Why do liberals hate Fox News so much? What is their fear of a fair and balanced news source? I have never heard of FoxNews making up stories or not correcting a mistake. But to hear the liberals Fox News just makes up everything. So why do liberal hate FoxNews?
well, the other day i couldnt find the remote so and 22 (CNN) is soo much closer than 71 (FNC) so i decided to check out the liberal media establishment for a minute. as they discuss the cali gubernatorial race, who do they get as a guest to give his opinion on the issue? non other than Kermit the frog!!! now of course i do believe kermit has a legitimate reason to be on national opinion making frog puns about the california recall, but i can’t see the same guest being asked to be on foxnews, i think that’s part of the reason that liberals dispise foxnews, they need there fix of muppet politics and can’t handle the real, fair and balance, deal.
Hey, Kermit is one of the greatest philosophers of our time! His presence increased the collective IQ of Fox by at least 130 points. Problem is that Fox collectively had 10 to start with.
I suggest you pick up Al Franken’s book Lies and the Lying LIara Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right.
I know you might be reluctant to fund the “liberal media” (snort) by directing some royalty money Franken’s way. The book isn’t written by the likes of Ann Coulter or Bill O’Reilly, so you’ll read some things that you probably won’t like. Still, though, Franken explains the liberal disdain for Fox News better than I could here.
Most intelligent people realize that the Fox News boast of being “fair and balanced” is just that a boast, and an empty one at that. I have repeatedly seen conservatives (like Colin Powell) and even in public speeches given by Fox News executives like Carl Cameron admit that Fox News has a distinct conservative bias or slant, they argue that what the word “balanced” in that logo really means is that since they feel ABC and NPR and the NATION and MOTHER JONES are so strongly giving the American viewer a liberal ‘manipulation’ of the truth while under the pretence of journalistic objectivism (although the two news journals I mentioned label themselves distinctly as progressive commentary), the only way they can achieve a parity of balance across the entire journalistic spectrum is by pushing themselves even further right than ABC is left. As such, their main news broadcasts are somewhere between Rush Limbaugh and the traditional straight laced ‘just the facts’ type of story. If the FOX news channel readily admitted this, liberals would probably feel less ornery, but, as it is, Fox pretends that this isn’t so, and this infuriates the left. Of course, neither the far right nor the far left like the media, both claiming that all the media is in an entire conspiracy against them.
In my opinion, this is a good thing, whenever the strongly political left or right are happy with the mainstream news presentations we have grave reason to worry.
As Churchill said the best compromise is one in which both “sides” are equally unhappy.
However, in my opinion, what most intellectuals really dislike about Fox News is that it reminds them most closely with the sort of “yellow press” tabloid journalism that we best remember back before the turn of the last century during the Spanish-American War, particularly the paper wars between Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst, that soon boiled down to sensationalistic warmongering, most noticably on the part of William Randolph Hearst, who is often quoted as having said: “You provide the pictures. I’ll provide the war.”
Many intellectuals see Fox as being nothing more than a propagandistic mouthpiece for the entrenched establishment.
But what they fear most is that just as the conservatives stormed talk radio and continue to dominate it with personalities such as Michael Savage and that deafened blockhead Limbaugh,
Fox will soon not be alone, and the Cable News air waves will be filled with equivalent hegemony of thought. And to their minds, this can only bode ill tidings for the other mainstream news shows. Indeed, they probably think, unlike during World War II, Bush does not need to hire Goebbels, he will be far too eager to rise up from the woodwork on his own, and his name is O’Reilly .
Myles (trying not to show my political cards)
Liberals do not fear Fox News, nor do they fear fair and balanced news sources. Who told you that they did ?
Recall that Fox’s “Fair and Balanced” slogan is trademarked for entertainment purposes, rather than news. That puts it in the same class as Rush’s drug induced rantings.
You may find this recent thread on Ignorance, War, Lies, and Fox News helpful in formulating your own opinion on Fox’s “news” offerings.
Fox News is repugnant because it takes broad swipes at “liberals” and takes many opportunities to make snide comments about anyone not right of center. While absolute objectivity is not possible when human beings are involved, FN wears its partisanship on its sleeve, not even attempting anything like being fair, let alone balanced. It is news with an ulterior motive, and if I need to hear a conservative circle-jerk, I can always turn on the radio.
