Democrats might have their first effective media push back in sixteen years.

No, the question is: Why didn't anyone (and I mean anyone) ask WHERE/HOW that kid could have gotten into the baloon? Did you see an opening/door?

" Fox stands to become the first network to actively try to kill its viewers. "

-and how is this a bad thing?

I love how the pundits were talking this AM that the White House shouldn't get into a dispute with Fox because Fox would turn on them, as if they're not anti-Obama 24/7 already.

If the aren't a news organization, why not revoke their press passes?

The problem isn't just Fox, or even mainly Fox, although they are an execrable masquerade as a news organization. The problem is the false assumption in all network news that every viewpoint has a valid, legitimate opposing view. And that the media's job is simply to put both out there rather than doing actual reporting. To me, David Gregory on Meet the Press is a bigger failure than Fox. I had high hopes for him- until I saw that he was more interested in keeping his job and staying on the good side of his guests than on doing his job.

It's a sad commentary on organizations that spend- and make- millions off the news, that the only place to get an unbiased, unvarnished look at the truth is on the Daily Show. And all they have to do is search archives for video footage of person A saying the exact opposite of what he/she said, because person A knows that the network and cable news (except for MSNBC) will never publicly and prominently call out their lies and hypocrisy. Witness the sudden Republican concern for deficit control and sacrosanct Medicare. Witness the about face of all of the Republicans who are now so concerned about fraud in ACORN (which may or may not have cost the federal government a few hundred thousand dollars) and their unwillingness to deal with Halliburton, defense contractors costing the gov't tens of billions, and the total lack of concern about lost cash in the billions flown on C-130's to Iraq.

If you want to see journalists like Chuck Todd, the late Tim Russert, New York Times reporters, and others royally skewered for their gross failures to uphold the tenets of their profession, you don't have to go any farther than Glenn Greenwald's blog on Salon.

Hm. And if we apply the "Fox" isn't a news organization logic fairly, I guess we should yank MSNBC's license as well -- since it's transparently partisan "tingle down the leg" is exactly the same partisanship people accuse Fox of doing (but from the other side)? Or, perhaps, it isn't that people actually want to apply a standard to everyone fairly, but merely silence those who dare to disagree with them?

I guess we should yank MSNBC's license as well -- since it's ... exactly the same ...?

Baloney! Between Morning Joe, Andrea Mitchell, Alex Witt (?), Chris Matthews and Pat Buchanan, there is clearly no love toward Dems. And Olbermann, Schultz and Maddow don't come close to the nonsense that Beck, Hannity or O'Reilly pull. Can you imaging a Fox interviewer slamming a Dem and then starting the interview with, "did I get anything wrong?"

Ah, the usual false equivalence troll shows up, with an added dose of strawman "censorship" provided. Dear heart, considering the stories that MSNBC has pushed and the people it has hired, the mere existence of Olbermann and Maddow is hardly sufficient to to claim that the network is "transparently partisan."

When you can find a network where *everything* is blatantly gamed to the left, we'll be happy to condemn it with you. Until then, I'm afraid that we'll just have to content ourselves with mocking you and laughing at you.

For the record, dear, nobody here is talking about shutting down Fox or "yanking its license" or "silenc[ing] those who dare to disagree." These are all lovely little strawman arguments that exist solely in your own little mind. We're simply talking about treating it precisely as it is: a propaganda outlet for the Republican Party.

Do feel free to come back when you have something substantive to add to the discussion, won't you?

spyder, get a new schtick. That whole "liberal media" lie was already old and tired when Nixon started saying it nearly 40 years ago.

"European-style partisan journalism has no place in the American press." There, try that.

Check out this ham-handed editing job by CNN of Obama's speech in San Francisco Friday evening:

http://bicsplace.blogspot.com/2009/10/at-least-he-still-has-sense-of-humor.html

I think we all need to fight Fox. We shouldn't allow Rupert to profit from promoting America's self-destruction in the name of patriotism. We need an organized boycott of all Rupert's properties, not just Fox News.

For those with short (American Style) memories one need go back no further than Friday afternoon, for several hours of continuous covers on CNN, FOX, and MSNBC- of a RUNAWAY BALLOON. . .

