"OutFoxed": How Fox News Is Destroying American Journalism

Dunno if I agree with the "Danger" assessment, nimh. I see FOX not as causal, but as symptomatic; they did not create their market, they merely took a flier and developed and provided a product for which they suspected was an existing unsatisfied market. Looks like they were proved out on all counts; the market was there, and that market has undeniably endorsed the product FOX provided. Lotsa folks want what FOX sells.

What's wild about it? (Reading along and agreeing.)

Hey you darn girl . . . uhm, where do you live?

Oh Boy! The Wild Girls are here.

PARTY!

Fox is so unbalanced in their "news" coverage, any idiot can see these yokels are far right neocon supporters. As somebody has already opined, Moore and Fox are of the same color; they cater to their own kind of garbage recepticles that makes their peers happy - in their idiocy. I'll know it's balanced when I see them show 1) the opposing view, 2) identify mistakes by their own side, and 3) stop defending their own biased position when facts show otherwise.

I agree completely with Timber's assessment here.

I wrote a book about it (LONG POST), but thought better of giving it a public view.

In the least, I find all news networks have plenty of infotainment threaded in to news programming--and they all have slant.

Why this makes one more dangerous than the others, is very suspect to me.

IMO, the dangerous time was BEFORE FOX, when the slant was all in one direction--and 50% of American citizens could not find representation or fairness in the news.

<bloodcurdling scream>
<apoplectic fury>




<deep breathing.....>

Just over thataway! And you're too hard on the place. Love it so far.

So it's back to liberal bias in the mainstream media? Hmm. That seems to contradict the Fox as an analogue to CommonDreams and MoveOn consensus that has been building.

But the larger consensus is that fluff is bad, and I totally agree with that.

On those rare occassions that i actually rely on video for news, i browse around different sites . . . and no matter whose, am always appalled . . .

Afghan Warlord defies Government . . . 2 min.

Shoot-out at Imam Ali Shrine . . . 3 min. 20 sec.

Senate Approves Medicare Measure . . . 1 min. 40 sec.


That's it ! ! ! That's what i want ! ! !


In depth coverage . . .

CI--nimh--

Have you ever even seen Fox?

CI--
In almost every interview they have two opposing viewpoints. You talk like you've never seen it. Sean Hannity is opposite Alan Colmes, a liberal.

They have plenty of Bush critics on.

Alan Colmes is about as liberal as you are, Sofe.

I think you mistake "liberal"--which he is proud to be, with vitriolic partisanship--the kind who is an apologist for every turd that falls out of the collective liberal butt.

He is a liberal. He represents them well.

Hannity and Colmes have found fault with their own parties, on occasion.

Hannity is more vitriolic than Colmes. I respect Colmes' behavior more....and Hannity's views more.

I'm guessing CI, nor nimh have ever seen FOX news. Not rushing, but really would like to know the truth about this--considering the criticism.

Timberlanko:

But Air America is one of the most streamed sites on the web.

So one of the outlets is quite big.

Once again another good "Fox Watcher" can be found at FAIR

There is a RatherBiased "watcher", as well, showing Dan Rather's incredible partisanship...

In all, I think everybody has a "watcher"--and that's a good thing, IMO.

I see Tucker Carlson has a really great show. Wonder if he'll make it. Does this mean he left Crossfire? I think Begala is Hannity's match. Maybe you'd like the show is Colmes was replaced with a Begala-type? He's a little too milquetoasty.

What the blankety-blank are you talking about? The range of news sources here is sooooo much wider than that available to the average American. If I hadn't removed almost all the U.S. network programming from my satellite subscription, I'd have it all. I've got French news, Italian news, BBC-1, BBC-2, BBC-Canada, a huge heap of Canadian news sources of almost imaginable political orientation, still more U.S. stations than I'll ever watch, news from Hong Kong (though admittedly I can't make much out of it), on weekends there is also news from eastern Europe, India, several countries in Africa, and a few more countries I can't identify at all. Al-Jazeera has just been approved for broadcast here. I think we can safely call that 'varied choices'. I've got no weird/wonderful/unusual media access. It's almost basic level satellite (with the addition of film channels like DivaTV and the Independent Film Channel).

Lovely.

Good for you, ehBeth--but you (and anyone in Canada who wants it) have no hope of getting FOX, since your government banned it.

Imagine the hue and cry if Bush had banned BBC...

The existance of these news orgs isn't the danger--the danger is when they are summarily banned. IMO.

Hannity and Colmes is a love spat; why waste my time watching them? What's that other group? I don't watch them either; it's a waste of time - as I've said in my previous post.

Any time a government, be it Canada or any other, get rid of either Murdoch or Black, it's a positive sign, for all that it offends against the sensibilities of our first amendment. It ain't the U.S., and you'd be hard pressed to make the case that the Canadians suffer the lack of that network. The vast majority of the Canadian population lives within an hour of the border, anyway, so a dime to a dollar, most of them who can stomach it can watch FOX anytime they want to.

The CBC was created to fill a void for radio in Canada in the -20's, not to exclude or stifle competition.