Los Angeles Times columnist (and longtime political reporter) Ron Brownstein tackles the issue of the Nevada Democratic Party dumping Fox News Channel as a debate partner. He thinks this rejection is similar to how "conservatives deal with mainstream media organizations they consider biased against them." Put aside for a minute the odd notion that Republican Party organizations or politicians would refuse to do debates thrown by liberal networks. As if. In his March 16 column, Brownstein's peddling the old canard that Fox News is exponentially more biased than "mainstream" news organizations:
The situation isn't exactly parallel. For all the howling on the right, it's difficult to argue that mainstream news organizations operate with anything approaching Fox' partisan and ideological agenda. (E-mails: commence now.) But there's no question many conservatives feel as wronged by elements of the mainstream media as Democrats do by Fox.
It is certainly not difficult to argue that "mainstream" news organizations operate in a partisan manner. Right now, it takes five seconds. Which network is presently playing the Charles Schumer script of "Bring Me The Head of Alberto Gonzales?" All of them, except Fox, and even Gretchen Carlson asked Gonzales whether he was headed out. Brownstein insisted "Many Democratic professionals believe that Fox will continue to provide an uncritical platform for almost any charge the right can dredge (Drudge?) up against the 2008 Democratic contenders." Meanwhile, they're all passing along the polygamous background of Mitt Romney's ancestors and Rudy Giuliani's son disparaging his dad's rather shoddy divorce.
Predictably, Brownstein pitched conservative media critics as insincere, pandering panhandlers, harvesters of rage, even though Republican politicians grip and grin with the "mainstream" folks:
Conservative leaders and groups harvest those emotions to raise money and energize their supporters. And yet, when conservatives perceive it in their interest, they do not hesitate to deliver their message through those traditional channels. They are entirely comfortable throwing rocks at the big media institutions and then stepping through the broken glass to dispense a sound bite—or, for that matter, to dish dirt over cocktails.
Unasked by Brownstein: do Republican politicians really have a choice to avoid "traditional channels"? All of them? I would also wonder how many Republican leaders spend their days "throwing rocks" at the major media?
It's always worth remembering when journalists accuse others of partisan appearances to look at the accuser's biography. Well, here's an old item Brent Baker wrote in 1991 which would suggest Brownstein had a partisan liberal background, but still found a cozy job in that "mainstream" nonpartisan press. Baker called it "Two Times A Nader," so cue the Commodores music:
Ronald Brownstein, a national political correspondent for the Los Angeles Times since last spring, is out with a new book on the Hollywood-Washington connection, titled The Power and the Glitter. It's Brownstein's first book since he co-authored Reagan's Ruling Class: Portraits of the President's Top 100 Officials for Ralph Nader's Presidential Accountability Group in 1982. The year before, Brownstein edited with Nader a book published by the Sierra Club, Who's Poisoning America: Corporate Polluters and Their Victims in the Chemical Age.
Brownstein co-authored the Reagan book with his wife, Nina Easton, who has covered the entertainment community for the Los Angeles Times since 1989. In 1982 Easton authored Reagan's Squeeze on Small Business, a Nader report. In it, Easton concluded that Reagan's economic policies would accelerate economic concentration, "transforming a nation of business owners into a nation of employees."
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Yes, shame on FNC for being
March 16, 2007 - 16:15 ET by DyneYes, shame on FNC for being more biased against the ideologies of the left rather than the right.
"If you have to resort to personal attacks or foul language, you've already lost the debate." -Unknown
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -John Adams
As is typical of myopic MSM i
March 16, 2007 - 16:23 ET by mattmAs is typical of myopic MSM insiders, this guy is operating under the false assumption that the MSM is objective.
Naturally, any news outlet that approaches balance will appear conservative for the simple reason that to balance a Left-ward tilting media, you have to move to the Right.
So, what this genius sees as proof of FNC's 'bias' is actually proof of the MSM's bias and FNC's balancing influence...and it's only just begun...
