I realize that the word “appropriate” probably shouldn’t even be in the question I’m about to ask, but is it appropriate for Sarah Palin to be out campaigning for a politician now that she’s accepted a position with FOX?
Fox’s ethics department consists of a Magic 8 Ball.
I don’t see why not. They haven’t made any pretense of her being an objective reporter or anything, and Glenn Beck organizes tea parties when he’s not entertaining the ignorant (on TV, that is).
With all twenty sides of the internal icosahedron printed with “Signs say ‘Yes’”.
Fox tries to parse its programming into “news,” and “commentary.” it claims that its programming in the late morning and afternoons is it’s “news” component, which has lots of fair and balanced goodness (it’s actually still laughably tilted, but they try to keep a straight face about claiming objectivity for those hours).
The rest of their programming – Beck’s Flying Circus, O’Reilly, Hannity, etc – are “commentary,” and so their hosts are free to act as shills for the GOP while allowing Fox to try to claim that it’s actual “news” is still fair and balanced.
Mrs. Palin is a “contributer,” to the commentary shows, Fox is not presenting her as a journalist or a reporter, but essentially as an editorialist – somebody who can go on the evening shows and “me too” Becky and Papa Bear, not somebody who reports or informs, but only gives (scripted) opinions. Karl Rove has the same title of “contributer.”
By the way, Fox doesn’t count its “contributers” as guests so this way when they have a show which parades out Rove, followed by Dick Morris, follwed by Palin, followed by a (generally tamed and sedated) liberal guest facing two other “contributers” on a panel, followed by a conservative guest, they can claim they had an equal number of conservative and liberal guests.
Everything Fox says about itself is almost true if you buy into their own slective language and definitions.
If you’ve found your place at last. Then you need not use the looking glass.
Until you watch that Daily Show bit where Jon Stewart noted that the “news” sections had just as much advocacy stuff in them as the “commentary” bits.
Nitpick: contributor.
The stage is being set for 2012.
oy vey!
Dependent clauses punctuated as complete sentences are a mark of conservatards, or at least tards.
Well, they were a Texas based band.
…
Oh man, are we actually going to really get Batshit/Dingbat (or Dingbat/Batshit)? Oh please oh please oh PLEASE!!
Loved this bit:
She may well be right that President Obama might be a one-term president, what with Progressives and Tea Partiers on the same side (not that either of them have enough votes to make a difference, but their yelling and bitching and whining and crap makes a lot of noise that the Great Middle absorb). But still, is she talking about herself there?
I like this guy too:
Cause if there were any presidents who fit in with Right Wing Extremists it’s those four. Washington was clearly known for his extremist political views as president as well as his love of partisan politics. Jefferson may have founded the Democratic-Republican party from which the current Democratic Party is descended, but he obviously meant to be a modern Republican. Lincoln would just love the Far Right’s constant cheers of, “The power is with the States!” Teddy Roosevelt campaigned on a platform of increased business regulation and then kept his promises, which is just like Reagan’s (pbuh) deregulation.
It’s pretty cool how every president but Clinton and Obama was not only Republican but far right at that.
Except for Nixon. That guy was obviously a Democrat.
“Hitler alone, we could have put up with, but Hitler and socialized medicine, forget it.” Nice to see some people have their priorities straight, eh?
Well of course, because we all know that there’s nothing so ludicrously despicable as due process of law for suspects. What kind of limp-dick commie criminal-coddling moonbat lefty thought that one up, anyway?.. James who? Madison? Never heard of him, but I wish our glorious Founding Fathers could have had a chance to tell him what they thought of his pantywaist notions. They’d have straightened that mealymouthed hippie bastard out, all right!
It all comes down to socialized medicine. Obviously a public health project like Auschwitz-Birkenau wouldn’t have been privately funded.
I thought Jefferson just got declared an unperson by the Texas school board. These clowns really need to get their act together. Lincoln oppressed the south, and so won’t go down well with the Virginia Republicans. And they’d call Teddy a socialist today.
Well, that’s true of the extermination camp at Birkenau, but Auschwitz I and III were mostly privately funded – they were work camps, operated for the benefit of private enterprises, such as IG Farben, Seimens, Krupp, etc., with the prisoners working in the factories they built in & around the camps. So while the Nazi government funded the building of the camps, much of the operating budget came from private corporations, in the fees they paid for renting workers.
Private Enterprise in operation!
So in other words, not much different from the US Convict Lease System?
Well yeah. She never said when her family came over. Could have been in 1989 for all we know. I mean, Hitler alone? That’s just invoking Godwin and no one wins in that debate.
But Hitler and socialized medicine? That’s all “Ach! Hans, run! It’s the UHC!”
You know, maybe it’s time we should take a fresh look at Hitler’s assumption that not everybody should be free to have babies.