NOTE #2: While he picked "O'Reilly, Fox and Friends and Shep to watch - Meygan Kelly is the featured picture at his post.
NOTE #3: His world view of Fox: "...Fox's role is the "purveyor, not only of right-wing information but of right-wing ignorance.."
This article is like reading a Two Minutes Hate.
Personally, with his obsession with Shep Smith, and his utter disdain for the Fox women.....I’d say that he’s a wee bit light in the loafers. Come on out John, that closet is too dark for you.
The definition of liberal is thinking Fox News is “conservative”
How old is he?
Three or 73?
This guy sounds like a spoiled little brat of a kid who is such a picky eater that when presented with green birthday cake, refuses to eat it, claims it smells disgusting, and if forced to take a bite spits it out, gags moans, says it tastes worse then poop, and throws a tantrum etc.
Even though green cake is exactly the same as white cake (with just a couple drops of tasteless food coloring), and this kid absolutely LOVES cake.
That morning, one of the “Fox & Friends” headlines—quick stories that merit only a few second’s mention—was that “that salmonella outbreak” had become so severe that furloughed CDC workers were being recalled to help deal with it. My eyes widened in surprise. What? A salmonella outbreak? I had been watching Fox News for an average of three hours a day for eight days, and this was the very first I had heard of it. I was even more disturbed by the casual tone of it all, as if they had been discussing it for weeks, and I had just missed it. My first—and perhaps slightly fevered—thought was that the network had soft-pedaled the story because they didn’t want to give the impression that furloughing a bunch of agricultural inspectors might have been a bad idea.
The Salon employee did not hear mention of it from a sampling of a mere three hours a day of watching for eight days -- what I believe are opinion shows about political issues -- and he judges the reason Fox "spiked" the story was Fox didn’t want to give the impression that furloughing a bunch of agricultural inspectors might have been a bad idea. Recall that Republicans are blamed for the "shut down" so is the Salon employee saying Fox news was trying to cover for them?
Is the employee of Salon saying that Fox has no right to express opinions?
Are we back in the decades of the Fairness Doctrine when one hour a week of Buckley's Firing Line is all the fairness conservative opinion needed?
If the left ever gets away with doing that again it's time to -- like the hundreds of thousands of citizens past -- defend free speech against oppressors with blood.. our free speech, their blood.
Translation: the more people know about the issues, the more likely they are to vote Republican. It is quite telling that while this John guy claims that Fox does not convey accurate news, all he actually talks about are the anchors. I guess that's because if he were to try to support that claim, he would find that the Fox news stories fact-check pretty well.
At work, our home page is MSN. I usually bring up Fox in a different browser. Both have their share of fluffy articles. MSN has sections on News, Sports, Entertainment, Money, Living, and Autos. Fox has sections on Health, Business, Technology, Travel, Opinion, Entertainment, Politics, Sports, Lifestyle, World, Fox News Magazine, US, Retirement, and Movies. It would seem that Fox has more serious content. I just watched some video on MSN: Do vegetarians live longer, to which the answer was, "Yes, they do!" The video was completely full of inaccuracies, starting with the fact that it superficially compared all vegetarians with all omnivores without adjusting for the fact that many omnivores eat unhealthy diets while few vegetarians do (since vegetarians are generally more health-conscious). From that small sample size, I would have to assume that MSN viewers receive utterly skewed "news" and are very poorly informed. I don't have time for a complete review of the site, but I can guess that for balanced, accurate news, MSN should NOT be one's first choice.
He thinks the Republicans were responsible for the government shutdown,
he has the same level of mental acuity as Boehner.
I maybe watch about five hours of FOX news a week. I like Bret Baier's five o'clock report and the FOX all-star thing, and I occasionally watch some other FOX show. That's it. Like he says, does FOX ignore a lot of "important" news? Sure it does. Just like all the other news shows.
But he can't be honest. He dislikes FOX basically because it presents a view of the world which is mostly (but not always) at odds with his very liberal view of the world. It would be like one of us watching MSLSD for a month, and then announcing we didn't like it. So what?
