8 Reasons Fox Is Not a News Organization

It's not a news organization?...Ya think?!?!?

Although I obviously like Alternet enough to stick around, I think some of these foaming-at-the-mouth articles about the bad guys are a waste of space, and a bit insulting to the readership.

I'm no rocket scientist, but I think I know a wing-nut when I see one. It would be nice to see some more positive, productive articles that don't talk down to me, and explain by the numbers why the latest right-wing pundit is a looney.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Then there's MSNBC, where you always know what Pat Buchanan is thinking.

Wingnut Threat Level

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Does that mean CNN is or isn't?

If FOX isn't a news channel, then why do they always find space for hours of reporting on Michael Jackson and Anna Nicole Smith?

Look at the service FOX provides to the functionally illiterate who can't read so they have to watch fine, outstanding news on FOX to learn how to think on subjects important to Sir Rupert!!

You're just jealous because FOX seems to hire long-legged former cheerleaders to anchor the morning show.... sigh, so many fantasies, so little time.... What did they just say? Something about..... uhhh.

Who wants to read about and see the actual costs of our wars against the Muslim world, that stuff is so yucky!

Why waste time sending out a news crew to look into the homeless and then find out a lot of them are vets when you can watch that drunk rodeo clown and get mad as hell.... at something. Not sure what really, but it feels good to get pissed at offered targets and to generate some good feelin' hate.

Good ol' FUX... electronic brain candy for the quivering masses.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

when they weren't invited to a round robin for interviews with the paymaster czar. I find the reason Jake Tapper of ABC or any of the network reporters (Chris Matthews), think the White House is hurting themselves by not recognizing FOX as a news organization, is because they view the network as a possible employer. And they are doing subjective reporting rather than objective reporting. FOX is the propaganda wing of the Right and only a total moron wouldn't recognize that. You couldn't find a progressive voice there with a search warrant and all of Scotland Yard.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

while it needs to be said. What kind of a culture is it that needs this kind of elucidation of the obvious? Where do you start? Fox isn't about news, or politics, it's about culture. And the debate in the culture wars is a pathetically low level of discourse...but then, that's the purpose: not to win any argument per se, just to drag down the level--further and further and further. Unfortunately, one ingores them at great peril. Freedom of speech? Freedom of the mega rich corporate bullies to control speech. That's totalitarian capitalism at work.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I do. Before the election FOX actually "mislabeled" Obama as Osama. Just a typo, right? Yeah, right...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

While it is a vehicle for false news, right wing anarchist propoganda and racist ramblings, it grieves me to point out that it was virtually the only media outlet of wide distribution that reported on--and questioned--the stationing of federal troops in Samson, Alabama last March (in violation of the Posse Comitatus law). CN didn't report it. The New York Times didn't report it. The Washington Post didn't report it, and neighter did PBS, ABC, NBC or CBS.
Fox News did.
I think that this illustrates why we need to hear a wide variety of views from a wide variety of sources--some of which may turn our stomachs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I find the reporting on Fox News and the eight resaons, rather myopic and topical.

There are serious long-term issues that should be adressed instead of the handwringing about nonentities like Glen Beck.

Journalism is essential to the survival of modern government and commerce. Healthy capitalism requires teh efficient and speedy exchange of information to function. Journalism is not the trivial he said she said contest of conservative rhetoric.

It would help the public if journalists would educate us on the code of ethics and the requirements that they have to report truthfully, to report on people and groups that otherwise would be ignored, and on standards of objectivity.

If the public understood the Journalist's Code of Ethics, they would understand that Fox is an advocacy organization instead of a news organization.

