I saw an ad at lunch today for a new show on FoxNews, hosted by Cal Thomas, a former insider with the Moral Majority organization. I hope december was likening himself to Bavarian Royalty based on the first half of that statement, and not the latter half.
No, in your cite,he says
which just means both sides are getting heard. If the liberals had 95% of the media at one time, and now had 70%, the monopoly is ended, but they’d still dominate. I don’t listen much to talk radio, but what I have heard IS fairly conservative. The newspapers and TV reach far larger audiences, and are far more liberal.
Jesus Christ.
Fox News is conservative. To a conservative, conservatism looks “Fair and Unbiased”. The conservative people who control Fox News aren’t LYING when they call themselves unbiased. Mistaken, perhaps.
But what in heck is wrong with a conservative news channel? The only people who think Fox is unbiased are other conservatives. So what? Do you think Fox is tricking liberal people into believing that they are unbiased? Do you really think the average american is too stupid to know that Fox News is the conservative news channel?
The NYTimes slogan is “All the News That’s Fit to Print”. Gee, that’s unnaccurate, since they didn’t cover the local sewer district meeting! Liars! How DARE media companies engage in something so crass as…as…advertising! And sloganeering!
All media outlets are biased. Even ones that try very hard to be objective are biased, if only because they are biased that objectivity is a good thing.
The really important biases of the press aren’t the overt political or philosophical biases. More important are things like how stories are covered. That all reporters, to some extent, must become friendly to their sources or the sources dry up. The tendency to view the media work environment as typical of the average person. The tendency to empathize with the politicians, and to report things from the politicians perspective, whether those politicians are liberal or conservative.
That’s why you have so many stories where you get a quote from a liberal politician, a quote from a conservative politician, and a quote from a man-in-the-street, and that’s it. “Supporters say Plan X is good, opponents say it is bad. Who is right, only time will tell.” What kind of a news story is that? Why not try to figure out which person is actually right? Or mabye that both points of view are wrong? As well as the third, fourth or fifth point of view?
Journalists aren’t robots. They reach conclusions about their stories all the time. But they are expected to bury those conclusions and pretend they don’t exist. But of course, they do. And they come out in how the story is written. But since the story must be “objective”, the bias is disguised.
Bah. That’s why I get all my news from internet message boards. The TRUE voice of the people! I read it on the internet, it must be true.
Onion headline:
Area man gets all his news from internet message boards
It does keep things interesting, though. I love to see Jerry Falwell interviewed on CNN and Barney Frank interviewed on Fox.
lurker, I think you may need to adjust your sarcasm detector.
Correct me if I am wrong, Diogenes
Exactly.
I mean stupid marketing slogan aside (do those marketing moron’s even watch the network?) Fox News really doesn’t make much of an effort to hide their biases (nor does NPR). It tends to make the “interviews” a tad more interesting (if predictible in some cases).
In reading the thread I got a few unintentional laughs from a certain posts. I guess you can fool some of the people all of the time.
IMHO- the most laughably biased news “source” isn’t Fox News or even NPR, but the Washington Times. What a joke that paper is. Shoot, with all of the good conservative news sources (Fox News, WSJ ect) why would anyone willingly read that poorly written mouthpiece of a certain controversial group?
Oh, and Mallard Fillmore sucks too.
Well, I’m thankful that you didn’t malign our greatest president, Herbert Hoover. He and Indian Hater Jackson were polar opposites.
Given Diogenes’ posting history, I don’t think that any adjustment is needed.
Would etc = “talk radio” ? Because that would about cover all the good conservative news sources. The liberals have the rest. 
In what way? Political philosophy? temprement? background? Although, admittedly, Jackson wouldn’t have picked who Hoover did for veep…
Also, how do you figure Hoover was our greatest president?
OK, OK, let the conservatives play in the news game too. Fox isn’t so much conservative as it is a tabloid, joke of a network.
When news about the medication JFK took came out there was a report Fox ran called “1000 Daze” – sounds “fair and balanced” to me.
Yes, those grapes were probably sour anyways.
“talk radio” is a good conservative news source? whatever…
I love to see Barney Frank interviewed anywhere. The man has stones and rock solid good sense. Him against Tucker Carlson would be fun. Cruel, yes, but fun.
I watch Fox News quite a bit, and, in case anyone here doesn’t know, my politics are somewhat left of center. Spin control is interesting intrinsicly, just to observe the mechanism. True, there is some minor danger of mental pollution, but five minutes of Daily Show will put that right.
That, and Mallard Fillmore make a point: conservatives aren’t very funny. By and large, they are stuffy and sententious. P.J. O’Rourke is the only funny conservative out there. (If only he could write one entire book without telling me again about how he used to be a hippy and now has a drinking problem. Bad trade, Peej.)
I love to see Barney Frank, too. He’s wrong on every issue, but he’s bright and witty and entertaining. His facial expressions and his quick ripostes make him a dynamite speaker for you guys.
—the irony of conservative presidents creating brand new federal bureaucracies.—
I’m not sure this is really ironic (and not just in the way that Alanis Morrisette misunderstands what irony is), because conservatism has never been strictly and solely libertarian by any means. Not wanting social programs, opposing the French Revolution, and subsidizing bussiness is not the same thing as not wanting a big government, however commonly the latter cry has often been a short hand for particular reductions.
As my old saw Steve Landsberg pointed out, Bob Dole’s campaign basically rested on two themes: “we need a smaller government”, and “my proudest accomplishments as a Senator”… which was a list of five major things ALL OF WHICH increased the size and scope of government. George Bush I’s final act as President was to sign a law that mandated what sort of shower head you can buy. Nothing new here. Conservatism isn’t just a philosophy of government. It’s a vision of society. And if bigger government is needed to enforce that vision…
Herbert Hoover mostly kept his nose out of the business of Americans. Indian Hater Jackson massacred many thousands of them.
Apos
Honestly, you’re scraping the bottom of the barrel looking for something you can disagree with me about. Republican and conservative promises to reduce the size of government are so commonplace that it practically defines them.
Among the hundreds of Google hits was this, from the website of Republican Congressman, Jeff Flake of Arizona:
Libertarianism is not about reducing the size of government per se, but rather reducing its scope to nothing other than suppression of coercion.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Libertarian *
Honestly, you’re scraping the bottom of the barrel looking for something you can disagree with me about. Republican and conservative promises to reduce the size of government are so commonplace that it practically defines them.
[QUOTE]
Sure, but these promises are lies. Goverment grew by far more under Reagan and Bush I than it did under Clinton. And Bush II is set to grow it the most of all. (Although 911 probably makes that a wise thing to do).