Gee, here's a surprise-Brown
March 16, 2007 - 16:34 ET by Del DolemonteGee, here's a surprise-Brownstein wasn't even "trained" as a journalist-his degree was in English Literature, which he received from that time-honored bastion of journalism schools, SUNY-Binghamton.
http://premierespeakers.com/ronald_brownstein/bio
Here is one of Ronnie's "impeccable" journalistic achievements:
"In 1989, the National Women's Political Caucus presented him with an Exceptional Merit Media Award for his profile of California Congresswoman Maxine Waters. "
Maxine Waters! The west co
March 17, 2007 - 02:48 ET by Right2thePointMaxine Waters! The west coast version of Corrine Brown without the cell phone to smack people with. Leaving her unarmed but dangerous.
Man the dems seem to want to be Saturday Night Live without a contract.
The scarry part is some people somewhere elect these freaks of nature.
How does one get "trai
March 17, 2007 - 06:22 ET by sarcasmoHow does one get "trained" as a journalist? I've declared myself "a journalist" and yet I've had no training at all besides ordinary English classes and a few minor positions on tiny school newspapers -- where I was on my own with little supervision... The results I've seen suggest that actual journalism schools are a waste of time, anyway. Want to be a journalist I respect? Simple. Go report the truth on news stories in a politically unbiased & honest way after (and this is the tough part) selecting which stories to cover also in a politically unbiased & honest way.
JMR
If "Faux News" was
March 16, 2007 - 16:24 ET by Del DolemonteIf "Faux News" was as all-powerful as the chattering howler monkeys on the left claim, Bush would have a 90 percent job approval rating, Congress would still be controlled by the Republicans, and Rosie O'Donnell would have been fired by ABC a long time ago.
If Fox News were really as
March 16, 2007 - 16:35 ET by sarcasmoIf Fox News were really as unbiased as those on the right like to claim, they would have done the basic journalism-101 on allegedly (see today's "I told you so report" atop the Friday open thread) "minor" Presidential candidates, instead of following the rest of the media's lead & relentlessly pushing solely-RINOs like they've mindlessly done for the past 2+ months. I've reported on the blatant bias they've shown in this case, you decide if I'm wrong...
JMR
I think your premise is wrong, sarky
March 16, 2007 - 16:44 ET by RJI think your premise is wrong, sarky. Most of us don't claim that FNC is "unbiased." Rather, FNC is just less biased to the right than the rest of the MSM is to the left.
That's probably a better wa
March 16, 2007 - 16:49 ET by sarcasmoThat's probably a better way of putting it, but regardless, I've had 2 very solid days here of busting their continual pushing -- to the exclusion of other Republican candidates just like the lefty networks -- RINOs from the northeast (and for the record, I'm including John McCain in that group of RINOs).
JMR
Just for the record, I'm not that big a fan of FNC
March 16, 2007 - 17:01 ET by RJJust for the record, even though they're better than the other side, I'm not that big a fan of FNC. Too much tabloid, too much trying to give the libs a say even when their position is stupid, and just too much journalism school contamination. Sundays with Chris are usually good, though.
RJ,I agree. There's way too
March 16, 2007 - 17:20 ET by Chris NormanRJ,
I agree. There's way too much breathless tabloid-style news on FNC.
On a slightly different subject, I was remarking last night, that between the hirings on FNC, CNN, and MSNBC, the movie and modeling industries must be experiencing a shortage of beautiful women. Not that I'm complaining or anything...
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
RJ, you're absolutely right
March 16, 2007 - 18:59 ET by sarcasmoRJ, you're absolutely right IMO. Of all Fox News people for Slick to blow-up-at, I'll never understand why he picked Chris Wallace. To me, a person initially suspicious of anybody who's Mike Wallace's kid, he has seemed very fair and unusually hard-working compared to many others -- perhaps because he has rightly sensed the suspicion of people like me all along? Besides, think how much better-TV it would have been if he'd blown-up at O'Reilly or John Gibson!