Having Fox as the authoritative voice of the Republican Party is very valuable. But everyone watching it and particularly those quoting it, should understand that they are laying down the Republican Party line.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I appreciate the effort that Ms. Stans put into her article about Fox. You would do your readers and your "news magazine" organization a favor by asking her to write another article which takes a look at Alternet's coverage of immigration issues. It is unabashedly biased, just like Fox News. The editor proudly admits as much.
I have yet to see a single article which truthfully considers such topics as illegal (and legal) immigration's impacts on USAmerican wages, US and global environments, crime, congestion, emergency room closures, respect for rule by law, school budgets and a host of other related issues.
A truly progressive news organization would see our high level of immigration for what it is, a subsidy for Biz, the biggest transfer of wealth in history. Knee-jerk liberals are no better than knee-jerk conservatives. As a news organization it is not your job, nor Fox's, to ignore the truth in favor of biased, self-satisfying crusading.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Did you ever see "Hold On"? It was a 1965 film starring the deservedly forgotten British pop band, Herman's Hermits. I always get a real kick out of viewing that movie. It was so mind-trippingly awful that it is actually fun to watch.

I get the same type of perverse pleasure whenever I watch FOX and Friends. Go figure.

Something To Think About

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/

Let them know that Fox News has wilfully mislead you, is not fair and balanced, and is little more than party propaganda incorrectly labelled as "News".

If you have ever paid for a cable TV or satellite package that included the channel, you have legitimate grounds for a complaint on this issue. DO IT!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I didn't think that the fact that the commentators on Fox News are spokes people and
leaders of the Right Wing of the Republican Party is even an issue. I didn't think it was even debatable. Fox news does discuss occasional gossip but that does not make them a broadcaster of news. That is the bold intention of the owner to be what it is.

What upsets me is that we are allowing Murdoch a
non- citizen of the United States making policy.

Do any of you remember when anyone repeating something a Communist advocated a principal objection was that they were following something from a foreign power?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NOT ONLY UN"FAIR AND BALANCED" BUT STUPID AS WELL, DEDICATED TO VIEWERS WHO ARE EVEN MORE STUPID--ENOUGH TO BELIEVE THESE LACKEYS HIRED BY THE REPREHENSIBLE MURDOCH, WHO LONG AGO SET OUT TO CONTROL THE "NEWS" IN THIS COUNTRY AND CAME UP WITH THE LIKES OF O'REILLY AND BECK WHO ARE ALMOST AS ATTRACTIVE AS THEIR BOSS.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Without enough viewers no media outlet can exist without going bust. Fox News has its niche and is viewed by millions who enjoy its content. Debating whether it is evenhanded is irrelevant. The only thing important is its large audience.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I have banned Fox Nutwork from my home by using the parental control devise on the remote. Come on you all can do the same,just let Rupert know.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This guy is the biggest joke Fox has going on their smarmy Fox and Friends program. This guy is a WEATHER MAN!!! He needs to just shut up and tell me if it's gonna freakin' rain today!!! Ugh...I am so sick of Fox and ANYTHING they offer on the screen. It is frustrating to see the lies, hate, paranoia and call to arms they are spreading!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This issue of Fox not being a real news network did not begin recently and it is by no way the entire problem with our media.

I first became fully conscious that Fox was letting its ideology rule over its outlook during the 2000 election, but I was skeptical of it years earlier, during its attacks on Clinton. Still, they were just expressing their peculiar and radical neocon outlook; the Fox audience is fairly small, about 2 million Americans. This is only a tiny portion of the voting public. How much harm can this do?

A fish rots from its head. Has television media been rotting from its own head? Fox has had such a great influence on public opinion because the other networks, those with greater reach than FOX, have picked up whatever Fox reports and they have echoed those stories, seemingly without fact-checking them or even thinking seriously about them. This is where the real problem lies; the mainstream media really was rotting from the head.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Last time i checked America was still a free country in spite of Dick Cheney's best efforts.
I voted for Bush twice. I voted for Obama once. His administration's attempt to isolate FOX is absurd. This is just petty, rabid, rahmbo politics. If Obama is to survive he will ultimately be forced to get rid of Rahm Emanuel and bring in a more functional C of S. If y'all don't like FOX just don't watch. But you gotta understand that Beck and Hannity are just circus entertainers. I disagree with your belief that O'Reilly is a thug. He does a better job of presenting opposing points of view better than anyone else on tv.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

just propaganda organs for the military/industrial/banking complex!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And those doing so are not wing nuts.

