Wasn’t necessary. There was no “liberal media” in the 60’s, if you wanted left wing viewpoints, you had to go look for them at the newsstand, and sometimes you had to find the right newsstand first.
If ever you want to see militaristic propaganda raised to a twisted sort of “art”, see John Wayne in The Green Berets, see it, and don’t ever, ever forget it.
Are you sure? Are you sure Fox wasn’t on the air at least once in the 1960s? For just a short time? A little less than a half hour?
Did anyone see this rather bizarre AP story: Limbaugh Says Obama ‘in Over His Head’? I’m really not sure what to make of it. Rush was on a Fox News show doing his usual shtick. The AP covered it as if it were news. It even made the “dithering” talking point. Note the placement of quotes:
I think the AP is probably doing exactly what the White House fears: looking to the relatively uncompetitive conservative infotainment market as a means of staying afloat in difficult times for news media. The dominance of Fox News in cable TV ratings (and probably the relative success of the Fox-owned Wall Street Journal as compared to other national newspapers) is in large part a result having fewer competitors in their relevant market. It’s simple math: if CNN and MSNBC split their relevant audience, Fox wins. If you’re AP and you’re looking to increase your subscriber rate, you could do worse than to encourage Ron Fournier’s infotainment pieces.
But fighting against this is just pissing in the wind. Millions of people want right-wing infotainment. And millions want left-wing infotainment. If there are five or six big competitors in the left-wing market, the nature of things is that any firm with any business sense is going to seek to enter the right-wing market.
It doesn’t really matter in the grand scheme of things since neither market has much to do with the delivery of news in the fourth-branch-of-government, inform-the-citizenry sense of the word. MSNBC is no more about news than Fox. Both are about selling deodorant and tampons by talking about the boy trapped in the balloon.
People who want to learn about the world read books or watch a Frontline documentary. They read long-form articles by people whose expertise isn’t looking good in front of a camera. They read magazines like th Economist and they read trusted internet sources that sift through all the bullshit. They read multiple newspapers offering different perspectives on the same events. When these sources of information start to become Fox-News-ified, then the White House will have something to worry about.
Just a note about Fox vs. MSNBC and ratings. Fox has far more exposure than MSNBC. For example, where I live MSNBC isn’t on the basic cable lineup while Fox is. You have to have digital cable to get MSNBC at all. I travel a lot, and in the hotles where I stay Fox is always available but MSNBC is only available in about 40% of places.
I believe Comcast doesn’t have MSNBC in it’s basic package at all.
I have basic cable and get it. Next theory.
Google “comcast basic msnbc”
As I said earlier, it is not available on basic cable where I live, and many, many other places as well.
My favorite bit is this:
odd that they would drop it off in select areas.
still, I was commenting on your “at all” comment.
I watched Fox News yesterday, the first time again since a long time ago, just to see what it’s about. Well …
When I switched on there was something about Michelle O.'s dresscode, but I missed that. Apprently she dresses to classy.
How can anyone watch this and not puke?
You seem to think that these views are extreme. The question of the constitutionality of health care was recently discussed here and here. I think they’re wrong, although I must confess I don’t find anything in the constitution authorizing the government to force citizens to buy health insurance … it’s certainly not among the powers enumerated. IANAL, but this seems to be a subject upon which reasonable lawyers can and do disagree. If health care passes, I won’t be surprised to see a serious (as opposed to an Orly Taitz) challenge in the courts.
And I don’t think that the statement “Barack Obama is the most radical president we’ve ever had” even twitches the needle on the controversial meter. I think it’s a good thing that he is, but I don’t think that there’s much dispute that he is.
So while you may not like Rush’s views, and I certainly don’t, the ones you listed are hardly vomit-inducing on my planet. When I’ve seen clips of him on the real news, I find his style makes me sick to my stomach, and I think attacks on the first lady are scurrilous … but Rush is hardly the only person discussing the issues you list.
I will repeat what I have said before on these boards. It is a mistake to think of our opponents as mindless idiots, and dismiss their concerns out of hand.
For example, the US is now a major sponsor of General Motors. If the government can legally require us to buy government sponsored health insurance, can they require us to buy government sponsored cars? And if not, why not? What’s the difference?
If we treat this as just right-wing nonsense, it may just come back to bite us in the ass … and more importantly, it may bite us in the courts. The time to deal with these issues is before the fact.
So, what do you think about taxes? What is the difference to UHC? The government forces you to buy into police, schools, kindergardens etc. You did not answer that.
He’s pro-free trade, abortion-neutral, anti-gay marriage but pro-civil union, non-interventionist but does not rule out unilateral US military action.
Hell, he got a 45% score from Americans for Democratic Action in 2008. The only radical thing about him is the color of his skin.
Hey, I didn’t say he was radical. I said he was the most radical president we’ve had. Yes, Chairman Mao he’s not, but he is quite happy to hire a Mao groupie as his Communication Director. He’s quite happy to have his “Justice” Department look the other way when Black Panthers disrupt elections. But you are right, he doesn’t dirty his hands with those kinds of actions … after all, that’s what Attorney Generals and Communications Directors are for.
What president would you say was more radical than Obama?
You think the Black Panthers actually managed to affect the outcome of polling in an all-black neighborhood?
ETA: FDR, by about a country mile. Jefferson. Johnson. Carter. Clinton may not have been more liberal, but he’s certainly no less liberal.
GWB
Started a couple of wars. Didn’t give a shit about foreign politics. Lied (WMD). Tax cuts for the rich.
Richard Nixon. Establishing diplomatic relations with Communist China. Wage and price controls. Abolition of the gold standard. That whole Watergate thing.
Can you name one thing Obama has done that is more radical than any one of those things?
Just because the right is freaking out about every single thing the President does does not make him radical. It’s the teabaggers who are radical.
An interesting poll just out on National Public Radio. Usual caveats about internet polls apply. The poll asked you to say whether you support:
The White House on this one; Fox News isn’t “fair and balanced.”
Fox News on this one; it asks questions others don’t and the White House should be able to handle them.
Neither side. They’re both trying to play this “feud” to their advantage.
With over a million votes cast!!, the results are:
The White House on this one; Fox News isn’t “fair and balanced.” 16% (209,411 votes)
Fox News on this one; it asks questions others don’t and the White House should be able to handle them. 82% (1,050,963 votes)
Neither side. They’re both trying to play this “feud” to their advantage. 1% (18,610 votes)
Like I said, this is a fight the White House can’t win.
Liberal? I thought we were talking about radical. Which to me is quite different from liberal, but YMMV.
And whether the Panthers “managed to affect the outcome” or not is immaterial. Intimidating voters is a crime. The Panthers were found guilty of that crime. The “Justice” Department decided to let them off. Are you truly defending that? That’s much, much more than “liberal” …
If the White House starts operating based on the results of internet polling, it won’t win anything, that’s for sure.
However, the general point remains true- arm-wrestling Fox News only serves to get shit on Obama’s hand.
Bullshit. Fox has never come close enough to the truth to recognize it when they see it.