-and try checking out LINK TV and FSTV for an alternate view of the 'news'- as well as coverage of REAL NEWS that never surfaces on NBC,CBS, or ABC.

What I find shocking is that the Limbaugh show is the radio show that is broadcast to our troops overseas.

Fox News: Even the name is Orwellian.

It's about time someone in an official capacity publicly states the obvious, that Fox is the fabled emperor who has no clothes.

FOX beats all of the other cable news networks in the ratings. Of course they will emulate them. None of them are "news" shows. That's the problem.Unfotunately, this just keeps FOX News as the story. That's exactly what they want.

the answer to (a) and (b) is the same: Fuz Nuz has a monster megaphone. Few opponents can match it. Obamadmin is taking on a tiger. Other MSM outlets have no reason to, they want a piece of the neanderthal Fuz Nuz audience, and everyone else is too small not to get crushed individually. The left blogs have had success among themselves, but that's preaching to the choir.

Perhaps the basis of a legal challenge to Fox News might be that its one-sided "news" and commentary constitutes an illegal in-kind corporate contribution to the Republican party.

Of course, the Supreme Court might respond by asserting that corporations are really "persons" with First Amendment rights.

Since we're on the media subject, may I ask a tangential question: Rush is saying, some racist quotes from him were made up. That should be easy to check, and hard for him to get away with accusing. Well, has the checking been done, what did they look at, etc? BTW it is scandalous if Rush is still the main radio talk show for the military - how come the Dems won't stop that relationship?

BTW the attacks on Faux Noise are great, but it would still look better for Obama to appear on FN just so they can't use that for complaint.

Hey - how many saw "The Rock Obama" on SNL last night? It was great, and I wish Obama would really be more like the Rock character (Dwayne Johnson, in an apparently unannounced cameo.) Not literally (well, to see that arm come off McConnell would be a buzz?), but he could be tougher. (Assuming the meme that he isn't, is true!) And also in that skit, with "McConnell" admitting that a key purpose of their fighting health care reform is to prevent Obama from a victory.

Of course, the Supreme Court might respond by asserting that corporations are really "persons" with First Amendment rights.

Will respond, will respond. It is coming this term.

Sure global warming is a problem but be haven't yet thorougly discussed whether water is wet, and if wet, how wet, and that will take time and nuance and hem hawing. As the opposition points out ice is not wet and who is to say water vapor is wet?

Fuck fox.

The pussy democrats should stop pussyfooting and get on with the work that needs doing. China grows at 8% and we are busy talking about whether to take flu shots and how Obama is a muslim kenyan antichrist socialist fascist bipartisan fantatist addict.

Calling bullshit on the insane confederate republicans must be done but it doesn't take more than five minutes out of the day. If only the pussy democrats were more concerned about the nation and less concerned about their stupid little hepower plays. The idiots are getting their asses kicked by the crazy.

The more people watch Fox the worse the Republican party does.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/08/is_fox_news_bad_for_the_gop.php

All broadcast networks are profit driven enterprises.

If there were no audience for what they broadcast, they would not exist as they are. They would be forced to change or fail.

I read every comment here, and they are nothing more than a call for censorship against others who do not agree with their own point of view.

You don't like it , don't listen to it. You want to boycott Murdock's businesses, do so. That is your right.

I would ask you all to reconsider your support for goverment interference in what other people wish to listen to, eat, drive, and watch.

Isn't there a that goes something like, " I do not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it".

There will come a time when those who have the power to regulate do not agree with your point of view either. Then what will you do?

The Obama Administration can ignore the conservative media but conservatives are irrelevant to the political process in the U.S. Demographic changes will ensure that the conservatives stay irrelevant so why should the Democrats bother to waste time appealing to them.

"I read every comment here, and they are nothing more than a call for censorship against others who do not agree with their own point of view.

You don't like it , don't listen to it. You want to boycott Murdock's businesses, do so. That is your right."

