Wash. Post media critic Kurtz said Fox News is "entitled" to be a Bush "cheerleader" and "misinform[] our society"
SUMMARY: On Glenn Beck, Howard Kurtz said that Keith Olbermann has described Fox News as a channel that "poses as a news organization and puts out dangerous misinformation [and] is a cheerleader for the Bush administration, that it is misinforming our society." Kurtz added: "But you know what? They're entitled to do that."
During the September 12 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck, Washington Post media critic and CNN Reliable Sources host Howard Kurtz said that MSNBC host Keith Olbermann has described Fox News as a channel that "poses as a news organization and puts out dangerous misinformation [and] is a cheerleader for the Bush administration, that it is misinforming our society." Kurtz added: "But you know what? They're entitled to do that."
Kurtz has a history of ignoring Fox falsehoods and ignoring criticism of the cable network. In his April 19, 2006, profile of Fox News host Brit Hume, Kurtz presented Hume as the "Low-Key Voice of Conservatism on Fox News" but largely ignored the numerous false and misleading statements Hume has made during his tenure. Media Matters also documented Kurtz's response to a September 19, 2004, column by New York Times columnist Frank Rich, in which he referred to Fox News Channel as "G.O.P. TV." On the September 26, 2004, edition of Reliable Sources, Kurtz asked Rich if that label was "fair to [Fox] correspondents like Carl Cameron and Jim Angle and Major Garrett ... who are trying to do a straightforward job." But Media Matters has documented numerous examples of reporting by Cameron, Angle, and Garrett that belie Kurtz's statement that they are "trying to do a straightforward job."
Kurtz made his remark on Glenn Beck in the context of discussing Olbermann's comments quoted in the October 2007 issue of Playboy: "Al Qaeda really hurt us, but not as much as Rupert Murdoch has hurt us, particularly in the case of Fox News. Fox News is worse than Al Qaeda -- worse for our society. It's as dangerous as the Ku Klux Klan ever was."
Fox News is reportedly the most-watched cable news network in America. The New York Times reported on August 2 that "Fox News remained entrenched in first place" in the July 2007 cable-news ratings race, while rivals CNN and MSNBC battled over second place. Moreover, a 2003 study conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland and Knowledge Networks that was based on seven U.S. polls conducted from January through September of that year found that "Fox was the news source whose viewers had the most misperceptions [about the war in Iraq]" The study gauged misperceptions on the following issues: "Evidence of links between Iraq and al-Qaeda have been found," "Weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq," and "World public opinion favored the US going to war with Iraq." The study also found that "Fox News watchers were most likely to hold misperceptions -- and were more than twice as likely than the next nearest network to hold all three misperceptions."
From the study:
From the September 12 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck:
KURTZ: Look, I'm not -- look. Keith Olbermann is somebody who interviews people and spouts off on cable and has had some success doing it. And I think he's very talented. But I think those comments -- Al Qaeda, Ku Klux Klan -- are so over the top, it's just beneath him. It's beneath the kind of erudition I would expect from him.
BECK: Do you -- do you even understand what he was talking about?
KURTZ: I think the argument that I've heard Olbermann make in the past about Fox News -- it's not an argument that I embrace -- is that, because it poses as a news organization and puts out dangerous misinformation --
BECK: But that's what he's doing!
KURTZ: -- and is -- is a cheerleader for the Bush administration, that it's misinforming our society. But you know what?
BECK: Howard --
KURTZ: They're entitled to do that.
BECK: Let me ask you this question. Who makes you weep more for journalism: Keith Olbermann or me? That's quite a question.
KURTZ: I think you both have plenty of opinions and are both paid to spew them on the airwaves.
BECK: At least I admit it. Howard, thank you very much.
Well, they do have that right. What's missing is a responsible Press to hold them accountable. The real news outlets should be hammering on Fox News every day and pointing out their bullsh*t. Unfortunately, the major news outlets are too lazy and too corrupt.
The founding fathers gave the press Constitutional protection for a reason.
Nerzog, I do agree with you, FoxNews has that right - not sure why Kurtz's comments are up for perusal here considering he said nothing inaccurate or misinformative?.......however, I am not a Fox fan, as I have said, their bias irritates me so I can't watch much of them.
But do we really want our other news outlets monitoring Fox and taking up their time straightening out what Fox broadcasts? Talk about more publicity. I think they have better things to do with their airtime.
Kurtz comments are here because he dared to possibly defend FOX News and he dared to question the Almightly Keith Olbermann. In our world today you are not allowed to ever question the Sunday night football sports guy because if he says it , then it is true and valid. Right Kid Nation ?
I do not recall Olbermann ever saying that Fox News has forfeited its right to exist, or that they are not entitled to whore their "news" out to the right.
My main beef with Fox News has always been their blatantly false marketing. "Real Journalism, Fair and Balanced" my behind. The least they can do is be honest about who and what they are. It's not too much to ask.
Yes they have the right in EXACTLY the same way Olbermann has the RIGHT to criticise them for it and expose them.
Sure, that is why, it would have nothing to do with him saying they are entitled to cheerlead and misinform while masquerading as a legitimate news outfit. I mean that is only what is HIGHLIGHTED. You need to increase your medication.
Tommy,
I think Fox ought to take the word "News" out of their title since they don't seem to focus on reporting, but rather they echo and distort. I think they have every right to be on the air, but perhaps they should change their name to something like GOP TV.
I have no problem with networks that are opinion, just problems with them calling themselves news outlets.
MSNBC should do the same , or NBC News should not associate themselves with Olbermann and Carlson and Matthews.
Fine by me, Sue. Which side do you think Matthews falls on?
Matthews tends to choose candidates and not parties. He does not seem to have a political agenda but he is still not "FAIR".
But does he market himself relentlessly as "FAIR"?
Sueeld
I have had some issues with Olbermann also but he is one program on MSNBC. FOX is biased to the core, the reporters, the news breaks, even its business show (Cavuto).
Sue:FAUX news
Fox news is as Keith so aptly points out FAUX news. And they do pollute the airwaves, because they misinform. Any kind of cursory search here on any number of Faux News commentators or so called reporters will reveal numerous misstatements, and out and out lies.
That's not news. If they want to label themselves as the far Right Republican Propaganda channel, then we would at least have truth in advertising.
Their "fair and balanced" moniker long ago ceased being funny or even tan object of derision, because of the harm they are doing with the outrageous spin. ( in the ALL spin zone)
You may disagree with Keith Olbermann, but he does not distort the facts. He does share his opinion in commentary and labels it as such. Faux "news" is a sad commentary on the state of journalism, education, and culture in this country.
The sensational wins ratings over the real. Sound bites are valued more than critical thinking, and bullies are celebrated. Very sad indeed.
I am not a defender of FOX News , but where does shows such as Gretta, and the FOX Report do what you say?
Greta jsut takes on the tawdry as far as I can say. And Fox "nes" I'm not sure about waht you are referring to, but the actual news reporting that I have seen is slanted very selectively towards showing everything rosy about the current administration. From waht they report, to who they have reporting.
excuse the lack of spell check. sorry
i disagree that fox is "entitled" to misinform. they are after all using the public airwaves to produce a 24 hour a day commercial for the republican party. fox not only is on cable but they own 35 television stations in some of the largest markets in the country. they also have fox radio news carried on many radio stations. a license is to serve the public good, not that of the republican party.