While, yeah, nearly all of "us" know Faux is a complete travesty--and that half of Murdoch's "commentators" should be in jail based on the Patriot Act which they supported!--Faux still has an audience! My in-laws think bill o'lielly is heaven sent. My sister in law gets most of her information from--*cough*--Glennie the Pooh Beck. So we need to keep the pressure on. More articles like this need to saturate the web, the newspapers, etc. so that we ALL have the arguments to get Faux off the air.

Is that a free speech, 1st amendment issue? No! It's an issue of putting a little integrity back into one of the largest media conglomerates in history.

And while Glennie the Pooh has been able to survive the advertiser boycott, eventually he'll fall. (He has NO expertise, NO credentials, for cryin' out loud. He's a cheap DJ who made it big in the "opinion" field which he has abused, much like Limbaugh and Hannity!)

The more people who know, and are able to argue that Faux is a travesty, the better we'll be able to close 'em.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm afraid Mr. Murdoch is not only in the "news" business for money - though his greed is clearly as insatiable as any great banker's.

Like many other media bosses, he's also in it for putting his personal views across - and as nearly as possible on a world-wide near monopolistic basis. Look up News Corporation - it's holdings world-wide are breath-taking.

But it's more than the normal media mogul's personal likes and dislikes - "I like Blair/Brown - no, now I like Cameron" (Murdoch's Sun a couple of weeks ago). Or "I never liked that uppity Obama - he might want to clip my wings and no one else has ever dared try!" Throughout Europe politicians are afraid of Murdoch and cringe - Blair cringed and got his backing. (Read on below and think Bush/Blair "Iraq")

No, it's even more than that. Hidden in that long list you will find Murdoch's New Corporation owns The Weekly Standard - the mouthpiece of the Cheney/neo-conservatives and their PNAC (Project for a New American Century). Their ideology gave the world the Iraq War. Go into Iraq, get bases, control its oil, set up an American style democracy which will set the pattern for a pro-American New Middle East, beat Al Qaeda in its home ground so under-cutting its terrorist appeal, show the world the US can go anywhere do anything. And thus so dominate the world's most critical strategic region as to ensure American Hegemony worldwide in the 21st Century. That is what Murdoch has been behind - as well as making vast wealth and doing all he can to put across worldwide Murdoch's opinions on whatever takes his fancy.

A very attractive vision for neophyte G W Bush! But "Iraq" of course - designed to ensure an American uni-polar world was, ironically, what made that impossible. Because Murdoch and the neo-conservatives; like so many Americans I'm sad to say - had their own reality with which the Middle East did not conform. Just for starters, as so many of us warned, Iraq is fissiparous - take out the Saddam cork and innumerable genies leap from the bottle swords in hand.

We and many others far more distinguished tried to put these simple facts across - but very few listened. When Murdoch talked war, much of the rest of the media had to be as "patriotic".

And many pundits, academics and thinktankers who live on state, corporation or media financial support fell in line. Few were the brave who highlighted even Brent Scowcroft's dire warnings. Yet he was the most distinguished of Republican security experts holding top positions in their presidencies. Who gave prominence to perhaps the most perceptive warning speech of all- Senator Byrd? Few indeed. The next speakers including Mrs. Clinton won the media accolades - for war (though Mrs. Clinton has since had the rare courage to admit her mistake).

Murdoch's newspaper, TV and other holdings in the US should surely have attracted anti-trust attention especially in the media area where freedom of speech requires no one dominating the chess board. But Murdoch is untouchable - after destroying The Times and downmarketing the entire UK press, he went on to do the same in the US.

What is democracy when one man can call so many of the tunes worldwide?

[see our website for more: www.dipconsult.eu

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hugo's playbook to get rid of political opposition and private media:

First, you - along with willing supporters - demonize and isolate your target "as enemies of the people" or "mouth pieces for the rich land owners" or "traitors and coup supporters." (or in Obama's case, "not a real news organization").