Forgive me for not reading deeply enough, but I haven't seen calls for censorship here. *One* post said we should revoke Fox's WH press corps privileges (won't happen; the bar for being in the 'press corps' is very low and frankly should be), but other than that, it seems the overwhelming consensus is that Fox is not a news org and shouldn't be treated as such (either by us, its consumers, or by politicians who want to get serious policy discussion out).

In fact, you can even see "For the record, dear, nobody here is talking about shutting down Fox or "yanking its license" or "silenc[ing] those who dare to disagree."" on the third screen down from the top.

So ... ummmm ... what comment thread are you reading which is calling for censorship of Fox Newslike Entertainment, Inc?

IMHO, the proper response to Fox and its brethren (Drudge and WorldNetDaily online, Rush et al on the radio) is to treat them like the "entertainment" shows they are. The only problem is they aren't nearly as funny as The Onion. But, I'd never think that the President should include The Onion in his Sunday policy-push circuit. The same is true of the other fake news outlets.

I like this approach, it is sound. The WH should school the other MSM outlets as well for facts/investigative tact/investigative proof of facts (hell, investigative proof of tact!), there needs to be some journalism, somewhere in the Gawd forsaken country!

nonsensical stories that legitimate news outlets pursue because they're aired on Fox News

That says it all about the real "legitimacy" of other "news outlets".

When Murdoch was accused of bias in Australia he successfully made the case that his managers do not issue instructions to staff on how stories should be covered.

They don't have to - the staff know why they were hired, and what their job is.

That it works so well says more about us than them.

Perhaps the administration can stop talking to Juan Williams and Mara Liasson while they're at it. Can NPR please get rid of its "reporters and analysts" who shill for Fox? How can NPR, with a straight face, defend having its employees be part of a partisan broadcast network?

CP,

No one, not even the White House is saying that Fox should not be on the air/cable. The whole point, that you seem to have missed, is that Fox is (as you admit) broadcasting a selective point of view. This is only a problem because Fox calls itself a news organzation, not a point of view organization.

It is a straw man argument to say that the WH and Progressives want Fox off the air. That is not what this post is saying. What is being said is that any participation with Fox will be with recognition that they are not what they purport to be, but rather are a broadcast arm of the Republican Party.

There’s no need whatsoever for censorship or any type of Fairness Doctrine.

The answer to bringing honesty back to the media is simple; Incur huge fines against any “news” outlet or political opinion host that intentionally promotes a known falsehood.

It’s a big ol’ can of worms, but what the hell. As citizens, we need honest jounalism, and as a Nation, we need the revenue. Nothing would please me more than watching Fox, Beck, O’Rielly and Rush take a big wet bite of the deficit.

..but rather as a broadcast arm of the Republican Party.

All broadcast networks are profit driven enterprises

It's a lobbying operation, in other words.

I don't want them censored, I just want them to register like all the other lobbyists.

Journalism has always been partisan, and how partisan it is is frequently decided by the ears of the listener or the eyes of the reader/viewer. Faux Fox News is merely the electronic reincarnation of the Hearst newspapers. Hearst, like Murdoch, didn't care about the country as much as he did about his bottom line; and the Hearst papers were widely read as Fox has a lot of viewers. Ideology is secondary, but for both of those media organizations the theme is/was always some sort of pernicious nationalism with an authoritarian slant. So not so much is new here. The script is the same only the players and the technology have changed.

Every administration has to be able to control the message, if not the messenger, or watch as its critics and opponents frame it in the most negative terms imaginable. That is Obama's problem. Yes, he could, and probably should, pull all of Fox's credentials for the White House Press corps. The Rethug administrations and most likely Clinton's, all used access as a cudgel to control the media, and ultimately Obama will have to do some variation on that theme despite his rhetoric about transparency.

What he has to avoid is the appearance of setting the criteria for what constitutes a legitimate media operation. Fox will attack him no matter how his administration treats them, but unless he makes strong efforts to control the message - including NPR's - of a media that both cops out on responsible journalism and/or slants its coverage towards the Rethugs, he will be toast. So far he hasn't shown much backbone in many areas. Ultimately, he will have to play hardball. I have my doubts.

Beck isn't the only Fox person to advocate against vaccination. There's also, at least, Hannity.