Mefirst- Good point iFaux is more of a "commercial". A sick twisted propaganda piece, but definitely marketing their party. (and pockets)
Another reason to bring back the fairness doctrine. Reporters have become intellectually lazy because there is no reason for them to verify the facts anymore.
Well, I opened up the can again. Here comes the good ol' market driven arguments again.
I can't understand all the whining going on here because ONE news outlet leans right. Some would say (okay...I would say) Fox News is the only news outlet that reports without a left or liberal bias.
As acknowledged in the article, Fox is the most-watched cable news channel. Are all those people watching Fox just...well...idiots?
Man, I can't believe you asked that question.
I'd say the answer to your question is apparent, as these are the same people who still believe Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and that he kicked out the weapons inspectors.
No they dont. You are deluded. Just because the voices in your head tell you something that doesnt make it true. The networks are NOT liberally biased. I am a liberal and they dont push any bais I would claim. They are POWER biased. Business biased but NOT liberal biased.
Name of a dog? Snoopy. Take sollace in that Keith is or has clomberred BillyO in ratings recently and will probably continue to go up in ratings, dispite Seuld's one person war on him.
i disagree that fox is "entitled" to misinform. they are after all using the public airwaves
Finally someone says what I am thinking. Everyone has a right to their opinion but I think the right to "misinform" is not one I want out of any news org. These days you have to do two or three hours of background research to check out the "facts" given in any one hour of TV news. The more you watch, the less you know.
I'm appalled they claim the right to misinform.
yeah, but according to tommy, you are supposed to go and do that research. you have no right to expect that "the news" might be exactly that. the fact that most people are driving an hour to work and back, picking up the kids, scraping a dinner together, and living from paycheck to paycheck seems to matter little.
It's my opinion that fox news is yellow journalism. Yellow journalism doesn't belong on the public airwaves, it belongs on the checkout line at the grocery store where you know they paid for the print and distribution and I can choose not to buy it.
Well, Murdoch did start out publishing tabloids in England and then moved here to create FOX Lies.
Well Pro _wrsetlng (Spectrum Wrsetling if your from Philly and you watched that garbage here as a kid) used to never admit they were fake and insisted they were a sport. This went on for years even though anyone with half a brain knew it was fake despite the wresling world's constant denial. Fox News Defenders remind me of the stupid people who used to think Wrestling was indeed real. They will buy any BS. I mean those morons actually hated Andy Kaufman because they thought he really meant the things he said about those hillbilly rubes. Those Wrestling believers morphed into the Fox News defenders.
However, the day came when State Athletic commisions regulated "Sports" and threw Wrestling to the curb. They were then forced to concede their fakery and re-label themselves "Entertainment" We need similar regulation of "News" outlets. This will force Fox News to relabel itself an "Entertainment" outlet and call its self "Fox Entertainment".
The Difference is that MSNBC stands for MicroSoft National Broadcasting Company. It's national, and it broadcasts. Nothing inaccurate in regards to shows like Countdown.
Fox News Channel has the word News in its title and as you have stated many times the only news of record show on the station is the Sheppard Smith show.
So even in your own opinion, the only show that fits the category of news on Fox is that show. The rest are frauds.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Tommy and Kurtz presume that Fox News is entitled to misinform Americans about public policy issues like WAR & ELECTIONS, to slight one party in favor of the other, on the Public’s Airways in spite of their licensing from the American Public with the simple understanding that the general public good is served with equal time to both parties!
Remember, it was a Bush cousin at the election desk of Fox News that called the 2000 election results in Florida despite the exit polls of the other 3 networks clearly showed Gore’s win, as well as the final tally results in a Gore victory!!
It was a Madison Avenue Campaign that was orchestrated by the Bush Administration on Fox News, and it’s been Fox News that has distorted the news in support of this disastrous policy among all the other disastrous behavior of the Republican Party, while throwing Democrats under the bus whether the story be true or not!
This is not Democracy, this is not a Free Press; it’s a corporate shill operating to the detriment of the Public Good!
We would never had been so easily swayed in the information age with the internet, and cable/satellite television had the government not overtly insert it’s agenda through the corporate board rooms to become a Republican propaganda tool! Their are longstanding laws against the networks or the government from propagandizing on the Public Airways.
We have suffered severely when a American “free press” convinces the nation Iraq is directly involved in 9/11 through the ’04 election, as much as 70% of Americans!
Tommy & Kurtz would have us believe that the Public Airways are the righteous inheritance of the rich & corporate media as we the citizens have no domain in the Public’s Airways for the Public’s interest to be even truthful, or allow equal time for the opposing views!
We should just stand silent; allow the richest among us to buy all the elements of public information, and eventually governance for the benefit of the richest among us at the public’s expense in blood, treasure, civil liberties, and our freedom???!
Please consider the title of this posting when considering the above-mentioned question!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Does Fox really have the "right" to spew actual misinformation and call themselves a news network? Can't this be considered a form of false advertising?
KO's comments as so over the top?
What about the comments from the two dimmest bulbs on the Fox tree, Hannity and O'Reilly?
I've yet to see KO come close to them in his ranting.
And is Glenn getting fat?
The camera adds weight. In Beck's case, the weight comes in the form of jowls.
Umm yeah, Beck is fat...
So, "media critic" Kurtz is saying that a "News" channel is entitled to misinform? I had little respect for Kurtz's analysis before, but now that has hit 0.
By the way, I would love to see a debate between Beck and Olbermann.
By the way, I would love to see a debate between Beck and Olbermann.
It would be fun to watch until the instant when Beck's head explodes.
It would be fun to watch until the instant when Beck's head explodes.
Why would it not be fun after that? That sounds like my kind of comedy.
Why would it not be fun after that? That sounds like my kind of comedy.
Because the blood and brain bits would cover the camera lens and obstruct the view....
:-)
But with DVR, you can put it in loop mode and play it over and over again.
"Brain bits?" We are talking about Beck here, right?
So, "media critic" Kurtz is saying that a "News" channel is entitled to misinform?
I found that a really odd thing for him to say too.
I suppose they do have the right, but then it's not news...it's fiction based loosely on reality.
Jeter,
Could they at least change the name of their station? I have no problem with a network solely devoted to opinion, but to package it as news has no place in the market.
J,
I think Kurtz was erring on the side of freedom of the press in his comments here. The alternative would be the government monitoring these cable news channels for some measure of accuracy 24/7, and that is far scarier to me than Fox pimping for Bush........especially since they have two major competitors that people are free to tune too for another point of view.
Besides if Fox was so influential, Bush would be at 60% approval and the Republicans wouldn't have gotten slapped so hard in the recent elections. The people as a whole can see through it.
What is scary to me is Olbermann being the judge and jury as to what is bias and not.
I don't think KO would ever be appointed judge and jury. He gave a provactive interview in a mag.