Next, send your trade union thugs and political supporters to the TV and radio stations to harass, intimidate and threaten the employees of the stations.

The final part is easy. Just have the gov suspend or refuse to renew broadcast licenses. Then, the gov installs "public" media to take their place (a.k.a. state sanctioned/supported media).

Mission accomplished.

It is a little surreal to watch so many so-called American "liberals" - including AlterNet apparently - now openly support or encourage the idea of shutting down FOX TV just because they are so fearful or disdainful of some loud-mouths like Glen Beck or O'Rielly.

And are these the same "liberals" that screamed bloody murder over a civil liberty issue like the Patriot Act?

As much as I always disliked the far left's politics I NEVER EVER thought I would live to see so many of them completely drink the kool-aid like this. Amazing times we are living in.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I have a Master's Degree in English and my opinopn is that this article does not accomplish the goal. I started to read it and ran into very confusing verbiage.

Get your act together: explain the issues and goal succientcly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Last night Rachel Maddow made the excellent point that FOX is the only TV channel to be active in organizing street protests against the Obama government. Certainly this goes well beyond "reporting the news" from ANY ideological point of view.

Also, MSNBC ran a very good collage of dozens and dozens of FOX bits attacking Obama---not reporting news. "Obama IS Reverend Wright", "Obama IS William Ayers", Obama IS ACORN", "Obama has a deep-seated hatred of white people" etc is in no way reporting news.

And the argument that FOX presents commentary separate from news is ridiculous and false and right out of the Josef Goebbels handbook: "Veracity does not determine credibility"--if people hear a lie or an opinion (information other than reported facts) loudly enough and often enough, they perceive it as truth.

Plus, anyone who has ever taught at any level knows how often listeners who are distracted or perhaps stupid mis-hear what they are told. Just yesterday a woman posted on townhall.com that Obama's health care plan will provide free abortions on demand---she heard it on TV yesterday. More likely, someone said, "If we pass this bill, first thing you know, liberals will be wanting free abortions on demand". And we all remember the woman who informed John McCain that Obama is an Arab.

Bill O'Reilly tipped his hand when he said, "Right wing media are having an effect because we are damaging Obama". That's their agenda, and THAT'S NOT NEWS.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Some here think that Beck is a journalist. Some here think that Beck is an entertainer. Could someone explain to me whether the following bit of on-line performance comes under the heading of "journalism" or "entertainment"?

As a comment on the Obama visit to Copenhagen, Glenn Beck displayed a tin of Copenhagen Snuff and read aloud its warning label "May be cancerous". Then the camera went to a large photograph of Michelle Obama and stayed on her as Beck continued to intone the word "cancerous".

So what is he saying? Michelle Obama is a carcinogenic chemical? What kind of journalism is this? In what way is it entertaining---are viewers expected to find fun in associating the First Lady with a fatal disease?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wow, this is a whole lotta froth from AlterNet. And mostly unneeded.

This is the second or so article this week where the comments outshine the article itself.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's as much of a news organization as Alternet, which spins things for democrats at times, ABC/NBC which gives Obama open air but restricts right wing commercials as politically controversial...

The mark of a news station isn't if it tells you what you want to hear, but if it lets different perspectives talk. No party "owns the truth". Even though Alternet runs static for democrats, but at least they don't censor anti-Obama stuff like I heard they did during the election when it would have helped America even more. Even blackagendareport.com, which I respect greatly along with Bruce Dixon deleted pro-nader comments automatically during the election. There's no point in being anti-Obama in general, but you can be anti-fascist, pro-peace and anti-corporate elitist. During the election there seemed no room for that hardly anywhere though, since so many people were pushing for BO's corrupt, fake, blind hope dope. The democrats completely whitewash lots of things and are no more "strictly science based" than republicans. Both have a point and both are trying to screw us in their own ways.

