Of course Democrats should go on Fox - not only, as Suderman says, because candidates often benefit from facing off with antagonistic interviewers, but because boycotting Fox means boycotting the future. Media outlets of all stripes, I suspect, are only going to grow more opinionated/biased over the next few decades, which means that more and more viewers who aren't partisans will, by default if not by choice, end up getting their news from anchors and writers who are. Which means, in turn, that if you boycott a network because it's hostile to your party, you'll be effectively boycotting a host of viewers who aren't.
« Looking For Sister Souljah | Main | Don't Do It, Bobby »
Liberals in the Foxhouse
02 May 2008 10:56 am
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/21131
Comments (48)
I seriously doubt that Fox, or any other cable new outlet is the future. Cable news ratings are down across the board this year (even in an election year) and Fox's ratings are sinking more precipitously than the rest. They tethered themselves to Bush-Cheney 8 years ago and now they're going down with the ship. Besides, why should democratic candidates play ball with a netowork which routinely spreads falsehoods about them? Remember Fox pumping the bogus Obama-Madrassa story? And why do people only throw this argument at Dems? No one's dinging McCain for refusing to sit down for an interview with The Nation or, even a figure as mainstream as Keith Olbermann.
Besides these interviews, especially the trivia-obsessed sort in vogue, tell us nothing of value about the candidates. Every cable new channel could implde tomorrow and our electorate would be no less informed by November.
I agree with you that media, especially on the web, will become more partisan, and that's generally a good thing, but candidates are under no obligation play ball with liars and terrible triviums, and news outlets don't need to get cnadidates in the interview chair to investigate them anyway.
There's also a difference between going on FNS, which broadcast OTA in some markets, and going on the regular channel. You'll notice that FNS has somewhat more Democratic representation than most Fox programming.
There are two excellent reasons for Dems to boycott Fox.
First, for years, Fox has promoted Republican candidates and issues, and undermined Democrats. NOW they want the Democratic candidates to come on, giving Fox journalistic credibility they don't deserve and viewers they need to pay the bills. Why help your enemy?
Second, I don't agree there is anything to be gained from an antagonistic interview. There is a significant difference between an interview with a tough, fair journalist, of which there are many, and a partisan hack. There are many other outlets the Dems can utilize to argue their points. Outlets where the playing field will be level.
The Dems don't need Fox and gain nothing by appearing on Fox. Fox needs the Dems and would learn a valuable lesson from being frozen out of any special access to the Dems.
The danger of politicisans only dealing with 'friendly' journalists is less than would be argued. The politicians need to reach as many people as possible, and so they can't be TOO picky about who they talk to. But appearing on Fox is just giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
Ross:
When will Republicans go on Olbermann's show? What about sitting down with an interview with The Nation? Do you know the demographics of Faux Noise? Hell, do you know the demographics of Bill O'Falafel's show? The future is not at Faux Noise. Would you go on a show that called you a terrorist sympathizer? Of course you wouldn't. So why hold yourself to a different standard?
I think y'all are missing what Ross means about Fox News being the future (I don't have cable so I have to infer what the hell Fox News is anyway). I think he means news outlets -- including blogs -- are trending more and more towards being explicitly ideological, NOT that cable news is going to surge. So the argument is that liberal politicians should be willing to bring their message to conservative blogs, TV stations, radio, whatever.
a figure as mainstream as Keith Olbermann.
We have seriously lowered the bar for "mainstream" if an audience of less than a million will qualify.
And The Nation?
Becareful. It doesn't looks like Fox is going away. Although CNN and MSNBC aren't looking so hot!
FOXNEWS O'REILLY 2,979,000
FNC HANNITY/COLMES 2,280,000
FNC GRETA 1,896,000
CNN KING 1,640,000
FNC HUME 1,530,000
CNN COOPER 1,417,000
FNC SHEP 1,392,000
CNN DOBBS 1,057,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,001,000
CNNHN GRACE 605,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 507,000
It is obvious that you don't like Fox, but it makes no sense to underestimate and disregard them. Apparently the rest of the country is watching in droves...
Not learning from past mistakes is how the DNC last 2000 and 2004... Let's not repeat the same mistake in 2008.
By the way, why SHOULD the Republicans go on Hardball or Olbermann... their ratings are horrible! If the point is to reach the most people with a message, why go on underperforming programs to do it?
Maybe our party should find a message that resonates with Americans outside of our party faithful, and then people will WANT to watch and listen to what we have to say!!