Actually statistics kept on FoxNews is judge and jury in this case. It's not like Olberman, or anyone else for that matter, is making up the facts, and or playing loose and fast with them when they say FoxNews is biased. They are, there is nobody out there who could really say otherwise. Fair and Balanced? I think not, not even close actually.
Oh please. Kurtz didnt even deny it. Only the terminally cognitivly impaired could possibly deny it. Fox is fair and balanced like Osama Ben Laden is a Quaker.
I've been away for a while, but what is scary to me is that when I was last on this site, SUEELD was constantly bashing Keith Olberrman. I guess I didn't miss much while I was away.
Tommy,
I don't much care if FOX cheerleads for the Bush administration. On MSNBC Olbermann, Abrams and often their guests cheerlead for Democrat/Liberals.
I'd prefer no cheerleading by any of them, but I don't get worked up over it.
Mis-informing is altogether a different thing. Especially if it's done deliberately. Sometimes it's just spinning so your side comes off better, but either way I would rather just hear the news without biased commentary.
J, I don't disagree with you at all......but you know that "cheerleading" for Bush is what some would call it, while many here would call it blatant "misinforming".
It's all in the perspective, I guess.
Tommy,
I think its all in what they are saying. For example, when Hume was touting Bush's Social Security plan, he repeatedly said that FDR wanted SS privatized. I would call that misinforming rather than cheerleading. There are plenty examples of both on Fox.
Fried,
I have never said they don't mislead, or misinform, or cheerlead, or whatever......and it is hardly a feather in their cap when they do it, it only weakens their credibility for me. Now, I do consider them a legitimate news source considering not everything they report or say is seen through a Bush promotional prism......in fact when the bridge collapse happened in MN, more people tuned to Fox than any other cable network, I believe.......so they do have some legitimacy when it comes to much of the news.
I would love it if they were more unbiased, but this is about their right to report, their freedoms, and despite how much we don't like certain things their pundits say, they do have that right. I just don't watch much.
Tommy,
I was just responding to this quote of yours:
"but you know that "cheerleading" for Bush is what some would call it, while many here would call it blatant "misinforming".
I know you have said in the past that they misinform as well.
I will just have to agree to disagree with you on the news coverage. I watched a lot of the bridge stuff with a very conservative cousin of mine and there was almost as much commentary as news on Fox about it. Just my memory.
Fried,
For the record, Fox has opinionated pundits and guests, and then regular newsprogramming.....they offer very different functions and should be judged totally uniquely.
Their pundits, commentators and many guests are heavily biased towards the right, often cheerlead, misinform and mislead. However, their straight news coverage isn't the same as that, from what I have seen, which isn't a lot, admittedly. But it would be highlighted here more than their pundits if that were that the case, I am sure.
Actually I have seen their news be flat out biased in the few times I have seen them. At work I sometimes have to wait an hour or so for our train. The TV in our computer room is usually on news channels and infrequently on Fox. When the Ben Laden tape came out, the one where he called Saddam an infidel and the Baath party communists and socialists. All other news organizations were just reporting what was in the video I SAW Fox saying it was clear proof of ties between Iraq and al Queda. A biased interpretation and one that DID NOT BELONG on straight news reporting and that was NOT O'Reilly or Hannitys opinion show it was the NEWS portion. So one of the few times I ever watched Fox I saw FIRSTHAND their news be baised. Also the well reported spin the memos SENT to the news reporters on HOW to slant the news is prima facie evidence they bias their news.
At Nuremburg, the Nazi propagandists were also put on trial and convicted. FOX and the rest of the McMedia should think hard on that fact.
"At Nuremburg, the Nazi propagandists were also put on trial and convicted. FOX and the rest of the McMedia should think hard on that fact. - redking75687 /"
Partially true. The main Nazi media figure put on trial was Hans Fritzsche (in place of the absent/dead Joseph Goebbels). Fritzsche was completely acquitted.
The other media type put on trial at the main Nuremberg Trial was Julius Streicher, who ran the odious Der Sturmer. He was convicted on Count 4 of the indictment (Crimes Against Humanity) and executed.
For example, when Hume was touting Bush's Social Security plan, he repeatedly said that FDR wanted SS privatized. I would call that misinforming rather than cheerleading.
Every time Sean Hannity or Bill O'reilly open their pieholes, they are misinforming.
That might fly except Kurtz is a media critic. THAT is his job. THAT is how he feeds his family. For a media critic who, I noticed didnt say Olbermann had was entitled to HIS opinion about Faux news. He criticised Olbermann, fine that is his job, then gave Faux a pass for what he ADMITTED was cheerleading and misinforming
Beck/Olbermann debate- Bring it on!
I listened to Beck this am trash Hillary Clinton on fictional policies she would have in place as President- taking from the rich and giving to the poor basically. Beck sees the writing on the wall- the economy is tanking and Hillary is going to take away form any moneyed folk left in the country.
It was some of the most outrageous fear mongering I have heard in awhile. I could almost see the slather and drool dripping down his chin, really wanted to work his listeners up to a frenzy.
The man is a total moron.
The worst part is that she will do the exact opposite...take money from the poor and give it to the rich. She's been doing it her entire career.
BECK: Let me ask you this question. Who makes you weep more for journalism: Keith Olbermann or me? That's quite a question.
KURTZ: I think you both have plenty of opinions and are both paid to spew them on the airwaves.
The old false equivalency argument, huh? Not all opinions are equally valid and appropriate.
Glenn Beck spews much more hatred and ignorance that Olberman does.
On Glenn Beck, Howard Kurtz said that Keith Olbermann has described Fox News as a channel that "poses as a news organization and puts out dangerous misinformation [and] is a cheerleader for the Bush administration, that it is misinforming our society." Kurtz added: "But you know what? They're entitled to do that."
And we're entitled to label and condemn them as the propaganda source they truly are.
I'm not sure what to make of this at all. Kurtz says they're entitled, but isn't asked to expound...but it's very clear from that interview that Kurtz thinks Beck and O'Reilly are much more talking-head opinionators than K.O. is. So....how do you sum up what Kurtz's point was? Very weird.
His point was, and this would be different from someone other than a media critic whose JOB it is to critique the media. That they have a right to cheerlead and misinform. Now I agree but that is a strange point for a media critic to make. Instead of say pointing out that isnt what a NEWS organization should be doing. THAT would have been doing his job. I dont think he was brought on to give his opinion about their constitutional rights.
One name comes to mind right away...Goebbels. He was entitled to be the dispenser of misinformation by the leadership. The formula is very simple. Hire GOP hacks who don't know facts, nor are willing to consider facts, Parther that with leggy blondes who can read, 24/7 cable exposure, and voila, the perfect political machine to convert the daily influx of new voters. Just takes money and that is where Murdoch comes in.
Kurtz is right if Olbermann can be a cheerleader for the left, then FOX can do it for the right.
Sue,
If MSNBC had their whole day like Countdown, I would say your point is valid. I know you don't like KO or MSNBC or Fox, but to compare one show from MSNBC to an entire network isn't quite fair, is it?
Watch Dan Abrams at 9pm.
FOX is bad I agree but MSNBC is bad also.
But at least MSNBC has Tucker and Scarbourough on, what differing sides does Fox have? I can only count Colmes.
