Skip to comments.Fox News, 'America's Poison'?
Posted on 05/09/2012 4:35:30 AM PDT by Kaslin
The New York Times really loathes Rupert Murdoch. The Gray Lady almost achieved nirvana on the front page the other day when a group of laborites in the British Parliament asserted in a "damning report" that Murdoch was "not fit" for major media ownership. Bill Keller, recently the paper's executive editor, devoted his latest column to Fox News with the headline "Murdoch's Pride Is America's Poison."
The man who edited The New York Times is blunt: "I would argue that -- at least for Americans -- Fox News is Murdoch's most toxic legacy." If that's not ridiculous enough, try this: He claims the problem is not that Fox is conservative, but because ... wait for it ... Fox pretends to be objective instead of openly admitting it's partisan. Unlike, say, The New York Times.
"My complaint is that Fox pretends very hard to be something it is not, and in the process, contributes to the corrosive cynicism that has polarized our public discourse," he declares. Whether he was giggling uncontrollably as he typed this was unclear.
Can these liberals be more clueless? Actually, yes. Keller is smart enough to understand why the American people believe the media elite is shamelessly slanted to the left and is presently huckstering for President Obama like he's a struggling brand, a political new Coke. Keller concedes his media critics "probably are convinced that what they have created is the conservative counterweight to a media elite long marinated in liberal bias."
But then comes another passage that really deserves its very own laugh track. Keller insists the conservatives are wrong. They're not biased at The New York Times because "we try to live by a code, a discipline, that tells us to set aside our personal biases, to test not only facts but the way they add up, to seek out the dissenters and let them make their best case, to show our work. We write unsparing articles about public figures of every stripe -- even, sometimes, about ourselves."
Quick, let's disprove Keller in a sentence or less. (It can be done.) Here's Bill Keller reporting from Moscow in 1989: "Watching the Supreme Soviet invent itself is a little like speed-reading the Federalist Papers." In 1996, he asserted that dissenter-murdering Mikhail Gorbachev was "a man of impeccable character."
Unlike Rupert Murdoch or Roger Ailes, they poison America.
Anyone who reads The New York Times can easily disprove Keller. In stories about global warming, does the Times "seek out the dissenters and let them make their best case"? What about gay marriage? Abortion? Waterboarding? Dick Cheney?
Keller concedes the Times has "often been condescending to those who don't share our secular urban vantage point" on the social issues, but then insists, "It's also true that we have sometimes been too evenhanded, giving equal time to arguments that fail a simple fact-check." There's not a single conservative anywhere fishing in the deep end of the sanity pond who would agree with that.
Keller tut-tutted that Fox can't really believe its shows are "fair and balanced," because "that's just a slogan for suckers." And "All The News That's Fit to Print" is for scholars? Isn't the "fair and balanced" just as implied when Keller talks of how the media elites have a "code" where we "set aside our personal biases"?
But think of that Times slogan for a minute. The key words for Keller are "fit to print." In the glory days of pre-Fox journalism, if the Times insisted a story -- let's just guess a story that gores the liberal ox -- was not "fit to print," the story was deep-sixed. Spiked. Axed.
The real reason Fox is somehow "America's Poison" is because of its willingness to go around the liberal censorship wish list and define what is "fit to print" in a different way. If Keller really liked "seeking out the dissenters," wouldn't he applaud Fox instead of comparing it to metaphorical cyanide?
Instead, Keller unspools the classic liberal complaint that what's wrong with "news" consumers these days is they often seek "an information diet that simply confirms your prejudices." The elitists in "traditional news organizations ... see it as their mission see it as their mission to provide -- and test -- the information you need to form intelligent opinions. We aim to challenge lazy assumptions. Fox panders to them."
Ah, those insufferable elites. But here's what really, truly gets them: We don't have to suffer them any more. We don't have to rip up our morning papers daily. Only the subscription notices, once.
Now conservatives have choices. Now we can insist that it's liberal twits such as Arthur Sulzberger who are "not fit" for media ownership, at least not the kind we want to bankroll. The republic will survive without having its information diet loaded with the empty calories of The New York Times.
The motto of the Slimes is: All The Leftist Propaganda We Can Shove Down Your Throat.
As if the NYT is unbiased in it's reporting.
Calling FNC conservative is a stretch, It s more like FNC is the Republican channel much like MSNBC is the Democrat channel; although since 2011 start MSNBC is used to inspire much more political activism than FNC has been.
It wasnt long ago that the Palinistas were complaining about FNC no longer being conservative, but it never was. It's just Republican for the most part.
It is funny that the "dissenter's" best case is just never quite rises to the high standards of the Times editorial board, at least not when they are doing more than just spouting the party line.
Not that popularity alone is a measure of a news medium’s integrity, but doesn’t it seem odd that a public that should be so enamored of the Times’ noble ethic are rushing to embrace Fox while abandoning the creaky old gray boat in hordes? It would appear that Murdoch and Co. are far better interpreters of their customers than Sulzberger, et. al.
If they hate Fox News, they are gonna DESPISE Free Republic News. :)
Naturally, the spawn of satan consider the truth to be poison.
They are just sad and bitter that their MSM monopoly has been broken.
And this from an editor whose newspaper excoriated George Bush every day, every week, for eight years, and let’s Skippy the Mystery Man get away with a fake birth certificate, social security card, composite girlfriends, etc. Let us not forget.
Fox is a part of the major media, just not as hardcore marxist as the rest of them.
IF Fox really wanted to make the libs heads explode, they would put Marc Levin and others like him on the air.
Fox dumped Judge Napalitano.
The NYT is losing big money, how long can that go on? If conservatives targeted their top 5 advertisers for a boycott they could be pushed into bankruptcy.
I like the thought of Krugman without a pension, shuffling from dumpster to dumpster looking for his next meal.
The NY Times sniffs the competition but doesn’t notice its own bad breath.
I think they moved him over to Fox Business, didn't they?
Fox Business dumped him.
What a sanctimonious hypocrite. Everything in the NYTimes is slanted to support their agenda - news selected to print, headlines, content, etc. Every section. In the Arts and Entertainment section, gay performers get gushing reviews, straight ones get demeaned no matter what their merits.
Anyone who has half a brain can see what a piece of garbage that paper is.
Brent Bozell has a gift of being able to turn a phrase. Well done, Brent.
The declining once great NY Times loathes highly successful Rupert Murdoch. I wonder why?
That is all I hear from the Liberals when they are not making a case deification of the gifted Obama.
Fox is Republican cheering house.
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.