You apparently have been bitten by the same bug, since you claim that all “liberals” must be afraid of “a fair and balanced news source.” It really seems a waste of time to even attempt dialogue with people who do not merely disagree with you, but think you are willfully dishonest and would refuse to acknowledge facts if they bit you on the ass.
CNN’s top war correspondent, Christiane Amanpour, says that the press muzzled itself during the Iraq war. And, she says CNN “was intimidated” by the Bush administration and Fox News, which “put a climate of fear and self-censorship.”
As criticism of the war and its aftermath intensifies, Amanpour joins a chorus of journalists and pundits who charge that the media largely toed the Bush administrationline in covering the war and, by doing so, failed to aggressively question the motives behind the invasion.
Said Amanpour: “I think the press was muzzled, and I think the press self-muzzled. I’m sorry to say, but certainly television and, perhaps, to a certain extent, my station was intimidated by the administration and its foot soldiers at Fox News. And it did, in fact, put a climate of fear and self-censorship, in my view, in terms of the kind of broadcast work we did.”
Fox News spokeswoman Irena Briganti said of Amanpour’s comments: “Given the choice, it’s better to be viewed as a foot soldier for Bush than a SPOKESWOMAN FOR AL-QAEDA”.
Gee, all of your critics must be terrorists. That’s Fair, Balanced and a Real Class Act All the Way.
Kermit isn’t good enough for you? You wanted, maybe, Mr. Ed, the Talking Horse?
I’m not aware of anyone who hates Fox News, oxymoron that it is. I think “sometimes find laughable” would be a better descriptor for what many liberals feel about it.
I’ve never heard of a liberal with a fear of the BBC. Which liberals are these that have a problem with a fair and balanced news source?
IMHO, some of the criticism of Fox is quite on target, that news vs commentary should be separate. Conservative critics often use the same foil against “liberal” outlets, but Fox blurs this line eggregiously. Other, non-Fox news outlets do the same (but far(!) less eggregiously, IMHO).
I’m all in favor of the media having a point of view, but it should be labeled as such when reporting the news. Fox is unfailingly dishonest in this regard, and (imho) most other sources try at least a little to live up to this standard.
You want a cite?
Paraphrased from a speech given by Carl Cameron (Fox News political correspondent) on C-Span’s Students and Leaders program, at a Catholic high school.
“Many people thought Rupert Murdoch would give Fox News a conservative bias, and he put Roger Ailes, a noted political consultant, in charge, a man who started out in television in the 1950s and worked on the Nixon campaign and was a political consultant for George Bush Senior, many people assumed because of his political background that he would give Fox News a rightward tilt…”
"American media has for many years been biased in favor of liberalism, for the most part, the majority of the time, there are some folks who still deny it, but most journalists today recognize that most of basic media has long had a slightly leftward tilt… "
“What Fox News chose to do was counterbalance all the liberal voices in the media, particularly in the talk portion of our programs, with conservatives.”
“And give voice to conservative ideas and conservative individuals
And it caused a lot of consternation”
“So does Fox News give voice to conservative ideas? Absolutely.”
“Are there marquee headliners who have conservative views? Certainly.” etc.
The speech should still be available on C-Span’s website as a video file.
P.S. I really don’t think Fox News is in any great danger of illusioning people into thinking that it’s completely unbiased, even if they don’t follow proper protocol, give your average American some credit, he or she can tell, when there’s a flag constantly flying behind the Fox Icon, that the programming is proudly “patriotic” and pro-Administration.
Especially, when they feel the need to show hour after hour of cameras in soldiers and wives faces, right after they’ve been reunited after long months of waiting, completely robbing them of any dignity or privacy, (you’re annoyed by this flag-waving? Imagine how the soldiers and families must feel with the microphones shoved in their faces!)
But maybe thats just me on my soapbox
I saw John Stewart interviewed on some serious news program, and he pointed out the obvious fact that there is no such thing as “objective” news. All news presentations, on TV or in print, start with a totally subjective ranking of the importance of stories. So objectivity is an ideal that no one can attain. Not even those icy Brits.
That said, FOX is just abandoning all pretense when, for example, they put the words “Axis of Weasel” under the talking head of the French ambassador.
