Except that Fox doesn’t lean right. They are moderate; they’ll tee off on either side. But the other media is so far to the left that Fox’s being in the center makes them look right wing.
Please identify for me the 3 hour morning show on Fox that is hosted by a former Democratic congressman, the way that MSNBC runs Morning Joe every day hosted by former GOP congressman Joe Scarborough. I’ll hang up and listen to your response.
Bizzaro world reasoning.
You are 180 degrees from the truth. The ‘main stream media’ has been pretty main stream for a long time. And the right has been bitching and moaning the whole time because it wasn’t the right wing spin they were looking for. Now that Fox ‘News’ is providing that spin, the Right in general thinks they’ve found the middle when they’ve really just found a nice comfy chair where they’ve been all along.
The main stream media can’t be defined as left wing by virtue of the fact that it’s *not *right wing. That would be black-and-white thinking.
Sure they do.
Meaningless. How can news be “moderate”.
They have a token lefty once in awhile.
Common right-wing nonsense.
You’re totally right.
They’ll attack liberals and Democrats.
Good point. And which network is run by a former Nixon operative?
I LOLed.
MSNBC is not guilt free, but this might be the worst case of deliberate false news reporting by MSNBC. One of the things that irks me about Fox is having to defend MSNBC in comparison. They are both biased, and cherry pick news to suit their agendas, but Fox consistently makes intentional statements that are factually false in their news reports.
Pretty much by definition, anyone who agrees with me is not biased; they are centrist and moderate. Thus, on a board like this, you will never get some people to see bias.
Regards,
Shodan
Come on, who here has been saying that Rachel Maddow, et al, are unbiased? The point here, anyway, isn’t to debate whether MSNBC is unbiased, it’s to debate whether or not it’s “news.”
It looked like an opportunity to bash Fox News. 
OK. I moved on as soon as I saw the first one was Rachel Maddow. Of course it’s not news - but it never makes any attempt to convey itself as news. MSNBC does not carry news programs at night.
The second one I have now listened to three times, and I have been unable to find the source of the outrage. Was it edited? Yes. Was it misleading? No. The question was a direct one - Is negotiating with Iran appeasement? And, were you talking about Obama? The parts that were edited don’t address those questions at all. It was a bunch of boilerplate about Al Queda and Israel, but never were the words “appeasement” or “Obama” mentioned at all.
If you’re interviewing Albert Pujols about his three homerun night and he goes off on a tangent for five minutes talking about his stamp collection, there’s nothing wrong with cutting that part out.
Would someone please point out the misleading part of the editing?
“Appeasement” was being thrown around a lot by the right at that time due to it’s historical connection to the rise of Nazism, but it is not a synonym for talking or negotiation.
Ed Schultz is the liberal version of Rush Limbaugh. I pegged him as such as soon as “The Ed Show” started.
You are indeed correct. They don’t “lean” right, they’ve completely tipped over and are now stuck on their right sides like a turtle on its back.
I’m afraid your last sentence is wrong, but I hope you’re right.
But since so many people here refuse to look at the clips, I’ll summarize them for you.
The first clip is from the Rachel Maddow show, which has never pretended to be anything but a liberal commentary on news stories, unlike Fox, who claims to be “Fair and Balanced” even in its commentary. What’s more, her show is structured so that the hard news stories are at the beginning, and the last five minutes or so are escapist — either a comedy bit, or a tutorial on how to mix the cocktail of the week. This clip is from the comedic last segment of the show. The guy she is with is a comedian. He often dresses up in weird costumes to give a humorous slant on a story. To say this is MSNBC’s idea of news is ridiculous.
Maddow, O’Donnell, et al are unabashedly biased in the stories they pick to cover, but they don’t deliberately lie or distort like Fox does.
Your second clip is just wonderful. It is a PERFECT representation of the way Fox News watchers think. But it will take a fairly lengthy explanation to show what I mean.
It is Glenn Beck doing what he does best, namely feigning outrage, this time over an NBC interview that he claims was edited to distort Bush’s words.
The background, which I’ll quote from Andrew Breitbart’s website just to be fair, is here:
In a nutshell, during the 2008 Presidential campaign, Barack Obama said that he would be willing to meet with the leaders of Iran. In a speech to Israel’s Knesset, President Bush said:
"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.
“We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ‘Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.’ We have an obligation to call this what it is—the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”
Complete speech, where he explicitly associates the Iranian President with Osama Bin Laden and other evil terrorists, here:
Obama responded:
“George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president’s extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel.”
To which White House press secretary Dana Perino said that Bush’s remarks were not about Obama.
A lot of people found that hard to believe, especially when, the very next day, Republican candidate John McCain said in a speech that Bush had brought up an excellent point, namely “why does Barack Obama want to sit down with a state sponsor of terrorism?”
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/05/16/obama-responds-to-bush-mccain-on-appeasement/
So in the clip that Glenn Beck showed, NBC correspondent Richard Engel asked Bush whether he was or was not accusing Obama of appeasement.
And Bush did his usual non-denial of saying “People need to read the speech; you didn’t get it exactly right,” which is true in the sense that Engel did not quote it in its entirety, but he certainly didn’t distort it. Bush then rambled on about how fitting it was that he had talked about not taking the words of Hitler seriously, which had nothing to do with Engel’s question, and actually wasn’t in the speech.
So NBC cut that part out, and just showed Engel repeating his question: Are negotiations with Iran appeasement?
And Beck then shows the part they cut, and is outraged that NBC didn’t show it.
THIS IS WHAT FOX DOES. THIS IS THE WAY FOX VIEWERS THINK.
If a Dem criticizes a Republican for saying X, they don’t show the Rep’s original speech and let “you decide” whether the Dem is right, they show the Republican’s later explanation and spin of his speech, so that it always makes the Dem look like he is lying or distorting, when it is the Rep that is lying or distorting.
And this was one of Beck’s better moments. He didn’t make shit up.