Fact is, health care rationing exists and will continue to exist. Democrat peddled fantasies that blow off right wing concerns as paranoia, without discussing the very real and valid concerns rationally don't help us get to a real common ground either.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The time is ripe to expose FOX for all of it's distortions and call it what it is PROPAGANDA ... any article or person that wants to do so is doing the right thing ..

Strangely there are a bunch of posts on here who want to find fault with this article ... proving that the right wingers have not gone away.

They continue to infest every decent place on earth where they seek to erode the truth and push their false arguments.

They are like the filler in the meatloaf ... bread or oatmeal ... claiming the meal is a traitor and the meat can not be trusted.

One of the rights new tactic is to pretend to be progressive or liberal while they sneak in their right wing absurd arguments.

They think they are being stealth. HA!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When Fox News first started, declaring itself "fair and balanced," I appreciated the self-aware sense of ironic humor this plainly partisan outfit displayed. Refreshing and funny. Never in a million years would I have imagined that the network--or anyone else--would take the slogan seriously. But here we are, little more than a decade later, and the network and some folks have found the temerity to say just that without turning red from embarrassment. I'll just keep laughing, thank you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...I wonder about a lot of things

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Murdoch has taken horrible losses, like with the NY Post, to put out right wing and pro-business views. The 'Fox Business News' channel, that started about a year ago, has terrible ratings and losing millions a month. Eventually, Murdoch will have to realize that his Fox News is one news channel too many for a limited market for news. Still, the 1st Amendment doesn't mean one has to make money to say what they want.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Propaganda that once was exclusively used by the government is now being shared with many news organizations. It is becoming more difficult to stop the spread of information that incites dissidents and infidels. Only a universal Ministry Of Truth can restore calm and peace. The bombings in Iraq and throughout the Middle-East prove this to be true

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Can't any on the left see their "hate" and "fear" of those of us on the right? Why isn't my position and opinion as valid and viable as yours? You may think we're all out of our minds, and some are (on both sides) I'm sure, but there are intellectually valid arguments on our side. I'm grateful there is at least this one place to get another point of view, not just the same headline that's on every other network. Be thankful and protect our right to free speech!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

SNL as far as I am concerned. I would be more concerned about why Aljazeera news English is not being shown on TV throughout America. It is shown in English throughout much of the world, but not in America...hmmmm.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ROTFL, Fox News is nothing but a biased Propaganda machine!

RT
Ultimate Anonymity

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There is talk of whether FOX News is an authentic "news" network, or whether it is anything from a neo-fascistic rabble rouser (Jon Stewart), a propaganda organ for Republicans (Robert Gibbs) or a secret project of Monty Python's Flying Circus (me, in my darker moments).

The real problem with the print and broadcast media, however, is larger than the populist buffoons on FOX. Of more concern is CNN and the rest of the corporate media. The Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism reports that the silliness of Falcon, the Balloon Boy, took up 8% of the space and time in the US media last week, and on October 15-18, it was the # 1 topic — ahead of Afghanistan, health care and the economy.

The inescapable conclusion (which is no news to anyone who is attentive to the "news") is that the news isn't really about the news! Print and broadcast journalism in the US and elsewhere are almost uniformly salacious and sensationalist, with a barely hidden right-wing agenda.

Yes, there are occasional exceptions such as a few programs on PBS, CBC, BBC and Al Jazeera which provide informed and dispassionate reportage and commentaty. Some even engage in "investigative journalism." The rest are contemptible because they treat their audience with contempt.

In Toronto, the "public editor" of the Toronto Star, who shows up on Saturdays to respond to readers' complaints, justified the paper's overheated coverage of the Balloon Boy hoax by saying that the story "did merit telling," and that only in retrospect could it be said that the coverage was excessive. She rejected Syracuse University media expert Robert Thompson's widely publicized comment that it was "bad journalism." She also droned on about how it had "human interest" appeal (whether it was a hoax or not), and insisted that better judgement could have been exercised, but only in hindsight.

Nonsense!