JMR
Slick knew, sarky
March 16, 2007 - 19:14 ET by RJSarky, Slick knew exactly what he was doing. Too much of a chance that Gibson or O'Reilly would have snapped right back at him. He was probably pretty sure Chris is too much of a gentleman to do so.
Yeah, but that would have b
March 16, 2007 - 19:25 ET by sarcasmoYeah, but that would have been good TV! How cowardly of him to deprive us all of a good, entertaining fight & attack Chris-of-all-people instead. Oh well.
JMR
Yeah, in my original post I m
March 16, 2007 - 17:50 ET by Del DolemonteYeah, in my original post I made no mention of whether they were biased or not-all I said was they're not as powerful in shaping public opinion as many people claim they are.
BTW, isn't McCain from the Southwest?
I think they'd be more influe
March 16, 2007 - 17:54 ET by mattmI think they'd be more influential if they'd expand beyond cable T.V.
Also, it would take 60 years of Right-wing dominance in the newsmedia, education and in the entertainment media, to balance the last 40 years of liberal bias.
McCain is from Washington, DC.
March 16, 2007 - 19:03 ET by sarcasmoMcCain is from Washington, DC. In fact, of all politicians running this year for the Republican ticket, I can't think of one who is more "from" Washington, DC. Yeah, he's also got a nice home out in Arizona, but let's be real, folks....The man's about as from-DC as Marion Barry is at this point, IMO.
JMR
Actually, McCain was born in
March 16, 2007 - 23:02 ET by Del DolemonteActually, McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone.
That may be so, but my &quo
March 17, 2007 - 06:28 ET by sarcasmoThat may be so, but my "from" is really meant "politically." As in, "he likes much bigger government than I like, possibly because he's been in DC for a LOOOOOOOOOOOONG time."
JMR
You don't know what bias is.
March 16, 2007 - 19:03 ET by ThisnThatYou don't know what bias is. Here's a perfect example of bias. Last night, Fox's Brit Hume had a short segment where he asked a simple question: Where was the MSM's reporting of reduced violence in Bahgdad? Here's what Brit reported:
"The news from Iraq that violence in Baghdad is down just one month into the new security crackdown didn't make a dent in most major newspaper front pages — and was buried in many.
The New York Times had it on page 16 today. The L.A. Times page 6, and the Chicago Tribune page 10. The decrease was mentioned in Wednesday's Washington Post on page 9 and the Boston Globe's page 13.
On the broadcast networks there was a brief mention on NBC's nightly newscast — but we could not find any reference on the ABC or CBS evening news shows."
I will tell you one thing -- if something blew up, FOX and the MSM would both prominantly report it. The fact that there is good news, and only FOX prominantly reports it is what I am looking for. Want to call that bias? You're wrong. The absence of MSM reporting, or the pushing of the good news to the back burner, is the bias -- yet the left wing reports that as normal, and the FOX reporting as right-wing bias.
So, don't tell us, Sarc, that you know what bias is. You don't. We do. Period.
Nope. I've repeatedly made
March 17, 2007 - 06:30 ET by sarcasmoNope. I've repeatedly made the case for antilibertarian bias in the media, and I stand by all my words here and elsewhere, like it or not. And your statement is irrelevant to what I've said. It proves absolutely-nothing about what I know or don't know. Period.
JMR
Ahhh Ron, where have ya been
March 16, 2007 - 16:25 ET by bigtimerAhhh Ron, where have ya been on television lately, must be trying to worm your way back to the screens for your usual leftist spewing on the likes of CNN again, maybe msnbc and Ubermann will book ya after this article...you know what to do to grab attention to get your way for more face time...btw Ron did you know Fox is #1 and all your lying leftist BS isn't going to work.
Like Ailes said... Boycott Fox at your own Peril! (paraphrasing here...)
Kind of reminds me of Clintoon, but he has to keep his mouth shut, stay out of the lime-light(which must kill him...lol!) Keep his you know what in his pants, until Sillary lets him out again when she needs him.
Just love the leftists...they are so obvious.