To admit that their coverage is slanted by design would violate the American understanding of the media's role in democracy and our idea of what constitutes journalistic fair play.

To admit that their coverage is slanted would violate their viewers' understanding that what it says is true, the truth that everyone else conspires to hide from them. The point isn't that it's partisan or unfair, but that it's false.

What was good enough for Goebbels will be good enough Murdoch/Ailes.

CP sez: "There will come a time when those who have the power to regulate do not agree with your point of view either. Then what will you do?"

Already happened. Regulators made it impossible for anyone but billionaires to control major media. This led to the exclusion of my POV from AM radio (you know, on MY public airwaves) and the general press moving so far right that many claim - and with some sound arguments - that Nixon would be considered a wild-eyed leftist these days. By the lights of much of the Republican party these days, he would be.

What I have to say about this recent statements: AFT.

(About...uh...time)

This whole 'thing' with Fox News has been going on for years. I have heard off hand remarks at private parties and small neighborhood meetings, but never anything in public. It is about time the general public are forced to "see" Fox News for the propoganda vehicle it is. Manipulation of the news is as old as the news--it's just so hard to believe the majority of Americans don't think. They just continue to believe what they want to at the moment.

Goose said that the only place to catch any news is the Daily Show and that's pretty accurate. What Stewart does best, however, is when he calls out the fools on CNN as he did in his story last week about fact-checking the SNL skit. Jon rather pointedly laughed at the network's execrable talking heds permitting guys like Jon Kyl to come on the show, lie and never get called on it.
I don't care about FNC, but at least I know what I'm could get there. CNN, MSNBC, ABC et al? Who knows what you'll get, but there's a less than 50-50 shot that it will be news.

All broadcast networks are profit driven enterprises.

If there were no audience for what they broadcast, they would not exist as they are. They would be forced to change or fail.

I read every comment here, and they are nothing more than a call for censorship against others who do not agree with their own point of view.

You don't like it , don't listen to it. You want to boycott Murdock's businesses, do so. That is your right.

I would ask you all to reconsider your support for goverment interference in what other people wish to listen to, eat, drive, and watch.

Isn't there a that goes something like, " I do not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it".

There will come a time when those who have the power to regulate do not agree with your point of view either. Then what will you do?

Just as stupid as it was the first time you said it, CP.

uneasy said

Already happened. Regulators made it impossible for anyone but billionaires to control major media. This led to the exclusion of my POV from AM radio (you know, on MY public airwaves)

Thanks for the good post.

Are you then, in favor of deregulation of the airways, or just regulation that supports your POV?

Did you agree with Air America's point of view? If you did that's good. It is your POV.

Howevever, not enough people did agree because Air America went broke trying to sell ads.

When the government sells mining rights or drilling rights to a "for profit" enterprise, we then no longer have those rights. We have the money we received for those rights. We can no longer expect to then control the output of those enterprises. It is the same with "airways rights"

Horseshit.

"Airways rights" are not sold.

Not sure if that comment is just ignorant, stupid, or downright dishonest.

We license the airwaves - in the public interest. Licensees own only their equipment and have to meet specific requirements for renewal of that license. At one time, one of those requirements was that blatantly political broadcasts had to provide equal time to the opposing viewpoint. That doctrine survived every court challenge - but not Ronald Reagan, who decided to stop enforcing it.

Your comment - like the other - is sheer BS.

PS: Air America is not on in Houston - the fourth largest city in the nation - even though we have a Democratic mayor and Democratic city council.

IOW, in a city with a majority Democratic audience, Air America is not now and has never been available!

My son, who lives there, tells me that it isn't even available in Austin anymore!

So much for "Public airwaves."

About time. Maybe someone in the WH reads The Daily Howler...

Fox "News" is an advocacy organization and it should be treated like one. Pulling their White House "press" credentials would not be silencing them, it would mererly be treating them the same way other DC advocacy organizations -- and true news operations -- are treated in Washington.

Fox doesn't air alternate points of view, they don't fact check, they make baseless, repugnant personal accusations about leading Democratic officials on-air, they rile up anti-Obama crowds before filming them.

