It’s Official: Rupert Murdoch Is A Senile Old Coot

The chairman of News Corporation, Rupert Murdoch, has endured many decades as a right-wing purveyor of tabloid pseudo-news enterprises around the world. His power and influence has been felt in the halls of governments and the boardrooms of corporations. His opinions have been sought after and received with great deference. But that’s all over now.

In an appearance at a forum for the public affairs TV series, The Kalb Report, Murdoch exhibited clear signs that he has lost touch with reality. Sam Stein of the Huffington Post was there and reported some examples of Murdoch’s mental decline. It begins with the ludicrous assertion that the staff at his competitors MSNBC and CNN “tend to be Democrats” but that his own Fox News presenters “are not Republicans.” He did not, however, bother to identify a single Democrat at his rivals’ networks, and when pressed, he was also unable to name one on his own.

More importantly, Murdoch seems to have completely forgotten that he employs the most recent vice-presidential candidate of the Republican Party, Sarah Palin, as well as a candidate for the GOP presidential nomination, Mike Huckabee. And let’s not forget other avowed Republican Fox Newsers Karl Rove, Rick Santorum, Dana Perino, Newt Gingrich, Dick Morris, Laura Ingraham, John Bolton, Dan Senor, Linda Chavez, and Oliver North. Fox is lousy with Republicans, but in his diminished capacity Murdoch is so confused about the political affiliation of his crew that he can declare aloud and in public that there aren’t any such people working for him.

In another departure from reality, Murdoch was asked if it was ethical for Fox to promote the Tea Party movement. For anyone paying attention it is clear that Fox became a virtual publicity machine for the Tea Baggers.

They aired numerous interviews of Bagger spokespeople including their chief strategist and fundraiser, Dick Armey. They had reporter Griff Jenkins riding along on the Tea Party Express bus. They dispatched their top anchors, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Greta Van Susteren, and Neil Cavuto, to host Tea Party events across the nation. They even branded branded some of the events as “FNC Tea Parties.” But Murdoch’s response to the inquiry was rife with bewilderment:

“No. I don’t think we should be supporting the Tea Party or any other party. But I’d like to investigate what you are saying before condemning anyone.”

Either he never watches his own network or his memory and comprehension skills have utterly collapsed. He must also not be paying much attention to that Internet thing. For several months Murdoch has been promising to put all of his online news content behind a pay wall. He has spoken out harshly against what he deems theft by news aggregators like Google. Never mind that he can stop Google from indexing his web sites anytime he wants with just a few lines of code. At the Kalb forum he reiterated his opinion saying…

“We will be very happy if they just publish our headline or a sentence or two and that’s it. Followed by a subscription form.”

You would hope that someone on his staff (or his nurses) would advise him that that is exactly what they do now. If you search Google for news content, you will get only a headline and a couple of sentences. Then you can click the link to go to the full story on the content owner’s web site. Contrary to his misconception, this drives traffic to Murdoch’s site, it doesn’t steal anything. And what Murdoch doesn’t acknowledge (if he even remembers) is that he owns web sites that actually do steal content from other news sources. His Fox Nation, for example, is a news aggregator that does not pay for the articles it features, but reprints much more than a couple of sentences from them – sometimes the whole article.

The general tone of this interview ought to be disturbing to Murdoch’s family and doctors. He really appears to be suffering from an acute cognitive failure. These are not the sort of logical missteps made by someone who has built an international media empire. Murdoch is either profoundly distracted or is losing the mental acuity to perform his duties. It may be time for him to consider stepping aside and let his kids screw up the world for awhile.

Addendum: Additional reporting on the Kalb interview reveals that Murdoch…

  • …doesn’t consider Sarah Palin to be a journalist. (Duh!)
  • …believes that Greta Van Susteren is a Democrat. (Never mind her adoration of Sarah Palin for whom her husband is an advisor)
  • …thinks the iPad will save newspapers. (Right. A $600.00 device possessed by a fraction of American households, that will charge extra for subscriptions, is going to replace a news source that was delivered for pennies a day to any American doorstep)

Keep ‘em coming, Rupert.

Advertisement:

68 thoughts on “It’s Official: Rupert Murdoch Is A Senile Old Coot

  1. Your writing is sad and dismisses the value of any points you may legitimately be making by wrapping your position in personal and hurtful attacks.
    The same type of comments that typically generates outrage and claims around fairness.
    Often we find those who yell loudly for tolerance are the least tolerant. Those who cry foil the easiest speedily hurl hate speak themselves.
    It would be my hope that you are not that type of individual but your words elicit sympathy for you and a hope that as a society we can help you overcome these self imposed limitations.
    Consider the old saying of whats good for the goose is good for the gander and recognize that what you say my just come back full circle and at the end of the day good points and positions are lost in the noise. Truly sad.

    • Me,

      This post is so generic that I trust you use it on whichever site you wish to troll. Did you even write it, or is this a “cut and paste” effort? To quote a truly intellectual giant – “truly sad”.

  2. you mean they should report about the tea party menbers like you and most of the network ? Thats fair. I have seen numerous polls through-out the years that put the % of journalists and the money they donate to politics at about the 70% democrat range, give or take a few points…… i never read that when you write about fox news and how biased they are. But you rag Rupert for saying the other networks have democrats working for them ? You liberals crack me up….. if someone disagrees with you or your politics, you slander them and make wild accusations and unsubstantiated claims….. yet you are the party of fairness and tolerance ? Ha ha ha

    • Funny…You accuse me of making wild accusations, but you can’t even respond substantively to a single point I made.

      I’ve identified numerous known Republicans working for Fox. Can you name even one Democrat working for NBC? And I mean employees, not guests. Also, I mean known, acknowledged Democrats (like I did above for Republicans), not just people you think are liberals.

      FYI: Did you know that ABC’s new World News Tonight anchor, Diane Sawyer, was Richard Nixon’s press secretary?

  3. one more thing…… when you report about the tea party movement, from what perspective do you report it ? As one of those begging for a free government hand-out ?(maybe your job isn’t paying very well and you could use some free government goodies) as a socialist ? Or do you really think that you report this as a journalist ? If you checked journalist, you are more mental than you claim Rupert is.Journalists are not one sided. I hear you rag fox all the time, yet never mention ABC, NBC, MSNBC are in the tank for you socialists. Maybe you all want jobs at the new USA version of Pravada…. good luck comrade.

    • If it makes you feel better, no, I am not a journalist. I am an analyst with a transparent point of view.

      And watch out for those commies. I think I see one under your bed.

  4. watch out for those tea party guys….. they might be trying to take away some of your free stuff !!! Analyst must be the socialist term for ‘hack’. Because if you actually analyzed, you wouldn’t always march to the maoist beat from the white house and democrat party………… i think you really mean commentator… that would save you from actually looking at things from both sides and then you could write your blog without actually having those pesky ‘facts’ in the way….. and for the record, yes, communism and socialism is bad……. never worked in any country before in history, they ALL went bankrupt. Thats the problem with liberals and socialists (if there is a difference), its always real easy to spend other peoples money…. until it runs out.