BTW FOX’s parent co., News Group, is an equal opportunity toady to whatever oppressive regime it can kiss up to (yes, my participle is dangling).
Check out http://www.tibet.ca/wtnarchive/1999/9/7_5.html or maybe http://slate.msn.com/id/34300/
It takes a lot of guts and patriotism to support a Communist dictatorship for business purposes (sarcasm present).
Praising Al Franken as the end-all “expert” on the right’s so called “lying” is pathetic and terribly ingenuous. Franken hangs his public hat throughout his press junkets as “THE truth guru” by exposing conservatives yet at the same time wants us to swallow that his book is to be considered “political satire”. Just ask Terry Gross of NPR. In other words, facts aren’t necessarily the basis for his book. Sure, they can help…but it’s not the selling point of the book. You can’t have it both ways…to be taken seriously by the other side (ie: conservatives) you either represent it as thorough facts that can be proven as lies…or you stand by it as satire. Yet liberals throughout the country hold nothing but high praise for this failed “comedian”-turned-leftist-provocateur. Why? He sounds absolutely desparate and rabid. I would look for a new schitck too if my comedy career looked like his.
(Before I go painting with a big broad brush, realize that I am generalizing here…I personally don’t HATE every Democrat known to mankind…there are a few here and there that are sensible)
This is the general problem with liberals (from the right’s point of view)…the left always seem to be touting people who are ineffectual zealots at best and downright slimy at worst. It confuses the right…this is the best you can do? People such as Al Franken, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Gray Davis, Ted Kennedy, Janet Reno, Howard Dean, Tom Daschle, Al Sharpton, Wesley Clark, Barbra Streisand, Ed Ansner, etc etc do not seem worthy of much respect politically, let alone praise. It’s awful how they seem to spout one thing but the facts seem to get in the way. For example; I seem to recall Jeneanne Garofalo on Fox’s “Fox and Friends” one morning back early in war. She was angry about Fox’s right wing bias. She kept insisting that FOX was a puppet for the right and finally Brian Kilmeade stood up to her and forced her to actually think about lefties on FOX such as Geraldo, Alan Colmes and independent Bill O’Rielly (yes yes, I know…Franken says otherwise…see above). Kilmeade more or less said (I’m paraphrasing here) “Don’t they say what they want? Don’t they speak from a leftist point of view on FOX? How can you sit there and say that when it’s blatantly untrue? The left is represented on FOX…you just didn’t think it through.” Garofalo had SUCH egg on her face…again. Big surprise.
You want to read about some lies? Search out David Limbaugh’s “Absolute Power” about the Clinton Adminstration and the Justice Department. That’s a book based upon fact. You won’t find the word “satire” attached to it in any way, shape or form.
You haven’t read the book, have you? Some parts are satire, most are factual, and it’s easy to tell the difference.
The book is both entertaining and factual. It’s not that hard to grasp.
Ah yes, it can’t be true because Franken is a comedian. Are you saying the voter registration form reprinted in his book was forged?
BTW, Colmes is a pretty bad example of a “lefty” on FNC.
Just to make sure I have this straight, someone accused Fox of having a right-wing bias. Then Kilmeade, in response, trotted out three names, including the middle-of-the-road O’Reilly (boy, that’s even hard to type with a straight face), and that is proof that there is no right wing bias? I’ll actually take Fox’s side on this one if you’d like.
I guess the fact that Sam Stone, milroyj, Milum, and IzzyR post here proves that there is no liberal bias on these boards. It’s also proof that CNN isn’t biased, as they have Lou Dobbs working there. The NYT isn’t biased either, William Safire is proof of that. Any newspaper that prints William F. Buckley also can’t be called liberal leaning. Thanks for clearing that up!
There was a thread on this awhile back. Suffice it to say that if CNN is “intimidated” by a fellow news organization, then CNN is run by a bunch of wusses who have no business being in the newsgathering industry. It’s not like Shepard Smith was holding Wolf Blitzer at gunpoint, demanding Amanpour edit her stories to his satisfaction before he’d let Blitzer go free.
This thread was started by a returning troll, so I am closing it and banning him.
Sorry, folks, a good discussion, but we don’t let trolls play in our sandbox.