Never could understand the left’s hatred of Fox. Simpsons, American Dad, Family Guy, plus 99% of their programs are pro-leftist/anti-conservative. And the only thing that is really “conservative” are friggin’ OPINION shows, not news. And even they are gentle when it comes to real issues, like Bill O’Reilly. The horrible crime that Fox commits is giving another angle to the 100% liberal crap that the MSM passes off as “news”. To really make a buck, there should be a truly “right wing” 60 minutes. Can you imagine a show that investigates Jesse Jackson, or Al Sharpton? It would be the most watched show on earth.
Correct . . . and that is no accident. The reason is simple: "News" is, in and of itself, a POV. Any system for deciding what is headlined, what is reported on the front page, and what is not reported at all is (or at least expresses) a POV. As long as " Half the truth is often a great lie," (Benjamin Franklin) that will remain true.The reasons for the "liberalism" of "the media" are hiding in plain sight. First, "the media" is too broad a term; if fiction is not to be entirely censored, it is impossible to prevent fiction from expressing a POV. It is nonsense to even discuss it. So what you're really talking about is journalism. Wire service journalism.I emphasize "wire service" journalism, because antebellum journalism in America was notoriously, openly, partisan. In every direction. The newspapers got their news in a similar fashion - the mail - as the rest of the public (tho more systematically). Most newspapers, lacking news that no local yet had, operated on a weekly deadline rather than daily. Consequently the newspapers were largely about the opinion of the printer.
With the advent of the Associated Press, journalism suddenly had a continuous source of news to which the (local) general public was in principle not privy. At substantial expense - and at the cost of printing reports whose provenance wasn't under the printer's control. The result is the need of the newspaper to sell the credibility of journalists the editor of the paper doesn't even know. The cost, IOW, is not only money but independence - newspapers compete within the bounds set by the need to maintain the fable that all journalists are "objective." Which explains why newspapers never compete with each other in any way that would disrupt collegiality.
Thus, as Rush puts it, if you miss the ABC news, catch the CBS news; if you miss the New York Times, read the Washington Post. It all expresses the same POV because none of them are actually independent. You can have an "associated" press or you can have a free press - you can't have both simultaneously.
The horrible crime that Fox commits is giving another angle to the 100% liberal crap that the MSM passes off as “news”.
Correct.To really make a buck, there should be a truly “right wing” 60 minutes. Can you imagine a show that investigates Jesse Jackson, or Al Sharpton? It would be the most watched show on earth.
Perhaps - but what you are talking about is an "opinion" show, because "news" is defined as whatever promotes the idea that journalists are more important and trustworthy than bankers, carpenters, grocers, or anyone else. And political "liberals" are people willing to sell their political souls for positive PR - which is precisely what the term "liberal" is intended by journalists to be. "Conservative" is intended as a negative label, just as surely as we know that marketing flacks lust to label their products "NEW!"The irony being, of course, that "liberals" are reactionary when it comes to energy. Windmills are so antebellum . . .