Does Fox give time to liberals? No.
Does MSNBC have Bill O’Reilly there to debate? Yes.
I know, I know! It’s because the Left is lofty and plays fair, while the Right is cynical and plays dirty.
But it’s a shame.
You are ether joking or just being sarcastic.
Sarcasm? Here? On this board? Surely you jest.
Actually Fox News does bring many liberals on, but mainly the ineffectual ones (think along the lines of Alan Colmes). And when they do a get a strong one on there, they usually try to shout them down.
‘lofty’ is just another way of saying ‘full of air’.
I’d rather they start with not putting idiots on to yap about some horribly mangled science story.
I prefer full of helium myself. Just imagine Keith Olbermann doing worst person in the world with the helium voice. Come on, you know you want to!
If we left out mangled science, what would be left for filler news, just kittens and ducks in a crosswalk?
You could possibly, and this is a crazy suggest I know, not HAVE filler news? There is enough news in a day even for CNN to not have any filler news. If CNN really wanted to they could do the 24 hour news cycle without repeating anything ever.
There is more news in an hour of BBC World News America than twenty four on any cable network. Sometimes it’s like comparing The Economist to People.
That is heartbreakingly apt. Why does America want to be so fucking dumb?
We have a winner.
People Magazine? Nah, American news consists mostly of highlights for children.
Fun with a Porpoise!
I’d give somebody $5 if they’d actually produce a segment titled “How Many Indians?”
No, it’s because there is no “liberal media” in America. Not even MSNBC. In America we have mainstream media and RW media and that’s all. There are no LW mass-media analogues to Fox News or the Washington Times or Rupert Murdoch’s papers. LW outlets are limited to overtly political magazines like The Nation and radio networks like Pacifica and Democracy Now! and some blogs.
I dunno, I hope there’ll always be a place for kittens and ducks in a crosswalk . . . though my vision of that scenario is probably a whole lot bloodier than yours . . .
It’s kind of interesting to compare Olbermann vs O’Reilly and their respective, counter-programmed shows.
O’Reilly often has guests on his show that he disagrees with, people involved in whatever story he’s yelling about today. They are usually meek sockpuppets, and he just yells over them. That’s their version of letting the other side have a voice.
On Olbermann, though, he rarely has anybody relevant on the show, just some commentators he can have a back-and-forth with about today’s conservative-related outrage. He almost never has people he disagrees with on the show.
I don’t know which is better on the surface. Olbermann seems more interested in discussing the news, while Orly wants to make the news. But in doing so, at least he’s offering some semblance of debate.
Whatever, who cares.
According to Bernard Goldberg, longtime CBS newsman, this was precisely the view of Dan Rather and most other newsies. They regarded their leftist viewpoints as normal, fair and reasonable, and therefore viewed their slanted coverage as normal, fair and reasonable. To them the country was devided into two groups: normal, reasonable, right-thinking Americans – and right-wing nutjobs.
Too bad for them that at least half the country consisted of right-wing nutjobs (plus addition to a fair number of fence-sitters). For decades, people with right-wing viewpoints had to sit by seething as the MSM portrayed liberals and Democrats in a positive light and pushed the liberal agenda, while at the same time presenting conservatives and Republicans with skepticism, scorn and condescention.
So when Limbaugh came along there was a pent-up market of fair, normal, and reasonable people with right-wing views that for decades had not had much of a voice. FOX picked up on that and created news and commentary shows around it, and met with huge success.
Now, however, they frequently go over the top and present things dishonestly or deceptively and are pandering too much to their overly-passionate fringe. I don’t worry about that particular aspect too much, given that Olbermann/Maddow are the leftie counterpoint. The problem is that without FOX delivering accurate and believable news reports, we on the right once again have nowhere to turn for accurate, unbaised news. There is the huge MSM which, though less biased than it used to be once the public’s perception of it became known and Limbaugh/FOX became so successful, is still very much prone to the lefties’ POV and therefore biased and inaccurate, and FOX, which has now become biased and inaccurate in the opposite direction.
Oh, well…at least the MSM doesn’t have the playing field all to itself.
Ah yes, the mainstream media, so biased in favor of lefties that NBC, ABC, and CNN all had more guests on criticizing the administration’s health care reform effort than supporting and neutral combined. Fox, of course, was no contest.