    • It’s apparent that all you can do is call people names and throw around labels like “socialist.” I doubt that you even know the definition.

      But if you cannot respond on topic I will regard all future comments from you as SPAM. I am willing to engage you substantively, but I have no time for this childishness.

  5. you want to know who is biased ? You say I didn’t mention any ‘facts’……. here they are

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113455/ -lists 143 journailist donating to political parties from 2004 to 2007. of the 142, 124 donated to democrat campaigns. (follow the url for fact checking)

    need more:from 2004- Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found. Five times more national outlet journalists identify themselves as liberal, 34 percent, than conservative, a mere 7 percent. The poll also discovered that while the reporters, editors, producers and executives have a great deal of trouble naming a “liberal” news outlet, they had no problem seeing a “conservative” outlet, with an incredible 69 percent readily naming the Fox News Channel.
    and from 2008-(basically the same results…

    A survey conducted late last year and released in March by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press confirmed…that compared to the views of the public, conservatives are under-represented in national journalism while liberals are over-represented. Jennifer Harper of the Washington Times discovered the [information] buried deep in the annual “State of the Media” report from Pew’s Project for Excellence in Journalism and FNC’s Brit Hume…highlighted the findings from the survey of 222 journalists and news executives at national outlets:

    Only 6 percent said they considered themselves conservatives and only 2 percent said they were very conservative. This compares with 36 percent of the overall population that describes itself as conservative. Most journalists, 53 percent, said they’re moderate. 24 percent said they were liberal and 8 percent very liberal.

    • @frozen guy:

      The list you provided doesn’t show a single journalist at NBC donating to Democrats. The two who do show up in the list for donations to Democratic campaigns have one whose husband, who shares the checking account, donating to a senator’s campaign for $250, and the other bought tickets for her husband to a concert where the proceeds went to a political campaign.

      Also, even if they had donated directly to Democratic campaigns themselves, donating to a party does not mean one is registered to that party.

      You’re also equating the whole of all news outlets, including print and magazines, with cable news. Before you accuse others of not getting facts straight, try providing actual facts yourself.

      • so you are mad that they officially notate their party affiliation ? your not as upset that they donate to a campaign, so that can’t possibly show where their politic are ? You crack me up…. they can donate money to, support financially a cause, but they minute they identify themselves to a party, they are no longer objective ? But they are objective even after supporting a cause financially ? Its the declaration and not the actions that bothers you ? Whats the difference ? That makes no sense at all…….

  6. then lets get down to substance:
    research definately shows in almost every poll that the majority of journalists donate and vote liberal. I think we both can accept that as fact. I can send more research if necessary.
    as for name calling, i apologize, but i was just using the tone set in your previous blogs about Fox, Murdock(sp), and the tea party movement. I can enguage in civil discussion.
    as for substancial points in the article that you say I don’t respond to, i was responding to your label of Rupert as not being fair-minded about the tea party movement by responding that all the other networks have done nothing but slam them.. on shaky grounds at best.

    • Thank you. I accept your apology.

      I would like to address the studies you cited. First of all, donations to candidates are a very different thing than advocacy of personal positions in their work. It is possible for people to have personal views but keep them out of their reporting. That is the responsibility of a journalist (who all have personal views, after all). Granted, that responsibility is not always met, but it is the goal.

      However, the people I cited above are openly partisan. They regard it as their jobs to advocate on behalf of their party. I don’t think you can say the same about some 2nd Assistant Director or junior copy editor at a magazine.

      Finally, if your complaint about my portrayal of Murdoch is that other networks are also biased, then you are effectively agreeing with me that Murdoch and his Fox News is biased. Thank you. You did not rebut my position on Murdoch, you just said that others do it too. Which means that you admit that Murdoch does precisely what I said he does.

      Also, do you really think that the giant corporations that run the media in this country are controlled by liberal ideology? Wouldn’t that be contrary to their interests as giant corporations?

  7. your site has rejected my rebuttal, but i think it is a server issue (according to my computer) i will try again later. I enjoy conversation and mean no disrespect…….

  8. first, when you say ‘openly partisian’, you state an opinion. No journalist is ‘openly partisian’. Not fox, not nbc, cbs, cnn or msnbc. But we determine ‘partisian’ by wheteher they agree or disagree with our personal politics. You say fox is partisian because they don’t conform with your idea of the tea party (most recent example)… CNN reported the tea party rally in searchlight nv as having ‘dozens’ of people attending, when even nbc estimated the crowds at 6-8,000. CBS had the whole forged Bush documents fiasco, and MSNBC hosts get warm feelings running up their legs when they hear obama speak. So to say one station is partisian(fox) and the others are not is intellictually dishonest and a matter of personal perspective. It would not be honest to say otherwise.
    second, why do we hold corporations to a different standard than we do individuals ? What exactly makes a giant corporation good or bad ? Why is the 3-5% profit evil for insurance companies and oil companies, but 8-25% just fine for walmart and contractors and most small businesses ?
    long story short, our personal perspective and experience determine bias not just in what is reported and how, but how it is received and understood. All networks are biased, so we gravitate the one that most closely mirrors our own views and perceptions…..

    • When I say openly partisan I am referring to people like Karl Rove and Dana Perino, who are fresh out of the Bush White House. You know that these folks, along with Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, etc., are Republicans, don’t you?

      The only host on MSNBC who has a known party affiliation is Republican Joe Scarborough.

  9. this is just one example of a study, UCLA is hardly a bastillion of conservatism….. so this is just an example of how the political leanings of the listner is just as biased as the news it hears and the way it is delivered. one can find just as many studies that say journalism leans to the right.That is my point…. you can rag fox news all you want, but they are not any more biased than any other network, they just lean away from your own political leanings so it makes it more unpalitiable…..

    Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist
    By Meg Sullivan December 14, 2005 Category: Research
    While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper’s news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.

    These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.

    “I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican,” said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study’s lead author. “But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are.”

    “Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left,” said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.

    The results appear in the latest issue of the Quarterly Journal of Economics, which will become available in mid-December.

    Groseclose and Milyo based their research on a standard gauge of a lawmaker’s support for liberal causes. Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) tracks the percentage of times that each lawmaker votes on the liberal side of an issue. Based on these votes, the ADA assigns a numerical score to each lawmaker, where “100” is the most liberal and “0” is the most conservative. After adjustments to compensate for disproportionate representation that the Senate gives to low‑population states and the lack of representation for the District of Columbia, the average ADA score in Congress (50.1) was assumed to represent the political position of the average U.S. voter.

  10. What frigidgay is trying to say is that overt “fascism” is OK as long as it is perceived to be balanced out by covert “liberalism”…
    Whether this “liberalism” is EVIL or even actually exist is up the the McCarthyist to figure out.
    And if you cant trust a McCarthy, Who can you trust?

  11. Still waiting for “me” to refute your article.

    O.T., but last night I heard Sean Hannity tell his audience that one of his guests, Fox”News” contributor Peter Johnson, was a “staunch Democrat.” Maybe I’m confused about the word “staunch” but I haven’t seen Peter Johnson agree with anything Pres. Obama(D) has said or done.
    Does “staunch” mean fake, faux, disingenuous, pretend, or back stabber?

