Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Fair and Balanced, My Ass! The Bizarre Reality of Fox News

By Joseph Minton Amann and Tom Breuer, Nation Books. Posted June 21, 2007.


Watching Fox News can be as funny as it is frustrating. But the new book Fair and Balanced, My Ass! shows we dismiss them at our peril.
061907story
fox story
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The following is an excerpt from Fair and Balanced, My Ass!: An Unbridled Look at the Bizarre Reality of Fox News, by Joseph Minton Amann and Tom Breuer (Nation Books, 2007).

Well, that's your opinion!

Those of us who watch Fox News professionally, or simply to unwind at the end of the day with a few well-earned belly laughs, dismiss the network at our own peril.

While there may be a considerable measure of Schadenfreude involved in tuning in to, say, The O'Reilly Factor, it's hard to overlook the fact that he influences millions of people nearly every day. Indeed, watching Fox can be a little like watching Jeopardy! During kids' week. Even if you know more than they do -- and you probably will -- it's hard to feel good about yourself for the experience. But it's not like the leading lights at Fox actually enjoy turning America into a nation of fatuous morons. If they could accomplish the same goals by not making their viewers morons, they'd probably do so, just as the tobacco companies would probably prefer their products didn't cause cancer, and Ann Coulter probably wishes the sound of her voice didn't make young men's and small animals' testicles shrivel. But none of that is going to stop any of them from making their money and spreading their propaganda. To be sure, Fox News' sensationalistic brand of personality and opinion-based journalism is a well-crafted sales strategy. And whatever else you want to say about them, they're excellent salesmen. Indeed, with just about any story on Fox, you can ask yourself three questions: Are they pandering to their viewers, peddling right-wing propaganda, or both?

Now, preaching to the choir can be quite lucrative, particularly if the choir has an almost unlimited budget for Rascal Scooters and Civil War chess pieces. And there's not necessarily anything wrong with that. Lots of media outlets preach to the choir. For some, it's their bread and butter. The Nation's not going to solicit a commentary on Social Security privatization from Grover Norquist, after all, and Us Weekly is certainly not going to report that Brad and Angelina aren't hot.

But most people who are engaged in some form of advocacy journalism -- be they Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken -- have the decency to admit it. Fox not only doesn't admit it, it famously cloaks themselves in a tawdry veil of objectivity, endlessly shouting their "Fair and Balanced" and "We Report, You Decide" slogans until their viewers are finally programmed, Clockwork Orange-like, to believe them.

But again, by objective measures, Fox does a demonstrably poor job of presenting the cold, hard facts in a spin-free fashion. For instance, according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism's 2005 State of the News Media report, 24 percent of the stories on MSNBC's Hardball With Chris Matthews contained the host's opinion, compared with 97 percent on The O'Reilly Factor. The report also analyzed coverage of the war in Iraq, finding that 73 percent of Fox's Iraq war stories contained opinion, compared with 2 percent for CNN and 29 percent for MSNBC. Fox was also around twice as likely as its competitors to run positive stories about the war and far more likely to run positive stories than negative ones. So what we're seeing more and more in today's news business, and particularly at Fox, is that personality and opinion sell. Not reasoned and informed opinion but blustering, loud, obnoxious, in-your-face opinion. Archie Bunker opinion. We're right and you're wrong. We're going to heaven and you're going to hell. We're patriots and you are traitors. We're men who love women, while you, my good sir, are a homo.

Of course, Fox News' one saving grace is that it's hilarious. Watching Hannity pummel Colmes won't make us better people, but it's kind of like seeing the school bully beat up the really irritating kid. It's not right, but you don't really want anyone to stop it. Seeing O'Reilly get his panties in a bundle when someone questions his ratings is always a good laugh. And having those three loons on Fox & Friends spout hateful lies with racist overtones is like music -- sweet Clay Aiken music.

But Fox can be frustrating, too, because its employees are so unswervingly dedicated to denying their true nature. If your local weatherman dressed up as a Viking every day, called himself Hjørt Bjornsen, and told you there was a 60 percent chance of snow flurries and a 30 percent chance that Thor would rain fire and canned hummus from the sky during midmorning rush hour -- all the while claiming he absolutely was not dressed as a Viking -- eventually it would stop being cute. That's essentially what it feels like to be sane and reasonably intelligent and tuned in to Fox News. It's hard to look away, because there's a guy on TV making a complete ass of himself while saying obviously untrue things. But it would be nice to get the forecast every once in a while. So we understand your pain.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: fox news, disinformation

Joseph Minton Amann and Tom Breuer launched sweetjesusihatebilloreilly.com in the spring of 2004. They are the co-authors of Sweet Jesus, I Hate Bill O'Reilly.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Fox news is a disgrace
Posted by: paul_revere on Jun 21, 2007 1:21 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fox News has always been a sewer pipe spilling into American's living rooms. The network is a harbinger of fear, dishonesty, racism, bigotry, homophobia and more. Murdoch and his minions are a disgrace and morally bankrupt.

Oh, and by the way, if you have to tell everyone that you are "Fair & Balanced," then you're not.

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

» The liberal media myth Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» news is business? Posted by: kellysgarden
» RE: news is business? Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» RE: The liberal media myth Posted by: HighburyJD
» I challenge YOUR assertions Posted by: Ellie1
» RE: I challenge YOUR assertions Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: I challenge YOUR assertions Posted by: Conservasaurus
» Ah...that explains a lot. Posted by: mirimac
» RE: Fox news is a disgrace Posted by: Ellie1
What else would you expect given our values?
Posted by: LMNOP on Jun 21, 2007 1:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fox is the picture of what the author refers to as “news” that panders and is ideologically driven instead of “presenting the cold, hard facts in a spin-free fashion.” That’s what we expect in the absence of the media safeguards disabled under Reagan (Fairness Doctrine).
It’s the purpose of government to maintain that regulation, and we expected our elected representatives from any party to safeguard that lifeblood of a democratic society, real news.

Why did government lose its grip? That’s easy. It’s the same answer as for why ALL laws are passed in America today: it’s what the people with the most money wanted. And most Americans are soft enough politically and intellectually to accept that fact as reasonable in a free society because it is corporate “freedom of expression”. There is so much wrong with that.

