Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fact-Free Fox News..... More non-name calling from Bengal B. I never accused you of being a Nazi sympathizer. It is something you read into my posts. I wonder why?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fact-Free Fox News..... Anyone can run, but over fifty percent of white voters in Louisiana voted for Duke and the great majority of Republicans here did also. It is a shame when facts don't agree with your fantasies, isn't it, SabanFan?
maybe one paper is slanted to the right. maybe one news network is slanted to the left. i guess that makes our job as people who want truth a little harder. thats fine with me. i dont need to accept any pre-packaged opinion. i am certain i can glean enough information, even from slanted news sources, to think whatever i choose. i encourage every news org to put whatever slant they want on the news. freedom for them. why do i care? so newspeople have agendas and opinions. good for them. besides. when we say fox is slanted to the right, we mean relative to what? the general population? if i am not mistaken there are slightly more republicans than democrats in this country. i know plenty of people complain on both sides. people say cnn is too liberal, people say fox is too conservative. that sounds good to me, i like having one of each. i think an argument can be made that for a while there was not enough conservative media relative to conservative americans. so just as we have half of america right of center, and half left, i think its great that we have media on both sides. i think of fox as complementary to cnn and the networks. more pieces to the puzzle makes the whole picture more complete.
besides. when we say fox is slanted to the right, we mean relative to what? the general population? if i am not mistaken there are slightly more republicans than democrats in this country. QUOTE] News is either reported in an objective manner, with all newsworthy stories getting attention or it is not. Fox is a right wing propaganda outlet. It is not a news outlet. It exists for the sole purpose of getting right wing nuts and racists to watch it. Stories are chosen for airing and reported in such a way that it will make right wing nuts want to watch it and nothing else. The people who own, operate, and run it are running it right now with the express purpose of getting Bush re-elected and getting conservative Republicans elected. That is the driving force behind it, not to objectively report the news. Fox is not a news outlet.
Don't you think the driving force behind Fox News, as well as CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, and all other media is to make money?
CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC are all owned by large corporations. They have to stay profitable to exist. However, there is such a thing as professional newspersons who honestly believe that the news should be reported fairly, objectively, and even-handedly. Those four groups are run by those kind of people. Fox is run by right wing people who have the sole purpose of advancing right wing policy. Fox is a cheerleader outlet for Bush and the right wing of the Republican Party. That is all it is. Right wing people are intolerant of opposing views. They see things the way they want them to be, not as they are. So Fox stepped in and created a "news" outlet that tailors all its stories so they will approve of them. Right now, if anyone reports that US soldiers are being attacked in Iraq, and even dying there, they object to that because it might hurt Bush politically. That is just one example.
Therein lies the error in your "analysis". Those four groups are NOT run by those kind of people. LISTEN to any broadcast by Komrade Dan Rather Biased, or Peter Jennings, and there is NO WAY you could make such a statement.
they are? i love fox, and i like the other networks too, even though i am surely to the right of them. sounds like you really hate fox. who is intolentant? bengal b is right. news is not about news, it is about money. the reason we dont have to worry about the news ever getting too slanted and not representing the views of the people is because they want our money. for a while there was a shortage of views on tv that represent the more conservative part of the population. there was money to be made by presenting a more conservative viewpoint. then fox game along, and they do great. they have great ratings. they filled a void. so now we have so many media options, more than ever. now its more likley than ever that more viewpoints will be heard. and thats good. the news is not driven by a motivation to get the truth out. its driven by profit. because of that, and the fact that there are so many options now, i think the media will reflect the views of the population. fox is mad popular because conservatives love it. i disagree. news is never rreally unbiased. any choice of story, any agenda setting, will be based on whatever some producer or whatever thinks is most newsworthy. why even bother defining "unbiased". every story reflects the person telling it as well as the story. i just dont see that as a problem. it gives us choice. when i am on the subway, i choose the nypost over the times. i am glad it is conservative, and i am not angry that the times is liberal. also i dont see how you can deny that the big networks are historically kinda liberal. there will be perspectives from either sides, its not a problem. it would be much worse if there wasnt. or at least this is the sort of crap they taught me at LSU in the Poli Sci dept. go tigers.
If Clinton's press secretary were a washington correspondence for NBC news, the right wing in this country would howl like wildcats. True to their position that their own rules don't apply to them, Pete Williams is perfectly acceptable. If Clinton's golf partner were the anchor person on a major news network, the right wing in this country would also howl. True to their position that the rules don't apply to them (like blowjobs for politicians), Brit Hume is perfectly acceptable. I think I get it now.