Fox isn't news, it's theatrical, right-wing advocacy, a purely Roger Ailes invention. Just because people stand there in suits speaking with a microphone into a camera doesn't make it news.

Dear Tom said:

Forgive me for not reading deeply enough, but I haven't seen calls for censorship here. *One* post said we should revoke Fox's WH press corps privileges (won't happen; the bar for being in the 'press corps' is very low and frankly should be), but other than that, it seems the overwhelming consensus is that Fox is not a news org and shouldn't be treated as such (either by us, its consumers, or by politicians who want to get serious policy discussion out).

Well Dear Tom, how should we treat them? If the posters here are not calling for government action what are they calling for? People to not watch them, or boycott them as I suggested? Or, are they calling for government intervention? What else is there? Who is to make Fox News call themselves something other that what they call themselves? The only two choices are Government intervention or their investors.

Why the need for sarcasm and attempted insult on you part Dear Tom? Is a civil conversation beyond your means?

Uneasy

My apologies if I am wrong.

How are airway rights distributed then?

Could you or I get one and broadcast ?

Uneasy
Is the reason that Air America was not on the air in Houston because the people who are responsible for the bottom line at the radio stations in Houston made a decision that they did not think it would be profitable, or is it a result of "vast right wing conspiricy?

As much as I detest that little prick ( in my humble opion) Sean Hannity is on. He sells ad time.

Fox News isn't an over-the-air broadcaster. The only spectrum it uses is for its satellite uplinks, and Fox News ≠ Fox Broadcasting.

Requirements that constrain terrestrial broadcasters simply don't apply. Provided their uplinks are on frequency, aren't over-modulated, etc, etc, they're good to go.

And the FCC's interest in cable is purely technical - that the signal stays inside the coax, and doesn't radiate, and is of the right strength when it reaches the consumer, etc. They -- rightly, I think -- have no charter to police cable content.

We would have to buy a station that already had a license (Hello billionaires!) or somehow obtain one that came available in an auction. Yes, If you or I were billionaires, we could buy plenty of stations that are currently licensed.

That goes back to my original point.

Only billionaires need apply.

If it chose, the government, representing the public interest could reshuffle that in any one of several ways. Stations now control licenses, they don't own em.

Personally, I think it is time for a redeal.

Thanks UnEasy

Then the broadcast rights are sold much the same way as mining or drilling rights. Thanks for the clarification and validation.

Business' respond to their bottom line.

I would ask that everyone read an article in the most recent issue of the Rolling Stone about how naked short selling, and outright corruption, brought down Bear Sterns. They are avialable online now. There is another article by the same writer in an earlier issue (one or two months prior) about Goldmen Sachs specifically. Please read it as well. The furor about Fox News' biased opinions are a tempest in a tea pot.

The real problems in our country are not our divisions of Libs vs Conservs, red vs blue, white vs black. These are diversions from what is really going on.

The Anti Trust Division of the Justice Department has failed us. If a business is too big to fail, it should be too big to exist.

Thank you all for you conversation and your point of view.

My apologies to Dear Tom for not engaging in useless name calling.

I'm outtta here.

How about passing a law so that you can choose which cable channels you pay for (instead of bundling the politically favored under basic cable). Then faux's audience would only be the ones dumb enough to pay for them, and the same for the xtians begging me to tithe them.

ISTM, though, that the real target for the Obama White House's blasts at Fox News isn't Rupert Murdoch and his merry gang, but the rest of the so-called "MSM": who have been so p*ss*-wh*pp*d by right-wing gasbags over trite charges of "liberal media bias" for so many years now, that they have internalized and don't (or don't want to) even recognize it for the b*llsh*t it is.

"Outing" Faux News as the partisan freakshow it has always been may finally put some spine (one hopes) into real news outlets, who are still all too prone to mindlessly accept GOP talking points, ginned-up "scandals" and bogus outrages-du-jour at face value - all in the name of "balance", of course - out of quaking fear that Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck will squawk "bias" at them. If Obama can grab a shovel, and get to work clearing some of the BS out of this country's pathetic media, more power to him.