What a whorehouse Congress is. Everything is for sale. When corporations are treated as persons, and are allowed to express themselves to legislators with lavish contributions, you’re going to have legislation going to the highest bidder. No longer is it one person, one vote - the lynchpin of democracy and the mechanism ensuring the equal sharing of political power by all voting citizens – but one dollar, one vote. Nowadays, it’s not whoever gets the most votes, it’s who gets the most dollars. I *did* get one vote at the ballot box (I think), but that didn’t matter. Decisions are made by battling lobbyists, the ones who care the most and pony up the most calling the lion’s share of the shots. What’s good for the country, what you and I vote on, doesn’t even come up in conversation. Why? Because we didn’t really vote. Ballots are green.

In the end, a nation that entrusts itself to people allowed to bought off gets Fox News, and then the jack boot shortly thereafter.

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

OTHER NETWORKS MORE 'BALANCED'
Posted by: gellero on Jun 21, 2007 1:46 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh Puleeze...........all the networks regurgitate pablum for the masses. You can pick up 'attitude' just by the tone of the delivery. Who exactly decides what the latest 'crisis' or 'epidemic' is?? Do any of you still remember those still existing things from 5 years ago?? Who decides when the News Reader (which is what they really are) refers to the invading hoards (my biased term) from South of the Border as 'undocumented immigrants' (those poor huddled masses yearning to breed free - lol) or as 'illegal aliens' (damn criminals ! ). The Hoi Polloi can sometimes see through that. And for that reason alone, FOX has a following. And who's to say, really, what in the news is 'opinion' or 'fact'? If a newsreader refers to GlobalWarming (ie human induced) as 'contoversy' vs. 'consensus', which is it.? I think that's the point of FOX. For that reason alone, I like it.

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

» WELL SAID Posted by: gellero
» WELL PUT, TRAZ...... Posted by: gellero
» Oh Puleez! Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
4.5
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Jun 21, 2007 3:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A bit wordy, but kinda funny.

Good point about Ann Coulter's voice.

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

» RE: 4.5 Posted by: mirimac
Good description ...
Posted by: paul_revere on Jun 21, 2007 3:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
FAUX News "journalists" = manure spreaders

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

» RE: Good description ... Posted by: lively56
» RE: Manure spreaders? Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
FBC
Posted by: Roverton on Jun 21, 2007 4:39 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... is news for bitter, dishonest and ignorant people.

News that lets haters remain no better than they were before. News that makes bad people even worse. They are cancer to the USA.

A tumor on freedom and truth. The followers all say that every network is evil, not just FBC, like that's a good reason to stay a Mud-Junkie for this trash.

None are over a certain IQ or they'd have moved on to more reliable sources.

Of course they disagree. So what? Anyone angrily defending a TV show needs babysitting. I'm too old for that crap.

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

I love Fox News.
Posted by: HughScott on Jun 21, 2007 4:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not as a fan, because I never watch it. I love Fox News because it gives my favorite commentator, Keith Olbermann, great comedy material.

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

The SS Fox, ABC, CBS, AND NBC Are Sinking (Is That News?)
Posted by: edith on Jun 21, 2007 4:48 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yawn.

The Good News: few Americans watch Fox News and even less will watch Fox in the future; young people have stopped watching TV News(they already don't read newspapers).

The Bad News: Few Americans watch any of the evening news programs anymore. Charlie Gibson is "beating" out Katy Couric, but it's like two bums fighting over a tossed away, half-eaten ham sandwich: Who wants that kind of "prize" anyway?

Also, these guys are hung up about the blatantly obviously biased O'Reilly(they have a WEBSITE devoted to bashing Bilious Bill!). They didn't do the hard work of showing how the "regular" newscasts on Fox, or even the Fox Web Site, focuses on pro-Bush news or on entertainment trivia. My God, an O'Reilly fetish!

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

» PBS isn't that far behind either. Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» RE: The Real News Posted by: Dartagnan
» RE: PBS is OK. Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
Mr.
Posted by: two7five7one on Jun 21, 2007 4:54 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
An old college friend I hadn't seen in 30 years had retired in Tucson from an Eastern Univ. (professor), and I looked forward to an interesting meeting.

During the entire evening he and his "southern belle" wife both expressed their admiration for Fox, Hannity, O'Reilly and that entire cesspool. My question as to why you don't every see on Fox news an interview with Gore Vidal, Noam Chomsky, Chalmers Johnson, Howard Zinn, etc., was greeted with--"Who are they? They must not be important enough to appear on Fox News." It was like talking to a brick wall.

I suspect the racism and the provincialism of the wife had long ago pushed them to the Fox Network atmosphere of hate. But no one can discount the influence of Murdoch and his millions on the mentality of our society. It's depressing as hell.

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

» RE: Mr. Posted by: Eragon07
WHY DO YOU THINK FAUX'S VIEWERSHIP IS WAY DOWN?
Posted by: kc10ken on Jun 21, 2007 5:18 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
FAUX cable news (aka GOP TV) is nothing more than WHORES for the GOP.

I was watching FAUX the day SCOOTER's sentence was announced and couldn't believe my ears. For a good video clip of it go to YOUTUBE and punch in a search titled "Why can't Fox news say what Libby did was a crime"....and watch the video clip.

THEY COULD NOT SAY THE WORD CRIMINAL.....over and over during their coverage (which was minimal compared to other networks) they absolutely REFUSED TO USE THE WORD CRIMINAL OR CRIME when referring to what SCOOTER was convicted of. Listen to the ditzy blonde idiot on FAUX cable news fumble and stumble for the right words when she says "the severity of the....uhh.....uhhhh.........uhhh......trial".....no no no...the phrase is "the severity of the crime"....CRIME...that's the word!

BOYCOTT FAUX cable news' sponsors! Write to them and tell them you won't buy their products till they pull their sponsorship!

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

More preaching to the choir
Posted by: Illiteratilumen on Jun 21, 2007 5:57 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look I get a kick out of these FOX and O'Reilly hit jobs but I'd like to see a little more variety in Alternet's media-bashing. How about a piece on the other networks shitty media coverage? I think nearly everyone that frequents this site, even those of us that aren't left-wing or liberal or democrat or whatever you wish to call it, know that FOX is a really bad news organization.

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

» RE: More preaching to the choir Posted by: lessbread
Liberal Media Slant vs. Fox News
Posted by: kbest on Jun 21, 2007 5:59 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's see, most of the American newspapers tilt left. Newsweek, Time, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker all are liberal rags. The major networks like ABC, NBC and CBS are all liberal slanted. Not too many people watch MSNBC and it's very liberal leftist slant. NPR most definately liberal slanted. Even Alternet is propaganda. Air America has it's couple of listeners.

I Thank GOD for Fox News, along with the hundreds of talk radio stations, around the country, reaching millions and millions of real Americans to counter all the crap above.

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

» NPR Posted by: nickbk
» O'Really? Posted by: tooldoc60
» REAL lies for REAL americans... Posted by: chief of okeefe
That was fun!
Posted by: PJAW on Jun 21, 2007 6:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks for a truly enjoyable little ride on the rankle O'Reilly roller coaster. I can't stand the sonofabitch and it's always a guily pleasure to read someone else who can't stand him either.

I quit watching him a long time ago. Of course I was never a regular viewer, but I wasn't in full avoidance mode like I am now. Still, I know he's out there, with people watching and listening, and that bothers me the way seeing carpenter ants around the house does. It may not inspre me to call the exterminator right this moment but I reaize it's a serious problem that cries for attention. So it's comforting to know that the neighbor has called Orkin and I can talk to the guy when he shows up. Just like I can add my two cents here and say, "Sweet Jesus, I hate Bill O'Reilly too!"

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

» RE: That was fun! Posted by: WhatNow?
America's Pravda
Posted by: willymack on Jun 21, 2007 7:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A front for government propoganda is nothing new here. A front for an ILLEGAL government is. Don't forget the original crime of the bushies, which was the theft of the 2000 "election" from winner, Al Gore. Nobody's done a bloody thing to right that outrage. Is it any wonder that our "government" resembles a tinpot dictatorship more than a shining example of what people can accomplish under a REAL democracy?

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

» American Media is the BEST!!! Posted by: Illiteratilumen
Not a Fox fan as I have low tolerance to stupidity
Posted by: bookwoman on Jun 21, 2007 7:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can't watch Fox as it only takes about two minutes to make me nuts from their nonsense (Rush Limbaugh take 30 seconds). However, one evening I saw Arnold on with the people at 7:00. The Conservative one tried to get Schwartzeneger to dis Al Gore's big house, many lights, heated swimming pool, etc. However, Arnie came right back with the idea that all public figures, including himself, are targets of such rhetoric. The host was taken aback, but, by watching Fox that evening, I found out there are still sane voices alive and well in the Republican Party.

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

Sadly
Posted by: mizipi on Jun 21, 2007 7:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Today, 21 June 2007, I still know educated people living in the USA who believe that Saddam was responsible for 9-11, who believe that WMD's were found in Iraq, who believe we have the moral right to torture people, who believe that Osama hates freedom and liberty.............
I guess those people should be thankful to live in a society where stupidity and ignorance are not crimes.
And, by the way, they all listen to Rush Limbaugh and watch Fox News on TV.

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

» RE: Sadly Posted by: Bozly
» You call that educated?? Posted by: eboogie
» RE: Sadly Posted by: ALANHESTER
Fox News is...
Posted by: acidicjazzhead on Jun 21, 2007 7:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the de facto Ministry of Propaganda.

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

Is this really still news?
Posted by: icj on Jun 21, 2007 7:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't get me wrong, I love a good Fox-bashing (not to mention all the conservatives that pop up and accuse us of not being able to handle a challenge), but really, does any thinking person in America not know that Fox News is basically GOP propaganda and most of the people on the channel could barely think their way out of a paper bag (although they could certainly yell their way out of a paper bag!)? Is this really the only thing Alternet can come up with to talk about as far as media is concerned? Does Fox really deserve all this attention? I'd prefer to just ignore it...

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

Welcome to the "Real" News
Posted by: Trazom on Jun 21, 2007 8:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This column seems to be an appropriate place to post this link, so please check it out:

The Real News

This is the chance for open-minded truth-seeking individuals to discuss and debate the relevant topics that affect us today. Let's hope they succeed.

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

» RE: Welcome to the "Real" News Posted by: VZEQICVA
» Interesting...... Posted by: gellero
Fox is treason
Posted by: leafsong1 on Jun 21, 2007 8:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The US government consists of a couple hundred multinational corporations who control both major parties and act jointly to eliminate all dissent from the media and "government" puppet theater. This usurpation of powers denied by the Constitution is treaonous, and everyone who takes money from NewsCorp is a traitor who deserves to be shot.

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

WHAT'S FAIR AND BALANCED ANYWAY?
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jun 21, 2007 9:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've recently come to realize that most of what passes for news is simply someone else's opinion about what matters to them and the stations heads. They should however make that distinction. Everyone should have an opinion but we should know that's what it is. Real news should only take 10-15 minutes. Of course that won't sell many SUV's. But 24/7 blabbing does. Maybe that's why the American public seems so apathetic. We're informed to tears. Thanks, ANNA

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

I WORKED THERE
Posted by: bc234 on Jun 21, 2007 9:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article was being kind!

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

» RE: ROTFL!!! Posted by: Ghoulman
Stop watching TV:
Posted by: phillipalden on Jun 21, 2007 11:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The solution is that simple. Fox continues to poison the minds of those who watch because they choose to watch. Our mass media is beyond redemption. What passes for "entertainment" on television is the worst kind of crap, (aka "American Idol.")

You want to make a difference? Turn off your tv and read a book. Go out and talk to other people. Take some time to focus on your community.

As long as you continue to watch tv and read American mass media you are as much at fault as they are. Instead of always blaming others maybe people should take a look at their own behavior. Fox wouldn't be doing so well if you weren't tuning in.

You want to change things? Start with yourself.

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

» RE: Stop watching TV: Posted by: WyrdSister
Sham Battles in the Media Spectacle
Posted by: cbrislain on Jun 21, 2007 12:18 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The constant identification of fox news as the "evil" media outlet is a perfect example of what Guy Debord would identify as one of the "sham battles" within the media spectacle. In fact, the notion that there is "balanced," "truthful," or otherwise unproblematic media, vs the "bad" media that tries to manipulate your perception, ideologically, is yet another function of the media spectacle. Even advocates of "independent" media, like Democracy Now (which yes, I like better than "big corporate" media), still function within the assumptions of the spectacle: that images, signifiers, indirect experience, can unproblematically be received as a kind of truth.

So we shouldn't get caught up harping on Fox News. Too many people think that's enough. It's not. One media source vs another is largely irrelevant, what matters is the very structures, assumptions, and aesthetics of media in general, and how they construct social relations.

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

Fox News and Venezuela
Posted by: fanny666 on Jun 21, 2007 12:46 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fox News and Venezuela

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

» Troll. (nm) Posted by: justaguy
William Belote
Posted by: Radio Willstar on Jun 21, 2007 3:32 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've developed an alergic reaction to Fox news, they truly made me sick. However, your article made me laugh, and for that I thank you. I would like to think in the not too distant future, FOX will be exposed and marginalized even further by thinking Americans.

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

HARD-CORE INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM REGARDING THE MEDIA
Posted by: chamela on Jun 21, 2007 4:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
HARD-CORE INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM REGARDING THE MEDIA

IF YOU WANT THE REAL STORY, READ IT HERE --
http://www.danielestulin.com/?op=noticias&idioma=en

NOW THAT'S NEWS. THAT'S WHAT WE WANT, MURDOCH AND ROCKEFELLER. YOU GUYS ARE SISSY NEWS.

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

The boogieman of liberal media
Posted by: RobNLA on Jun 21, 2007 4:37 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So old Repug sat US down a few years ago and began telling us the scarey tale of the liberal media boogieman. According to the tale, this boogeyman was all over the newspapers and tv, trying to tell you a bunch of lies about the government...that you had to watch out or the boogieman would trick you too.

Lots of US heard that scary tale over and over and now we know that anytime something bad about the government is on the news, we know it's just the bad boogieman again trying to trick US.

But Fox News will save US, the liberal media boogieman doesn't live there. Instead you will get happy faces, and punch and cake...all fair and balanced with 0 calories too.

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

THE LEFT DOES NOT RESPECT THE 1ST AMENDMENT OR OPPOSITION OPINION
Posted by: Jak_dah_rippah on Jun 21, 2007 5:41 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is why these commentators and the Left in general is raging about the application of the 1st amendment by a single moderate cable news channel.

Despite the fact that the Left has CNN, ABC, NBC, NPR, and virtually every major newspaper in the nation, the marxist/leftist ideology is slowly but inexorably being dismantled as lies and deprivations by talk radio and Fox news.

It is predictable that the despots on the Left will undermine the 1st amendment to squelch opposition speech. They are already doing this with the "Fairness Doctrine"

Also, note that the leftists on this blog will spew venom and invective toward anyone who exercises free speech or that challenges their "right" to completely dominate the media as they have done up till now.

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

FAIR AND BALANCED, MY ASS! THE TRUTH ABOUT AP, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, et al
Posted by: Jak_dah_rippah on Jun 21, 2007 6:00 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not only is the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Detroit Free Press and virtually every other newspaper in the USA unabashedly leftists, check out the following links.

Hillary "Big Brother" Clinton's attempt to gut the 1st amendment

BY A 9 TO 1 MARGIN, MAIN STREAM MEDIA SUPPORTS LEFTIST CANDIDATES!!!

More importantly, note the extreme denial from leftists who are raging that Americans can disagree with them and that are deluded/brainwashed to think that the main stream media is conservative.

As I have always posted, the left is dangerous and despotic. Watch developments as they attempt to squelch any opinion counter to their own by UNCONSTITUTIONAL means.

For a preview of what could happen in the USA, just take a look at Chavez and his abuses in Venezuela

I am eagerly awaiting the vicious, ad hominen attacks from the left deviod of facts, logic, and empiricism. ;)

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

» RE: Correction Posted by: lessbread
» RE: Are you having a breakdown? Posted by: lessbread
» RE: Are you having a breakdown? Posted by: Jak_dah_rippah
» RE: Are you having a breakdown? Posted by: lessbread
» RE: Irrelevant and absurd Posted by: lessbread
» RE: No one is tuning in Posted by: lessbread
» RE: Your links are all broken Posted by: lessbread
» RE: Your links are all broken Posted by: Jak_dah_rippah
» RE: Your links are all broken Posted by: lessbread
I CHALLENGE LEFTISTS TO NAME A SINGLE STATEMENT OF FALSEHOOD FROM FOX IN THE CONTEXT OF NEWS!!!
Posted by: Jak_dah_rippah on Jun 21, 2007 6:05 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
AND I WILL NAME HUNDREDS DELIVERED DAILY FROM THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA.

TAKE THE CHALLENGE LEFTISTS!!!

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

» Deal with the issue Posted by: justaguy
NPR does vasty more harm
Posted by: BobbyGreyFriar on Jun 21, 2007 9:38 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Aparently only about 20% of New York Times readers report believing everything they read. In the case of Fox News the figure, I think, is about 7%. People probably watch Fox News as a diversion; it represents the television equivellent of a tabloid. As long as it isn't taken seriously, I probably doesn't due much harm. Whereas the NY Times, Judith Miller's stories in particular, probably went a long way to enabling the War on Iraq. Personally, I think the left wastes way too much time on the liberal media--but it starts to take the piss when they constantly harp on Fox News. At least NPR makes a pretense of being responsable and are therefore in some sense subject to criticims for their failures (I would argue they fufill the propaganda model much more sucessfully than crude Fox News), such as happily cheerleading both the Iraq war and the NATO/Kosovo War as well as all the "proxy" wars on various Latin American countries such as Nicaragua (in this case funded, in part, with LA crack cocaine sales) during the 80's.

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

» BS Posted by: yellow
» RE: NPR does vasty more harm Posted by: ALANHESTER
Funny How the liberal utopia based on diversity and tolerance....
Posted by: OhioPatriot on Jun 22, 2007 1:01 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
absolutely hits the wall and goes off the track every time there is a voice, (A single voice), of opposition. The cries of angst sound more like the villagers heading to the the castle with pitchforks and torches than the doctrine of diversity and tolerance you pretend to believe in.
This is about one thing and one thing only, trying to censor your opposition. Its bad enough that the hypocrisy exists.
At least have the balls to come out and say you hate anyone who disagrees with you.