  12. okay, so o’riley and hannity (both opinion shows) have rove, petera, and that guy from the clinton white house that hates them….. agreed. They have party affiliation….
    but msnbc has chris matthews who ran for office as a democrat. was tip o’neals top aide– whats the difference ? Keith obermann regularily has Janeane Garofalo and al frankin, both who couldn’t cut it in comedy or their own shows but are highly partisian. Then there is the ‘ed’ show, who’s bio proudly refers to him as a ‘progressive’ voice…
    so if they declare party affiliation on fox, thats worse than all the non-affiliated talking heads on msnbc that are just as biased, just from your perspective ? So its the declaration of party of the OPINION HOSTS (you never see rove or any of the others on the news portion) that bothers you ? Not that they are one sided as I have just proven they all are…….

    • First a few factual corrections:
      Rove and the others appear on many more Fox programs than those you cited, including Cavuto, Fox & Friends, Megyn Kelly, Shepard Smith, etc.

      Janeane Garofalo and Al Franken were both very successful in TV and films. But I don’t know why that even matters. Sarah Palin was a failed sportscaster (unlike Keith Olbermann).

      Chris Matthews never ran for office in either party.

      Secondly, please address this: I have not made ANY reference to the partisanship of MSNBC or other news networks. Technically, you have no idea if I consider them partisan or not. I have only expressed my views on Fox. Why can’t you respond to that without bringing up other networks? Can you say whether or not you agree with me that Fox is biased without questioning the bias of other networks? Suppose I stipulate that other networks are biased too. Will you then take a position on Fox?

      • never saw rove on cavuto or with sheppard where he posed as a commentator or news source. I saw him on sheppard once, when shep was asking him specifically about his book and issues in the book… as I remember, shep gave him a pretty hard time. The other shows you mention are opinion shows like ‘good morning america’..are they fair and balanced ? Not by any stretch of the imagination. So lets hold them all to the same standard.. not just FOX.

  13. shrill, i am suprised your nurse lets you stay up this late. I thought you kids at the home had to have your meds and in the beds by 7pm. Good for you ! Now put on your little helmet and get back on the little bus and go home and get some sleep. Somebody is probably worried about where you are.I guess you must be really excited about the free health care !!…… and shrill, if you want conversation, we can have that. If you want what your name implies (shrill) we can do that too……. your choice.

  14. not sure about peter johnson…. I am not a big hannity fan. same old stuff every night ! A lot like obermann and matthews. can’t speak intelligently about that………

  15. “It’s apparent that all you can do is call people names…”

    Like calling somebody a senile old coot? Dude, you’re funny.

    • Thanks. However, I think it’s clear that it is not true that “ALL” I do is call people names. If you read this site you will find an abundance of analysis and research.

  16. this is from wikipedia, and yes, i understand they can be in error, but it was the information i gathered. Yes, Matthews ran for political office (he lost) as a democrat. So, yes, he did run for office, worked in the carter in the white house and with tip oneal in the hose of reps. So he was a declared politician.

    Political career and views
    When Matthews first arrived in Washington, D.C., he worked as a police officer with the United States Capitol Police.[4] Subsequently, he served on the staffs of four Democratic members of Congress, including Senators Frank Moss and Edmund Muskie. In 1974, he mounted an unsuccessful campaign for the Pennsylvania’s 4th congressional district seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, in which he received about 24% of the vote in the primary campaign.[5] Matthews was a presidential speechwriter during the Carter administration. Matthews later worked six years as a top aide to long-time Speaker of the House of Representatives Tip O’Neill, playing a direct role in many key political battles with the Reagan administration.

    as for whether fox is biased, i did address that in several posts. I believe ALL (including Fox) media outlets are slanted. All the research I have seen indicates the same general point over the past 40 years. Networks (including Fox) AND MSNBC are biased. My only problem is that liberals rail against fox like its something out of the ordinary…. when ALL the networks are biased. ALL the others just lean in the direction of the left, so thats okay. Its hypocritical to rag fox for being biased, when most evidence points out that they are all biased, so in effect, you guys are just mad- not that they are biased- but that they are biased towards a different political ideology than your own- and you find that offensive. Thats the point I am trying to make………

  17. The problem being Frozen guy, is that Fox has loudly shouted for year that it is fair and balanced. They used for years the slogan of “We report, you decide’ but they seemed to miss points of fact that would sway the viewers to one side or another. I think we can agree that News shouldn’t be biased. I think we all agree that people being people, will probably sway a bit in one direction or another. The problem becomes when it is a massive swing, with no apologies, and yet claims of being neutral.

    Additionally, it has been Fox which has hyped the Tea Parties, it has been Fox who has had commentators who push extreme ideas that are not true (Death Panels), and it has been Fox who has not apologized, either as a company or the individual, when they are wrong about something.

    Now while Sean Hannity apologized the one time for showing the wrong protest @ DC for a tea party protest, Id did not see him show actual footage for the protest. Nor did he ever apologize for inflated numbers. On the other had, Keith Olberman, when wrong, has always apologized, usually the next day. He even apologized for a report done by a substitute on his show about David Vitter’s Wifes dress making her look like a call girl.

    So be honest. In comparison, Who slants more, and omits more facts. Is this OK? Should something be done? I’m not going to pretend that I have an answer on the last.

  18. lang, we decide every day when we select which one we choose to watch. Do you complain when CNN calls itself the ‘most watched’ when the reality is it is 3rd watched cable news program ? Probably not. As a matter-of-fact, all the other news biases don’t bother me in the least… its only when you guys rag FOX that i make a comment. All the news is slanted, PERIOD. The problem comes in when liberals rag fox, then pat cnn and msnbc on the back…. they are all just as biased. Its only when you don’t agree with their politics that it becomes an issue. Did you rag cbs when they (during the election) ran a trumped up story with false evidence against bush ? probably not. Did you rag against cnn when they reported a tea party assembly as made up of ‘dozens’ of people when even liberal msnbc noted the crowd at 8-10,000 ? probably not. all the outlets are biased. you just rag fox for it because they lean right instead of the usual left. They are not more biased (look at ANY of the real research, not just the slander sites) and you will find this true…you just don’t like their politics because they are different.

    • actually yes i complain, and throw things at my name when CNN says its the ‘most watched’ or the ‘most trusted’ or anything else. it’s not. i know it you know it. i hate it.

      now CNN is just going to the dumps. they lost Amanpour, one of the last credible journalists. they hired Redstates bafoon Eric Ericson because they didn’t have enough crap on already.

      even tho Faux is one of the main enablers and sponsors of the Tea Party with Dick Army, CNN is helping by trying to portray the parites as grass roots and sending their reporters on the Tea Party express bus giving credibility to the incredulous.

      Yes CBS f’d up huge on fact checking, but it doesn’t invalidate or repudiate all other matters regarding Bush. i could also easily point to Faux swiftboating campaign against Kerry.

