Unfortunately, this is true. Still, the clip was hilarious. Makes me wanna buy the dude’s book.
The amazing thing is that Ricks isn’t a lefty, at all. He was a slobbering fool for Rumsfeld. But the Republican Party (and Fox News) have apparently swept past him, leaving him outside the bubble to the point where even he can see what an evil bouncy-house of hot air Fox is.
That was hilarious. But Foxnews did not admit to anything - you’ll have to go to the cite in John_Stamos’_Left_Ear’s post for that.
However they did cut their guest off early because he was not parroting their talking points.
Funny stuff.
Just ran across a great editorial at the The Atlanta Journal-Constitution which says this better than I can (and did):
You’re arguing that most media outside of Radio is not liberal? Wow, I was pretty sure that was something most would agree on.
Guess it is a case of seeing things through different color glasses.
Are you going to also argue that Rachel Maddow is not far left?
As a moderate, I like to think I am more without bias than most but maybe in reality she is fan of trickle down economics. 
Rachel Maddow is NOT far left, she is a solid liberal however.
Trust me, I live near Berkeley, I know what far left looks like.
Of course because it’s a myth. I suggest you start a thread about it if you care to actually learn about this because that’s a whole other ball of fish.
No, actually I said she is biased to the left. However she is not indicative of “most media outside of radio.”
And that’s a perfect example of how Fox News viewers think that their right-wing views are actually mainstream, and that everyone but the kooky fringe left agrees with them. Not even the bucket of cold water in the face from three weeks ago can penetrate the tin foil.
The major media outlets are owned by huge corporations. They were cheerleading for the war in Iraq, and pretty much acted as stenographers, rather than investigative reporters, for whatever Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld said, even when it should have been obvious they were lying. The NYT’s Judith Miller breathlessly reported every WMD “find” on page 1, and every time (giving them the benefit of the doubt), some intern wrote a two-line retraction on page 23 a couple weeks later. But all Fox News knows is that Dan Rather once got a source wrong, and therefore, to this day, anything that CBS reports is rejected out of hand as “liberal media bias.”
All the networks, including PBS, have shows devoted to big business and investing. Some, including NBC, even have 24-hour channels devoted to it. When was the last time you saw a show about labor, except in the context of a strike hurting business (or in the case of teachers, our children), or in the context of labor unions having the temerity to support the candidate who has not made the destruction of unions one of his campaign promises?
I do not for even a moment think Fox news is mainstream. I would even go so far as to say that CNN is less biased than Fox. That said CNN is biased and I would posit that EVERY news organization is biased to some degree and that the majority of television news media is liberal.
Not saying that is bad, just an observation.
And on what specifically are you basing this observation?
Is she agitating for the workers to seize the means of production and hang bosses from street lights, or suggesting it as a historical inevitability ? Perhaps does she support popular armed insurrections, and massed disobedience by enlisted soldiers ? Would she hypothetically be in favour of the dictatorship of the proletariat ? Does she advocate enforced equality of income/means, or the abolition of personal property ? Has she ever uttered the phrase “property of use” or “squatting rights” ? Maybe she’s all hopped up on smashing the institutions of government, particularly the federal one, to be replaced by self-determined micro-communes ?
If the answer to any/all of these questions is “no”, she’s not far left.
during the election cycles, after the first debate, every news station gave a majority negative overview of obama while giving a generally positive overview of romney, something like 2:1.
while we can say MSNBC is the counter-lever to Fox, most others try to be actually journalistic and report things as they are. my stats are from a pew study, and i just find it hard to believe if they are all left-leaning that they’d give more favor to romney, which they did.
chart.
*Fox News Channel executive vice president Michael Clemente on Monday responded to the much-discussed interview with Tom Ricks, claiming that the Pulitizer Prize winner apologized privately for criticizing the network’s coverage of the September attack in Benghazi, Libya. In an interview with the Hollywood Reporter, Clemente accused Ricks of using the interview to generate publicity for his new book, The Generals. Clemente also seemed to take exception to the lack of public contrition from Ricks.
“When Mr. Ricks ignored the anchor’s question, it became clear that his goal was to bring attention to himself – and his book," Clemente told THR via email. “He apologized in our offices afterward but doesn’t have the strength of character to do that publicly.”
But that’s news to Ricks, who told THR in his own email that he never offered an apology to Fox — privately or publicly.*
Bee-bee-b-bebeep, This Just In.. Fox “News” now claims that “Many People” heard him apologize..
In answer to the OP: Yes.
Rachel Maddow does have Republicans on her program. And she is forever trying to persuade others to come on her show. They seem a little hesitatant to show up. As have others here, I have heard her make corrections when she said something that was in error – even things that seemed to have no real significance.
“Smarmy”? Oh, please. She has got to be one of the coolest and most unfront commentators on television. I also Tivo Maddow. And I add an extra hour to catch “The Last Word” With Lawrence O’Donnell. Are these commentators liberal? I would think so, but they talk about facts and data. They don’t make blind accusations. The producers do their homework. It was MSNBC, by the way, that had a Republican on their panels for the debates and I believe election night coverage, also.
I have to laugh at their being called “the far left.” Please find another news source than Fox. You (generally speaking) will be better educated for having a better grasp of political terms.
Meanwhile, most Americans depend on such socialist organizations as the public libraries, the United States Mail, police departments, fire departments, highway departments, and public schools.
People who just watch Fox News for information probably don’t understand what the word “socialist” means. That is why I hate Fox News (except for the entertaining madness). Fox leaves people ignorant of facts.
How did that Fox News Commentator come out on that naughty sex scandal of a few years ago? I’m surprised that he didn’t bite the dust then. He did walk out on an NPR interview once. Now THAT is smarmy. Just go to Bill’s webite and count the number of times you can see his name at one time. (I haven’t checked in a while, but it certainly used to cover everything.)
Remember, when Cheney wanted to tell his story of the shooting accident, he made himself available only to Fox. That says a lot.
I have a hard time using the first debate as a litmus test for any level of bias. Who could of possibly said with a straight face that Obama won the first debate?
He was listless, uninspired and was clearly beat. That said, the arguments were split over whether Romney won it or Obama lost it, but to state any outcome other than the obvious would have been too transparent for any bias IMO.
i’m not sure i follow. the debate was just a point in time, from which a shift in the general complexion of each candidate came. it isn’t as if the media all felt obama lost so they’d better talk only about that from there on, regardless of anything else. it’s not as if they all agreed “he lost, so we need to at least feign negativity towards him for it.”
remember he won the next 3 counting Biden’s, yet the trajectory of pos/neg remained the same as after the first. for that reason, i see it not as bias GENERATED nor quelled by the first debate, but merely as a point in time. if mainstream media was all that biased left, the second obama won a debate, general favor would have swung back positively. but for some reason it remained negative.
the only take-away i can come up with is that any way you slice it, they clearly aren’t *too *bias left. otherwise the data would track in that direction.
^^also, i think part of why the GOP was so convinced Romney might win was due to this PEW-confirmed media portrayal favoring Romney.
in most metrics, he seemed to carry the “momentum.” the general climate of the media was more favorable towards him than towards Obama and the total lent itself to a “gut feeling” that he was carrying sway. for a while, a lot of polls even tracked his way.
i guess what i am saying is it’s hard to build a case the whole of the media was proboama and antiromney. that’s simply not the case.
Fox would have said Romney had won if Obama’s and Romney’s attitudes had been reversed. You know they would have. That’s what bias is.