Important videos from Fox News
Fox is no more biased to the right than MSNBC is to the left. But, really, so what? They each preach to their own choirs. Let a thousand flowers bloom, I say, left, right, and middle. How else do you think it should work in a free country? The model going forward is the sort of free access provided by the internet, which is daily demonstrating the limitations of the traditional, flat-line media and its "opinion makers." The stock price and bond ratings of those outfits tell you about all you need to know about where they are headed.
However, it is the case that taking the current national media as a whole, there is simply no comparison when it comes to predominant ideological slant. None. Given that, the liberal obsession with Fox is ungracious, to say the least. Fox's success to begin with is largely a product of lopsided liberal domination of the rest of media: Liberals have available a large number of sympatico media outlets, while conservatives have basically only one place to go, other than talk radio. With respect to the latter, note that you are not required to support Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity, while I as a taxpayer have no choice but to have my money spent in support of NPR's Morning Edition and All Things Considered, plus Counterspin and Bill Moyers on PBS. If you think that is fair, then we must agree to disagree.
In any case, trust me, those on the right would swap media positions in a nanosecond. Of course, that would still leave left dominance of the journalism schools, of academia generally, and of the entertainment industry. But conservative will gratefully take what they can get, so please see if you can arrange the media swap. If I only had Fox to complain about, I would think I'd died and gone to Heaven.
Thanks,
Byron
However, it is the case that taking the current national media as a whole, there is simply no comparison when it comes to predominant ideological slant. None. Given that, the liberal obsession with Fox is ungracious, to say the least. Fox's success to begin with is largely a product of lopsided liberal domination of the rest of media: Liberals have available a large number of sympatico media outlets, while conservatives have basically only one place to go, other than talk radio. With respect to the latter, note that you are not required to support Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity, while I as a taxpayer have no choice but to have my money spent in support of NPR's Morning Edition and All Things Considered, plus Counterspin and Bill Moyers on PBS. If you think that is fair, then we must agree to disagree.
In any case, trust me, those on the right would swap media positions in a nanosecond. Of course, that would still leave left dominance of the journalism schools, of academia generally, and of the entertainment industry. But conservative will gratefully take what they can get, so please see if you can arrange the media swap. If I only had Fox to complain about, I would think I'd died and gone to Heaven.
Thanks,
Byron
posted by Byron | Monday, November 03, 2008
2 Comments:
Hello Byron,
Thanks for the response. I am all for the free access media the internet provides, I love the way it instantly sheds light on the misinformation of the flat line media and its opinion makers. I really don't mind the existence of Fox News , really, I don't. I just think it should be named what it really is: "The Republican News Network"
The President of Fox News is Roger Ailes, former media advisor for Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H. Bush. "Liberal" NBC and MSNBC are owned by GE, the former CEO Jack Welch and current CEO Jeffrey Immelt are both registered republicans.
Fox News sharp right turn has created a loyal following, no doubt. Unfortunately it has been to the detriment of journalistic integrity. Fox News is in large part, no more than politically motivated propaganda. It is repeatedly caught stone cold on video tape lying, contradicting itself and omitting facts. The examples I sent were a very small fraction of the hundreds available for viewing on www.youtube.com . Send me similar examples of NPR, & MSNBC news doing the same and I would be happy to condemn them too.
I went to www.youtube.com The website is open to anyone who wants to use it. I searched 3 subjects: 1. Fox news lies & contradictions, 2. MSNBC news lies & contradictions, 3. NPR news lies and contradictions. Try it. Interesting result. Fox News overwhelmingly fails the comparitive honesty test. If NPR was so consistantly caught in such embarrassing and blatant contradictions and politically motivated ommissions of truth, I am quite sure Fox News would have exposed it and the former republican congress would have cut off funding. Why not? Could it be that accuracy and truth are somehow equated to liberalism?
Best regards and respectfully,
Barry
Hi, Barry:
Disclaimer: We two have corresponding but opposite opinions, and nobody should trust either one of us. Not that it matters.
I'm not impressed by ad hominem arguments over who owns what, and I don't care what these outfits call themselves. If one thinks it can get a larger ratings share and thus charge more per minute of advertising, it'll adopt Druid ideology and call itself The Stonehenge Network. I don't get Fox, and I don't watch MSNBC. But you seem to think names matter, so how about "Republican News Network" for Fox, and "Bush Derangement Network" for MSNBC? Truth in advertising. The former can have O'Reilly as its spittle-flecked mascot, the latter can use Keith Olbermann crawling toward the camera in one of his red-faced rants, sort of like the MGM Lion only with glasses and worse hair. It's the entertainment business, after all, and it's all good.
The only question is what they do. What they do is promote and cover for their guys, while they rake the other side over the coals. The Gotcha interview is the weapon of choice lately. Each audience-choir goes away feeling pleased and righteous, having been served its own brand of red meat. Some responses end up on YouTube, some don't; the ones that do are a delicious dessert. Emails fly back and forth! Parry and thrust!
After all this, nobody's mind is ever changed, you may have noticed. (Think of the Swift Boat controversy.) There's a good reason for that, which is that it's all bogus, a charade. It's just different people with different emotional commitments, which they dress up and parade around as if they were principles. A Martian might look at political discourse and imagine that it's about logic and evidence, but we know better, or we should: It's only about justifying and defending beliefs already held. We don't even know with any confidence why we hold them, a fact that does not save others from having to listen to our high-minded rationalizations.
You want to conclude that Fox is something especially and uniquely bad. Good luck with that. I thought the way the liberal media, broadcast and print, refused to report on John Edwards' love child, which he fathered behind the back of his cancer-ridden wife after having used her extensively as a campaign prop was not a high point in the annals of journalism. Maybe that's just me. The LA Times continues to sit on the Obama-Khalidi tape, won't even provide a transcript. Now, that's what I call "covering" the news! Last I heard, Dan "Fake but Accurate" Rather is still in court suing CBS to get his reputation back after this "journalist" attempted to throw the last election to Kerry. Win some, lose some.
Enough. We can both Google our way to endless friendly examples. When a particular instance is not sufficiently bad on its own, we can interpret it as an indicator of bad motives. Or profound stupidity. But, really, why bother? It's pot-kettle all the way down.
So, let's save time and pixels. I will just assume that you have been mightily impressed by what I have written, and that as a result you will pull the lever for John McCain. And you should assume that you have similarly persuaded me, so I will now be voting for Obama.
It's all good.
Byron
Post a Comment
<< Home