      But for every 1 instance you find of ‘liberal bias’ against Bush, i can find 100 forms of deference or reverence to King George by all the Networks, and complete ball sucking by Faux. Faux held him on a pedestal, and would not dare interview Bush or Palin like they did Obama recently. George was givin so much free reign for many years following 911.

      I believe the lamestream media is not as left as you claim. rather, it cowtows to Faux for fear of being called liberal, so you have a center right lamestream, with a super right Faux. to get real left and progressive, you have to hit the internet.

      If you read Eric Boehlert’s Lapdogs, you’ll find countless examples of the false equivalency you place on ‘all outlets’ being just as biased. Fox rules the roost, and has the audacity to claim its ‘Fair and Balanced’.

      Only to its own sheep maybe.

  19. Here’s a test: Allen West, a candidate for the GOP in Florida on video, urged the Tea Party members @ his rally to “pressure” Rep Ron Kline D-Fla making him scared to come out of his house.

    If you think he was advocating violence or at least threats against a duly elected rep or not, the question is, will Fox report it? I think this is a newsworthy story, that people in Fla should know about.

    Let’s keep watch.

  20. did any of the networks report on obama’s background ? His tax cheat selections to treasury ? His communist (both belonged to the communist party so before you have a stroke–check on the facts) parents ? His communist mentor ‘frank’ from hawaii ? His associations by his own admission with foreigners and marxists while at college ? didn’t hear any of that either from any of the networks. I hear all the networks rag the ‘violence talk’ from the tea party menbers, but where were you guys when the anti-war protestors were burning effigies of Bush and shouting ‘death to bush’ ? (maxine waters was at several of these rallies leading the chants of ‘bush is a liar’). So where was the major networks during all this ? Once again, if they provide you with the news you want to hear, you consider them non-biased. But if they present another side, they are biased and that annoys you. Thats the very definition of hypocracy. If we want to have a discussion that ALL news is biased…. I will agree and provide lots of evidence… but if all you want to do is try to prove fox is more biased, that simply isn’t true or intellictually honest. They just don’t agree with your politics while most of the other news outlets do… so that makes you think fox is more biased.

  21. Oh Heck FG. I Rag on Rachel, and Keith when I think they’re missing stuff. The problem I’m seeing from you, and I see a lot, it, “Why are you persecuting me!” or, “How dare you do this!” when we all have the right. We have freedom of speech. But that only means that the Government can not restrict our speech (Although it does in that we can’t swear on radio and tv). What we need is responsible speech. Grouping us all as “you guys” or ‘Liberals” is just as others may group you in with ‘ReTHUGlicans” or some such does everyone a disservice. Is MSNBC slanted? Yes. Both ways. Rachel, Keith, Ed vs Joe. I’m not sure about Chris sometimes. CNN? Sure. And we all agreed that Fox is as well. Now can we get back to what is it that they report and what is omitted, and what is apologized for. Where does slant stop and outright lies begin. How often does this occur? These are the questions we should be asking, and if one network does it a lot more, then we should start making corrections there, at least as far as pointing them out. Should we ignore the other networks? No, but let’s face it, a network that has a lot more issues with get called on it more, and thus, be persecuted.

    • by who’s ideas would ‘responsible speech’ be decided ? You mean like the ‘fairness doctrine’? As I have said before, I decide with my remote which news to watch, and all news networks live and die by who’s watching them. I don’t want to muzzle msnbc or cbs. I just don’t watch them very much. Let them report the news as they see fit… let consumers decide. I am not for any censorship of ANY news source. All I am saying is that they are ALL biased…. provably biased. So why do you rag fox and not msnbc if they are all biased ? Because you have a political view that differs from theirs and think they are more biased because they report parts of the story they think are important and not necessarily the same parts you think are important. News flash : This is the same way ALL networks report the news, thats what makes them biased. One leans left, one leans right… you only complain about the one that leans right…….. the only imaginable conclusion is you are biased also (like we all are). so why regulate only fox / Because they disagree with you ? That doesn’t sound like good constitutional authority to me.

      • the fairness doctrine isn’t a muzzle, it’s about educating the electorate.

        sure you can choose to watch fake wrasslin over olympic style wrestling. its more entertaining. many others will do likewise. olympic style wrestling will get no viewers and accordingly to market forces, die a horrible death. too bad the real deal with substance couldn’t compete with the high flying pizzas of a mans soap opera.

        the fairness doctrine doesn’t ‘muzzle’ opinion… it simply doesn’t allow for it to go unchallenged. and thats what the right wing ultimately fears. when you have a fox round table of intellectually dishonest flakes like Bill Kristol or Charles Krauthammer or Rudy Guiliani talking about foriegn policy or war (when they have been proven wrong 10,000 times over) and are still given a voice as credible.. theres a serious problem. They are still free to voice their themselves, but fairness demands that someone of equal stature on the left (such as a Glen Greenwald, Andrew Bachavich or Arianna Huffington) be there to provide a counter viewpoint and leave it to the viewer to see who made the more credible argument. When real facts come into play, the right ‘turtles’ and hides. Thats why you’ll never see it on Faux.

        The BBC, Al Jazeera, and to limited extent, CNN allow both sides to come on and make their case. Jon Stewart/Colbert do not hesitate to bring opposing ideology guests on their shows because they are not scared of their positions being exposed. Both Stewart and Colbert have gone into the lions den and done interviews on ORiellys show (and to OReillys credit, done likewise)

        But thats the main point. Without allowing for a free exchange of opposing viewpoints and ideas and rebuttals, you will end up with a sheepish and stupid population that adheres to lies and propoganda because it was packaged nicely and entertaining. And REAL news and reporting is just too bland and too depressing and just so un-american when it brings the horrors of war too close to home (as in the Tillman coverup, or the Pentagons admitted coverup of a special forces raid in Afghanistan where they cut the bullets out of the pregnant women they shot and made up a story of honor killings, or the slaying of 2 reuters journallists by brazen and triggerhappy Apache gunship pilots) etc…

        So please dont say its a muzzle, or would inhibit news, speech, dialogue or opinion. it would only seek to enhance and strengthen it. if you fear the truth, then you are an enemy of democracy.

        • and msnbc covers ‘both’ sides wehen it has al frankin and Janeane Garofalo its balanced ? ha ha ha. the shows you are talking about are OPINION shows, just like chris matthews and greg obermann….. you watch them as such. Just like hannity and o’reiley. please stop using opinion shows as proof of bias…they are opinion shows…….. read what you wrote…you rag the conservatives about not wanting dissent and different opinions, yet you are the one wanting to limit someones opinion ! YOu say we are the ones afraid of dissent, yet in all my posts, I am pro-dissent, even if i think it is biased. So who exactly is afraid of dissenting opinions ? It sure appears you guys on the left want to control the media, not me….