Oh, and roundly f--- the wingers' whinges about "censorship" and "silencing" - calling a biased and partisan network out for their slants isn't shutting them down (like Jim DeMint's new BFFs in Honduras have done). In a free media market, we have the option to vote with our remotes. It's called "freedom of choice".

Why is this a big deal? Murdoch has found quite a niche and is making good money. If that's a problem, then other networks should attempt to chip away at Fox's market share.

However, when CNN trots out schoolchildren to sing a song asking for Obama to reform health care, you can tell that's not happening.

CBS looked asinine when it allowed Dan Rather to expose the forged memo. I don't remember the White House going at great lengths to avoid CBS after that.

Let each media outlet decide how they want to present their coverage. It's their right. And the White House has the same right to use or not use whichever outlets they see fit.

Well Dear Tom, how should we treat them?

As a propaganda organization for the Republican Party, roughly equivalent to what Pravada used to be for the Soviet Union. This isn't rocket science.

If the posters here are not calling for government action what are they calling for?

Perhaps you could read what the posters are actually saying instead of simply making shit up?

People to not watch them, or boycott them as I suggested? Or, are they calling for government intervention? What else is there?

Quite a lot, actually.

Who is to make Fox News call themselves something other that what they call themselves? The only two choices are Government intervention or their investors.

Um, has it really escaped your notice that the calls to action have nothing to do with Fox News itself? That we are talking about how others relate to, and treat, Fox News? That we're fine with the Fox News decision to be a propaganda outlet? That we simply want people to recognize that they are, in fact, a propaganda outlet and to treat them accordingly? Do try to keep up.

Has any president in the past ultimately succeed in a battle against a major media outlet?

"That we simply want people to recognize that they are, in fact, a propaganda outlet and to treat them accordingly?"

Have you noticed anything about the current site we're on, re: a media platform that may be, possibly -- I know this is a stretch -- have a consistent, instransigent preference for one particular ideological species; in terms of the tone of the usual commenters, lust for coercion comes to mind actually.

Propaganda's like a-box-a-chocolates. CNN's Anderson "I brought 'Teabagger' slur to national news" Cooper makes Chris Wallace look like Ben Franklin.

Some day when, more likely if, y'all grow up you're gonna have a little chuckle about your awkward totalitarian period...

hurra!

Tao
Someday when, more likely if, y'all sober up you're gonna wish that there was a delete command to use a day later.

To successfully use condescension, a lucid train of thought is necessary.

My apologies if this seems like an ad hominem comment. It is posted with the best of intentions. A local AA chapter is in the phone book, and I bet you could Google it as long as you are still on line.

Dems have the startings of the proper formula:

1- Label FOX for what it is....a GOP propaganda arm

Now it needs to take two more steps:

2- Refuse to appear on it in any form and....

3- Don't mention this again.....just do it.

It will drive FOX nuts and they'll start running clocks on the air and bleating....Just don't respond....ignore them, marginalize them, let them rot.

Murdoch hating on America...

A partial list, with help from the fake Jack Bauer.
One can only imagine what a full run down would look like:

• Fox host Bill O'Reilly advocates a terrorist attack on San Francisco.

• Fox host Glenn Beck has repeatedly fantasized about murdering Americans on-air (fantasized about murdering an American filmmaker, discussed poisoning an American politician, said he wanted to kill an American politician with a shovel).

• Fox guests have repeatedly advocated for terrorism while the Fox hosts have listened without interruption.

• Fox guest Liz Trotta said the President should be murdered.

• Fox guest Michael Scheuer advocated a terrorist attack on American soil.

• Murdoch's hate puppet Hannity drums up hate for the good old US of A.

• Murdoch's Beck Monster fomenting racial animosity: The president is a guy who has a deep-seated hatred of white people.

They -- rightly, I think -- have no charter to police cable content.

A bit off topic, but does this mean that this is the reason that the only really great television on air - for example, The Sopranos, The Wire, Deadwood - has survived the thought police?

Murdoch is the perfect embodiment of the entrepreneurial sociopath, an equally perfect reflection of the sociopaths running the financial industry on the other side of the cosmic mirror of capitalism.

A tale of two marches on Washington....