Nina Easton being his wife is getting most of the face time lately....uh-oh.
Whatever happened to Cici Connely I wonder.
Oooooops....sorry I am getting off track here...
I seem to remember a recent
March 16, 2007 - 16:26 ET by tnculpI seem to remember a recent poll that would debunk this moron. Something about the majority of Independents and a large portion of Democrats believe the MSM is liberally biased.
tnculp... that was on this
March 16, 2007 - 16:37 ET by Tim the Enchantertnculp... that was on this thread...
That would be a new Zogby pol
March 16, 2007 - 16:38 ET by Del DolemonteThat would be a new Zogby poll:
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1262
Notice the language Brownstei
March 16, 2007 - 16:34 ET by Chris NormanNotice the language Brownstein uses - "For all the howling on the right". Tell me, has anyone ever seen an anti-war rally described by anyone in the MSM as "Howling by the Left"? Thus, conservatives are dismissed as not to be taken seriously...
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
That FOX News is far right is
March 16, 2007 - 18:07 ET by BillAdkinsThat FOX News is far right is a 'canard?/ That's like calling gravity a 'canard.' Hell, to call FOX News 'fair and balanced' is the canard. FOX is the propaganda arm of the Republican National Committee, no more and no less.
I used to think Jimmy Carter was the worst president in history - then along came George W. Bush.
Here's.....BA..... with the u
March 16, 2007 - 18:13 ET by bigtimerHere's.....BA..... with the usual BS...
At it again, same ol' talking points from the likes of Soros/leftist sites.
Ever think for yourself?
Ever?
Bet the thought scares you to death eh?
LMAO!
Man, you really have issues w
March 16, 2007 - 22:21 ET by Roger the ShrubberMan, you really have issues with Fox News. Odd that a network that, at a peak time, might get 2.5 million viewers, would upset you so much that you want to silence that network. Another branch of BDS is at work here, folks: FDS.
Hell, if you don't like Fox News, do what I do: DON'T WATCH IT, and get your news from other sources. Sure, I find the three major network nightly news shows to be a pile of horse crap, so I don't watch it. I also do not go to HuffyPo, DailyKos, etc, etc, etc, crying like a little girl about it, either.
So this is the only place y
March 17, 2007 - 07:56 ET by WhichWingSo this is the only place you come to cry like a little girl about it?
R the S
March 17, 2007 - 09:02 ET by SportPoliticsR the S, the problem they have is once the truths that have been hidden are told, one has to either completely dismiss them as lies, or become aware that the lies the left msm has been spewing, and the information they have been hiding, has warped the mind.
So it's very, very dangerous to leftists, and to the democrats, since the rest of the big medias never come out with the truth. They start and end with their slanted, one-sided lying bs fest that only continues to make sense if they can continue to completely censor the facts.
I should know, I still get snowballed sometimes. I think it's getting a bit scarey and out of hand with how far the msm has gone in producing polished democrat talking points, and how they openly dismiss and denounce the truth when they have to. ( If they happen to have a conservative on who relates certain facts they have been holding under their belt for weeks or months for instance. )
The plame scandal is a perfect example. It contains hundreds of blatant lies by the msm, repeated endlessly even after the msm has massive evidence to the contrary.
I have a hard time counting to 1 in an hourlong newscast anymore when it comes to the msm, if I'm counting how many times the truth is told.
I simply can't stand it anymore. I see the massive propaganda effort, and it's amazing to me how when I had zero knowledge about politics and what was actually going on, I believed every single word. I'm sure they have millions who watch and believe every single word, still.
It appears to me the dimmocrats have decided they will lie about anything, no matter what.
I'm disappointed, because I used to respect people in government. Now I see so many lies, so often, and so the press has to lie as well, or they would be going against their own party affiliation.
After no WMD were found, and years later, the press came out excoriating itself for not "being skeptical", and used Judith Miller from the NYT as their whipping girl. Then they asked aloud, and still do, "why weren't better", "why did we believe Bush's lies"....