        • i seriously do not understand your argument or where you are coming from?

          i did not state ‘msnbc covers both sides’. i stated BBC, AL Jazera and to a limited extent CNN. helps if you read it properly first.

          i stated msnbc acts as a counter to faux news drivel. its a warped version of the fairness doctrine, an imperfect version.

          you speak of my (and the insinuation is the leftwing progressive movements) being afraid of dissenting opinions, that we want to control the media? where did you infer that from? did you pull it from thin air or out of your behind? im stating that i would LOVE to see debate and dissenting opinions more often. You seem to believe that by having debate you limit speech? how is this possible? how can you have a debate if all the views are to one side?

          i would like for you to explain how freedom of speech is diminished or destroyed by having an opposing argument or viewpoint presented?

          i would also like to point out to you that freedom of speech does have certain limits. You cant yell fire in a theater when no fire is present, and you cant slander or libel someone with the expectation of protection from litigation based on that free speech. it has consequences. in this case the ‘limiting’ of speech (limiting the left while propping the right) has the deleterious effect of guiding, shaping and completely misinforming the public on substantive policy issues that affect every american especially in matters of national security.

          yes i am talking about opinion shows. but the slant faux puts in its regular reporting is just as awful. like the need to rename suicide bombers ‘homicide bombers’… or to play up snowstorms as evidence that global warming is a hoax. like comon.

          back to opinion shows, which shape the core viewer. heres a challenge. get Glenn Beck to have an hour long show with Glenn Greenwald to debate all thing foreign policy on his show. Get Beck to have Matt Taibi Howard Dean on his show to do an hour long discussion of all things healthcare and social policy. He did it for Eric Massa (because he believed Massa would help his cause, huge backfire). So if he firmly believes his positions, why wont he put his money where his mouth is and debate these guys. the left would LOVE to have these guys on their shows but im sure the righties aren’t biting due to their positions being exposed badly.

  22. any of you guys want more proof ? Just look at the posts here….. i admit fox is biased, yet even after example after example of biased media leaning left, all you guys do is rag fox. tyou guys arn’t even willing to admit that your news program leans left. Just rag fox…. that is a very intellictually dishonest arguement and just reinforces my point: you arn’t really mad fox is biased, or you would also be mad that msnbc, cbs, cnn, the NY times, abc, washington post… is biased left(provably).. you are really just mnad that they are biased in a political leaning that you disagree with. The problem is not that they are biased, but lean the wrong way. So lets say that. I don’t mind the news being political, as long as it slants left. Thats what you are really saying, so at least have the guts to admit it.

  23. from wikipedia on media bias:using a HARVARD STUDY (AGAIN HARDLY A CONSERVATIVE COLLEGE) please note they specifically call out CNN on their bias……but none of you guys rag cnn for being biased. I wonder why ? I just think liberals have a hard time seeing the news from another perspective, not the one that most outlets expose them to– and it pisses them off. You don’t see nearly as many anti cnn, anti msnbc or anti-abc news rants from conservatives, even though their news is just as slanted– just the other direction. I thought you guys were supposed to be the party of tolerance and respect of other people s ideas— I guess that only applies when their ‘diversity’ agrees with your own opinion.

    ABC News political director Mark Halperin stated that, as individuals, most journalists and news producers hold liberal political views and these views affect their reporting.[20] In a survey conducted by the American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1997, 61% of reporters stated that they were members of or shared the beliefs of the Democratic Party. Only 15% say their beliefs were best represented by the Republican Party.[21] This leaves 24% undecided or Independent.

    A 2002 study by Jim A. Kuypers of Dartmouth College, Press Bias and Politics, investigated the issue of media bias. In this study of 116 mainstream US papers, including The New York Times, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle, Kuypers found that the mainstream press in America tends to favor liberal viewpoints.[22] They found that reporters expressing moderate or conservative points of view were often labeled as holding a minority point of view.[22] Kuypers said he found liberal bias in reporting a variety of issues including race, welfare reform, environmental protection, and gun control.[22]

    Studies finding a perception of liberal bias in the media are not limited to studies of print media. A joint study by the Joan Shorenstein Center on Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University and the Project for Excellence in Journalism found that viewers believe that liberal media bias can be found in television news by networks such as CNN.[23] These findings concerning a perception of liberal bias in television news – particularly at CNN – are also reported by other sources

  24. Ok. So his parents were communist. Both of My parents were republicans growing up. I’m in the middle, and I admit leaning left. We all have choice of what our world view is. Our parents don;t decide it. So why is this fact important to you? Again, let’s look at facts vs reporting. Fox reported a lot on Jerimiah Wright (Spelling?) His preacher and comments made by him after 911. Did Obama make these comments? No. Did he distance and separate himself from this priest (eventually). Yes. At the same time, there were many stories on Fox about Obama attending a madrassa (spelling?) and he was a Muslim. OK. How can he have a Christan priest, and but be a Muslim? Big disconnect there.

    Protesters: During the bush years there were a lot of protesters some with more forceful language then others. On average, who covered the protests more? CNN did. MSNBC did. Fox did. Who coverd it more, and what aspect. I couldn’t tell you that one and I won’t try to claim one way or another. Violence? Well, certainly unkind words and such, but actual violence against Bush, Cheney, or others? None.

    Current protesters: Fox does seem to be covering it less, but are covering it to a degree. Strong language, again, yes. Violence? Let’s face it. We’ve had people arrested with guns who have proudly claimed they were going to kill Obama. Bricks through windows (Not reported on Fox) and a surge in ‘Patriot groups’ some of which have been arrested.

    Politics aside. Let’s look at facts. Do I have a bent? YES! I admit it. Do you? Will you admit it? OK. now that that’s over, let’s acept that and now let’s look at the reporting, distortions and lies. Who is an offender? CNN? MSNBC? FOX? To one degree or another, YES! Who is worse? I’m suggesting Fox, but you disagree. OK. But claiming that I only ‘attack’ Fox is silly, because I have stated I have issues with the others as well. The problem is, is that I see Fox as a bigger problem due to it’s viewer ship, and the lack of News reported, and even people having their Mic’s cut. If they want the title of fair and balance, then earn it. Report on all things, and point out real issues with other news outlets. Leave the hype of ratings and other items behind. Let’s get back to some facts with as little bias as possible, from everyone.

  25. am I biased ? obviously I lean to the right in my politics. I thought that was very obvious in my writings and conclusions. Should ALL the media report fairly ? Yes, I thik we can all agree on that also. Do ANY of them report totally honestly and unbiasedly ? Obviously not. Now as for the violence, if you look back at history and do it objectively, you will see that both sides are guilty (anti-war protestors had actual riots)… the eco-terrorists that destroy cars and car dealerships in california, the G8 terrorists that destroyed all businesses in sections of seattle, shots through the front windows of a senators office a couple of weeks ago…….. all liberal terrorists. Are there conservative terrorists ? Yes, just as many. But politics are about even in rhetoric and scope from both sides…. I can admit that. Can you ? One side does not have moral superiority in politcs today, and to suggest that wouold be biased and not within the scope of the facts.

  26. Dont know where to begin.

    It all started with the Fairness doctrine. As soon as it was history at the behest of the rightwing and corporations, the publics interests were subverted by those who wish to control the message. Faux News took that ball and ran with it huge.

