OK, which ones?
Come on, if you can’t name names, then the “some people on Fox News are racists” is just a smokescreen.
Are the racists guests? Commentators? News readers? Reporters? Corporate spokesmen? Rupert Murdoch?
If you can’t name any particular racists on Fox News, then why did you say people on Fox News are racist?
As much as I love this and mostly agree; the media itself is certainly predisposed to telling the little guys melodramatic toned struggle against the domineering faceless large business and/or government organization ala Michael Moore. It’s not that the media is controlled by liberals as much as audiences just liking a ‘Rocky’.
Journalists do like to play Jack-the-Giant-Killer (whether the giant be business, government, an overbearing labor union, a corrupt church, whatever), it’s part of their professional culture. But journalists are usually not their own masters; they take their orders from editors, who take their orders from suits with MBAs, who answer to the boards of huge, diversified conglomerates which might own some of the very businesses some journalists might be interested in investigating/exposing.
You could substitute the word politician for journalist and the statement would be just as true. Industrial/foreign money will always follow politicians.
Reporters, reporters mainly. Names? Sorry, I don’t have many names. It’s just stuff I’ve seen the reporters report, you can read my comments earlier to see examples of instances. And now I’m starting to think racist isn’t the best term, perhaps bigot and/or prejudicial would be better for what I’m trying to say, but I wasn’t really thinking back then. I just have trouble with putting thoughts into clear language sometimes.
I guess sometimes the geusts can be prejudicial and a little bigot, some like Ann Coulter. But the major problem with guests is more so that they get debunked and loudmouthed on more than anything. It’s the reporters that are the main problem.
What’s your take?
http://www.newshounds.us/ Heres a web site that tells you about Fux News and saves your ears and eyes the torture.
Ironically, Murdoch also owns Zondervan the world’s largest Bible publisher. This must counteract the salacious and violent news/entertainment popular with News Corporation.
“Counteract”?!
And.
Forgive? 
The point being that the Bible is purty damn salacious and violent in its own right.
OK, but whats in it for them? How does a more liberal government benefit news corporations?
It doesn’t, unless by “liberal” you mean “averse to government censorship.” You seem to be missing the point. The liberal bias of the media, insofar as it exists, comes mainly from the Jack-the-Giant-Killer professional culture of journalists and the mythos of heroic muckrackers like Linoln Steffens, Edward R. Murrow, Woodward & Bernstein; the conservative bias, which is much more important and pervasive (and generally reflected in things the media choose not to cover rather than in outright lies), is rooted in the media corporations’ nature as businesses with rich owners, and in the concentration of ownership in fewer and fewer companies’ hands that has been proceeding apace ever since the '70s.
To answer the OP’s question: YES, IT IS . Its pure, unadulterated crap!
BrainGlutton, I understand what your saying, but when conservative despots cry ‘liberal media!’ it is often because they view the media as being pro democrat. I ask again, what do conservatives feel the news corporations have to gain by being pro democrat (many of which also have ties with big business).
Oh, they’re just pandering to the people.
All day long I have both Fox news and CNN up on my screens. There’s about a 99% overlap in their reporting.
The main difference in that 1% is in the editorial type content wherein Fox News tends to promote conservatism and debunk liberalism. CNN tends to promote liberalism and debunk conservatism.
After reading both everyday, all day for years, I would observe that CNN is probably the purer news source of the two if it weren’t for global warming. Don’t get me wrong, I think global warming is real it’s just the CNN website seems evangelical about it.
I think if you feel strongly about either source, that qualifies you as a political wing nut.
If they don’t stop picking on poor little Dana Perino, I’m gonna go whup some nancy-newsboy butt! You with me?
Actually, these are not the same questions. There are such things are liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats.
A more liberal government does not imprison journalists for refusing to reveal their sources. A more liberal government does not cry “treason” when a newspaper prints documents that put the current administration in a bad light during times of war. (What was in that the NYT published that caused such a stir two or three years ago?) A more liberal government does not pre-censor. A more liberal government is more concerned with the people’s right to know.
Crackhead, I’m sure you are aware that Obama is not a Muslim. And of course you’ll agree that anyone who would try to mislead another into thinking that he is something that he is not is simply taking advantage of the fears and prejudices that some Americans still hold because of the terrible tragedy that befell our nation. I guess that makes that person just another war profiteer. But she or he is really low to steal votes.
For me, it was Valerie Plame who had me considering switching sides, so I can sympathize, but I think you might be selling yourself cheap if you consider abandoning your unique radical leftism for Perino.