now, if hate sells you’ll be millionaires. Oops, now every underachiever will hate you.
Last words and mark them. There are still a lot Thomas Jefffersons, George Pattons, John Waynes and Oliver Norths in America. They are not going to stand still for Liberals stealing their Constitution rights. There will be bloodshed.
Also, you may want to credit Hillary Clinton with the new found interest in speaking out against government, not only Fox News. And I quote, "I'm sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we're Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration."
Was that only a directive to liberals? I guess not, because she also said, "We are Americans, We have the right to participate and debate any administration. "
Personally, I don't need the advice of the media, or the permission of a politician to speak out against violations of my beliefs, my freedoms and my future. Last time I checked I still had the right to say that. Maybe I had better check again.
My free healthcare
My welfare check
My subsidized housing
My fake voter registration
Everything I can get for free and sit home and watch goverment TV.
Obama's economics adviser Robert Reich said this: And by the way, we are going to have to, if you are very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It's too expensive. So we're going to let you die.
If only the conservative news outlets weren't so busy exposing the truth, maybe they would have more time to disprove all of the falsehoods being reported by the lame stream media.