Posted on 09/22/2004 12:13:55 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
"It doesn't help that top editors value diversity in hiring based on skin color or sexual identity, but are content to preside over a staff that is 80 percent-plus liberal, while the country is pretty much evenly divided. So it is no wonder that the ratings for Fox News soar."
She sure got that part right.
Sounds like she's a bit upset that the gravy train may be derailed.
Yes. She knows where the truth is and where it's slanted, but she also seems somewhat conflicted.
"Sorry, but all I did was write a column that piggybacked off the hard work of reporters at the Washington Post and the Dallas Morning News, and after watching Fox News and CNN dissect the story.
While bloggers uncovered technical holes in the 60 Minutes story, the reason Rather fell so quickly was that mainstream media nailed this story."
That is the problem. You mainstream media types don't bother to look for the truth anymore. Especially if it might hurt one of your own.
Well, she sounds like a conservative - and I'd like to see one of them get Dan's chair. Fat chance.
Fox News had a report about Viacom and all the LIBERALS on their board. Same thing at Disney and CBS (they each have a retired Democrat congressmen on their board).
Free Republic IS the real news. It's all here.
This belies the chick's personal bias:
"Fox provides relief from stories that are balanced in their presentation, but left-leaning in concept."
[Scratches head.] What?? MSM is never balanced in presentation. And anyway, what's the difference between presentation and concept? (As in this sentence.) Bogus use of English language.
Yes, she is a MSM type.
I think that's where her conflict lies.
Yeah, that little gem don't compute.
What an idiot. He's complaining that we're not buying his buggy whips, as we race past him in automobiles.
LOL
She has a point about seeing what you want to see. Ever notice over at DU they all think MSM is pro-Bush? And I didn't really start to gloat until MSM got on CBS-Rather for real.
Not expressed too well, but I think she means by "concept" the choice of stories, e.g., anything about global warming from "environmentalists" is treated as hard news, though they may have dissenters comment. Oil for Fraud is simply not a story, except on Fox. Pro-abortion marches are hard news, though dissenters may be allowed to comment; anti-abortion marches never happened. Etc., etc., etc.
My interpretation: They report both sides but highlight the LIBERAL stuff (beginning with a pro LIBERAL or anti-conservative headline) and put the conservative stuff at the bottom of the page, use inflammatory adjectives and/or edit it.
EXACTLY ! ! 99 % of Free Republic is nothing but all of us commenting on news stories from NEWSPAPERS! lol
Let's see. Her argument is:
The major media is overwhelmingly liberal, some reporters use their job to promote the liberal agenda and some editors can't even recognize it when they do.
But they're good at vetting, so please keep reading.
I will for sure. It' become a major source of amusement.
and this, of course, is sickeningly obvious (recall that michael ishikoff [sp?] with newsweek passed the lewinsky story on to drudge when his editors 'spiked' it).
your interpretation concerns what happens to and within a story, once a decision is made to run with it, and puts the lie to the author's preposterous claim that stories are balanced in their presentation.
nothing could be farther from the truth. remember the story a few days ago about the various voter fraud de jour working their way through the court system? out of the half dozen examples cited, only the case involving a republican was mentioned with party affiliation.
"balanced in their presentation." indeed.
but, it's nice to see an admission that they attempt to influence people's opinions by selective reporting. i'll take it.
we'll know that they've awakened to the power of the internet, though, when we read: "we have systematically lied to the american people without surcease for decades, but beg you to give us one more chance. please. what else will we do for a living if NO ONE pays any attention anymore? besides, it really wasn't our fault ... we had to lie because george bush wouldn't be honest about his tang time."
ooops. eh, plus ca la change, plus le meme chose.
Has absolutely nothing to do with not liking it, it has to do with not believing it. I don't read the National Enquirer and I am fairly certain I am not missing out on anything, either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.