Fair and balanced…and stupid
May 1st, 2008 at 07:20am Pat Cunningham
This is too, too funny.
The morning gang on Fox News Channel chortled among themselves the other day at the thought of some dimwitted intern trying to find video of the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858.
But they had nothing to say about the graphic on the screen showing black abolitionist Frederick Douglass rather than U.S. Sen. Stephen A. Douglas.
Check it out HERE.
Entry Filed under: Frederick Douglass, Lincoln-Douglas debates, Fox News
20 Comments Add your own
1. Will Pfeifer | May 1st, 2008 at 8:13 am
That collection of dimwits is the dumbest concentration of idiocy on television, and I’m including the cast of “Rock of Love” in my assessment.
2. Del Wasso | May 1st, 2008 at 8:35 am
Why is that democratic, liberal, and anti-war messages are routinely purged from the Rockford Register Star’s online forum (http://community.e-rockford.com/forums/)?
Not only that, but the good folks who live and work along the stateline, and have posted anti-war messages on the RRStar’s forum have been banned, by the forum administrators, from posting again in the future.
The argument that left-leaning posters have used derogatory terms when referring to pro-war republicans, such as ”fascist”, or even, ”Nazi”, doesn’t hold much water, considering that pro-war message board members commonly refer to anti-war posters as either socialists, or even communists.
And their derogatory posts about liberals, or democrats, aren’t purged. And those offenders aren’t banned from posting in the future, either.
The double standard reeks of political pandering - an in-kind campaign contribution to the Illinois GOP, if you like.
The Register Star should be ashamed of this hypocrisy, and hold those asst. editors in charge of the paper’s online forum fully accountable.
For more information on this issue, go to http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×3109398.
3. Mike Carroll | May 1st, 2008 at 8:40 am
You Libs are sure obsessed with Fox News. Too bad-time to move on-the monopoly is over.
4. Pat Cunningham | May 1st, 2008 at 8:44 am
What “monopoly” would that be, Mike?
5. Mike Carroll | May 1st, 2008 at 9:02 am
Why Patrick that would be the liberal monopoly in the MSM that existed until cable and the internet brought about real choice. BTW, I see the liberal bible (NYT) took another hit in the circulation department. A couple of more years of Pinch’s leadership and it will only be a memory.
6. Pat Cunningham | May 1st, 2008 at 9:46 am
Well, Mike, you’ll always have the Moonie paper, the Washington Times, for the conservative slants you love so much. By the way, the decline of the NYT has nothing to do with the paper’s so-called liberal bias (featuring such liberal columnists as Bill Kristol and David Brooks). There are troubles across the newspaper industry, no matter their editorial ideologies. One other thing: Fox News Channel is barely a pimple on the butt of the mainstream media. These cable news channels are virtual boutiques that draw relatively few viewers. Far, far more Americans get their news from ABC, CBS and NBC than from Fox, CNN or MSNBC. Even Katie Couric, who ranks a distant third among the big three evening newscasts, draws two or three times as many viewers as Fox’s top-rated show with Bill O’Reilly. Moreover, Fox is trending downward (down 14 percent in prime time in the past year) while MSNBC is trending upward (up 9 percent in the past year in the key 25-54 demographic).
7. Mike Carroll | May 1st, 2008 at 10:10 am
“Fox News Channel is barely a pimple on the butt of the mainstream media.” Exactly-makes you wonder why it throws you Libs into spittle producing fits. Evidently various liberal organizations have threatened to pull their support for any Democratic candidate who appears on Fox News.
BTW-yes, Bill Kristol now writes for the NYT but it is very recent and that announcement caused apoplexy at the Daily Kos and Moveon. The next time I read the Washington Times will be the first time I read the Washington Times and the WSJ’s circulation increased over the same time period where the NYT’s decreased.
8. Kaus | May 1st, 2008 at 10:26 am
Dan Rather = real FAUX news. False reporting is
Keith Olbermann = reads his scripts straight from the Daily Kos. He doesn’t report real news.
The trends downward at Fox is due in part to the numerous democratic debates that are not allowed on Fox. That skews your numbers a bit.
9. Pat Cunningham | May 1st, 2008 at 11:10 am
The fact remains, Kaus, that relatively few people watch Fox News Channel or any of the other cable news channels compared to the big three network newscasts. Moreover, Fox has little influence on public opinion. All the recent polls show that Americans are far more likely to identify themselves as Democrats than Republicans. So much for the influence of the Republican Propaganda Channel (and of the right-wing radio blabbers as well).
10. Pat Cunningham | May 1st, 2008 at 11:13 am
Two other things, Kaus. Dan Rather is gone from network news, and Keith Olbermann is an opinionated commentator (like O’Reilly, for instance), not a news anchor or reporter. Obviously, you don’t understand the difference.
11. Kaus | May 1st, 2008 at 11:36 am
1. Dan Rather IS gone. But Jerry Falwell is DEAD and you still brought him up in a prior blog post.
2. Anchor or Commentator….duh, I know the difference. However, a commentator should still be subjected to truthfulness not truthiness.
3. Network news is leading ONLY because local newscasts are a lead in AND some people can’t afford cable.
4. Fox is not making an impact???? Are you joking? Why else do Obama and Hillary make appearences there this week? Duhhhhhhh
12. Pat Cunningham | May 1st, 2008 at 11:49 am
Hillary made an appearance on Fox News Channel. Obama did not. Obama appeared on the Fox network’s Sunday talk show, which is not on Fox News Channel.