What should be immediately obvious to all of the democrats in the msm, is the actual reason, the one they cannot and dare not say. Clinton and all the demorats told them the same thing, a decade ago, and up to when Bush first took office, and all the way up to the beginning of the Iraq war...
So you have the press openly doing a poor we self analysis, blaming their failure on Bush and his lies and secrecy and sexing up, and covering up for the democrats at the same time. It's the perfect, most far left lying screeding pile of gigantic BS they could possibly come up with, but come up with it, adopt it, and adore it, they do. There is no other way they could spin it more in favor of the democrats. So, there is no denying they have a perfect left wing democrat persona. It's all supposed to be true, but....
Now regular people like myself can go view the archived footage and facts on the internet, and see what gigantic liars the msm are.
Their gig of bullet proof lying is OVER.
The next time around could be
March 16, 2007 - 23:03 ET by M J BThe next time around could be worse with Hillary at the helm!
I agree Fox is the propaganda arm of the RNC which would not be so bad if they would just admit so much.
Both Fox & their competition are "news commentators" not journalists Olberman is no different!
Why people become so excited at these TV "celebraties" just because they agree with their point of view beats me. People tend to gravitate to certain programming just because of the agreeing comfort level & not because they wish to be mentally challenged!
MJB...ROTFLMAO!La-La Land is
March 16, 2007 - 23:08 ET by bigtimerMJB...
ROTFLMAO!
La-La Land is where you definitely live...you prove it every single time you post!
What part of his statement
March 17, 2007 - 08:07 ET by WhichWingWhat part of his statement do you object to? I thought it was well said. Most people on the left or right would agree that Fox is very heavily tilted to the right. Almost blatantly. The real problem is their constant false advertising. "Fair and Balanced." Is there anyone here that honestly believes Fox News to be fair and balanced? I think he's also correct about people gravitating to what they agree with. I'm sure some of you wonder what makes me come here and post. Well here's the awful truth: I disagree with most of you. That's why I'm here. I can go to MediaMatters.org and find hundreds of people to agree with me. But what's the point of that? What does that accomplish? You learn nothing that way. While I'm here, I learn from you all. I still may not agree with you, but I took the time to hear from the other side. Too often is someone like me labeled a "troll". That isn't my intent. I'm here for debate. The open exchange of ideas. That's what this should really be about. Instead, a majority of you just want to get together and bash the other side. You are not interested in the slightest to hear something you disagree with. And frankly, that's a shame.
WhichWing
March 17, 2007 - 08:17 ET by SportPoliticsWhichWing, nice holier than thou whining babbling crybaby paragraph.
Sorry, can't debate anything, since you didn't say anything. Thanks for exposing the right wing bias at the expose the left wing media bias site. Great job.
It would be at least halfway sane if you "defended the leftwing media bias" and proclaimed it " not left wing", but you apparently don't have that debate handy.
Like I said, go babble with balboa. You can do the "Why is this here?- CRAP - and pretend you made sense, while it looks like you're stupid to the other posters who can understand the very basics.
Hey, great debate. You're an idiot whiner crybaby about Fox. Shall we go over that 20 more times ? I bet we do.
Oh, and just in case you don't have the gumption to chortle blubb it out your piehole in response, let me help: " You are just the type of right wing zealout who never gets any information except from the choir that I just can't stand and can't and won't debate becuase you know notihng,except FoxNewws and Rimby Fatbuagh, you Bushbot lowbrow warmonger ! "
There, you feel better dummy ?
I like these great debates you inspire idiot, don't you ?
Here's a debate. You are a
March 17, 2007 - 18:44 ET by WhichWingHere's a debate. You are a complete jackass. Why don't you go back and reread what I said. I was stating my reason for coming to this site. I bet you feel pretty tough gathering with all your yes-men and bashing people with opposing views. Can't you be in the least bit civil at any time? Is calling you a jackass the only way to communicate with you?? You don't need to respond to this either, I'm sure we can all assume that you'll chime in to tell me what a fool I am, so save the bandwidth.
