Posted on 02/27/2007 4:38:45 PM PST by SJackson
There is no question that Fox News is a mouthpiece for the Republican Party, and that is what makes the cable and broadcast television operations of Australian-born billionaire Rupert Murdoch so noxious.
If Fox was an ideologically conservative network, that would be fine.
In fact, we think the United States could use more ideological diversity in its broadcast networks. Most of them have replaced civic and democratic values with commercial and entertainment impulses that dumb down the discourse and discourage active citizenship. A network that offered a consistently conservative take on the news would be a lot better than the celebrity obsession, dressed-up weather reporting and stenography to power that passes for "news" on CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC.
But there is nothing conservative or liberal about Fox. It is a mouthpiece for the Bush White House and the Republican National Committee. And it does the dirty work of those entities most recently evidenced by the network's peddling of false reports suggesting that Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, a contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, had been educated as a Muslim fundamentalist.
Fox's ugly efforts to slander Obama, which parallel those of another Bush/RNC mouthpiece, radio personality Rush Limbaugh, are reprehensible. And it is certainly reasonable to ask whether the obsessive focus on Obama has something to do with his race. After all, Fox has not been above playing the race card when it is to the advantage of the administration and the party it serves.
But what should be done about Fox?
Obama is fighting back. According to the Washington Post, "the Obama camp has 'frozen out' Fox News reporters and producers in the wake of the network's major screw-up in running with the erroneous Obama-the-jihadist story." While the Post's characterization of the network's spreading of lies as "erroneous" is comic in its naivete, the Obama campaign's response is clearly an expression of its frustration with a network that is out to get its candidate.
Still, as bad as Fox is, we're of the view that Obama should talk to the network's reporters and appear on its shows if only to challenge the network directly. When candidates get into the game of deciding which reporters to talk to and which to "freeze out," the public is ill-served.
Fox deserves no respect whatsoever. But the people who view it do. Instead of refusing invitations to appear on what for better or worse is a significant national forum, Obama should seize the opportunity.
Go on Bill O'Reilly's show and poke back at the bully. Go on Sean Hannity's show and tell the fact-mangling fool that he is wrong. Talk about the obvious and consistent pro-Bush, pro-RNC biases of the network. And if they refuse to air the criticisms, make a story of that refusal.
It is far better to confront critics than to avoid them.
In Britain, during the Margaret Thatcher era, the conservative prime minister's Cabinet members did interviews even with the publication Marxism Today. They were willing to confront their critics. They enjoyed the clash of ideas. They relished the opportunity to prove that they were without fear, and they dared their critics to distort their words.
That's the sort of swashbuckling politics that Obama and the other men and women who would be president owe the United States. "Freezing out" Fox says a lot more about the timidity of particular politicians than it does about that sorry excuse for a "news" network.
Re: Left Wing Media....
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,254944,00.html
On Friday, we reported that 51-year-old Charles Rust-Tierney, an attorney and former head of the ACLU in Virginia, was arrested and charged in federal court with possessing child pornography. Agents found videos in his home of little girls being violently raped by adults.
We said we'd report back to you today on which news organizations covered the story and which did not. The two biggest left-wing outfits in the country — The New York Times and NBC News —ignored the story entirely. CBS News, CNN, and most of the big city liberal newspapers also failed to cover the Rust-Tierney arrest. ABCnews.com and the Associated Press did cover. And because it happened in their backyard, The Washington Post ran a brief story in its second section, essentially burying the entire thing.
Now the failure of most media outlets to cover this colossal embarrassment to the ACLU contrasts vividly with the coverage of preacher Ted Haggard, which embarrassed conservative Christians. You remember when Haggard was accused of immortality by a male prostitute, the story was all over the place.
"Talking Points" is not surprised that NBC News and The New York Times, who's motto is "all the news that's fit to print" ignored the child porn bust. These news agencies are no longer objective. They exist to push secular progressive agendas and disparage traditional points of view. We proved that over and over again.
