Oh, man. Hannity and Rollins…that’d be a…well, I don’t know what that’d be, but I’d certainly fucking watch it!
It would be a light snack for Mr. Rollins is what it’d be. I think Jello Biafra would humiliate Hannity more resoundingly, though.
Hannity and John Ensign?
Ens-Hannity!
There is no such thing as “fair and balanced.” Everything is filtered through some sort of bias, whether you can identify it or not.
Not sure what the outrage is here. People have agendas and try to promote them. I’m SHOCKED!
It’s more than just promotion of an agenda.
I think it’s the degree in which the head of a news network is wrapped up in the internal machinations of a single political party.
Who’s outraged? The OP isn’t telling people to be outraged, just pointing out that anyone who claims Fox is anything close to “fair and balanced” is either lying or delusional. In fact, even most conservatives will admit that Fox is a right wing operation. They just try to justify it by pretending that the rest of the media is equvalently left wing.
That is still bullshit, of course. There is unconscious bias (which most professional journalists make an effort to be aware of and filter out), and there is intentional distortion of truth and promotion of a political agenda. Fox is a top down propaganda outlet, an an arm of the Republican party. There is no left wing analog for it.
I used to think that Fox News was nothing more than a front for the Republican Party. Lately, it seems apparent that it’s the other way around.
I think it’s good that stupid people have their own channel they can watch.
It’s not their agenda, it pretending it is fair and balanced. If somebody wants to root for their team, fine; but don’t tell you aren’t biased.
That would be about the minimum of what it would take to get me to actually watch Sean Hannity.
If someone wanted to see their name on the BBQ pit front page fairly often, all they need do is start a Fox News Story of the Day thread similar to the SRIotD.
Another interesting profile of Ailes, running this week in Rolling Stone:
Covers a lot of the same ground as the New York piece, but delves more deeply into his history as a political operative and various paranoias.
Anyway I enjoyed this anecdote, about when he first became chief at Fox News:
From the Rolling Stone story I linked to above:
Oh that’s bullshit and you know it. Go out and do some research–they’re positively dwarfed by the reach of the left-wing media elite. Soros et al are influencing the media and … and … and oh crap, I can’t even type this with a straight face.
Anyway, here’s a bit from that bastion of journalism and truthiness, Foxnation.com.
Soros-Funded Lefty Media Reach More Than 300 Million Every Month:
Is it me or are they including the entire NPR audience?
nm. I got momentarily whooshed.
…What?
Other people have already pointed out the issue with this kind of thinking, but you know what else is wrong?
The liberal media corrects itself.
When was the last time you saw a pundit on Fox News say something blatantly wrong, then publically retract it later based on, you know, the facts?
My favorite example of a “Left-Wing Pundit” is Cenk Uygur, the head moderator of “The Young Turks” (he also works for MSNBC and does his daily “Con-Job” segment). You know why? Because he’s just as radical as the people from Fox, but he works with facts. Like, he doesn’t just throw around random opinion claims all that often on political issues, and he cites his sources live. That’s GOOD JOURNALISM. He was also not above praising a local Fox News affiliate for a very strong, unbiased story (just a few days back). But he’s not acting like the people at Fox News, who mistake “Opinion” and “Lies” for “Facts” and “Data”. :rolleyes:
And yeah, he’s the most extreme liberal bias that I know.
Oh, definitely. It’s way up there with the other great puzzles of our age:
[ul][li] Where was Obama born?[/li][li] Is the world really round?[/li][li] Is 2+2 really 4 ?[/li][li] Are right-wingers capable of rational thought?[/li][/ul]
In the not-so-distant future, when an historical account of America’s fall is written, the popularity of FoxNews will be cited with much puzzlement.
[Quote=Fear Itself]
It’s not their agenda, it pretending it is fair and balanced. If somebody wants to root for their team, fine; but don’t tell you aren’t biased.
[/quote]
Back in March, the head of NPR, Vivian Schiller, was forced out after an NPR executive, Ron Schiller (no relation), was taped slamming tea partiers to potential large contributors to NPR, who turned out to be plants. I don’t know about you, but I put way more stock in the journalistic integrity of NPR and found the news about these dismissals very unsettling.
NPR’s statement following the resignations:
“NPR is fair and open minded about the people we cover.”
Sound familiar? Apparently they’re under the same delusions that FoxNews folks are.
No, it doesn’t sound familiar. You are making a false equivalency about one statement made in private with the daily on air bias of the entire Fox News organization that pretends to be journalism. Fox News is dedicated to disseminating false and misleading information on a daily basis. You cannot show any evidence that NPR has ever done that, much less on the scale of Fox News.
No, I do not accept that comparison.
To be fair, the tea party is fucking insane, and there’s not much liberals can do other than bash the shit out of them.