Fried
I think Colmes is a just a stooge, if you watch that show he always seems to put digs into anyone on the left. Its shameful that FOX calls themselves fair and balanced.
Doris,
I am with you. I was just trying to point out that Fox is a lot more tilted than MSNBC, at least in my opinion.
Colmes is like the team that always plays the Harlem Globetrotters. He's just there to make it look like there are two sides. His real function is to make Hannity look clever and handsome by comparison.
Hannity is disgusting.
His [Colmes] real function is to make Hannity look clever and handsome by comparison.
I don't think that takes any effort on Colmes part. Colmes is a boob. [I won't comment on his looks, that's mean-spirited]
I find his [Colmes] style even more irritating than Hannity's...and I can't stomach Hannity.
Ditto on that Jeter, Colmes gets on my nerves more than Hannity ever could. At least Hannity sticks to what he says, Colmes looks like a whipped puppy who practically apologizes for his opinions.
If Colmes didn't get on your nerves more than Hannity and actually was able to hold up his end in a debate, do you think Fox would have hired him?
Exactly. Do you think it's an accident that Colmes compares so poorly to the bright, shiney Hannity? He was carefully chosen for that role, I assure you.
Exactly. And there's a reason why statistically speaking fox news watchers are more ill informed than the rest of the nation. They believe Bill and Hannity because they think they are looking out for them and telling them the real truth. They have a comic book w/Hannity as the main character, the defender of USA values. That is the measure of their resolve!
Here's the false "they both do it" equivalency meme.
Fox and MSNBC are not the same.
Fox and Olberman and Abrams are not the same even.
"I'm playing lots of notes! I'm not just hitting one key! Don't you dare tell me I'm not hitting other keys! My song has lots of notes!"
Olbermann does not spend the time he has during Countdown trashing those he disagrees with. Yes, he is one of the very few that actually presents longer segments with opposing points of view to the administration's spin. But he does not distort FACTS.
I think you are falling prey to the "boogeyman" mentality that is so typical of so many on Faux news. Dare to speak truth, especially truth to power, and you are branded as a "loony left."
It is democracy 101- journalists can and should report, commentators do have a responsibility to give reasoned thoughtful opinions based on the news of the day. Keith does exactly that.
Why don't you actually watch for awhile?
Fox has abused its First Amendment franchise. Since the First Amendment gives them immunity from government action, it's up to other members of the Press to hound them out of business, or at least expose them for the frauds they are.
Admittedly, starting a News Feud may not be very good for profits, but it would go a long way toward restoring the integrity of the institution. But, profits being the primary consideration here, the other Networks just look the other way while Fox makes a joke of their profession.
An organization with the word "news" in it's name is entitled to put out deliberate misinformation and shill for a political party. Are they entitled to do that? I guess, technically and legally, if they cover themselves enough, leave enough wiggle room to backpedal or explain the propaganda.
Is somebody who gives this same organization the Seal of Approval a "media critic"? Hardly.
And those posters who are completely baffled at finding any differnce between the 24 hour a day Fox GOP commercial, and MSNBC's giving Olberman part of his show to criticize (usually with good documentation) the GOP, that must be hard work being that voluntarily baffled.
What a bunch of crybabies. ;-)
Fox is no more a cheerleader than NBC or CNN. It just stands out because it is slanted conservative and everyone else is slanted liberal.
AA,
Working on your satire here? Please tell me who on CNN and NBC you listed is in the same league with Hannity, O'Reilly and the guests on Fox.
After you do that, please tell me how much time is spent "cheerleading" by those people and how much airtime they get compared to their conservative counterparts on the same networks.
Please look closer at who has shows on CNN/NBC and then tell me how much more they feature liberals than conservatives.
It seems to me that a lot of people think the opinion shows on Fox represent the network as a whole. I noticed that by some of the comments that follow.
Yes Fox has its talking head shows, but they are opinion shows full of pundits. The other shows have theirs too.
Everyday I see the leftist tilt on the Today Show. Fine. I understand that. I have watched CNN and MSNBC and seen their tilt. It was obvious during the elections. Same goes for CBS and ABC.
You can argue all you want that Fox is more a cheerleader than the others. I am simply saying they all do it.
Examples, please be specific.
So, Barn, you've gone with option A, nothing ?
No, excuse me, on re-reading,you see the "leftist tilt" on a morning show. I'm guessing that's as close to any facts as we're ever going to get from you. ;0)
AA
I would agree with you about some elements at NBC News but they have no comparison to the bias at FOX. CNN to me at this point is as fair as we have.
FOX however is so over the top , you can not defend them can you?
Would you care to site some examples about NBC? Just curious on who your talking about?
MHK,
I think he is going to cite Olbermann and maybe Abrams, but he often makes sweeping, generalizing statements and leaves them alone.
Like you, I would love to see what he says.
Kind of like the statement you just made about me which had no merit.
Jlyons,
Did I say something about you? I was not aware that I did. I apologize.
Jlyons,
I see it now. I was referring to AA and not you, sorry for the misunderstanding. My bad.
Apology accepted ;-)
Fried,
I find it funny that you are singling me out for unsupported statements. It would have much more merit if you'd include all the others who might toss of an opinion without footnotes. :-)
I mentioned it above, (sorry I was away for all the umbrage taken,) I see the tilt on the networks and specifically the Today Show. I have noticed it when watching election coverage. That is right off the top of my head.
Anyway, it is clear many disagree. Fine. I am not running from anything or not supporting my statements. Just lack of time. I didn't know I'd get such a response. Sorry if I disappoint. Maybe next time.
AA,
I am singling you out for unsupported opinions because I don't find them to be true. When someone says something I generally agree with, I don't need them to provide documentation because I can find it on my own.
Since you have a differing point of view from mine on this issue, I am merely asking you to support it so we can have a good discussion.
Your mention of a "leftist tilt" on the Today Show rings hollow without any information to back it up.
I am not singling you out, but rather trying to figure out how you came to your conclusions. I hope you reply thoughtfully so we can discuss this further.
Fried,
I now understand your position. My use of the Today show as an example stems from the aggressive posture and questioning I've seen over the years aimed at conservatives. Don't get me wrong, I like the Today Show. However I've seen Couric, Matt Lauer, David Gregory, and now Meredith Vieira interrupt and argue with conservatives or Administration officials. Either today or yesterday Vieira tried more than once to cut into a response by Condoleeza Rice. I think it was yesterday Gregory got overly defensive when Laura Ingrahm criticized the Today Show as and example for pandering with Brittany video. It seems to me they put at least twice as many anti-war talking heads on as supporters and it is my perception that they cannot let anything positive being said in support of the war without someone or somebody taking issue. I for one get a bit tired of Russert always proclaiming he knows what the GOP or President must do. Their reliance on polls rather than news is another little thing that I think shows leftist tilt.
Even though I like Brian Williams, I think his tilt shows through. However it is rare that I watch him.
Couric is no longer on NBC but had a definite aggressive posture many times when interviewing conservatives. You can almost see the disdain Vieira shows some of her interviews.