The trials of O. J. Simpson and Scott Peterson, the repetitive stories about the kidnapping (and death or rescue) of pretty blonde girls and the unsolved murder of Jonbenet Ramsey are all piffle, though obviously not to those directly affected; but, for the larger public, they are distractions only slightly less destructive of civil society than the ongoing attention paid to goofy celebrities and errant athletes. None of this makes a whit of difference to the polity, other than to divert citizens from issues of real public importance.

If little "Falcon" had actually been in the silly flying saucer and either plunged to his death, miraculously survived the crash or been abducted by aliens in transit, it wouldn't have mattered any more than any other child's unfortunate death due to a traffic accident, a fatal illness or a marauding grizzly bear.

I am constantly annoyed by use of the news media for entertainment, more distressed by the obvious ideological purposes which they serve and rescued from insanity only be a deep cynicism that allows me to remain more-or-less balanced while people who should know better insist that CNN and its associated corporate public relations outlets somehow supply commendible journalism.

FOX News? Those who find it fair, balanced, informative or enlightening are likely irredeemable. It is the allegedly "mainstream" venues that must be reformed.

Finally, a caveat: my message may reflect too high an opinion of Edward R. Murrow and the reporters who broke the "Watergate" story. The history of journalism is not pristine. A glance at 19th century broadsheets make FOX appear almost credible. Still, a higher standard is at least thinkable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NBC/ABC/CNN and Alternet are so focused on spinning Obama as "trying to do the right thing" they completely ignore the news that Iran is looking at the nuclear agreement and many there think we're trying to cheat them. Iran, a sovereign country that has as much right to nuclear technology as Israel does, is trying to work with us on our illogical hysteria that they're so evil as a race or people, they have to abide by completely different standards than us and Israel.

Whether it's true or not (though it likely is), Iran is stating they think the agreement cheats them and that is news. Just because it doesn't fit the democrat fantasy, this perspective is missing on the other networks, who just talk about how Iran is being suspicious. From today's front page, at least Fox questions if the H1N1 emergency is manufactured hysteria or not. Everyone else strokes themselves that the H1N1 emergency is bipartisan. That's just today's front page. What else is missing if we decide only that which conforms to our view or makes excuses for "our guys" is news?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I find Fox news to be no worse in their support of the right wing pundits, than the rest of the so called "news" organizations in their promotion of the "messiah"!!!
Since Fox appears to be the only media willing to publish and broadcast anything that may be derogitory regarding this President and his "subjects", it is probably the best we can hope for in obtaining the truth.
Anyone with an ounce of brains understands that Fox is extreme right and the remaining "news" agencies are extreme left and do anything and everything to enable the narcissism of this President.
A man who has spent more in preventing his personal information from being disclosed than it would have cost to extend unemployment for thousands of out of work AMERICANS!
Not a one of these "news" broadcasters can be accused of bringing the truth to the people of this country. But for the President to single this particular organization out the way he has, simply because their lies don't sing his praises the way the rest of the blinded media are guilty doing, of just confirms how narcissistic and dangerous this President really is.
He has become quite adept at distracting the public attention from his true intentions, and reading what is posted here on Alternet and other similar sights confirms this fact.
WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!! You are focusing on exactly what he wants you to focus on, so you are not aware of what he is doing in his "NOT SO" transparent presidency!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I recall years ago the uproar about Ed Bradley stepping in and saving a child while covering a story. Because real journalist aren't supposed to become part of the story. At FOX you are expected to become part of the news. And any journalism student will tell you that that creates a conflict of interest. How do you cover your own activities subjectively?

I also remember Huntley and Brinkley, Dan Rather and Walter Cronkite, all great journalist, who never betrayed their political point of view. And what seems to be missing here is that there is a difference in investigative reporting that breaks a story and follows it to its natural conclusion. And manufacturing a story and following it to its unnatural conclusion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The FBI Tells Americans to Watch Fox News, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh for REAL NEWS

"FOX is a news channel? Damn, I dun thought my cable company made a mistake and was giving me a soft core porn channel for free!!

