Blogger A. Alexander is shocked to find that after 20 years of ignoring the cause of the increasing divisiveness in America, the media is finally examining partisan divisions in our country - ever since the 1986 judicial elimination of the Fairness Doctrine. Writes Alexander, "Anyone who first heard Rush Limbaugh spewing his extremist right-wing hate could have foreseen the American-on-American fight."
That statement implies that someone was noticing the changes wrought by Ronald Reagan in this country after 1980, in the early days of the slow-cooking conservative coup d'état. Detecting the erosion would be difficult, with the networks preferring to feature such meaty and vital topics as purity balls [ABC] and The First Twin's new book deal [NBC] instead of the partisan dismissal of US Attorneys [CBS].
OpEdNews.com Executive Editor and Publisher Rob Kall contends that "the mainstream media are playing partisan politics." Isn't that what Teledep is supposed to do? Considering that the media has often made bad news disappear for the benefit of the Bush administration, he may well have a case.
Lately, there has been far more blatant partisanship displayed by Fox News in particular. This was recently evidenced by Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes. He pulled a "John Kerry" during a speech to the Radio and Television News Directors Foundation First Amendment Dinner by telling a flat joke about Barack Obama which preyed on the conservative-minded "similarity" between the names Obama and Osama. "It's true that Barack Obama is on the move," regaled Ailes. "I don't know if it's true that President Bush called Musharraf and said 'Why can't we catch this guy?"'
Ha ha! So funny I forgot to laugh.
The Democrats weren't laughing either, canceling participation in what had to be a Fox ambush masquerading as a debate among Democratic candidates to be held by the network last fall. Ailes didn't like this, of course, complaining loudly about this "boycott". I tend to side with the BuzzFlash assessment of Ailes lament: "Instead of Whining, Maybe He Should Run a Credible News Channel". But credible isn't a word familiar to those who still watch Fox. They have never experienced it.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
1 - JustOneMan
Realist??? I think not! Here are some REAL FACTS to assess the looney lefts claims...
According to the latest study from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, fewer than a quarter of the 3,204 adults surveyed believe all or most of what they see on NBC News (23 percent), ABC News (22 percent) or CBS News (22 percent), continuing a downward trend in credibility that stretches back to the mid-1980s. For the sake of comparison, the Pew study conducted in 1998 found NBC and ABC tied as the most trusted broadcast news organizations, with 30 percent of those surveyed saying that believed what was reported on both networks. CBS News had a 28 percent approval rate eight years ago.
CNN boasted a stellar 42 percent approval rate, only to drop to 28 percent this year. Rival Fox News Channel has remained steady since it was first added to the Pew study in 2000; that year, 26 percent of respondents said they trusted FNC, a figure that is more or less consistent with the 25 percent approval rate in 2006.
This non-biased study by Pew illustrates how out of touch the lefty loons are with main stream Americans. In addition it validates the death of the main stream media!
JOM
2 - Clavos
It's interesting to see that Realist and JOM, coming from polar opposite viewpoints, are in agreement that the MSM no longer has the trust of majority of the American public.
Would that media executives were paying attention...
3 - Dave Nalle
I'd be curious to see what evidence the decision not to participate in Fox's candidate forum was based on. As far as I can tell Fox had no intention of doing anything but putting the candidates infront of the public to air their views.
Dave
4 - Sisyphus
Hosting the debate means advertising dollars and credibility for Fox News. Why should the Dems stoke the coffers of -- and lend credibility to -- an organization that is clearly biased against them?
5 - JustOneMan
Sisipus
"Why should the Dems stoke the coffers of -- and lend credibility to -- an organization that is clearly biased against them?"
Using your logic Bush should not answer questions from reporters from CBS,NBC,ABC, NY Times, Boston Globe, etc...
More proof that liberalism is a mental disorder!
JOM
6 - Dave Nalle
Because it gets them exposure with an audience they may not be reaching through the media outlets which are biased in their direction. This is why so many of the smarter dem politicians regularly appear on Fox's popular shows. Remember Fox dominates the ratings compared to other news outlets.
Dave
7 - Sisyphus
Dave: "Because it gets them exposure with an audience they may not be reaching through the media outlets which are biased in their direction."
Point taken, but for a Democratic primary? The target audience would be predominantly Democrats anyway. Still, expanding their base is always good, which is probably why the debate was agreed to in the first place. But it came down to weighing this against pissing off a vocal, activist segment of the party. Cancelling with Fox pisses off no one that matters.
Dave: "Remember Fox dominates the ratings compared to other news outlets."
That is a ridiculous statement. Fox News is a cable channel with less than 3 million viewers as compared to approximately 27 million viewers for news on the three major networks. Fox News is the most watched CABLE news channel, versus MSNBC and CNN. Look beyond the cable news universe.
JOM: "More proof that liberalism is a mental disorder!"
More proof that you have no credibility.
8 - BriMan
This article is titled so that we are led to believe that TV News rots the brain. The supporting evidence did not attempt to dissemble every TV News program but chose to pick on Faux News - which is like shooting fish in a barrel admittedly. Nothing really spectacular or remarkable I'd say.