That being said, I still watch the Today Show. Maybe it's a habit, but even though I think their politics are worn on their sleeves, and disagree with how they phrase things or the way they interview many conservatives, I do enjoy the personalities and the interviews even when I do disagree with them.
I noticed the same sort of veiled aggressiveness when Rather was on. Same with Jennings.
I am not saying that Fox doesn't lean to the right, and I only watch their talking heads during elections, but then I surf and also watch MSNBC and CNN depending on who I find interesting. As I said earlier, I think they all do it. Fox stands out because so far, they are the only one who runs counter to all the rest.
AA,
Thanks for being at least a little more specific. However, I still disagree with you completely. The Today show has given Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly and Bill Kristol more than their share of air time in the past year or so. I don't watch it as much as you do, but those three getting segments by themselves is fairly extraordinary.
If the Today Show is as liberal as you say, why did they not cover Romney's fundraiser flap and devote a ton of time to Hsu?
Why did Lisa Meyers suggest that Conservatives own values voters?
Why was John Edwards' haircut given so much coverage on the Today Show?
Why was Thompson featured on the Today Show without noting that he contributed to Libby's Defense fund?
There are 161 stories on this site alone about the Today Show.
Fox is by far the most biased media outlet in the history of the country.
Check out this one on Brian Williams:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200502070007
Check out these debate questions by Williams:
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh043007.shtml
I would love for you to find the types of stories and bias that this site regularly reports for your claims.
I appreciate more details like you gave, but I still think that Fox has cornered the market on "news" distortion
Fried,
I guess we can agree to disagree.
I am not saying that no conservatives ever appeared on the Today Show. Of course they have. So have Liberals been on Hannity and Colmes.
Even if you feel Fox is the most biased, it doesn't negate my my opinion that the mainstream networks tilt to the left. If you think Fox is the most biased, please go right ahead.
AA,
For fun, please find me some examples of misinformation from those networks that even come close to the scale of the examples listed here on a daily basis. You may be right. I would love to see what you can find.
I really wish you would have provided specific examples, but I appreciate the dialogue.
Fried,
Unfortunately I am not bankrolled like MMFA nor do I have the time to catalog the tilt. That being said, just becaus MMFA posts something outlandish and keeps reposting it just because Olbermann copied them, does not necessarily make their complaints valid. A few of us make note of that just about every day.
But as a side note I thought Russert and Vieira were at it again this morning doing their level best to pull the President's remarks last night down to the same level as the Democrats sniping. As always, feel free to disagree.
AA,
Criticism of the President does not make one liberal or conservative. When the transcripts are up, I promise to look them over and evaluate what they said and reference what the President said as well.
Are you saying they did not do this to Clinton?
You can have the opinion the sky is red. Wont mean it makes sense. Just because you wingnuts keep saying it doesnt make it true.
Truer words were never spoken when applied to MMFA.
Quoting Kurtz verbatim, as MM does above, is not MM's "opinion".
The words are true PERIOD. They just would be a non sequitur if applied to MMFA. As usual ya got nothin
MHK
I really would not no where to begin.
MMFA has done outstanding work on Tucker Carlson and Chris Matthews and the misinformation Matthews has done, remember he was the misinformer of the year in 2005.
I feel Tim Russert does not do a great job, his role in the Scotter Libby Scandal as on example has never been explained.
NBC In the past let Don Imus have a say on its cable outlet and exposed him to news journalist even reporting on issues as Arafats funeral and his disgusting sidekick at the time made statements with Andera Mitchell present.
How many more examples do you want?
http://mediamatters.org/items/200411190009
Perfect, I was really curious on who your referring to and you cited good examples. Too often people make statements implying some type of equity without really thinking it through, but you obviously did.
AA/Barney Fife just likes dropping in ridiculous comments for the attention. If he really believed that those other networks were the liberal counterpart of Fox, don't you think he would have included some examples?
AA is perpetuating the "liberal media bias" myth. In their minds, Dan Rather's body language counts as "bias".
I'm sure if Deputy Fife hasn't conveniently disappeared, he's busy gathering his documentation. Prepare for A. nothing, or B. links to Newsbusters/Freerepublic.
Do not prepare for original thoughts or insight.
Gomer,
Again you resort to ad hominum attacks. Don't you ever have anything that actually actually adds to the conversation?
HBL You've turned into a troll.
Assuming HBL is a troll (which he really isn't) he would still be an awfully funny one.
ps. I find your post funny in that your only consistant source is "Andy of Mayberry."
mhk,
The Mayberry reference was for HBL.
That's a reference, not a source. I find it funny that you don't know the difference.
You began your posts by calling us all crybabies and are now SNIVEllING about ad hominem attacks????? More crybaby conservative whining that we treat YOU the way you treat us. Get over yourself
Solon,
It has long been obvious to me that you are the master of ad hominum. It seems to me it is rare you can go a day without calling someone a liar or a moron.
Be that as it may, as usual, you miss the obvious. You failed to notice I put a smiley face after my comment about crybabies. In case you don't know, that signifies a light hearted joke.
I'm all for discussing threads and different points of view. However I simply point out that HBL never seems to discuss the issues with me but only speaks to others with weak and overworn attempts at putdowns. I simply call him on it as I am calling you on it too.
When either of you want to simply discuss your points of view, I'll be happy, if I am able, to engage likewise. You can take it or leave it. I do not care.
Sure call us names pretend its a joke then snivel about how YOU are treated the way you treat us. Its sad and pathetic. I make no appologies about going ad hominem with those who start it. As far as I am concerned I prefer honest hostility to a sad false mask of civility while being rude. It fools no one.
Solon,
Lighten up. You are so full of venom that you can't even admit when you've made a simple mistake. You made one accusing me of being rude when I was just poking a little fun. Notice nobody else commented on it.
I do enjoy a good joke and don't mind being poked at. And I don't claim to be a saint. However if people are going to be rude to me, I'll give it back. HBL's ad hominum was out of the blue and had nothing to do with anything. It is in my opinion, simply a cowardly way to get attention. He then has to hide behind others like you who are equally ill mannered.
Your defense of his behavior only shows your extreme bias which apparently clouds your common sense. You may think calling people names is justified but it only diminishes you and your arguments.
I want wrong and just because you arent bright enough to see the piont I made doesnt change that. Insulting someone then saying just joking is pathetic it isnt a mitigating factor. I am not defending HBL not that I wouldnt but he consistantly shows he doesnt need my help. He can easily take you apart all by himself. I made my OWN observation about YOU whining that WE were treating YOU the way you treated us. One of my pet peeves. You havent SEEN venom from me as of yet. I can be waaaaay meaner than this, I hold myself back here. You guys dont deserve real venom. You arent that mean spirited and the ones that are that mean spirited are so dumb it would be like picking on the mentally challenged.
Hi Barney ! First of all, I think you'd better have somebody explain to you the meaning of Ad Hominem.It doesn't mean any criticism of a person, just an atttack that is based on personal or irrelevant issues.
Now follow me, because we've been through this before; Nobody can debate you on the substance of your comments when there isn't any substance there.You can't pretend that it's only me, as others have pointed out your tendency to post vague, unsupported opinions (followed by the protective smiley-face) and leave them unattended.