13. Pat Cunningham | May 1st, 2008 at 11:51 am
Another thing, Kaus: Tell me when Olbermann has uttered certifiable untruths (not just opinions with which you disagree).
14. Pat Cunningham | May 1st, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Oops! The Fox Sunday talker is rebroadcast on Fox News Channel on Sunday nights. I apologize for the error.
15. ROTStar | May 1st, 2008 at 5:16 pm
The Register Star — RRStar could try offering a balance in their political blogs (the offer was made repeatedly) and perhaps they would buck the trend of the other paper suffering continuous declines. What your currently doing isn’t working as recent lay offs again demonstrate.
Or you could continue to grip on to a sinking business model — the whole time (irrationally) cursing Fox News for providing middle America with a pro-American outlook on the news.
Just a thought.
David
16. Pat Cunningham | May 1st, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Fox is “pro-American”? What a hoot. And what’s this crap about “middle America.” Where exactly is middle America, David? Really, I’d be interested to see your answer.
17. Menlo Bob | May 1st, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Easy…that spittle is shorting out my laptop.
18. ROTStar | May 1st, 2008 at 8:22 pm
New York Times — JIM RUTENBERG
:After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, though, Fox News Channel covered the fighting in Afghanistan with heavy patriotism, referring to ”our troops” who were fighting ”terror goons.” Fox jumped to first in the cable news ratings in January 2002. The channel has now taken its brand of pro-American journalism to a new level. One recent night, a correspondent in Iraq referred to war protesters as ”the great unwashed.”Wall Street Journal — by ORSON SCOTT CARD
Fox News Channel, on the other hand, claims to have only one bias–it is definitely pro-American–and it presents all the facts and every viewpoint and leaves the decision up to the viewer.
Chicago Tribune – By Steve Johnson — How Fox is Winning The War
Tribune television critic
Yes, Fox might be said to be the American answer to Al Jazeera, seeking to put every nugget of information in the best possible American light.
(…)
Fox, of course, turns the patriotism dial up to 11
Guardian UK — ITC Tackles Fox News Bias Claims
The Murdoch-owned Fox News Channel, whose determinedly pro-US stance during the Iraq conflict brought it critical notoriety but commercial success, is being investigated by television regulators in Britain for alleged bias.
Middle America: The American middle class, especially its traditional or conservative elements.
Pew Research
Strong Opposition to Media Cross-Ownership Emerges
Public Wants Neutrality and Pro-American Point of View Equally notable is the public’s receptivity to the idea that news organizations embrace a decidedly “pro-American” viewpoint, which coexists with continuing support for neutrality in news coverage. Seven-in-ten Americans see it as a good thing when news organizations take a “strong pro-American point of view.”
(…)
The survey finds a greater percentage of the public saying they most often turn to Fox News Channel for national and international news compared with 18 months ago. More than one-in-five Americans (22%) say they get most of their news from Fox News. This is up from the 16% recorded in January 2002 and only somewhat behind the 27% citing CNN in the current survey.
(…)
The Fox News audience also is more likely to prefer pro-American coverage of the war on terrorism.
TV Newser — May 1 Ratings
25-54 demographic: (L +SD)
Total day: FNC: 317 | CNN: 160 | MSNBC: 129 | HLN: 118
Prime: FNC: 612 | CNN: 323 | MSNBC: 225 | HLN: 228
Pro-American — Check
Middle America — Check
David
19. Pat Cunningham | May 1st, 2008 at 8:49 pm
You couldn’t be more daft if you tried, David. Fox’s jingoism is pseudo-patriotism. The network’s so-called pro-American coverage of the war amounts to mere mouthing of the Bush administration’s propaganda. You may have noticed, David, that the vast majority of Americans — even as measured by polls commissioned by Fox — aren’t buying the war propaganda and haven’t been buying it for several years.
And furthermore, David, how dare you approvingly quote some Fox News pinhead to the effect that opponents of this stupid war are “the great unwashed.” Those opponents include countless military veterans, retired generals and admirals, parents of kids killed or maimed in Iraq and millions of other good, decent, patriotic Americans. Where do you and the rest of your self-righteous ilk get off with resorting to such a disgusting smear?
Where did you ever get the notion that people like you have a corner on patriotism?
I oppose this war, David. And I’m not one of the great unwashed. And I’m every bit as patriotic as you, perhaps more so judging by the garbage you’re peddling here.
You’re not pro-American, David. You’re pro-blind allegiance to the chickenhawks who started this insane war. That, my friend, smacks of fascism.
20. ROTStar | May 1st, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Pat, I did none of the things you said here — didn’t you just accuse me of putting words in your mouth?
Your really projecting. And very defensive.
You don’t know me and you don’t know what I think.
I didn’t call you unpatriotic — I never claimed to have a corner on patriotism. I love the varied opinions in this country they are what make America great! It provides the balance that allows America to continue in its greatness. There may be swings one way but they are countered providing the path we have maintained to this day.
Did you read the NYTimes article I quoted — it attacked Fox and all the news and ridiculed the unwashed term but did state that they had a pro-American outlook, something you questioned.
I provide you with evidence and you imply I am not pro-American, a chickenhawk and fascits. How big of you — hope you feel better tomorrow.
David
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed