RE: Fox news
I think I can count on one finger the news networks that are either fair and balanced or lean a little to the right. All of the others are on the left side of neutral. Of the left-leaning networks, I think there are different levels of bias. I believe MSNBC is the closest to fair than any of the other major networks besides FOX.
It would seem that the ratings for FOX are starting to wake up the other networks and hitting them like a Mack truck. The networks don't give enough credit to citizens nowadays. We are not the minions they think we are. The networks and others calling FOX a right-wing network have a real problem looking in the mirror and calling themselves left-wing radicals.
I wonder when they will realize that we are tired of watching networks that continue to bash our great country. Sure, there are problems that need top be reported on, but to listen to some of the networks, you would think we are the most evil country on the planet. I wonder why these reporters and anchors just don't go find somewhere else to live that they can express their views and beliefs without recourse? There are people from countries south of here literally dying to get here to this evil country. They must know something these ingrates don't know. I have never understood this.
WARNING: I'm writing this in the spirit of discussion, not to offend.
Dean,
Okay, let's be honest here: What networks are making us out to be "the most evil country on the planet"? I just don't see it. I can accept the argument, though not necessarily agree, that some reporters are anti-Bush, but I have yet to see anyone report anything that could be construed as anti-American. There is a difference. Can you give me something specific to support your view? I'm not talking about "analysts" or editorials. Just plain reporting the news.
It's the job of reporters to report the news, period. It's not up to them to filter out the stuff that might make the government look bad or tell us what we want to hear. I want to know what they're up to in Washington, good or bad, and I want to know how things are going across the world, good or bad, especially if we've got our hands in it. Unfortunately, from my point of view anyway, they've been derelict in their duties for a long while now, but especially since 9/11. If anything, they've been way too EASY on Bush and Company. I could name a dozen things the Bush administration has done that is beyond shady (things the right-wing media would have POUNCED ON if it were Clinton), yet these things went nearly unreported, or there was no followup.
I would hate to be a reporter these days. Where every sentence is picked apart with a fine tooth comb, looking for some hint of bias. Inboxes filled with hate mail because you reported something that didn't come directly from the mouths of Ari Fleisher or Donald Rumsfeld.
What ever happened to good investigative reporting anyway? Lord knows, if Nixon was president right now, Watergate would just be the name of some DC hotel we'd never heard of. Now let me ask you: If something like that was going on today, would you like to know about it? Or would you prefer it to be swept under the rug because you don't want to hear anyone bashing our president?
As for the ratings success of Fox News, I've been through this so many times before I get tired of writing it. First of all, ratings doesn't necessarily mean quality. Look at Jerry Springer.
Fox gives a certain segment what they want to hear. "Tastes great, less filling" is how I like to describe them.
Not that any of the other cable news channels are much better. That so-called liberal bastion of MSNBC fired Phil Donahue a while back. Why? Not because of ratings. His show was the number one show on the network (if that says something). No, it was because the suits decided that once the war on Iraq started, Phil was just too much of a liability. I present [a href="http://www.allyourtv.com/0203season/news/02252003donahue.html"]this[/a] article for perusal. An excerpt:
An internal NBC report says Donahue is "a tired, left-wing liberal out of touch with the current marketplace."
The study went on to claim that Donahue presented a "difficult public face for NBC in a time of war......He seems to delight in presenting guests who are anti-war, anti-Bush and skeptical of the administration's motives."
The report went on to outline a possible nightmare scenario where the show becomes "a home for the liberal antiwar agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity."
"Marketplace". "Competitors". Does this sound like a liberal media? Or could it be that the bottom line rules all?
My point here isn't to pursuade anyone that MSNBC is liberal or conservative. My point is that the content we see on television news, whether hard news or "analysis" is dictated almost solely by how it affects the ratings, not on quality or newsworthiness. Fox News was the first to realize how lucrative it is to cater to a certain segment, and they're successful because they've fine-tuned it to such a great degree. They know their audience, and they know what their audience wants. MSNBC and CNN are trying to catch up by hiring their own right-wing pundits, but they're too stupid to realize that there's only room for so many. In any case, this is a terrible way to run a news organization, and it's bad for democracy when everyone is rushing to please one side.
Now off on a tangent...
I don't mean to offend anyone, but here's another thing to think about: Every time I hear "America, love it or leave it", I wonder if THAT person, not I, would be happier in a country where political dissent is met with imprisonment, death threats, or some other harsh punishment. Some of those same people will say "well, I support your right to dissent, but...". There's usually a "but" in there, and that makes me wonder. Do they REALLY want me to be able to express my views, or do they secretly wish me to be locked up in a cell in Guantanamo Bay?
Can you hard core types out there understand that love of country does not equate to unquestioning allegiance to its leaders? Will you show as much devotion to and adoration of the office of the President when a Democrat is in office? When Clinton was in office, did you hate America? No, of course not. But now that the tables are turned, anyone who dares question Bush or tries to point out his flaws is an America-hater.
I will love this great nation until my dying day. There is still no place on the earth that offers the kind of opportunities we have here. But just as it is the duty of every loving parent to watch out for and occasionally disipline his child for doing something wrong, it is the duty of Americans to point out when they believe we are heading down the wrong path. Ignore your child's bad behaviour, and that child grows up to be a spoiled brat, with absolutely no respect for others. If he can't get what he wants, he takes it. He is basically unable to function in society (get along with others). And that, unfortunately, is the path I believe our current leaders are taking us.
Sorry, I know this doesn't have much to do with what we were talking about, but it's something I've been wating to get off my chest.
), and one of the bars i was at had two different news channels on, on adjacent TV's. One was MSNBC, i don't recall what the other was, maybe BBC or something like that, not a popular US station. Anyway, it was astounding the differences in coverage on the same stories. The TV on the left was, well, WAAAAAAAAY left, and the TV on the right was more or less in the middle. MSNBC was covering the war, and had a little bit on the liberation, with mention that certain services had not yet been restored, and they covered the looting for a few minutes. The other station focused on the lack of power and water service, spent a lot of time on the looting, and didn't once mention the word "liberation". They talked to Iraqis who denounced the US as invaders and occupiers, while MSNBC was talking to Iraqis who were grateful to be liberated, who also asked that we keep our promise and remove our forces as soon as possible. 