You were asked for examples of your claims of the "left-tilting" media, I just predicted that you would come up with squat, and I was correct.
What you did respond with was a pile of your feelings. Aggressive postures, hosts interrupting conservative guests, a host being defensive as his show was criticized. Do you actually think any of these very subjective observations support your comments?
Two times as many anti-war commentators as pro-war? This is pretty representative of public opinion, I'm guessing outside of the Fox shills, finding 1 for every 2 is getting pretty tough if you're trying to have informed people on your show.
Nothing positive can be said about the war without somebody else taking issue? That's called presenting both sides, and is generally more interesting than just having the administration's PR dept. come on and spout pro-war happy talk.
You also cite a reliance on polls vs, News as indicative of a "leftist tilt".While you probably wouldn't agree with me that news, or "facts", have a liberal bias, I'm not even sure where you got the idea that citing polls is liberally slanted.
Then more of your feelings.Veiled aggression,disdain you can almost see. These are not things that are necessarily happening outside of your mind.Of course, nobody but you can comment on these things, as they're all just foggy recollections on your part, no links, no quotes, just your interpretations presented as reality.
I hope you understand that I'm trying to help you, Barney. I would be bored here if there weren't intelligent conservative posters, and I think you have a brain. You're just lazy, preferring to repeat others' opinions, or present fuzzy generalities as evidence.
If it's easier to call other posters trolls, go ahead. Whether you really don't understand others' points, or just pretend not to because you don't like being exposed, I think you're setting very low standards for yourself.
But I'm rooting for you, Barn! Let's kick it up a notch.If you want a discussion with some meat on it,post something besides a dried out ol' bone.
;0)
You are simply laughable.
Now you decide to actually comment on what I actually wrote. I appreciate that.
My impressions with regards to the leftward tilt on the Networks are simply my impressions. It is fine with me if you disagree with my reasons and eamples. I certainly don't mind you challenging me on them. That is what I think makes this interesting. It is our disagreements that fuels good discussions, not a bunch of atta-boys and putdowns. However you can write whatever you like. If you want to try to put forth putdowns, go ahead. I may respond likewise.
You can put forth good points when you decide to do so. Thanks for taking the time to finally elevate your posts.
But it is another day. Lots to do. We'll have to continue later.
"You are simply laughable.
Now you decide to actually comment on what I actually wrote. " (AA)
You finally wrote something! Not very specific or convincing, but it's a start. ;0)
I'm not sure what you're missing, maybe just not getting the response you expect to your posts, but most comments I've seen directed at you are about what you've written, even if you don't understand them and see those comments as Ad Hominem attacks.
What a moron you are. Its ludicrous on the face of it to claim NBC is baised to the left like Fox is biased to the right. You can come in here and tell us the sky is chartruese but we are not as easily fooled as you apparantly are.
Oh my - you really are dense if you believe what you just posted, AA.
Fog,
I suppose that passes for intelligent argumentation in your world?
Yeah, them pro-war let's-run-nothing-but-Britney-Spears-peices at NBC and CNN are liberals. And Che Guevara was from Hoboken and spoke Indonesian. You "conservatives" live in a very strange delusional world.
PS: What are "WET HE-PEOPLE"?
Male swimmers? I'm just guessing here...
(insert smiley-face emoticon here to indicate intended levity of preceeding comments)
NE- on- desert
Sure wet swimmers that's the ticket.
But do we really want our other news outlets monitoring Fox and taking up their time straightening out what Fox broadcasts? Talk about more publicity. I think they have better things to do with their airtime.
- tommy /
Yes, we definitely want that.
Propaganda outlets should always be under constant & intense scrutiny from "mainstream" media outlets.
It's nothing less than the patriotic duty of NBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, etc. to constantly monitor, & expose, Fox.
Fox is no more a cheerleader than NBC or CNN. It just stands out because it is slanted conservative and everyone else is slanted liberal.
- anotheramerican /
Fox is not "slanted" towards anything; it's an unrepentant pro-war/pro-war profiteer propaganda outlet.
While our national army dies a slow death in Iraq, Fox News already has war pimps in place ginning up a confrontation with Iran.
Fox lies about Democrats & considers anybody who is not willing to lie about Democrats a weakling. This because Democrats do not share the Fox audiences' craving for gratuitous mayhem & frat boy sabre rattling.
Dag,
I respect your opinion even though I disagree.
Funny though, I don't see anyone jumping on the bandwagon demanding you cite instances to prove your assertions. :-)
Anyone else notice this?
I hate to say it but Kurtz is 100% correct. This is a free country. Reporters are free to be as biased as they want. I'm not aware that there is anyone or any thing that can force Fox to report the news in any particular way.
The constant bellyaching about "media bias" ... by both Left and Right ... is becoming juvenile and tiresome. Both ideologies desperately need to grow up. No one is entitled to expect that the news will be reported precisely according to their own wishes; such an expectation is unreasonable, irrational, and childish. It isn't going to happen.
We have more to fear from the notion of "media policing" than we have from any "bias" in the media. If you prefer a country where reporting can only be done one way, may I suggest living in China, Russia, or Venezuela ... ?
Good points. However we are now in an era where each individual has to filter through the news and commentary to try to discern bias from straight reporting. Maybe that is a good thing?
I'm not sure it can be called either "good" or "bad." It just "is." There's no escaping it: No one but you (i.e. the rhetorical "you") is going to report the news exactly as you want it reported. Expecting others to read one's mind, anticipate how one wants the news reported, and then providing exactly that, is simply NEVER going to happen.
It really boils down to "maturity," which is acceptance that the world works in ways one wishes it wouldn't. People who demand that the news be reported THEIR way and THEIR WAY ONLY, are not being realistic or mature.
Yeah well, they're OUR airwaves and we have the right to see that they're not used for purposes of blatant propaganda.
Now, hold on, Johnny. I hope you're not suggesting that FoxNews broadcasts over OUR airwaves, because they don't. Last time I checked, I have to pay for a service to deliver that channel to me. Try to be fair here.
Doesnt matter because the FCC treats cable just like broadcast media They are STILL considered a public trust. Satelite is different CABLE is not
Johnny,
How do you feel about the first amendment? ;-)
AA,
The first amendment is fine, but lying and spreading propaganda should not be titled "news."
Can you be more specific? ;-)
Yep,
When Brit Hume said that FDR wanted social security privatized he was knowingly lying:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200502040010
""It turns out that FDR himself planned to include private investment accounts in the Social Security program when he proposed it," claimed Hume in a recent broadcast, where he also suggested that Roosevelt wanted the federal program to ultimately be supplanted by "self-supporting annuity plans." To "substantiate" his statement, Hume rearranged Roosevelt's words to fake up "quotes" that seemed to suggest the 32nd president would have approved of undermining the Social Security system in order to enrich Wall Street"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/07/opinion/main678638.shtml
Here is pretty good proof that "anchor" Hume is a political hack:
Walter Reed looks terrible which is a problem for the Bush admin:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/04/brit-hume-on-walter-reed-it-looks-terrible-for-the-bush-administration-which-is-the-problem/
Do you want bias with Hume?