"But you say it's an actual news channel and the FBI says I should watch Glenn, the rodeo clown and alcoholic? Why? I'd much rather watch the morning news on FOX where they always have a hot-lookin' blonde babe siting front and center with a skirt hiked up so high you can almost see her.... And the camera guy always points the lens right at her thighs so me and millions of others like me can fondle our crotch and fantasize about hot sex with some gorgeous smokin' hot blonde who would just do ANYTHING to please me and wouldn't say anything about my beer gut that's the size of Buick or my slovenly appearance.

"No, those FOX hotties on the morning show are for us forgotten American males and I'll be damned if I'm gonna trade in those honey's for some loud-mouth clown."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is anyone else uncomfortable with a major media outlet being owned by a non US citizen like Murdoch?

Obviously media outlets can influence public opinion, and a foreign national having that power strikes me as risky. How would we feel if Boeing or some other military contractor was owned by a hostile foreign power?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Only after "journalism" had given up its role as the presenter of all sides did anyone even think a FNC could ever work. Thanks a million, Columbia School of "Journalism" and all your wannabes. Just like there never would have been a Rush Limbaugh without the disease that created Dan Rather and all his wannabes down to the MSNBC sewer of today.

P.S.: Even judging by the remarkably low Adele Stan standards, this article is woefully weak. You appear to be angry with the freedom of speech.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The real issue is why the minion diaper-changing secular socialist media cannot compete...excuses and crybaby antics do not feed the bulldog...of course, libs make the best sissies and cowards...so much practice.

You can't compete because you do not factcheck EVERYONE and you are trying to sell that fragrant stool secular socialism.

The champions of free speech...what a joke...they hate a fair fight...so they just smear...game, set, match.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is a violation of FCC regulations to broadcast news that is biased or distorted.

Let's flood the FCC with complaints against Fox "not" News. I have.

My basis was not against their First Amendment right to voice their opinions, it was their use of the "FOX NEWS" logo constantly displayed on shows that are not news at all, such as Glenn Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity etc.

I said in my complaint that unless the show is a bonified news broadcast that sticks to the rules about facts and actual journalism, they should be required to remove that logo and make it clear that the show is for entertainment only and that the views expressed are the opinions of the entertainers.

Go for it...you can do it online at FCC.GOV

Let's see how many people will take action to complain about FOX, not for what they say but for promoting as if these were news shows.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Obama administration properly identified Fox News as the Media branch of the G.O.P. and that's right. Btw, they excluded the Fox in media briefings and meetings in which journalists can be summoned. If they're not journalists but political foes, they ought be treated as such. It is not enough to have a media to be considered a journalist. It's ludicrous.

In a brilliant article in The Nation titled "Just Don't Call it 'Journalism'", Eric Alterman says:

"It's a sad symbol of the state of contemporary American journalism that the White House communications office is doing more to maintain the honor of the profession than are many journalists. But that's just what's happening in the contretemps over Fox News. Interim White House communications director Anita Dunn has explained to the press that the White House plans to treat Fox "the way we would treat an opponent.... As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don't need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave."

Now, former Bush Press Secretary Dana Perino, says as a derogatory: "Obama's Criticism Of Fox Akin To Chavez Tactics". But... wait: Who, if not the Bush croonies, are less entitled to use the word 'Chávez' as a derogatory word? It is? Why? Please, do yourself a little survey: Look how Chavez is treated in The Nation, Salon, Alternet, etc., and then look the same in the Washington Post, Politico, Mo-Jo, Media Matters, Fox News and so.

Then, again: SOME press do not behave as the press is intend to. And when they behave that way, they can't pretend to be treated so. They must be keep away from the real press treatment. Press criticism is OK and should be encouraged. Rol's usurpation, attacks and ouster attempts is another very different issue.

Such three items in the press behaviour, i.e., rol's usurpation, attacks and ouster attempts, often is known worldwide as 'Colour Revolutions' (CR) or 'Velvet revolutions' or Soft Coups.

To the classical (and successful) CR acknowledged worldwide, i.e., Yugoslavia, Georgia, Ukraine, Lebanon, Kyrgyzstan, etc., many others were tried (without success yet) in Bolivia and Argentina (2008) and Iran 2009, but they're far from concluded.

