Thurston Moore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Britain has a highly politicized, partisan media,
> and Fox News has brought that to America.
>
> It's hurting America.
>
>
>
http://www.newsweek.com/id/218192
>
> Any news organization that took its
> responsibilities seriously would take pains to
> cover presidential criticism fairly. It would
> regard doing so as itself a test of integrity. At
> Fox, by contrast, complaints of unfairness prompt
> only hoots of derision and demands for "evidence"
> that, when presented, is brushed off and ignored.
>
> .......
>
> Rather than in any way maturing, Fox has in recent
> months become more boisterous and demagogic. Fox
> sponsored as much as it covered the anti-Obama
> "tea parties" this summer. Its "fact checking"
> about the president's health-care proposal is
> provided by Karl Rove. And weepy Glenn Beck has
> begun to exhibit a Strangelovean concern about
> government invading our bloodstream by vaccinating
> people for swine flu. With this misinformation
> campaign, Fox stands to become the first network
> to actively try to kill its viewers.
>
> .........
>
>
> What's most distinctive about the American press
> is not its freedom but its century-old tradition
> of independence—that it serves the public interest
> rather than those of parties, persuasions, or
> pressure groups. Media independence is a
> 20th-century innovation that has never fully taken
> root in many other countries that do have a free
> press. The Australian-British-continental model of
> politicized media that Murdoch has applied at Fox
> is un-American, so much so that he has little
> choice but go on denying what he's doing as he
> does it. For Murdoch, Ailes, and company, "fair
> and balanced" is a necessary lie. To admit that
> their coverage is slanted by design would violate
> the American understanding of the media's role in
> democracy and our idea of what constitutes fair
> play. But it's a demonstrable deceit that no
> longer deserves equal time.
>
>
Newsweek is hardly an unbiased source to post a response from. It isn't as if the government is running the media (See Britain) - of which the equivalent over here would be NPR. Thank God there is no TV equivalent here in the US. Although now what you have is the MSM buying into the "party-line".
Sorry TM, but you are drinking the koolaid. You come here and tout all this hyper-partisan BS, but in reality you are consistently DEFENDING the same organizations that are promoting the continuing dumbing down of the news. What you keep glossing over is the fact that Murdoch runs News and Media organizations - his only Corporate interest is to himself. He isn't like the guy in the James Bond movies where he is some kind of megalomaniac that has to have his face posted on every building, and tries to make the news by blowing up ships from other countries and trying to cause wars.
The MSM today ONLY reports salacious news against Conservative opponents. That is pretty much it. They have taken this cry of "hypocrite" and applied it to conservative politicians, so the only time you get a story pounded to discredit someone is when they are on that side of the aisle. Look at Charlie Rangel - how many stories in MSM over his tax evasion? How many stories about why the ethic committee isn't being partisan by glossing over his activities? Your cup is overflowing with BS TM. The media became "partisan" a long time ago - Fox is just the other side of the coin, which unfortunately we needed to offset the news that was not being covered by MSM.
Sure, do ALL politicians have problems? Absolutely. That doesn't mean Fox is wrong for covering the other side to expose their BS. Personally I am tired of "radicals" trying to control the way I live my life. I don't want religion pushed in my face, and I don't want the moral relatives pushing their apathy agenda either. This article from Newsweek is just another "expose" in the attempt to marginalize Fox. It will be interesting to see what the final result is - but I seriously doubt Fox is going anywhere, and will most likely only get a louder voice because of it.
EDIT: That article smacked of a conversation Vince would have - in a more civilized tone.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/29/2009 02:41PM by Registered Voter.