    Used to be that both sides got to air their laundry and the viewer got to decide based on all the facts and opinions (and rebutals). An informed citizen is the backbone of democracy. Fast forward.

    You dont get that nowadays. Faux news is all about hard right opinions and they rarely if ever have a dissenting liberal guest or viewpoint to challenge their spew, so all Faux viewers get is the same tripe that made them the most gullible viewers and most easily duped when it came to matters that had a real impact (read Iraq war).

    The right has constantly labeled MSM as being ‘left’ but trust me, im very progressive an i dont buy that. I will grant that MSNBC has given up the goose on gone overly left to be the counterbalance to Faux’s right, in essence, bringing back the Fairness doctrine slightly as in they will rebut the mistakes of the right voices. (Olberman, Maddow, Ed vs. Oreilly, Hannity, Beck)

    This has led to the rise in opinion and less on news, hence CNN’s decline as they ‘tried’ to stay somewhat balanced and only report on stories and not interject massive partisan opinion into it. Americans seem to have given up on substance and love the bloodletting in the left/right fued between Faux and MSNBC.

    Simple answer is bring back the Fairness doctrine. Its the only way to fix this issue. Those who decry it are the ones who are cowards and fear a dissenting voice of reason. If there was a Fairness doctrine, there would not have been a war in Iraq, hawkish warmongers posing as pundits would be laughed off the airwaves, the stranglehold of 90%+ of all talk radio in america being hard right wing would cease to exist, etc… and that just cannot happen according to their corporate overlords. too much money to be made so fuck the fairness doctrine.

    So in the end, the fault lies with the right because Reagan and Fowler got the thing repealed.

    Stephen Colbert famously spoke “Reality has a well-known liberal bias”.. and there is truth to that. Which is why so many news sources are labeled ‘leftie’… when all they do is report on the news as it is seen through the lens of a camera. Faux and right wing news go out of their way to find ways of either ommiting, or bending the spirit of that view to comport to the view they try to instill in their viewers.

    Again i will use the Iraq war as an example. When Condi was doing the circuit saying that the smoking gun could be a mushroom cloud, there was a report about aluminum tubes just coming to light. Faux, (and most other networks) claimed it was for centrifuges for nuke building. The fact all other networks reported as such dispells the ‘myth’ that they’re left leaning. The information was readily available out on the ‘internets’ that the CIA had an internal discussion and concluded that its use was mainly for building rockets as the aluminum was not suitable for centrifuges. What should have been easily dismissible with a couple of left leaning voices was allowed to fester into a cancer that allowed the lie to continue and perpetuate. So many lies went unchallenged because the corporate right wing interests were allowed to dictate the narrative. And now your in year 8 of a shitty war that should never have started.

    Someone once told me, the left wing media is only as left as their right wing owners beholden to their right wing sponsors. Bring back the Fairness doctrine and put an end to the wasting of Americas collective intelligence once and for all.

    • mike, have you ever noticed that pesky little document called the constitution ? It has that verse about “Amendment Text | Annotations

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”

      we cannot simply turn the media into PRAVADA.You can complain about fox. You can tell you friends, blog, vote with your remote, vote for the political candidate of your choice, but you cannot regulate free speech just because you disagree with it. Thats simply not american. I don’t want msnbc, cbs or cnn regulated… even as far to the right as I am, they deserve to be a voice. A step towards the fairness doctrine is a step towards censorship… and remember, the conservatives will come back into power someday, and do you want them regulating the media with their version of the fairness doctrine ? No, just like I don’t want people regulating ANY of the media with their liberal version of the fairness doctrine. Debate is okay, but silencing voices is simply not the American way of doing things… arn’t you liberals supposed to be the tolerant ones ? The diverse ones ? The one’s that enjoy health debate and opposing oppinions ? How come I don’t hear any conservatives wanting to silence msnbc or cnn because of their bias ? How come we sound like the tolerant ones ? Whats wrong with that picture ? Its jusdt you guys railing against fox news… why do you think that is ? Just one vioce in the media when you already have the bias of all the others ?… why is that mike ?

      • yes i read it, and i understand its concept. i also understand that the band spectrum of the public airwaves belongs to the people, not the ideology of the corporate owner of the station. ergo, if all the owners suddenly became leftwing, and decided to no longer produce or sponsor or believe that rightwing talk was vaible or profitable… your right wing speech would seriously be under attack.

        well, right now it’s counterclockwise. and while the TV broadcast signals are indeed still scattered across the left-right spectrum, the same cannot be said for radio frequencies, which are hosting a majority of rightwing talk radio, even in decidely LEFTwing markets. this flies in the face of free speech when LEFTWING voices are silenced because they do not have access to the PUBLIC airwaves that are owned and consumed by rightwing owners. and when the majority of the radio population is hearing nothign but rightwing frothings the likes of Beck, Limbaugh, Ingrahm etc…. they get a screwed up vision of the landscape. The leftie cant vote by choosing to go to another station dial because there IS NO alternative.

        I have no problem at all with the rightwings freedom of speech and freedom to say any dumb stupid assinine argument it wishes to make. I just dont like to see it go unchallenged when i know there is a dearth of articulate voices who have counterpoints that would make these right wing shills crap their pants and run. but you’ll never hear them because its against the interests of the corporate master whos reaping windfall profits from running a dithering idiot on the airwaves.

        but seriously, if you want your TV landscape to go the same way as your radio broadcasts, by all means. then it will be all right wing all the time. Newscorp, Disneys Clear Channel, etc.. can own it all, and soon they’ll fight and kill net neutrality and only right wing opinion will show up on US media servers and google listings as well. keep it up and you will have freedom of speech for sure, the Freedom to tow the rightwing party line exclusively.

    • and you quote stephen cobert as a credible news source ? a comedy central host ? thats pretty funny if you think about it….

      • sad state of affairs when they are more accurate than talking heads on Faux. Faux viewers were more likely than any other group to hold up to 3 major misconceptions about the Iraq war than any other viewing group.

        I believe the same cannot be said about Comedy Central.

        So yes, it would be funny, if it was so sad and tragic for all the dead Iraqi’s and the fallen soldiers of the coalition forces who fought to bring democracy to Iraq. But democracy in Gaza is not allowed. Oh well.

        Im would still be waiting for WMD to show up if it wasn’t for the fact i did not watch Faux or the rest of the lamestream ‘LEFTWING’ *cough*$@@&$#!7 *cough* media.