One took place in the late summer of 1963, the other in the late summer of 2009. One was promoted by a preacher from Georgia named Martin Luther King, the other by a former "shock jock" from the state of Washington named Glenn Beck. Ouch! Even mentioning the two of them in the same paragraph is somehow disconcerting.

In 1963, the the people were singing, We Shall Overcome.

Forty-six years later, the chant was, We Shall Undermine.

In 1963, a vast and varied demographic of the American people - all races and religions - descended on the nation's capitol to peaceably and nonviolently protest an injustice that was occurring in certain areas of the country to people of a certain skin pigmentation.

Forty-six years later, a Convention of Pissed-Off White People - united only by the fact that they were all habitual viewers of a single cable news channel - rolled into Washington to hurl invective at an African American president for creating a mess that he had absolutely nothing to do with creating.

In 1963, the signs people held up were optimistic: "With Liberty and Justice for All."

Forty-six years later, the signs were ominous: "We Came Unarmed - THIS TIME!"

On August 28, 1963, the hearts of people who marched on the city of Washington DC were filled with love and hope.

On September 12, 2009 they were just full of shit.

Let us boil the comparisons down to their juicy essentials, shall we? Martin Luther King had a dream. Glenn Beck has a scheme.

http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY

Fox News is the equivalent of the tabloids at your supermarket checkout and it appeals to the same demographic. Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes see this as a market to be exploited and they have done so with a vengence. The 'sucker born every minute' meme is music to their ears and it has made them very wealthy - capitalism at its best I'd say and they're laughing all the way to the bank.

Back before Fox was a cable channel, it was a local TV station in Atlanta. They started a program called 'Cops' that everyone has seen by now. That program routinely showed minority and uneducated people having their rights violated in the course of police action. This, IMHO, was a propaganda message to minorities, the uneducated and police officers, that this sort of behavior was more than just all right, it was the wave of the future to be embraced whole heartedly. It's now that future. Thanks, Fox TV, for right wing propaganda that's been eroding our rights. Thanks, Mr. Murdock, for making this happen around the country and around the world.

Redspyder. Get back to me with your "MSNBC is a leftist outfit" schtick when MSNBC "mislabels" a disgraced, scandalized Democrat with an (R) for the umpteenth time.

Let us just ask Glenn Beck if he is going to get vaccinated. He is declining to say - after his rants about the Government's involvement in H1N1. Is he or isn't he?

Fox COULD be a decent, even excellent, news channel. All it needs to do is copy SkyNews, Murdoch's British news channel. It tends a bit toward the tabloid side, but on the whole SkyNews is a reliable broadcaster of objective, non-partisan, non-sensational news. (Of course it HAS to be because of British regulations, but, hey, it just shows what Murdoch could do if he wanted to.)

The problem with Fox News killing its viewers is that their vaccine-phobes will end up killing the innocent -- i.e., those who don't watch Fox News.

Have you noticed anything about the current site we're on ... in terms of the tone of the usual commenters, lust for coercion comes to mind actually.

Why no, I haven't noticed anything like that. Perhaps you would care to point out a few examples to us? Or were you just making shit up, as so many of your fellow trolls have done? That's a rhetorical question, by the way.

Propaganda's like a-box-a-chocolates.

Not really, not when it's consistent enough, and overwhelming enough, to be blatantly obvious, which is why Fox News passes the test and your lame anecdote about CNN does not.

Some day when, more likely if, y'all grow up you're gonna have a little chuckle about your awkward totalitarian period...

In the meantime, we'll have to content ourselves with laughing at you. Such is life.

How dare we tolerate one, just one, news organization that doen't love and admire our Dear Leader and questions his policies and their results?

ROFL.... And another conservative moron who is incapable of reading. Isn't it interesting how a blog post about a propaganda network brings out the propagandists and the ones who have bought into the propaganda, hook, line, and sinker.

And if there is ever a time when a conservative again wins the Presidency I will be listening for all you leftists who think its ok to silence the those who do not toe the official line - you know: MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, NYT, Washington Post, Kos, Huffington, PBS, NPR, Time, Newsweek,etc, and oh yes, this very site.