In the Argentinian case (where I live), at least, the mainstream media is owned by the rich class, and the message they air say is what the rich class and landowners expects to be assimilated by the masses: Israel is OK, but Palestinians are not, Iran and Venezuela are nearby the evil's axis, Chávez and Ahmadinejad ought to be viewed as cockroaches, and so on.

Is this message familiar to you, live you where you live? Yes, the world press message reach us pristine and without any noticeable distortion. Our 'free press' are no more than local amplifiers of The Global Voice the owners try to sell us.

The Argentinian main media operator, owner of the 73% argentinian licenses share is Clarín. And they ought be charged mainly on ouster attempts they did against our elected President, in a no-yet-so-successful Colour Revolution they tried last year and that they still now try to carry out. Clarín is the Argentinian Fox News Obama's equivalent.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

* THIS JUST IN * to 20th century rat i mean fox-prop inter active syko re-active netwerks tela type feedback wings fresh and body parts live headquarter hunter and soft porn lizard lounge, appearently it's the 21rst century,i(BOB M_?yah ya better talk to BOB) got this scrap at a wall strret garB`age sale,I think it was 7th century Australia,aka macro ocean moon asia,right near collapsing NEW ANTI ARC TIC AKA, (floods,ozone holes,aquafer,droughts and blights that type a "stuff,yer hired)agenda unclear and a menace to the flys of melted ozone enriched glaciers everywhair,aauugghh ,and further more according to the National Enquire,polls indicate they should probably take ya out somewhair (contained of course)to shoot yer mouth off/live- while it's still stuck up yer extra states incorperated mouths' ass (group collective laughing and snide snickers heard,psychiatrically inspired(AB-normal)in a spontanous(mimaced by the home veiwers) media/soup and filthy background created in radio polluted shades of pharmacuetically induced depression,with side effects of rages and senility "racist colored pale)lets' see the origanal charter that oughta be framed squarely around the collective neck(fair and balanced)well that and syko-active , only to our viewers of the bizarre and cowering in the herds horror of crimanal insanity,over & over,cuz thair's 57 channels and nothings ON,vaudeville only can do it better ha ha laugh Mommy lOOk at the freak show of mutated idiots well that and i wonder what the hell is the worry or what attraction is the addiction OO, that that's just widespread mental illness,planet of the apes goes syko-active,unstable & exsplosive,etc,etc ya see it every day in the big citi

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Warning This Is An Embarrassment To Republicans

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fox News is an actual news organization.
True, it also has opinion but so does your daily newspaper. American viewers turn to Fox News to find out what's going on. I could post a long list of stories ignored by the mainstream media, but why bother convincing leftists who deny Obama has a socialist agenda?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

why dont people just work harder in school or in their jobs to secure a better future for themselves and their family. i hear a lot of people say its to expensive to go to school. your right it is i am in a ton of debut but i will be a doctor in 2012. i have no money and neither does my family but its because they made poor decisions growing up. all my friends rather party then study hard. their lazy. did yall see that sign in a protest in DC that said "help me mr. obama they want me to work and stuff" stop being lazy and fucking work. you put in the time and make the sacrifices then all your dreams will come true. but u idiots rather wear them tight pants with the hair over your eyes and go to rock concerts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As much as folks on here fixate on Palin and Fox, image what would happen if Palin became a host on FOX? We would have a cow on here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If we stopped listening to Fox then how we will know what you skinny-jeans-wearing-greasy-hair-over-the-eyes-screaming and crying liberals are up to. I want to know who is taking my tax money because they are too stupid and lazy to work. We need to make a new shirt, but this time instead of Che who killed many people and who hated Americans we need to put another revoluntary figure who hated everything America stands for. Then the emo and rock groups can sing about them, after which you dumbasses can proudly display it in front of your friends. Finally, when you congratulate each other for having a cool shirt you can kill more babies and hug more trees.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]