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

dmrohner
Posted by: dmrohner on Jun 22, 2007 3:06 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is a problem that public affairs news is cooked by FOX. Do you understand what will happen with a similar cooking of the economic affairs news through the acquisition of Dow-Jones and the Wall Street Journal by FOX's parent? Next, the Bureau of Labor Statistics?

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

» RE: dmrohner Posted by: bob t
Fox News Bias in one simple lesson:
Posted by: David V on Jun 22, 2007 3:18 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fact: Fox News repeatedly uses the term "Homicide Bomber" to describe the tactic of strapping explosives to oneself and detonating them in an area of choosing. The rest of the world, particularly the media, refers to this practice as "Suicide Bombing".

A few years ago, President Bush decided that he didn't want to "glorify" this tactic, so he coined the term "homicide bomber". Presumably, his intention was to portray the attackers as bloodthirsty killers and not as the heroic martyrs they claimed to be.

The world rejected this term. It is not used in public discourse. The media overwhelmingly rejected this term. All except for Fox News, that is. Why?

Is it more journalistically accurate? No. All bombers, regardless of their tactics, are potential "homicide bombers". Tim McVeigh was a homicide bomber when he went on his anti-Clinton, anti-liberal killing spree. Eric Rudolph was a homicide bombers when he went on his killing spree in response to the "homosexual agenda". Yet neither of these conservative terrorists used the the tactic of suicide bombing as their chosen method. The term is clearly more ambiguous than the accepted "suicide bomber".

Now...you do the math:

-It is a term that is less journalistically accurate.
-It is not used by the entire mainstream media.
-It is nearly absent from public discourse.
-It is a White House talking point.
-Fox News continues to use it.

Any questions?

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

Don't Like It, then Don't Watch It
Posted by: folkdude01 on Jun 22, 2007 3:35 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you really don't like Fox News, then don't watch it. Tell a friend or two, but it's silly to think that by complaining about Fox News they'll change their format. For people who want the news they want, they can find it, right? So why continue to complain about Fox News? Sounds like a waste of time to me, but it makes sense in the overall aspect of the political climate when all so-called Liberals and Left Wingers have nothing else to talk about it but old news.

By the way, "We Report, You Decide" that's a joke unlike "The Mix is the Message"....

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

Liberal and Extreme Media
Posted by: SEDGFLD on Jun 22, 2007 3:54 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whenever extreme conservatives talk about the mainstream media they use the word "liberal" but they never define the term. The reason why they don't define it is that they can't do so without appearing to be dishonest.
When you think of the term journalist, you're supposed to think of a person who is doing a job in an ethical and honest manner, without regards to personal bias or opinion. Conservative media are cheerleaders for conservative causes and not about presenting material in an honest and ethical way if it will hurt the political cause, unless the information is already out there and theybelieve they have no choice. Some will still ignore it even when it's already in the public domain. The normal and usual organizations named by extreme conservatives include the New York Times and Washington Post for print media. and just about all of network media. Many of the organizations that they name have a mixed bag of journalists and media pesonalities or lean extreme and extreme conservative.
Liberal journalists aren't looking to protect anybody but are trying to get information, bad or good, disseminated. Whenever someone reports on the truth and that truth isn't favorable to conservative extremists, they call them liberal. Whenever an article is about something bad concerning non conservative extremists, they don't label the organization or they actually use it as a referance. When it comes to the opt-ed pages, both of the above-named print media organizations, like others, have many articles written by exreme conservatives. In addition, the Editorial Board of the Washington Post is not liberal and tends to give biased support to the administration and it's supporters. Broadcast media (television and radio) is just about all conservative or extreme conservative, with a few exceptions.
So, the next time one of these people bring up the extreme talking point rhetoric about the media, ask them what they're basing their opinion on and don't let them get away with the lazy and rhetorical "liberal media" lie.'

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

» RE: Liberal and Extreme Media Posted by: MartianBachelor
What is fair and balanced about news anyway?
Posted by: justaguy on Jun 22, 2007 8:06 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The notion is absurd if they then say they report the news as opposed to editorializing.

News should be objective fact, there is nothing to be balanced.

As a slogan it's virtually admitting that they're reporting is BS.

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

Don't kid yourself, NOT JUST FOX.....
Posted by: Bozly on Jun 23, 2007 6:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Considering these observations....."While the "elite" media bore you with straightforward news couched in civility, Fox is like the dentist who tries to lure people to his practice by handing out fudge and Snickers bars. Flashy graphics and bombastic music, women who look like they may have started out in the soft-core porn industry, and stouthearted men who talk loud enough to cover up the fact that they don't know what the hell they're talking about -- that's Fox News.".....or..."Most important, why is this a national story? And why is a report on nuclear disarmament talks being interrupted to cover it?.." Most unfortunately..." that's Fox( as well as the "others" too often than not as THEY pander about trying to "catch-up" to the ratings FOX does indeed have ! ! !) for you. When it's trying to be serious, it's laughable. When it's trying to be light and breezy, it's like a railroad spike in your frontal lobe."
"The sad part is, this lowest-common-denominator approach to journalism is working"...for them ,the "mainstream AND Fox" ! ! Review the absurd coverage that overtakes the air--blond missing women, dead blond women, wife killing trials,blond bimbo's going to/IN/getting out of jail....meanwhile the homeland AND world are troubled and toiled and foiled in questings for peaceful co-existence !!!!! but WE are not to bother OUR pretty little minds in concerns for such that ACTUALLY does have cause and effect and affect OUR actual existence and are simply to sit down, shut up and lockstep as "informed" to do otherwise WE are the NON patriots, the traitors, the troublemakers, the haters, the UN-Godly/non religious, ..ie, in otherwords WE are cause for bain and THE problem not any of "them" for THEY have "good" intentions if nothing else and...well, blah, blah, blah and throw in a BAH HUMBUG !!!!!. ".....we've given just a few examples of Fox's unbound hubris, stupidity, tawdriness, fear mongering and not-so-subtle bigotry. Ah, it is but an aperitif...", in HONESTY, it is NOT "just" FOX, the others follow suit as well , perhaps just too nuanced for some to "catch on" to their panderings and OH, not pandering "liberally" as in that vast MYTHICAL "liberal media" crappe that keeps being tagged to it.
Supposedly, some are attempting to rectify the over abundence of "conservative" views that permeate thru out the various media venues...Would be difficult at best to do and lets face it, nigh impossible and subject to the WHIMS of those that would be empowered within the timeframes to BE the "deciders" of what is what and how balanced and etc....What the liberal/progressives are whining about can ONLY BE RECTIFIED if THEY get MEDIA SAVVY ENOUGH, and learn the lessons the ultra ,zealotted conservatives/righties/neocons have--THEY bothered to get MEDIA SAVVY and learned quite well the ART OF SPIN/MANIPULATION and have used such "talents" to gain the DECIDER POSITIONS and are therefore EMPOWERED to decide over all others so very, very much. Meanwhile the liberals, progressives as IF "being knowledgeable,aware,concerned" and all the rest of the various etc's just were going to NOT get down and dirty but remain above the fraying to perhaps some ill conceived notion of appearing peraps more nobly "correct" and willing allow others to come to their senses by reason and etc...Well, they, the libs/progressives or any that DO not lockstep to the ultra right/neoconic mode have been rolled over and come off as mere whimps. Any notice how when questioned, folks MAY DISAGREE with Bush decisions but they claim to like that he is FIRM, RESOLUTE and WILLING TO BE DETERMINED and LOYAL and well, blah, blah...and in contrast, when questioned, they seem to take the Dems-lumped as ultra libs in mindsets, and find them panderers, wishwashy and sell outs and UNABLE to stand for what they believe is BEST so found NOT TRUSTWORTHY, even if the ideas presented ARE what is TRULY DESIRED BY THE TRUE MAJORITY.

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

Blind adherence to an ideology that spews hate speech and is intolerant to those it disagrees with:
Posted by: Jak_dah_rippah on Jun 23, 2007 6:51 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Note the invective from a leftist without the wherewithal to refute my assertions that are supported by facts and empiricism:

""Your imbecilic talking points are the same trash that pretenders like O'Reilly pump out. You're about as independent as a 3 year old and as objective as Fox.

You don't even know what a leftist is and you clearly wouldn't recognise a Marxist if one hit you in the face with Das Kapital. (That'll never happen though because you'll never have the courage to leave Butt***k, Idaho, or whatever cousing marrying hellhole you live in, and see the world away from momma's apron strings).

Now, do toddle off little aggro lamb. The islamofascists are after you.

You're an idiot.""--justaguy

Folks, this is the nature of an ideologue whose opinions are based on emotion and faith versus objectivity, facts, logic, and empiricism.

I have cited credible, valid, reliable, and compelling sources and they are met with this kind of juvenile hate speech predictably and consistently from ignorant and emotional leftists like justaguy:

Sources (not from Bill O'Reilly):

MSNBC Report

Comprehensive UCLA Research

Irrespective of the convincing research and data, what is most compelling about this argument is the left's refusal to accept facts that disprove the veracity of their ideological beliefs. When confronted with facts leftists like justaguy lash out with vitriol and hate. This is a trait of the despotic and should be noted.

Note also that Bill O'Reilly (and Keith Olbermann for that matter) are entitled to their opinions since they are not objective news reporters but entertainers providing commentary.

Note also the habit of leftists to dismiss/discredit reliable and valid facts as "talking points". This is a trait of the despotic and should be noted when it occurs.

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

» RE: No, you start with ad hominem... Posted by: Jak_dah_rippah
Please don't abuse animals to get your point across
Posted by: georgeop on Jun 23, 2007 7:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe you didn't take this picture, but posting it isn't acceptable either. Does PETA know that you're using these photos that are degrading elephants?

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

R. V.
Posted by: RDVSR on Jun 23, 2007 11:11 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No one is forcing you or me to watch Fox News, or any of the others. I choose to watch Fox News because it doesn't have the left wing bias that the others do. Since I found Fox on the TV, I watch little other news.
These opponents sound like children complaining that the other children don't like me.

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

» RE: . V. Posted by: ALANHESTER
We the Media
Posted by: nefarious_snark on Jun 23, 2007 12:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's not just Fox News; it's all media. I know that sounds generic, but it's true. And you know whose fault that is? The viewers who allow it.
I can complain about news programs airing insipid stories about talentless, spoiled celebrities whining about their pathetically negligible problems. But then I realize: I shouldn't blame the news (too much). They're just giving the tasteless viewers what they want. I personally admired Jon Stewart's refusal to discuss the Paris Hilton haggis, because he knew, obviously, that that story would get more viewers to watch his show, yet he ignored that fact for the point that it WAS NOT NEWS. Of course, people will say that The Daily Show is not "real" news, but it is far more real than Fox. However, what I would admire more is a nationwide embargo on such stupid wastes of news time. There is no such thing as a slow news day; there are plenty of things to cover (just what they don't want to cover), and the audience can't get enough of their idiotic celebrity banter. That is why the populace will not stop watching such crap, now matter how much they despise the idea. Many people hate to admit they watch it, but the fact remains: they do, and they always will.
On another note, the media sabotages presidential nomination and election through insufficient coverage, among other things. Only on PBS(KLRU) or the internet can one find any evidence of a debate involving any candidate other than those of the Democratic or Republican parties. Most people, sadly, did not even know about the majority of candidates during the last election. The same is true now. If I asked you to name the presidential candidates, most (MOST) people would be able to list a few: Gravel, Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Gingrich, Dodd, Huckabee, McCain, Richardson, Romney, Thomson, maybe Thomson, and perhaps Ron Paul. What’s the link between all of them? They are, every one, Democrat or Republican. Quite an extensive list too, but do any of you know who Terry Lee Barkdull is? Until recently, I didn’t know, and I care, but he is as much a presidential candidate as Senator Clinton, Obama, or Romney. The differences: He wasn’t involved in a scandal, nobody cares about his hair or name, his party affiliation is undetermined (or unknown), and he’s not obscenely rich. I beg of you, before voting in the election more than a year from now, go to this URL, and look up and read about some of the other candidates too. If you don’t already know of all of them, and you truly care about the future of your country, then research every single running candidate (yes it’s a lot [a lot more than most people know]) before making your choice. Otherwise, it is an ill-informed choice, thus not accurate.

http://www. vote-smart.org/ election_president_search.php? type=party
(you must remove spaces as I only added them in because this site will not let me post a 60 character "word)."
I now must unfortunately split my post into two as it is too long.

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

We the Media
Posted by: nefarious_snark on Jun 23, 2007 12:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's not just Fox News; it's all media. I know that sounds generic, but it's true. And you know whose fault that is? The viewers who allow it.
I can complain about news programs airing insipid stories about talentless, spoiled celebrities whining about their pathetically negligible problems. But then I realize: I shouldn't blame the news (too much). They're just giving the tasteless viewers what they want. I personally admired Jon Stewart's refusal to discuss the Paris Hilton haggis, because he knew, obviously, that that story would get more viewers to watch his show, yet he ignored that fact for the point that it WAS NOT NEWS. Of course, people will say that The Daily Show is not "real" news, but it is far more real than Fox. However, what I would admire more is a nationwide embargo on such stupid wastes of news time. There is no such thing as a slow news day; there are plenty of things to cover (just what they don't want to cover), and the audience can't get enough of their idiotic celebrity banter. That is why the populace will not stop watching such crap, now matter how much they despise the idea. Many people hate to admit they watch it, but the fact remains: they do, and they always will.
On another note, the media sabotages presidential nomination and election through insufficient coverage, among other things. Only on PBS(KLRU) or the internet can one find any evidence of a debate involving any candidate other than those of the Democratic or Republican parties. Most people, sadly, did not even know about the majority of candidates during the last election. The same is true now. If I asked you to name the presidential candidates, most (MOST) people would be able to list a few: Gravel, Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Gingrich, Dodd, Huckabee, McCain, Richardson, Romney, Thomson, maybe Thomson, and perhaps Ron Paul. What’s the link between all of them? They are, every one, Democrat or Republican. Quite an extensive list too, but do any of you know who Terry Lee Barkdull is? Until recently, I didn’t know, and I care, but he is as much a presidential candidate as Senator Clinton, Obama, or Romney. The differences: He wasn’t involved in a scandal, nobody cares about his hair or name, his party affiliation is undetermined (or unknown), and he’s not obscenely rich. I beg of you, before voting in the election more than a year from now, go to this URL, and look up and read about some of the other candidates too. If you don’t already know of all of them, and you truly care about the future of your country, then research every single running candidate (yes it’s a lot [a lot more than most people know]) before making your choice. Otherwise, it is an ill-informed choice, thus not accurate.

http://www. vote-smart.org/ election_president_search.php? type=party
(you must remove spaces as I only added them in because this site will not let me post a 60 character "word)."
I now must unfortunately split my post into two as it is too long.

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

We the Media.2
Posted by: nefarious_snark on Jun 23, 2007 12:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Firstly, why is my first post up there twice?
Now then, we continue:

If you do not recognize even one of the following names, you are obligated as an American to click on the above link and check them out:
John Douglas Blyth, Clarita Fazzari, Samuel Hoff, Keith Judd, James Hatton McCall, Sandra Queen Noble, Joseph Schriner, Bruce Trask, Robert Winn, and so on.
You know what you’ll notice? Hilary Clinton is not the only female running for president! Oh my sweet Jesus! Barack Obama is not the only dark-skinned candidate (I don’t give a rat’s ass if he’s “black” or not, it changes in no way his merit. He’s still not the best candidate. Who I think is the best candidate is “surprisingly” someone who nobody else even knows about). There’s probably (I wouldn't know because I care not about insipid things) at least one gay candidate. Inconceivable, what will they think of next! Fat chance they’ll get elected, because God forbid we would have a candidate will different preferences! A psychopath is okay, but a fairy (for sensitivity even in mockery, I will not use a worse word, although it is sadly how many Americans view homosexuals), when hell freezes over! It is sad that policies fear gay people more than terrorists (REAL terrorists, not jihadists [their goals are usually not to inspire fear. If you knew what jihad means {check wikipedia if you don’t) you might know that]). The Democrats could run a potted plant against the Republican ice cube and more people would vote for them than a valid homosexual candidate, mostly because they have more funding and the backing of a major organization. It sickens me.
But before I complain any farther about that, I must take into account that the only reason it works is because the average American voter apparently couldn’t care less about the future of their country. Next time you see something on the news that pisses you off, get up off your lazy ass and do something about it. It may seem like you have to expend a lot of effort for even minor change, but with all due respect, duurrrrrrrrrr! It’s a world changing thing, of course it’s difficult! And it takes precedence over money, jobs, and every other thing (other than maybe family) that you hold dear. People have sacrificed profusely before you, why shouldn’t you do the same? I’m near the prime time of my education, so whether you believe it or not, I have more to lose than most of you, and I still spend time researching for choices (elections) which I can’t even legally make yet, just so I can educate people around me. Even a small act like that from everyone can completely shift the foundations of our society to one with fair and complete elections (unheard of, I know). So take more care with your country, it is in your hands, no one elses.

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

boulder18
Posted by: boulder18 on Jun 23, 2007 4:10 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, Fox News is indeed the bottom of the barrel. Too bad the rest of the MSM is quickly diving to the bottom with it.

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

Broadcast Journalism Is Dead
Posted by: Tom Degan on Jun 23, 2007 5:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was pleased to read this excellent piece. When you have a chance, please read the piece I wrote this morning on the subject. Here's a link:

Broadcast Journalism is Dead

Peace!

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY

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

I cite objective sources -- the leftists cite marxist front groups and engage in ad hominen attacks
Posted by: Jak_dah_rippah on Jun 24, 2007 8:46 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Peruse the thread and compare leftist "contributions" to posts I have made and decide for yourself whose beliefs are based on facts and empiricism versus blind faith and rage:

Are you trying to appeal to crackers like yourself in order to disuade them from coming to the debate here at the Alternet. You are a pathetic little moron.--yellow

Grow up you baby.--justaguy

"it is obvious that you need to seek psychotherapy, as your desire to be a Nazi seems to cloud your reason--ALANHESTER

"I suppose if you think about it for a while, math is despotic.--lessbread

Your imbecilic talking points are the same trash that pretenders like O'Reilly pump out. You're about as independent as a 3 year old and as objective as Fox.

You don't even know what a leftist is and you clearly wouldn't recognise a Marxist if one hit you in the face with Das Kapital. (That'll never happen though because you'll never have the courage to leave Butt***k, Idaho, or whatever cousing marrying hellhole you live in, and see the world away from momma's apron strings).