Fox is more fair and balanced
March 18, 2007 - 04:18 ET by Dan The Man 2Fox is more fair and balanced in the issues and the people they have on to discuss them. I listen to NPR from 7 to 10 and you talk about biased. I have also seen the otehr nets and they dont come close to being balanced. Part of it is eh stories they select and par of it is the news readers. You can hear it in thier voices.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.
If by "the right"
March 17, 2007 - 08:19 ET by sarcasmoIf by "the right" you mean big government "conservatives" such as the three RINOs Fox and the lefty-networks are blatantly-pushing, I agree. If instead you think Fox News somehow is in any way biased in favor of smaller government, please check how many times they've interviewed Dennis Kucinich, who like it or not is basically a socialist on many issues. Then count, on no-fingers, how many times they've interviewed (or even covered) the candidate who shall not be named on Fox News. So, let's go over the bias again, slowly and simply: Fox News bias? "Borrow and spend warfare-state." Rest of the "mainstream" media's bias? "Tax and spend welfare-state."
JMR
I thought LIbertarians were open minded
March 17, 2007 - 19:00 ET by exLibThanks for helping me learn that Libertarians are very closed minded as well.
Pretty narrow view on life and politics
Only in a world where "
March 18, 2007 - 01:44 ET by sarcasmoOnly in a world where "narrow" actually-means "inconveniently-correct," but with no arguments whatsoever to counter mine, I can see how you'd rather call libertarians names. I once-again stand by my words.
JMR
Fair and balanced to some arguments
March 17, 2007 - 19:21 ET by exLib1 -
I believe that people are trained to believe liberal media bias is the norm.
Until 1996 liberal media bias was the norm, when Fox came out it was such a shock to liberals, who run the media, that they started screaming. Since they run the media their message gets out quicker and to a wider audience and thus the impression by others that they are somehow an "Arm" of the GOP.
Similarly Fox now has a comedy news show similar to SNL's news show. Again people are so brainwashed by all the Republicans are mean-spirited, angry, liars and that Democrats only problems lie in that they are "Immoral" and can't play "hardball" like those mean nasty republicans. (This is also what The Daily Show relies on too).
So I go to Youtube to see if this really funny bit about Barrack Obama (BO Magazine) was on and it was. It got totally panned as not funny. Realize that most youtubers think Keith Olberman is the bomb.
So even in humor people are led down a liberal bias and wouldn't know "fair or balanced' if it hit them in the head.
2nd.
Fair and Balanced depends also on what your position is on the argument.
- If you think the debate about Homsexuality should not include quotes from the bible then by all means Fox is biased. Also, if you think the debate is basically closed and that those on the Christian Right are whackos, Fox is biased.
- If you think the debate on abortion should not include the phrase "Abortion is Murder" than Fox is biased.
- If you think Democrats faux paus should be ignored becuase they are usually not important. After all, it's "personal" then Fox is biased.
- If you think guns should be controlled by the governement and all stories about gun control should be to prove that guns are dangerous and should be controlled. FOX is biased.
- If you think Republican are basically criminals and even suggestions or acuusations should be immediately reported Fox is biased.
- If you think the terms Moderate apply to those on the left and that anyone to the right of Lincoln Chaffee is either Far-Right or VERY Conservative. Fox is Biased.
- If you think Ruth Bader Ginsberg is a moderate Justice, Fox is biased.
- If you think George Bush is a Radical Right-Winger, Fox is biased.
Just curious: in your world,
March 16, 2007 - 23:23 ET by Del DolemonteJust curious: in your world, which network is the "propaganda arm" of the DNC?
That's not fair Del Monte
March 17, 2007 - 08:20 ET by SportPoliticsThat's not fair Del Monte. Magic isn't allowed on the forums.
.
.
How many more libs will suddenly disappear.
M J B = More Jibberish &
March 17, 2007 - 08:32 ET by Dave RM J B = More Jibberish & Bullsh*t.