(Story continues here)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,254944,00.html
Hell, I thought foxnews was going to the left, I don't know don't watch anymore, get my news from their web sight and right here on Freep..
I have a feeling that any news outlet that would actually present all sides of an issue would be considered rightwing by this writer and his or her ilk.
LOL...and that typo is in the original article! I would have expected BOR, of all people, to proof-read his work.
Anyone who watched Fox commentators fawn over Harold Ford will know they are NOT a mouthpiece for the RNC.
More fiction from Mr. Snakes on a Plane.
Another screaming campus flag-burner makes it to the editor's chair. Big surprise.
It's the Times editorial, not a letter to the editor. They're paper, they get a column, that's legit.
They're Progressives, they're experts on most everything.
I find Fox annoying because they mix every story with hysterical crap just to keep it "fair and balanced". If I wanted to listen to hysteria and distortion, I'd tune in to the others. I don't, because my hysteria meter has tripped its circuit breaker and I just can't do it any more.
If Colmes is the price I have to pay to listen to Hannity, the price is way too high.
I found myself forced to listen to CNN during the recent Lebanese War, and it was nauseating. Nauseating.
The Times has it quite backward. The average journalist is a shill for the Democratic Party, and most of them haven't the mind that God gave a goose. The average newspaper is little more than a DNC propaganda sheet with weather, sports, and classifieds. Leave out the garage sale ads and the grocery coupons and most of them would go bankrupt inside of a month, I certainly don't read our local rag anymore, they can't print any article of any serious import and get it right. So why waste the quarter?
I frequently use radio or TV for background noise, I can't say I'm a listener.
I like the Food Channel and the various History/Military channels when it comes to TV. Animal Planet is fun. Fox is annoying, but better than the news alternatives imo.
The man is an intellectual light weight, and thats being nice.
I agree whole-heartedly that Fox is better than the others. I just think it would be better yet if it realized that it didn't need the leftists and the Colmes's to be "fair and balanced". The alphabet networks are full-time-all-the-time leftists, hacks and flacks, with no room for clear-eyed reporting or analysis. They focus on artificial news and bury more real news than most people will ever know. Fox is better without a doubt, but when Fox lets itself get caught up in following the same bogus stories, it diminishes what might otherwise be decent news/analysis programming.
On TV, for news, they are the closest thing there is to objective news reporting, thin as it is. But there is still a huge vacuum there, I'm surprised someone doesn't try to fill it. We don't need "conservative" news, we just need objective reporting that hasn't sold its soul, or its sense of curiousity.
Like you I also tend to watch mostly History/Military/Discovery stuff. I've generally got a Mexican or Venezuelan soap opera I'm following. Its been years since I watched any of the normal sitcoms on TV, there are so many series that have come and gone, "stars" who have come and gone, and I wouldn't know who they were if they sat down next to me, if it weren't for scanning the headlines at the grocery store checkout lines, I wouldn't know any of their names.
I rather like that, really. Its liberating, I think.
The recording cable box is a blessing, I can tape stuff for later, if it comes on in the middle of the night, no problem. I get my news from the net mostly, what a blessing, you can scan half a dozen newspapers from around the world with your morning coffee.
"It is a mouthpiece for the Bush White House and the Republican National Committee."
--
Apparently someone has not viewed a White House Press Corps meeting where many news organizations are represented.
--
"Fox's ugly efforts to slander Obama.."
--
Actually, Obama has been described as charismatic and said to have "rock star status' by some of Fox's reporters and commentators.
--
Paraphrasing: "Obama is fighting back,..by freezing out Fox News reporters..."
--
If Obama [and Hill] want to "Run with the Big Dogs" in this campaign for Presidency..then both need to make themselves accesible to All media outlets for personal interviews and coverage. Of course that is..unless they have something to hide.
--
The writer of the editorial is the individual that appears to be pulling the race card. If the writer has viewed FNC then he/she would see and hear comments from individuals such as Charlie Rangel, Al Sharpton and others on Fox News.
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.