But JOM just cant control himself - he falls all over himself to prove the premise behind the article's title while smearing the author for writing it!! Dude, get a freakin clue...your ideology is stubbing your toe on your own other foot!!
Congrats - you just beat yourself up...
9 - zingzing
jom needs no help making himself look like an ass. just leave it to him, he'll take care of it.
i can't believe he actually clicks "publish" half the time, but this is his brightest moment yet...
he proves the point of the whole article, all the while believing that he is making a point AGAINST it.
sigh... i'm just waiting til 2008. we'll see what happens when (if) a good liberal is president. will the world (...america...) be a better place (will it recover?) or will it fall to bits?
i can't see how people like jom think that the world is more healthy now than it was in 2000... this place is fucked right now. we (and that's just us) are at war in two different countries, and thinking about... aiming towards... full on nuclear conflict with two more. the world has taken a turn for the worse in this decade, and hard line conservatives have been leading the way (from either side). so. if "liberalism" (whatever that is) "is a mental disease," what have we got now? is this world sane, politically? i wouldn't say so. i think it's going pretty nutso right now. so why continue down the same path?
hrm. rambling. oh yeah, i'm sick. forgot for a moment. gonna drink some more.
10 - JustOneMan
Morons..you know who you are...the author failed to mention any of the credibility and biase issues of CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc.
By saying "there has been far more blatant partisanship displayed by Fox News in particular." He outs himself as a biased liberal loons in need of medication...
Gee and Katy Couric and Dan Blather are so fair in their reporting....
JOM
11 - Zedd
On a lighter but significant note.
Do they not have wardrobe, hair and make up people at Fox "News"? Why do they look all disheveled and dewy as if they just fled the scene of a particularly messy crime? My silly friend says it's guilt. They've made some improvements lately but geeeeez, if they are not all messy, sleazy and pervy looking, they are just tow up!!
Is it me or is O'Reilly over talking about child molestation. Its starting to get creepy. Understand me, I am not saying that he is making too big of a deal out of it. The topic cant be overly emphasised. But he seems to be trying tooooo hard to seem genuine about the topic. I'm scared.
12 - The village idiot
JOM. Not bad, not bad at all. Did I just maybe underestimate you? GREAT COMMENTS.
13 - BriMan
JOM-
I can avoid the ad hominem attacks because you give me my monthly fix in usually 2 posts or less.
The article does not implicitly stand up for ABC or CNN et al even though it dissembles only a single network. The article as I pointed out earlier simply chooses to pick on the easiest target. If that makes the author "a biased liberal loon" then one would necessarily conclude you are full of ideological shit based on his having pointed out the inane BS put out there by ABC, NBC & CBS in the very same article while there was real news to report.
Dude - how did they allow you to buy a computer? Maybe you have WebTV or you were one of those guys who waited in the rain for week for the newest Xbox instead....?
14 - JustOneMan
BriMan...
Wow Dude Man..you really let me have it man like WOW Dude....oh man...like when the moon is the seventh house and jupiter aligns with Mars...man..oh wow Dude..
MORE PROOF OF LEFT WING INSANITY
JOM
15 - Arch Conservative
"JOM: "More proof that liberalism is a mental disorder!"
More proof that you have no credibility."
Lickypuss......
I'm just curious
Do you consider someone at at an antiwar rally wearing a Marxist T-shirt screaming "Bush is Hitler, down with American imperialism" credible?
16 - Dave Nalle
sigh... i'm just waiting til 2008. we'll see what happens when (if) a good liberal is president. will the world (...america...) be a better place (will it recover?) or will it fall to bits?
The only way we're getting a liberal president is if Giuliani gets elected. The Dems sure aren't running any liberals - their two front runners right now are a fascist and a socialist.
Dave
17 - Arch Conservative
"The only way we're getting a liberal president is if Giuliani gets elected. The Dems sure aren't running any liberals - their two front runners right now are a fascist and a socialist.'
Hillary is the socialist so that makes Obama a facist?
18 - Dave Nalle
I read it the other way around. But they're really both socialists. Obama's a kind of Mr. Softy feelgood socialist and Hillary is more of the gulag and secret police kind.
Dave
19 - MCH
"...Obama's a kind of Mr. Softy feelgood socialist..."
- Dave (Vox Populi) Nalle
Is he "softer" than you, Nalle, living in a fortified compound and sitting in front of a keyboard 8-10 hours a day?
20 - Dave Nalle
MCH, I'm not running for president, last I checked, so comparing me and Obama makes about as much sense ... well, it actually does make about as much sense as most of the idiocy you post.
Dave
21 - STM
Dave, you could run an alternative swarthy candidate ... shake 'em up a bit.
22 - STM
That should read: " ... AS an alternative, swarthy candidate".
Mate, you'd kill it for sure. I'll even come over there and give out Dave for President stickers:)
23 - Arch Conservative
"MCH, I'm not running for president, last I checked, so comparing me and Obama makes about as much sense ... well, it actually does make about as much sense as most of the idiocy you post"
Haha... dave's got your number MCH.