Don't you just love idiots who just absolutely, firmly believe that the entire media is liberal, despite all of the evidence to the contrary? And who insists that we are trying to "silence" Fox when, in fact, nobody has proposed that? Hilarious shit.

So much liberal blather about FOX-- but not one fact to support all the claims of bias.

Why don't some of you put up some facts showing how FOX has been unfair ?

That would exclude Hannity and Beck, because they are not news shows. (Mathews and the ahole Olberrman claim to be doing news-- that is their claim. They are so completely biased and out of control, they make Hannity and Beck seem tame)

Let's have some actual news stories that were unfair. Just a few that you actually saw-- not that were made up by liberal bloggers.

Now that I re-read the comments, I realize how completely and totally insane most of you are. You have no facts, no idea what you are talking about-- no clue whatsoever. You just slam FOX, while pretending that the mainstream media is not liberal. You people are scary crazy.

Let's have some actual news stories that were unfair. Just a few that you actually saw-- not that were made up by liberal bloggers...you people are scary crazy

And you obviously are a mouthbreathing idiot. Study upon study has proven Fox's bias, and the examples are too numerous to recount. Here is the broadest possible overview from Sourcewatch:

A year-long study by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA)[9] reported that Americans who relied on the Fox News Channel for their coverage of the Iraq war were the most likely to believe misinformation about the war, whatever their political affiliation may be. Those mistaken facts, the study found, increased viewers' support for the war.

The study found that, in general, people who watched Fox News were, more than for other sources, convinced of several untrue propositions which were actively promoted by the Bush administration and the cheerleading media led by Fox, in rallying support for the invasion of Iraq:

(percentages are of all poll respondents, not just Fox watchers)

* Fifty-seven percent believed the falsity that Iraq gave substantial support to Al-Qaida, or was directly involved in the September 11 attacks (48% after invasion).
* Sixty-nine percent believed the falsity that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11 attacks.
* Twenty-two percent believed the falsity that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. (Twenty-one percent believed that chem/bio weapons had actually been used against U.S. soldiers in Iraq during 2003)

In the composite analysis of the PIPA study, 80 percent of Fox News watchers had one of more of these misperceptions, in contrast to 71 percent for CBS and 27 percent who tuned to NPR/PBS.

As the Washington Post reported[10], "The fair and balanced folks at Fox, the survey concludes, were 'the news source whose viewers had the most misperceptions.' Eighty percent of Fox viewers believed at least one of these un-facts; 45 percent believed all three."

As AlterNet reported, "For each of the three misperceptions, the study found enormous differences between the viewers of Fox, who held the most misperceptions, and NPR/PBS, who held the fewest by far. Eighty percent of Fox viewers were found to hold at least one misperception, compared to 23 percent of NPR/PBS consumers. All the other media fell in between."[11]

The Project for Excellence in Journalism's "State of the News Media 2005" concluded that Fox was "the most one-sided of all major news outlets." On Iraq, 25 percent of 2,000 stories analyzed were negative and 20 percent were positive. "Fox News Channel was twice as likely to be positive than negative, while CNN and MSNBC were evenhanded." Also, "with the exception of Republicans who prefer Fox News," Americans don't seek out news sources that reinforce their beliefs.[12]

In 1998, a Fox station in Tampa, Florida fired investigative reporters Jane Akre and Steve Wilson over a dispute involving their reporting on the Monsanto company's marketing of genetically-engineered bovine growth hormone.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fox_News

This doesn't even begin to address Fox refusing to air presidential addresses to the nation by the CURRENT president, labeling Republicans caught in scandals as Democrats, having a ratio of Republican "experts" dozens of times higher than that of Democrats, and Fox literally airing RNC memo talking points word for word and typo for typo as if they were journalistic questions, et al.

Now toddle along, you fucking tool, and wipe that drool from your face.

Benjamin says, "But the study does not say they got those views from FOX-- only that they claim FOX viewers are more likely to believe it."

So, if I'm reading your 'argument' correctly, you're trying to argue that the views and 'facts' that the survey respondents believe are completely independent of the source of those same views and 'facts'?

Is that basically correct?

Ummmm.... ok. Wow.....