  27. Sure there are lefty loons. Never said there weren’t. Question: How does a bunch of ladies (Code Pink) try to perform a citizens arrest on Karl Rove equate to the malitia recently arrested, who were planning violence on our police and firemen? It’s was compared that way on Fox. This is what I find offensive. The equating of something on one side to another. The folks @ G8? Abhorent. The buildings they destroyed/damaged had nothing to do with the summit. Trying to Citizens arrest Karl Rove? Amusing. Would not have been if anyone, Karl or the ladies had gotten hurt. But the two events do not equal each other. G8 vs Group arrested: G8 did propery damage but no one killed. Arrested planned on multiple killings. On that one, I’d say the people to plan killings in order to prove their point or start a movement were worse, though as I said, I con not condone the G8 either. Anytime violence is used or encouraged in the name of politics is awful and we should all say, “No! This is not right!” You and I disagree. But we are able to keep it civil. I would hope you agree that anyone who advocates violence is not ok, what ever their political affiliation. The issue I feel is that at this point and time, the rhetoric coming from the tea parties and Fox as well, though CNN has had issue too, is scary and all of us need to take a step back and say this is wrong. Can you do that? At some point, I’m sure that those now in power will be out, and then they will be the ones advocating for violence. I can state that I will stand against that as well, and I would hope that you, and other will stand with me, but only to decry the violence. Not to put the others down, and claim that there is no valid point to their argument. The GOP does have a few things on their platform I could agree with. I just find that the Dems have more things, and I personally do not like how the GOP tries to implement their changes. But that does not mean I hate them, or I hate Fox. I just think that things should be called out when they are wrong, on any side, but calmly and rationally.

  28. LANG, I think we pretty much agree on most everything. Violence is wrong from either side. The political debate has gone from politics to rhetoric, each side trying to out-do the other… we agree. Equating code pink to the militias is wrong– but making code pink OR the militias to the democrats or the tea party is wrong also… they are the extremists on both sides… not affiliated with eaither side.. they are crackpots on both sides. I agree that i see things both parties do that are good and bad…. i lean right so i see more conservative things that are good…. both guided by our perception and personal philosophy. I have no issues with you or your politics and believe this is where politcs should be….. between informed adults, calmly and intelligently and with respect to EACH side. Is fox biased ? Yes. Is MSNBC biased ? Equally as fox…. but it is our responsibility as citizens to discern with intelligence the news and politics with an open mind and a reasonable perspective. On that we can both agree. usually rhetoric is reserved for when politics, facts and reasonability are left out.

  29. oh and just to get back on topic and prove Marks point.

    Faux and the whole rightwing crackpotosphere would go into a holy hell kanipshun if Al Gore suddenly became a pundit or talking head or got his very own show on MSNBC.

    But Sarah Palin is just such’a darling you betcha and gets her own show on Faux. Oh how they swoon for their superstar dont they?

    Oh wait, wasn’t it the Faux and the right who drummed up that whole ‘Obama is a superstar and a messiah’ narrative for weeks on end?

    As Roger Ailes admitted to Huffington, its not about the news or the facts baby, its about the ratings.

    And while MSNBC is becoming overly partisan, at least they actually fact check and rebut the drivel over on Faux (ala Rachel Maddow). Maybe instead of crying like babies that they’re being targeted by the invisible left wing conspiracy cabal, they should re-rebut the claims that MSNCB personalities make and do an all out network war. That would convince viewers to jump from one show to another to see the Fairness doctrine at work again! Yeah, i just solved the damn problem!!!

    That is if the rightwing blowhards have the guts to expose their arguments to the real world instead of preaching to the choir. Methinks they dont have the sacks for it.

    • still looks to me like you are the one afraid of dissent. I say, let them all talk and let us decide….. but you ‘tolerant’ minded liberals who are ‘diverse’ and open-minded and ‘respectful’of other opinions are the ones trying to limit speech to just your ideas….. does it ever really bother you to claim one side is “That is if the rightwing blowhards have the guts to expose their arguments to the real world instead of preaching to the choir. Methinks they dont have the sacks for it” when YOU are the one calling for censorship ? How much of a hypocrite do you have to be to make statements like that ? Talk about being sack-less…..

      • again i ask you how i called for censorship.

        please cite an example. please explain how the fairness doctrine censors free speech.

        you do that.. and i cant repudiate it, ill withdraw my comments.

        until then, the sack comment stands. your move.

        • the fairness doctrine will limit free speech by setting up ‘local boards’ that CAN and WILL dictate speech as it deems “NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY”…. this is the “LOCALISM” section that they are pushing instead of the fairness doctrine. If a local committee, as picked by the FCC (by the party in power) regulates that you are not “serving in the interest of the community”… community access– so this would limit RUSH, BECK and Hannity– but amazingly wouldnt affect Schultz or if air america was profitable because they do not service enough stations. Shouldn’t the market decide ? Isn’t that the American way ? If we don’t like it, we don’t listen or watch. Business will see more profits doing the things we want them to do, and the free market dictates what goes on the air waves. By the way.. it would have no effect on fox news as they are a cable channel and not subject to the rule.You guys are the sack-less ones because like in all things– you want the government to fight your battles for you and regulate against your opponent so your side can win. you are not interested in conversation or opposing ideas, you just want the other side to go away…. Thats the sack-less way of doing things.Why don’t you stand up and go idea to idea with them ? instead of trying to use the government to do your dirty work, go idea to idea, news story to news story… stop accusing everyone else of being sack-less when you are the one wanting big brother to come and make everyone see it your way… thats really sackless if you ask me.

        • “this is the “LOCALISM” section that they are pushing instead of the fairness doctrine”

          so what you just said is that its not the fairness doctrine you object to, it the LOCALISM section?

          the ONLY aspect i refered to was the Fairness doctrine, the rule that stipulated that every viewpoint that had a dissenting viewpoint needed to be pointed out and raised. EG. If you claim that aluminum tubes are for nuke building, and there is information in the public domain that it is also mainly used for rocket building, YOU CANNOT OMIT IT to strengthen your case for nuke building.

          you can continue to spew free market all you want, but it doesn’t apply. News (and the opinion shows attached to those stations which make them receive credibility) fall under a special class.. unless you believe your founding fathers wanted the citizen class to be consuming product rather than understanding the world around them. they understood democracy only flourished under an informed electorate with all facts at their disposal, not the select few of one ideology or another. you would rather ‘market’ forces allow for the right wing a monopoly on speech.

          you still seem to think that government and regulation are true evil. ok. fulfill your destiny. stop paying income tax, leave your home (or uproot it) and go find a spot in the bush and lead a hermit life. your obviously against socialism so go heal yourself with herbs and shrubs, drive your car on the unpaved dirt, dont use the library, dont call the cops, dont dare use the fire department… dont drink water from municipal taps, instead go drink from a random stream that hasn’t been tested by the EPA.

          see, you like living the life you have without attributing to the fact that you’ve gained alot through socialism yourself. Gov’t subsidies of all things telecom is just more socialism so turn off your TV and radio and throw away you cellphone.

          see, i thought you were getting it but in the end you just go back to little tantrums about ideas you dont understand and go to the old standbys of freedom/markets/socialism/regulation… you might as well have called me commie too. Funny thing, i look out my window, and it still does not look like the USSR.