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1187How many more would you like?
Could you provide examples like that ;)?
Hume rearranged Roosevelt's words to fake up "quotes" that seemed to suggest the 32nd president would have approved of undermining the Social Security system in order to enrich Wall Street"
I appreciate the link but I'm not sure that citing an opinion piece from "The Nation" counts as proof. Perhaps if you had the original quote from Hume and and an analysis showing how the quotes mistakenly tried to enrich Wall Street might be more helpful. Otherwise it looks to me like this part of your post is just someone else on the far left's opinion.
wall street will enrich itself through a fee charged on all those privatized accounts. but in any case, the original quote was provided. you just want to turn the argument into one about "the nation". hume misquoted roosevelt. period.
I understand the argument regarding wall street enriching itself, but that is not the issue here. I also saw the original quote by FDR. However there is nothing proving Hume purposely rearranged quotes in the Nation article except the assertion of FDR's grandson.
That is my point. The reference by Fried to the Nation article does not prove at all that Hume is a propagandist. Simply put, there is no proof in that reference.
The latest evidence of Hume-as-propagandist was his love-fest for General Petraeus the other night. But it's clear by watching Hume on any given night that the administration --by default-- gets the benefit-of-the-doubt, every time, from Hume.
How about the words of FDR's grandson?
http://mediamatters.org/items/200502160003
Hume's claim:
"It turns out that FDR himself planned to include private investment accounts in the Social Security program when he proposed it," claimed Hume in a recent broadcast, where he also suggested that Roosevelt wanted the federal program to ultimately be supplanted by "self-supporting annuity plans."
Grandson's qualifications:
"James Roosevelt Jr. is not merely a guardian of his grandfather's legacy, he is a former associate commissioner for the Social Security system. In other words, he knows what he is talking about. "
The Nation is a well respected magazine. It has published continuously since 1865. They have credibility most rightwing mags could only DREAM of.
I fail to see how the second quote and link to a progressive site proves your point. It looks to me from the quote on that site that Hume was simply commenting about the political ramifications of whatever pictures were disclosed about conditions at Walter Reed. (I didn't see the pictures.)
It looks to me to be in the same vein as saying Hillary having to return $800,000 in donations from an Asian American bundler also looks bad. One doesn't have to be a Hillary supporter to come to the same conclusion .
The quote was to show bias in someone considered to be an "anchorman" and not someone who gives opinion on Fox. He said the worst part of Walter Reed was that it made Bush look bad.
This is the real poison that FOX and Bush have spread. In your world, the truth is no defense. Who would know better than James Roosevelt what FDR meant? And he ran the Social Security system, too. That's major credibility. Your discrediting of this comes from one thing: denigrating the source, the Nation.
In other words, you think the truth is ideological. There's a word for that, you know: totalitarianism.
Your last reference says that Fox is putting on more conservatives than liberals.
I never argued that it didn't. I don't see how that proves Fox is guilty of disseminating propaganda.
Oh well. Thanks for listing sources but I fail to see how they prove your point. See ya later.
AA,
They do prove my point. I found the quotes from FDR and the quotes from Hume. If he had made an honest mistake, I would expect him to apologize and be done with it. He didn't.
The second link was a video of Hume saying that the Walter Reed thing was bad for Bush and that "was the worst part." Its on a video, you can hear him say it. If he is truly an "unbiased anchor" on a "news" show, he would never dreamed of saying something like that.
Finally, you say that Fox is ok to have more conservatives on than liberals. I agree, but with one exception: News programming. Fox bills itself as "Fair and Balanced," but is neither.
If you can find stats showing the guests on the Today Show are slanted, please provide it. It should not be hard to do with the internet search engines. If you can find examples of Today Show hosts lying and pushing a Democratic agenda, post it. With "the google" and all the resources now available at your fingertips, you have all of the resources you need.
Please post specific examples, if you can find them. If you can't, I refuse to accept criticism of the President's policies as evidence of liberalism. If that were the case, Hagel would be a liberal.
The hardest part of your argument about the criticism of Bush's speech last night on the Today Show this morning is our collective short memories. How did the press cover Clinton? Did Clinton's staff get interrupted or did they get unfettered access to discuss their points without interruption?
If you think NBC is so "biased" why did Cheney want to always go on Meet the Press? He felt he could frame the issues and get a free pass.
Please, when we have this argument again, and I know we will, provide websites so we can have a good argument and pull apart each other's sources.
Peace.
Who, precisely, is the "they" to whom the airwaves belong? Who, precisely, gets to decide what is "propaganda" and what isn't?
Whether or not you realize it, you're advocating control of the press. Unfortunately a restricted press is NEVER a "good" press ... unless one is a totalitarian, dictator, etc. who's forcing the press to report as one wishes it to.
Be careful what you ask for ... you may get it.
The thing about having a free press is that it IS possible for blatant propaganda to be broadcast. But it's ALSO possible for one to report one's OWN propaganda in return and thus compete for it.
Don't like how Fox reports the news? Then report it yourself, YOUR way. No one is stopping you. No one can, in fact, stop you! Nor should anyone stop you.
The PUBLIC owns the airwaves. The corporations were allowed to exploit OUR resource to make THEIR obscene piles of cash in return for performing a public service as the PUBLIC we have EVERY right to demand they DO that and decide exactly what that entails if they dont LIKE IT they can start dry cleaning businesses and lets someone ELSE make obscene piles of money while COMPLYING with the wishes of the OWNERS of the resource they are exploiting.
And this is who the Washington Post calls a "media critic".
ha!
"Johnny,
How do you feel about the first amendment? ;-) "
I'm fine with it.
How do you feel about truth in advertising?
I'm all for it.
I guess we agree on some things. :-) I'll buy the first round.
Of course they have a right to say anything they want. Media, "The Press" has always been partisan. In Europe, from whence our culture sprang, it is all partisan. We pretend it isn't here because we had, at one time, the fairness doctrine because network airwaves are owned by the public. FOX is on private space and can do what they wish. It is of course dishonest of them to claim they are not partisan. They are dishonest... oh... when they are on. But they have just as much right to be for the GOP as Olberman, whom, I believe, is partisan but honest, has a right to be against it.
It's true! Fox News is a cheerleader for the Bush Administration. The suits (producers) at Fox News are mostly Republicans and they will do stories that favors the administration.
What will Fox News Channel do when Bush leaves the White House? If a Democrat wins the White House, look for possible changes in Fox News. Perhaps a more liberal-friendly news station. Is Sean and Bill out? Bill will still be with Fox News (he makes too much money here). Sean, on the other hand may have outgrown the network. He has his radio show, Freedom Concerts, speaking tours, etc.
Look for changes soon.
So Beck does buy Playboy just for the articles.
But will Beck say those same criticisms of Bill O'Reilly comparing Daily Kos to Nazis and KKK members?
"FOX is on private space and can do what they wish."
Perhaps you've heard of the "public airwaves" and the FCC?