At least, that is what I see at the top of your trollish, ignorant posts. I am sure the libs employed at FNC really appreciate you calling them the "propaganda arm of the RNC."
You are beyond an ignoramus. You are an ignoranus, and probably a product of a government school, you un-educated idiot.
This Republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.- Neal Boortz.
Can you actually back up your
March 16, 2007 - 23:16 ET by Del DolemonteCan you actually back up your allegations about Fox News with credible (key word, CREDIBLE) cites? That means no quoting "Media Matters", etc. Especially since numerous polls have shown that the vast majority of journalists for major media outlets are overwhelmingly aligned with the Democratic Party...I won't even bother to bore you with the major scandals CNN has had, such as Peter Arnett, "Tailwind", their CEO Eason Jordan having to resign in disgrace after falsely accusing US troops of murdering journalists in Iraq, and so on.
In fact, a poll done after the 1992 election, approximately 90 percent of the national media people admitted who they voted for-and it wasn't Bush 41. In addition, the Associated Press is controlled by two hard-left brothers who are Democrats, and some of their major and most widely quoted "reporters", namely Lara Jakes Jordan and Jennifer Loven, are married to Democratic Party operatives.
By the way, for a simple exercise, try going to the Fox News website some time, and click on all of the news stories you find there. I think you will be surprised to see that the majority of the stories they carry come from the Associated Press. You're confusing the Fox news commentators, who are only on 3 hours a night, with the remainder of the 24 hour news cycle.
If "Faux News" was as powerful as you folks think it is, Bush would have a 90 percent job approval rating, and the 2006 elections would have been a clean sweep for the GOP. Didn't happen.
Not cite Media Matters? That'
March 16, 2007 - 23:24 ET by BillAdkinsNot cite Media Matters? That's funny - you want proof and you want to make the rules. Media Matters is the trump card here, Del. www.MediaMatters.org. Dead on proof, tons of proof, overwhelming proof that FOX News is right wing to the extreme. Next thing you'll be saying is that Regnery Press is not biased or that Robert Tyrell is credible.
I used to think Jimmy Carter was the worst president in history - then along came George W. Bush.
I go over there and visit you
March 16, 2007 - 23:42 ET by NL207I go over there and visit your friends on MM once in a while, just to drill them a new as*****. They need it. Most of their story lines are the most ridiculous tripe, nothing of real substance. They get all in a dither about stuff that Glenn Beck and Limbaugh have to say. Probably half or more of their material is bashing conservative commentators and editorialists for being conservative. It totally escapes them that the mainstream media's journalists are actually operating as liberal editorialist disguised as journalists. They get wrapped around the axle about small stuff. Very few of their threads treat topics that are of any real interest to conservatives, which is why I don't spend much time there.
They are strictly second string, B teamers all the way. I enjoy mopping the floor with those clowns when I get bored. To paraphrase a truly great American, Media Matters could not debate their way out of a piss soaked paper bag.
I like watching their videos at mediamatters
March 17, 2007 - 08:24 ET by SportPoliticsI like watching their videos at mediamatters. I end up applauding, for the conservative, of course. Then I read their analytic opinion, and I laugh my tinnski off. It's a great source of entertainment. I very much appreciate them, because they post the videos where the truth is told, by the conservative they hate. LOL
It's great.
BA...This is what we the good
March 16, 2007 - 23:43 ET by bigtimerBA...
This is what we the good guys have to beware of...you and all your ilk have quite a humongous network built up...now don't you?
We will fight you...all the way.
http://discoverthenetwork.org/
Any conservatives interested study this network of leftists...it is spooky...I haven't had time to look all of it over yet...going to though. You may want to bookmark it.
That evil Tom Delay warned of these groups today on Rush.
Bill,You, like M J B, are an
March 17, 2007 - 08:39 ET by Dave RBill,
You, like M J B, are an un-educated idiot. And probably a union member, to boot.
You dislike the FNC for only one reason. They take the trouble to report things about the Marxist/Leninists that the liberal (former) MSM refuse to.