          Deregulation of banks caused your collapse, but youd have less of it. Oh here Mr. Banker, you destroyed my country, but here, have more of my money and less oversight on what you do with it because i trust you and the free market.

          do you think America is 92% conservative? Thats how much of the radio hours percentage is rightwing talk. Is that the free market? or is that the corporate ownership dictating to the listener. free markets indeed.

          again. on the DOCTRINE itself, you have failed to impress upon me how having it supresses speech. rather id argue it would be a boon to people like you because it would force more rightwing viewpoints to be voice in the lamestream as well. my only contention is that by having both sides presented at the same time in the same space, rational people of common sense would see just how ridiculous many rightwing concerns are.

          keep deluding yourself. you’ll be invading Iran soon enough on more BS because you were too stupid to realize that while Faux keeps saying its on a race to the finish line to get nukes, the IAEA, the NIE, and the CIA firmly believe Iran stopped. Will you hear that viewpoint on Faux? ya right.

        • I really don’t want to contribute to how far this discussion has gone off-topic, but I have to respond to this:

          You have completely misrepresented localism. The root of the word is the key. There will be NO federal involvement in boards set up by community stakeholders, and it has NOTHING to do with regulating content ideologically. The purpose is to assess the community’s needs and ascertain whether they are being served by the scarce media resources available.

          That means that some communities may want to have some locally originated programming rather than a full slate of syndicated shows from far away. It is their choice, not mandatory.

          There are some markets that have no local content and when there was a local emergency (i.e. flood, tornado, etc.) there was no way to alert residents. Rush Limbaugh would have no way of knowing if a gas main blew on Elm St. in Davenport.

          Also, the boards would represent the community. So if it was in rural Georgia it is very likely that the board would be predominately conservative. So even though that isn’t the purpose of these boards, it cannot be said that they would be dominated by liberals.

          You have gotten some very bad information about localism. It sounds exactly like the disinformation spewed by Fox News. Also, Network Neutrality is NOT a plot to control the Internet. It is an initiative to keep it free from domination and abuse by corporations more interested in profit than freedom. Comcast and Verizon (amongst others) have already been caught throttling down access to their competitors. Do you want them deciding which web sites you can access? I sure don’t.

  30. Can I just point out that you guys have pretty much exhausted your arguments and are now just repeating yourselves. I don’t think that you will ever agree on this subject. And, more importantly, this subject is not the topic of my article: the mental acuity of Rupert Murdoch.

    The reference I made to bias was in citing Murdoch’s assertion that there are no Republicans on his network. That is demonstrably false. So did he say it because he was deliberately lying, or because he’s losing it? Is he really unaware that his network promoted the Tea Parties? Does he really not know that Google only posts headlines and a couple lines from an article.

    Is Murdoch out of touch or dishonest? That’s what I wrote about here, and no one is discussing that.

    • Also the fact that he thinks that Fox shouldn’t be taking political positions period, and yet, it does, as we have agreed. The disconnect is odd, and possibly amusing. Pointing out these facts is not attacking. That is probably where this discussion should have gone.How can he claim that they are fair an balanced when he can’t name one democratic or liberal voice in his network, and in addition hire former GOP big names (Karl Rove, Sarah Palin) as commentators. Does Fox have the right to do this? Sure! But but to do it and claim being fair and balanced is ridiculous.

  31. i am exhausted…… yes, murdoch is being intellictually dishonest. So are the ceo’s of cnn and nbc ans msnbc when they say they are un-biased politically. So the broad question is not is rupert murdoch dishonest, its “are all owners and ceo’s dishonest when they claim to unbiased towards news coverage ?” why don’t we ask that question ? Or do we just rail not for unbiased news, but agaisnt fox news ? There is a very big difference. All news is biased, so why do we only rail against fox news ? Shuldn’t we rail for unbiased journalism ? Because if all you want is to stop fox news from being biased, then yiou really arn’t for unbiased journalism, you are just against right tilted journalism……. is that fair and balanced ?

    • im tired too and need to go eat lunch.

      to FG. yes, all networks are biased. all ceo’s have their agendas. but this is not the same as whats being asked. i will grant you MSNBC is now tilted left as their agenda. i dont concur with other networks being extreme. i believe they lean center right, but thats open to debate.

      But Mark is correct that Murdoch is being more dishonest than most. The flip analogy would be that the head of CNN or MSNBC hired Al Gore and John Kerry as hosts or pundits and claimed that no democrats were on performing on their network, or using good portions of their airtime and ad space to promote Healthcare rallies and financially support the logistics of promoting these rallies while reporting them as grassroots movements.

      You cannot with a straight face say that any network has gone to the lengths Fox has to do these things and then have the owner disavow it. You just cant and pretend to be taken seriously.

      And thats my final take on this. I need to go eat before i pass out.

    • The only problem being, is that I can’t remember any of these other CEO’s claiming to be unbiased or ‘Fair and balanced’ Show me that and then you’ll have a lot better ground to stand on.

  32. i can’t remember them even being asked. Much like the situation set up by this blog, which by-the-way has let me speak freely and without filter, you make fox try to prove itself and never question the other guys……… its like trying to prove a negative. The only reason fox is questioned is because they are the network on the right, and all the others are on the left… its really that simple. Show me where the exwcutives at msnbc were even given a question like this (never saw that)… and that just proves my point.

    • Who Asked Him? He proclaims it all the time, as does his network. That’s the point. It’s like a guy on the street declaring he’s holier then you, with no evidence to back it up.

  33. Ahhh everyone got out of their Mom’s basement and took a nap…

    By “everyone,” I of course mean Cold-D-Bag…

  34. The discourse we’ve seen here is most likely to occur on any network other than fox. I think FG doesn’t get that or doesn’t want to admit that.

  35. “Janeane Garofalo was very successful on TV…”

    Garofalo admitted that he she took that supporting role on that e-e-v-i-l-l drama “24” because she was having trouble finding work. after she slandered hundreds of thousands of Americans who have attended tea party protests, I have no sympathy whatsoever about her employment woes.

    “Keith Olbermann …successful sportscastor…”

    He burned all his bridges behind him at ESPN with his disgraceful treatment of his colleagues. Just ask Suzy Kolber.

    • If you’re trying to make the point that not every encounter in the media or showbiz is a positive one, congratulations. But you haven’t diminished one bit my observation that Olbermann, Franken, and Garofalo have been successful in their mediums.

  36. So what? When you spout a bunch of slander, vitriol, hypocrisy and lunacy as the previously mentioned “stars” have done, they should be exposed.

  37. Well, that was something. Evil Rupert has all the validity of William Randolph Hearst who personally saw to it , with his war yacht and hysterical bi-lines, that we would have war with Spain and allow the Republican admistration to give us what we never had before: Empire! They really get a burr up their ass when liberal press is mentioned. As I used to explain to my neocon roomate, that simply means neither the state or the church control news and thought, even made worse if it’s state church thought. Funny that Jon Stewart polls as the main news source these days. The rights idea of comedy is to revive the John Birch Society and explore the correctness of the fuerher principle that Welch preached. Get to work on those lists! And now FG tells me the leader of the free world is the spawn of commies?! Guess I better go brush up on the words to the International and go build a barricade out in the street. Mark, you have the patience of Job. (maybe the guy thought it was marx)

Comments are closed.