i know, but i still say that one stinks... women rarely hang themselves
Posted on 12/08/2012 8:33:29 AM PST by Sub-Driver
Robert F. Kennedy Jr: Fox News Has Divided America In a Way Not Seen Since the Civil War By Noel Sheppard Created 12/08/2012 - 11:13am
Robert F. Kennedy Jr said of Fox News Friday, "It's divided our country in a way that we haven't been divided probably since the Civil War."
This occurred during an online video interview with the Huffington Post (video follows with transcript and commentary):
ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR: There’s two things happening. One is the influence of big money in politics, and the other is the right-wing control of the American media, particularly starting with Fox News. 95 percent of talk radio in our country is right-wing, and you need, according to Pew survey, and you, so a whole section of our country that that’s what they’re hearing. They wake up in the morning, when they go to bed at night.
Twenty-two percent of Americans say their primary news source is Fox News. I think that that has, that has, it's divided our country in a way that we haven't been divided probably since the Civil War, and that it’s empowered these large corporations to get certain kinds of politicians and ideologues who are in the United States Congress elected - the Tea Party ideologues who control the Republican Party.
This is pretty hysterical considering President Obama met with representatives from MSNBC Tuesday to discuss tax policy.
It seems a metaphysical certitude Kennedy doesn't see anything wrong with that.
Whtta maroon. As long as he and his friends didn’t HEAR or SEE any real dissent from their liberal march, they must have thought everything was hunky dory. When Fox came on the air and started questioning everything the libs were doing, they didn’t like it, so they considered that divisive!.
It’s the theory of “journalistic objectivity” which causes them to take leave of their senses. That theory, to have any validity, would have to be grounded in a reality in which journalists’ motives and desires are identical with the public interest. But in this reality, journalists are simply people who want influence and money for doing nothing but talking, criticizing, and second guessing. There is no case to be made that journalists are inherently unbiased, only that journalists are systematically internally consistent. That is, there is no ideological competition among major journalists. That is only to be expected, because"People of the same trade seldom meet together even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public or some contrivance to raise prices.” - Adam Smith. . . and all major journalistic institutions are in a continuous, 24/7 virtual meeting - and have been since they joined the Associated Press in the second half of the Nineteenth Century. Inevitably they have long since taken for granted among themselves that “what is good for journalism is good for the country.”
But in reality, bad news for the public is “a great story” for journalism; the rules which journalism follows - such as “Man Bites Dog, not Dog Bites Man” and “If it bleeds, it leads” - are designed to promote the bottom line of journalists and have nothing to do with the public interest. They are designed to interest the public - but that is distinct from and, sometimes inimical to, the public interest.There is only one way to conscientiously even attempt to attain objectivity, and that is to be open and above board about any and all reasons you know of which might make you not be objective. But of course, that would not make you seem objective - and since journalism is about PR, which is about appearances, journalists never do that and instead take the opposite tack of claiming actually to be objective. In that sense in is patent that journalism does not even try to be objective. The natural expectation would be that politicians who have no other principle above getting good PR would shamelessly agree with and promote what journalism promotes. Namely, cheap talk and second guessing of “the man in the arena” who takes action with no guarantee that his estimate of the best course of action will not be overtaken by events. Journalists call themselves “objective,” but they apply other positive labels to those who have the same political tendency that journalists do. Since America was founded on liberty and progress, journalists call sympathetic politicians and leaders “liberal” or “progressive” - or else “moderate” or “centrist.” Opponents of the tendency of journalism are called “right wing,” “extreme,” or “conservative."
I was just thinking of the Kennedy’s in general. :-)
i know, but i still say that one stinks... women rarely hang themselves
Oh I agree with you.
Yes...but you must include the fact that the Russian communist party was at work infiltrating all of our society strong holds and journalism, through the colleges, was key. There is an evil biased towards socialism in the national media. But that is how satan works...he knows his stuff!
Oh...did he get any money before Abound went Under?
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.