I'm further guessing you're too stupid to have a job in the private sector. You probably work for the government.
This Republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.- Neal Boortz.
Here's my letter.JMRYour ar
March 16, 2007 - 19:11 ET by sarcasmoHere's my letter.
JMR
Your article says:
"...it's difficult to argue that mainstream news organizations operate with anything approaching Fox' partisan and ideological agenda."
You're right. Dan Rather's CBS document-forgery, for example is evidence of no Democrat agenda whatsoever at CBS.
And as for Fox News, they're obviously the channel for fans of small government like me, because they've been SO fair to Dr. Ron Paul & the other early Republican candidates who aren't northeastern RINOs.*
Just like all the lefty-networks, come to think of it....It's almost as if "both sides" actually want the size of government to grow, and want manipulate the "2 party system" so that our 'choice' is the usual one: between tax and spend or borrow and spend.
Sheesh. It's people like you who make decent sarcasm so-easy, so I guess I need to thank you for that, but you're not living in the world of my FISCALLY conservative reality. You're living in la-la land, in more ways than one... Please open your eyes to the real bias.
JMR
* 0 coverage for Dr. Paul, vs CONSTANT COVERAGE for Kucinich is the current Fox News "journalism" record. Goose-egg. And if that is what passes for "conservative bias" it's no wonder the left seems to see no bias on the leftynetworks. Here's the truth, they ALL HAVE A SEVERE & OBVIOUS ANTILIBERTARIAN BIAS PROBLEM!!!!
"The budget should be balanced, the treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt." Cicero, circa 63 B.C.
Face Time is right
March 16, 2007 - 19:27 ET by Behind the Lines in MaineNina Easton is indeed getting more face time than her husband and much of it is on FNC's Special Report with Brit Hume and Fox News Sunday. Hmmmm.
Bias
March 17, 2007 - 08:31 ET by SportPoliticsI watched an hour of Ron Paul announcing his run for the Presidency a couple days ago. I guess sarc missed it.
Nope, I saw it. But I'll gu
March 17, 2007 - 08:40 ET by sarcasmoNope, I saw it. But I'll guarantee you didn't watch any of it on Fox News if you watched it too...I stand by all my words, as usual. Fox News has yet to do this basic, rudimentary political journalism, like it or not, even as this Republican US Representative wins internet polls (see open thread Friday) -- which probably drives you nuts. :)
JMR
He thinks Fox is biased
March 17, 2007 - 02:11 ET by kiwikitso that's enough for me to expect little from any of his columns. We may not be able to boycott TV altogether, although I've not watched anything but sports on the networks for more than a decade, but we certainly can avoid paying for their biased viewspapers and viewsmagazines. I never even read Charles Krauthammer if all I can find is WAPO. I'd rather wait for his publication in Townhall. I spend my time reading blogs I trust rather than the viewsmedia whose bias provides only liberal / DNC seminar spin.
Well just from the headline
March 17, 2007 - 02:43 ET by Right2thePointWell just from the headline of this post my reaction is
Yes, sure but "free at last"!
Now lets go on to "something completly different".
I used to get this little n
March 17, 2007 - 11:55 ET by daveinbocaI used to get this little nobody confused with Howard Fineman, who actually makes sense and is relatively open-minded.
You usually see twaddle like RB has just drooled onto the LAT network from B-listers who are just about ready for a reality TV stint.
Funny how Liberals equate Liberals equate
March 17, 2007 - 19:37 ET by exLibFunny how liberals equate Talking heads with leaders.
Ever notice how Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh are the ones the media trots out as if they are elected officials?
They always point out when these people say controversial things and then challenge actual Republican Elected officials to refute what they said.
On the other hand, Democrat Leaders say some of the darndest things (Howard Dean), and the media yawns.
If not for FOX NEWS we would probably never know about it. Or fewer people would.
Of course the Liberal Talking heads never get in the news no matter how outrageous their comments on the air can be.