The Media, in any form, is NOT entitled to editorialize about the NEWS. That is the function of the "Editoral Page" in a newspaper. Reporters are REQUIRED to REPORT the news. Individuals on Television News programs who insist on "coloring" the news should be required to inform viewers that they are editorializing, not reporting. Keith Olbermann NEVER pretends to be reporting the news, only commenting on HOW the news is being reported by others. On the other hand Fox NEVER warns its viewers about their slanted reporting. All news media makes mistakes, but never with the intention of MISLEADING the viewers.
Olbermann's show is commentary and anyone posessing a fully functional brain can see it (which negates about 95-% of foKKKs "news" watchers). Britt Fume throws in little zingers as he spews "news", and guess what?- you can mislead and propagandize just as well by omission as well as intentionally being disingenuous. As for Gibson, Hannity , O'Liely and all the other shills, well their bias is readily apparent.
I work with foKKKs "news" watchers who are otherwise intelligent people, and they DO believe that Saddam had WMD, argue such, even if it was the few degraded artillery shells found- but can't answer that it was worth us invading and losing so many 'Merkins and money for a "threat" that wasn't usable as a viable weapon at all.
Murdoch has managed to spread the NeoCON cancer far and wide through his minions at foKKKs and especially the Weekly Standard, as well as the corporatist mentality that apologizes for greed and pollution while doling out a pittance to illegal laborers that they don't pay benefits to.
"The suits (producers) at Fox News are mostly Republicans and they will do stories that favors the administration."
It's much worse than that. Roger Ailles was media consultant, the first ever used in a presidential election, for Richard Nixon in 1968. A best selling book was written about Ailles and that campaign.
[link to www.amazon.com]
The book documents how Ailles went way beyond handing out positive press releases and sold his client like a box of Corn Flakes.
He continues to do the same thing today in his role of running Fox News.
He's selling the Republican party to us any way he can, truth be damned.
Hell, even the makers of Corn Flakes are limited in the claims they can make for their product.
Have you seen the memos John Moody, Senior Vice President of Fox News, wrote to the staff?
[link to wonkette.com]
Here's an excerpt:
"MONDAY UPDATE: Into Fallujah: It's called Operation Vigilant Resolve and it began Monday morning (NY time) with the US and Iraqi military surrounding Fallujah. We will cover this hour by hour today, explaining repeatedly why it is happening. It won't be long before some people start to decry the use of "excessive force." We won't be among that group.
The continuing carnage in Iraq -- mostly the deaths of seven US troops in Sadr City -- is leaving the American military little choice but to punish perpetrators. When this happens, we should be ready to put in context the events that led to it. More than 600 US military dead, attacks on the UN headquarters last year, assassination of Irai officials who work with the coalition, the deaths of Spanish troops last fall, the outrage in Fallujah: whatever happens, it is richly deserved."
Wait Just a Minute Here ...
Foxie Liars Channel is "entitled" to be a Bush "cheerleader" and "misinform our society"?!?
BULL SHiii#R, I mean Bull Corn!
Pretending to be a legitimate news organization while reporting outright lies and misinformation to our society? This is a very bad and unacceptable crime against society. We deserve and must demand truthful news reporting.
A huge block of viewers aren't being told the truth. They deserve better and should be protected from this information abuse.
Fair & Balanced - My Buttox??
Fox News Channel is one hugh TV Commercial to promote Republicanism. Then Kurtz Says: "But you know what? They're entitled to do that."
Well you know what Kurtz, Please ... Will you please go straight to Hell, I mean Jail, and don't pass Go or collect 200 dollars. This should be against the law. If more networks begin to Lie Like a Fox where will we go for the truth? But ...
If Fox Liars Channel comes clean and admits their true agenda of misinforming their viewers then and only then are "They entitled to do that."
If Fox refuses to be honest, the FCC should take some kind of action. I wouldn't want their broadcasting license revoked because I truly believe most people know who Fox is and what Fox is. But many do not, SO ...
The FCC should notify the unknowing public that Fox News Channel is secretly Masquerading and Pretending to be a legitimate journalisticly responsible source of news.
Footnote ...
For truthful news reports please tune to KPBS. The list of truthful news outlets is longer but I don't have the time.
Sam I Am
Hey, speaking of misinforming fear-mongering fools, has anyone else been keeping up with Beck's hysterical giving-ideas-to-terrorists and wishful thinking segments called "The Perfect Day"? Dude's spent a whole week covering this what-if scenario about the schools getting overtaken by terrorists, like in Beslan, giving great ideas to would-be terrorists.
CNN- No fear, just facts. Yeah, right.
The joke is that conservatives think the rest of the airwaves are "liberal." In actual fact, non-FOX media generally do take their obligation to the truth seriously -- which in some minds makes them liberal right there, I guess -- but they're hardly liberal in the way that FOX is conservative. They present a wide spectrum of opinion. For every Krugman in the New York Times, there's a Brooks. For every hard-working reporter in the written press who wouldn't hesitate to investigate claims by the Bush administration to see if what they say is factual, there has been a Michael Gordon or a Judith Miller, pimping the lies of Dick Cheney et. al. (And I use "lies" factually, not as polemic. Look at the record.) Is Krugman going to get a voice on Fox? No. Was Fox going to give prominence to the warrantless wiretapping controversy? No. O'Reilly and the rest were threatening the Times with the death penalty for treason. I kid you not.
If you wanted a "liberal" media, you'd give a show to Olbermann, to Amy Goodman, to some Air America people, Randi Rhodes and the like, and you'd just have their viewpoints 24/7. If they didn't want to report on, say, the Jefferson scandal, and just concentrate on the GOP scandals, they would do so. And then they'd have "Fair and Balanced" as their promotional ID. And you'd be screaming like hell.
In America, since the rise of the large and very partisan press barons in the 1890s, there was an interregnum, particularly post-World War II, where the media tried to be objective. They never exactly were; conservative owners shoved the coverage right and liberal owners shoved it left. But it was roughly true.
I think we were very well served by this era of professional reporting. What our business and politics and citizenry needs is objectivity in facts. Only then can we have opinions that actually mean something concrete. Otherwise our citizens are prone to be captured by demagogues. Ahem.
Oh, and on an unrelated matter -- Fox watchers may not be idiots when they tune in, but when they turn the set off, they've been made dumber.
Just two more thoughts: MSNBC has a wide variety of opinion programming. They even tried to give Savage a slot, until he embarrassed the country and MSNBC with his obscene rant about gays. They have Scarborough and the unwatchable bow-tie preppie kid. The best they can do for a liberal on FOX is Colmes, the Mutt to Hannity's Jeff, and he's hopelessly compromised. Hannity sets the agenda. Colmes is the straight man.
The other thought is, maybe this has passed the high water mark. Olbermann has beat O'Reilly in the 25-54 demo at least once. And the experiment on CNN, Beck? The worst-rated show on primetime cable. By a lot. Why is he still there?
Swift,
Great points! If you want to see what happens to their reasoning skills, go to the Couric story and read WIZBOR4654's comments and argument style. He calls me a traitor for using a certain poll which I did not use and then links it. He really thought that either no one would notice or he is just that lazy.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200709130011?f=h_latest
Republicans believe in the free market. So what if the idea is wrong or an outright lie? All that matters is that people believe it.
Goodfella57,
Yes, they are idiots.