At no time does Haggerty bother to express an opinion on political philosophy. Like all liberals, he chooses subjects, the government shutdown, and it's all the Republican's fault. Obama could never have anything to do with the shutdown or Obama's capricious actions to deliberately harm certain groups and not harm people/groups he favors. He never considers the role of government or how his liberal heroes pervert the proper role of government.
Basically, his article is typical liberal twaddle. He wrote it before he began his experiment. Haggerty doesn't want to be convinced about anything. He just doesn't want any contrary ideas about liberalism to seep into his head.
Funny how those who listen to Rush’s show or get their news from Fox always come out on top in the “politically informed” polls. You can’t get any lower than the Democrat “low-information voter.”
Salon.com, Huffington post. Says it all. They’re filled with haye filled progressive that love to whine when they’re losing.
Salon.com, Huffington post. Says it all. They’re filled with haye filled progressive that love to whine when they’re losing.
read
In terms of news content, Fox tries to play it down the middle. In terms of opinion, Fox gives a forum to both (or more) sides. And there in lies the rub for libtards. They simply can not stand the fact that a right-leaning perspective is given at all.
Libtard intolerance and biases lying media is killing this country.
That article forgot to mention that Carl Cameron of Fox News broke the last minute story on Bush 43’s DWI conviction the week of the 2000 election.
Its the greatest exercise in projection that I've read in years.
Come on folks. We’re talking Salon. Just dismiss it outright and move on.
After my initial amusement at this episode, I began to find the whole thing alarming. Karl Rove is, by all accounts, a smart man. How could he and so many of his colleagues on the right have been so thoroughly, so publicly, so humiliatingly wrong? The theory I eventually arrived at was that the right-wing infosphere had become so large and self-referential that people like Rove were seduced by its alternate view of reality.Guess what, John? When you are walling yourself off from Fox News and Talk Radio and FR or any other “conservative” news source, you immerse yourself in a very partial view of reality, yourself.You write of how you had your wife help you isolate yourself from every news source but Fox for a month, and then think of what slight effort it takes to avoid one cable channel while switching among all those “independent” news sources which are like peas in a pod because they are all immersed in your version of reality. That strikes you as absurd? Well, here’s the one thing Adam Smith said that you accept without question:
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (Book I, Ch 10)Now I ask you, John - what happens if you substitute apply that dictum about people in general “of the same trade,” to journalists? Here’s what it sounds like, John:Journalists seldom meet together, certainly not over the AP newswire, without the conversation setting the agenda of what is newsworthy and what is not, and what slant on the story is congenial to the desires and aspirations of journalists.Well, John, you may think that journalists don’t have any particular desires and aspirations which separate the interests of journalists from “the public interest” - but it is only too easy to show that that is not the case. The public at large just wants peace and quiet, and journalists want to “make a difference” - and those two things are mutually exclusive.The desire of being believed, the desire of persuading, of leading and directing other people, seems to be one of the strongest of all our natural desires. - Adam Smith, Theory of Moral SentimentsThe public interest lies in a stable, gradually improving, society. The journalist sees his interest in “a fundamental transformation” of America. Does it not strike you as arrogant, John, to assume that a fundamental transformation of America - one opposed by about half of the public - would/will be an improvement? There was an instructive comment during WWII that I consider germane:A sergeant was watching a man poring over the wreckage of battle damaged planes and taking notes. He asked what the man was doing, and he replied, “I’m determining where airplanes get hit by enemy fire.” Asked what he meant to do with the information, he replied, “We might try to put armor where the planes are getting hit.” The sergeant replied, “Son, planes get hit everywhere, and you’re only looking at the ones that got back. You find out where they got hit, you put your armor everywhere else.It’s called “out of the box” thinking, John. The lesson is that none of us is immune to thinking inside of some box, without realizing it. Which is why a “fundamental transformation” is almost certain disaster. But then, you probably wouldn’t be a card-carrying member of the ACLU if you found it easy to visualize the possibility of disaster coming from “such good intentions.”
Well he was definitely a round peg trying to pound himself into a square hole. :-)