Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my FoxFan list. *Warning: This can be a high-volume ping list at times.
Posted on 03/16/2007 9:55:56 PM PDT by neverdem
In the history of capitalism has any company had more success with just a wink and a nod than the Fox News Channel? And can Democrats be successful in the 2008 campaign by refusing to wink or nod back?
Last week's decision by Nevada Democrats, under pressure from liberal activists, to drop Fox as the co-sponsor of a party presidential debate has the virtue of crystallizing the questions about the network's nature and its unique role in the modern media ecosystem.
Fox cloaks itself in the mantle of objectivity with the nudge-nudge insistence that it—and it alone—provides "fair and balanced" coverage of the news. Then it advances its financial and ideological interests by promoting lurid accusations from conservatives against Democrats, accusations that are routinely debunked later by the mainstream media. Many Fox reporters are fair. But overall the network—through its language, its news decisions and its hosts—generally functions more like a cog in the Republican message machine than as a conventional news organization that attempts to abide, however imperfectly, by the traditional standards of (yes) fairness and balance.
Fox's possible participation in the Nevada debate, one of several the state party is sponsoring before next January's presidential caucus, presented Democrats with a conundrum that may become increasingly common for both sides as they navigate a media landscape in which overtly partisan sources of information are proliferating.
Democrats, with justification, consider Fox tilted against them. Yet the network has a large audience, at least some of whom may be open to Democratic arguments (though exactly how many remains subject to spirited dispute). The question the party faced was whether access to Fox's viewers was worth the validation the network would receive from hosting a Democratic debate.
Initially, the Nevada Democratic leaders answered yes. Party officials said they had no illusions about...
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
If it weren't for Fox News, I wouldn't have the opportunity to see all the foaming-at-the-mouth rabid moonbat liberals.
Am I dumb or clueless or both? I have no clue what this sentence means. Any ideas?
So true...
Komoto=Komodo. Happy St. Paddy Day!
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Isn't the LA times doing exactly what it's accusing Fox of doing..I mean they quote only democrat sources in an attempt to paint fox news in a negative light. like this quote: "But Fox critics, led by the liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org, insisted the price for that access was too high and argued that it was self-destructive for Democrats to legitimize Fox in any way."
Of course, they want to get red of it. They think that anything contrary to their opinions is hate speech.
Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my FoxFan list. *Warning: This can be a high-volume ping list at times.
Thanks for the ping!
They don't like FOX because FOX exposes a lot of BS from all over. Of course, they are absolutely frothy about FR!!!
He lost me right at the beginning with this totally incomprehensible statement.
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.