Finally, Fox "News" admits the truth

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

http://www.newshounds.us/2005/05/31/fox_news_admits_its_in_bed_with_karl_rove.php#more

May 31, 2005

Fox News Admits It's In Bed With Karl Rove

Did you know that Fox News is a "private channel"? That's what Fox's London bureau chief, Scott Norvell said in an op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal Europe on May 20, 2005. He also wrote this:

"Even we at Fox News manage to get some lefties on the air occasionally, and often let them finish their sentences before we club them to death and feed the scraps to Karl Rove and Bill O'Reilly."

Comment: What unmitigated arrogance. (l) If Fox thinks it's a "private channel" it should get its butt off the public airwaves owned by each and every citizen of this country. (2) I'm glad Fox has finally admitted it cuts off, talks over, and generally makes "lefties" look bad when they appear there. We've been writing about that for a year now, and Outfoxed illustrated it, all while Fox innocently denied doing any such thing. (3) No, people don't always "know what they're getting." We get endless letters here from people who absolutely insist that Fox News is the only "fair and balanced" network on television. That's the danger of Fox. Fox brainwashes people while it simultaneously convinces them that its "fair and balanced." If Fox wants to make sure people "know what they're getting," it should immediately drop the "fair and balanced" line and come up with something new, like "Watch Fox. We Propagandize for the Radical Right."

It looks like we News Hounds, and a lot of other people, have had Fox's number for quite some time now. Thank you Mr. Norvell for confirming it. Now that the truth is out, maybe we can get on with making sure everyone knows it, so those who watch thinking they're watching "fair and balanced news" can finally begin to know the truth about "what they're getting."

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 882 • Replies: 17

No top replies

Quote:

0 Replies

I suspect "melanie" Does not understand the difference between public and private tv.

0 Replies

Well it's always been my contention that both Rove and O Reilly can just eat me.....

0 Replies

There's nothing private about television. But I'm not so dense as to not recognize that they meant the company that owns the channel is not publicly funded. Of course, the public still owns the air waves.

What's really interesting about the op-ed posted is that it seems to indicate that the campaign against the last remaining dissenting voices (public media) is branching overseas.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

I suspect "melanie" Does not understand the difference between public and private tv.

McG, armed with his Karl Rove Spin Machine, [patent pending] winds it up and launches a little dust devil, hoping it will morph into a tornado and the spin will move the story to a place where it's a bit more manageable.

0 Replies

Then pats self on the back for being a good soldier in the fight against whatever it is we're fighting against now.

0 Replies

It's too early to be so patronizing. I'd ask that you wait until after noon EST for that in the future...

0 Replies

It's noon somewhere.

Off to get more coffee so I won't be so snippy. Top o'the morning to you, McG.

0 Replies

It is nearly midnight here.

0 Replies

This is what I need in the morning ... gossip! Keep it coming. I just can't get enough.

0 Replies

Re: Finally, Fox "News" admits the truth

JTT wrote:

Comment: What unmitigated arrogance. (l) If Fox thinks it's a "private channel" it should get its butt off the public airwaves owned by each and every citizen of this country.

Just a point of clarification - He referred to "FOX News" as a private channel which is exactly what it is. There is the FOX Network which operates on the public airwaves and there is a seperate Fox News network that is a cable-only channel just like FOX Sports does. (Some of the local FOX TV affiliates do broadcast some FOX News content but that doesn't make FOX News public.)

0 Replies

Isn't just Fox News in itself an oxymoron?

0 Replies

everybody knows that fox news leans hard right. the difference is that most of us say so and some won't admit it. but that's just part of the game.

as a sidebar, i noticed the other day during his very informative press party in the rose garden, that dubya no longer uses the term "homicide bomber" and has reverted to "suicide bomber".

i mention it because the only news channel i've ever heard use the "homicide bomber" buzz phrase is fox news.

i'm sure it's just a coincidence Laughing

0 Replies

Anybody here seen The Simpsons episode in which Krusty runs for Congress? The "debate" on Fox News is just high-larious . . .

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

everybody knows that fox news leans hard right. the difference is that most of us say so and some won't admit it. but that's just part of the game.

as a sidebar, i noticed the other day during his very informative press party in the rose garden, that dubya no longer uses the term "homicide bomber" and has reverted to "suicide bomber".

i mention it because the only news channel i've ever heard use the "homicide bomber" buzz phrase is fox news.

i'm sure it's just a coincidence

Well, if you think about it, homicide bomber is a lot more accurate in the description. If a person is "suicide" bomber, then the intent would be to kill him/her self. Not the case. They are trying to take out as many as possible, therefore a "homicide" bomber. I personally prefer the term "organic delivery system".

0 Replies

tommrr wrote:

Well, if you think about it, homicide bomber is a lot more accurate in the description. If a person is "suicide" bomber, then the intent would be to kill him/her self. Not the case. They are trying to take out as many as possible, therefore a "homicide" bomber. I personally prefer the term "organic delivery system".

"homicide bomber" is a lot less accurate. Timothy McVeigh was a homicide bomber. The roadside bombs in Iraq are constructed by homicide bombers. Yet they are obviously not included under "suicide bomber."

"Suicide bomber" has for years and decades meant someone willing to die while exploding a device attached to themselves. The intent to kill and maim others is understood in its common meaning.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

tommrr wrote:

Well, if you think about it, homicide bomber is a lot more accurate in the description. If a person is "suicide" bomber, then the intent would be to kill him/her self. Not the case. They are trying to take out as many as possible, therefore a "homicide" bomber. I personally prefer the term "organic delivery system".

"homicide bomber" is a lot less accurate. Timothy McVeigh was a homicide bomber. The roadside bombs in Iraq are constructed by homicide bombers. Yet they are obviously not included under "suicide bomber."

"Suicide bomber" has for years and decades meant someone willing to die while exploding a device attached to themselves. The intent to kill and maim others is understood in its common meaning.

all the more reason that it had to be stamped out and re-loquted in "bush speak".
Laughing

0 Replies

Finally, Fox "News" admits the truth

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know