Now, do toddle off little aggro lamb. The islamofascists are after you.

You're an idiot.

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

I Notice you don't answer me anymore JDR. You're a coward.
Posted by: yellow on Jun 24, 2007 1:51 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You issue a challenge to the left and when it is answered you don't come out to play except to decry the opposing view as "marxist-leninist" whatever that means. You are a sniveling little mouse.

I pointed out Media Matters for America and the Bill O'Rielly gaff about Malady. You failed to answer either one.

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

donl51
Posted by: donl51 on Jun 24, 2007 5:10 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
one of the greatest groups of articles about Fox news and crew,that i've read in years .I don't beleive,or maybe cannot beleive anyone w/half a brain could beleive anything they say,I love to hear K.Obermann nail O'Riley for his antics,yes it is as funny as frustrating,but mostly its sad that it even exists...E.D. Hill,cute,blonde,lots of kids,slender,i suppose to represent that girl next door,or something,dumb as a bag of nails and she works in a news service,!!...sorry!

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

» brain Posted by: openhouse
It’s entertainment!
Posted by: williameon on Jun 25, 2007 4:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It’s Propaganda.

Ruppert The Pervert
Said it himself,
“It’s entertainment.”
The Faux News is entertainment.
What a lying piece of crap.
It’s Mind bending, Hypnotic,
“PROPERGANDA”
A brainwashing tool used to keep his viewers
Ignorant and afraid.
Useless Unmediated Garbage.

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

» RE: It’s entertainment! Posted by: openhouse
Sorry state of some emotional leftists
Posted by: Jak_dah_rippah on Jun 25, 2007 6:11 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
(1) more than a few leftists on this thread are of the unyeilding and faith based opinion that media matters is an objective source -- I challenge any leftist to cite ONE byte of data on the site that is favorable to conservatives. This is proof positive that many on the left are seriously deluded and incapable of objective and independent thought.

(2) one of these leftists wasted considerable bandwidth to challenge my assertion that journalists contributed to liberal candidates by a ratio of 9 to 1 over conservative candidates. What was the basis for this liberal's argument and angst? That this data is irrelevant and that in truth the ratio is 8 to 1! Note "leftist logic" -- he claims that the data is irrelevant, yet spends considerable bandwidth to rationalize 8 to 1 as somehow acceptable when compared to 9 to 1????

(3) A sure sign of an ideology that is based on blind faith and emotion devoid of fact, logic, and empiricism is the following retorts offered by these leftists against yours truly for committing the "heinous" offense of citing serious, comprehensive, and objective research from the "conservative hotbeds" UCLA, MSNBC, ZOGBY, et al...

You are a pathetic little moron

Grow up you baby

it is obvious that you need to seek psychotherapy, as your desire to be a Nazi seems to cloud your reason

math is despotic.--lessbread

Your imbecilic talking points are the same trash that pretenders like O'Reilly pump out. You're about as independent as a 3 year old and as objective as Fox.

You don't even know what a leftist is and you clearly wouldn't recognise a Marxist if one hit you in the face with Das Kapital. (That'll never happen though because you'll never have the courage to leave Butt***k, Idaho, or whatever cousing marrying hellhole you live in, and see the world away from momma's apron strings).

Now, do toddle off little aggro lamb. The islamofascists are after you.

You're an idiot.

You are a sniveling little mouse.

Christ, go back to Little Green Testicles or Instaputz or wherever you get your rocks off will ya?

Media Matters is not a Marxist front group...But every time you rant about how it's a Marxist front group, you only succeed in exposing your ignorance.

JDR makes outrageous assertions bordering on Nazi sympathies

I don't think Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, etc. constitute torture.


(4) Due to the schizophrenic nature of the leftist mind I have been attacked for both (A) exessive number of posts and (B) not responding to posts:

I Notice you don't answer me anymore JDR. You're a coward.-- yellow

I hope people stop responding to you and your buddys who try to MONOPLISE these threads.I will never understand how anyone with two braincells could ever have voted for the idiot chimp. You probably believe the earth is 6000 years old too!--johngary66



In summary, many leftists mistakenly believe that if someone disagrees with their position they are a fascist, racist, and/or religious zealot. I am none of these, yet because I contribute compelling and objective data that is counter to the opinions of many on this thread I am attacked in the manner not unlike a rabid pack of dogs.

In addition, it should be noted that in order to become an objective and independent thinking contributor to the public discourse, it is necessary that you have the intellectual wherewithal to distinguish obvious ideological bias. Many on this blog are incapable of this.

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

» RE: Your sorry emotional state Posted by: lessbread
» RE: Your sorry emotional state Posted by: Jak_dah_rippah
» RE: Your sorry emotional state Posted by: lessbread
When "facts" are lies
Posted by: ReallyBearish on Jun 26, 2007 11:01 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
News can't be totally "unbiased" since much of the "facts" being thrown around are themselves lies.

Consider the fictional construct known as "core" inflation. This is a piece of crapola issued by the BLS in order to show that inflation is not a problem. It cuts out the most important aspects of consumer price rises and allows those products whose prices are stable to dominate the index. News media has to report this garbage as "news" without commentary.

If you want to know what the real inflation rate is, check the site SHADOW GOVERNMENT STATISTICS. The real rate of inflation is around 10 percent.

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

Battlestar
Posted by: alevander5 on Jul 15, 2007 8:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
OTH subtitles One Tree Hill subtitles Книги по философии Friday Night Lights Labeo frenatus House M.D. subtitles House tv show ресиверы схема electricity digital Managing Scope Creep CSI subtitles Nutrition Feeding литература курсовые Andromeda ведьма интересные факты схемотехника схемы Rome пошук рефератів економіка The Parts of the Guitar Guitar чудеса интересные факты Aquarium Care Nutrition of Fish DIFFERENT TYPES OF PLANTS download subtitles Burn Notice Rice to Respond rihanna lyrics дипломные диплом Transformers subtitles Transformers Eleocharis лирика слова песни Salamanders and Newts Snakes валютная система реферат валютная шрифты добавить шрифт NYC Airport Content Planning download subtitles subtitles Аудит Бухгалтерский учет electronic schematics Audio circuits 24 subtitles 24 tv show субтитри Guitar The flamenco downstroke Family Guy Бетховен музыка

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