Democrats going on a hypothetical conservative network = wicked awesome.
Democrats going on Fox News, which is an arm of the RNC = counterproductive. (1) You're not likely to be treated fairly, either during or before and after the interview; (2) It's an astonishingly partisan viewership, so you're not likely to convince anyone; (3) Going on lends journalistic credibility to an enterprise that is entirely based on ramping up votes for the GOP.
Regardless of the network, Candidates go on the particular show for their own motivations (who would think otherwise?)
Obama was interviewed by Chris Wallace for the Fox Sunday... an excellent and balanced end of the week political wrap-up show. Bill O'Reilly can get Clinton because he has huge ratings; Keith Olberman by contrast simply doesn’t have the audience to entice a McCain or even a Clinton or Obama.
Sure the questions may be tough or even hostile but the corresponding access to viewers makes it worth while.
Matt in Chicago:
Did you see what I wrote? Have you ever checked Faux Noise's demographics that come with those ratings? Among the 25 to 54 set(which is preferred by advertisers), Olbermann is actually beating O'Falafel. What does that tell you?
It's not about Faux News being hostile. It's about the fact that they're not legitimate. They are a propaganda machine for the extreme right wing.
That's all.
you'll be effectively boycotting a host of viewers who aren't.
This would be the viewership who split 88 to 7 for the repubs last election, right?
That's a pretty darn small target audience to exchange for showing up on a network that lies consistently about little things like the party affiliation of republicans in disgrace (viz Mark Foley (D) et al.).
Personally, I'm waiting for McCain to show up on BET.
I hate O'Reilly but I have a lot more respect for Hillary after seeing her interview with him. You learn much more from a tough interview. And I didn't think he was too hostile.
"but because boycotting Fox means boycotting the future"
This sounds as an attemp of prophecy that will become self fulfilled. Since Fox "is the future", we should not boycott it, and of course, not boycotting it will pave the way for Fox being the future. But then, if boycott helps to avoid such a creepy future, then we shouldn´t listen to such mischievous proclaims...
In Ross's future, we'll still be horribly misled by utterly dishonest propaganda, but we'll be too stupid to notice.
This sounds as an attemp of prophecy that will become self fulfilled. Since Fox "is the future", we should not boycott it, and of course, not boycotting it will pave the way for Fox being the future. But then, if boycott helps to avoid such a creepy future, then we shouldn´t listen to such mischievous proclaims...
Bingo. Kind of like when talking heads go on t.v. and opine about how meaningless distraction X will be a meaningful distraction to voters, precisely because the talking heads fill up every hour of political news insisting it will be.
Honestly, I'd rather Democratic candidates sat down with Ross or the National Review. Fox's claims of objectivity rankle me more than their antagonism
Such overt hostility to the Fox News network is telling.
I often tell my liberal friends to imagine what it would be like to have only Fox news as a television resource for the first 30 years of your life.
The major players in news had every opportunity (and still do) to launch into exposes about the decline in K -12 education, the power of the teachers unions, what has happened to university humanities departments, or the fierce nature of the cultural left and its secularization campaign (to name a few).
They blew this opportunity…. Fox news became ascendant, and now they complain about biased coverage.
Fair minded people champion Fox news as (at the least) a important (if imperfect) corrective to the east cost elite drum beat of establishment media.
"it makes no sense to underestimate and disregard them. Apparently the rest of the country is watching in droves"
I think it is important to keep things in perspective. Most of the television watching public does not watch cable news at all. So I think overemphasizing ratings in a pool thats pretty small to begin with is kind of ridiculous.
"Fair minded people champion Fox news as (at the least) a important (if imperfect) corrective to the east cost elite drum beat of establishment media"
This is rank nonsense. I only know of one cable news source that runs a scroll that posits "Dems: Hurting America?" "Dems: Is Socialism a Good Thing?" "D-Larry Craig" "George W. Bush: Greatest President?" "Nancy Pelosi: Evil Wicked Witch of the West, or Just a Lesbian?" Now one might agree with the premise of these question (I made the last one up obviously), but this is not the conduct of a news organization, and it demonstrates a slanted bad faith premise for any kind of journalistic investigation. And this idea of east coast whatever, you need to provide evidence for this, current evidence, that this is so (and no Dan Rather doesn't count, one idiot does not make an institutional bias). Not meta-observations about how bias the liberal media is. The greatest lie in our political discourse is that the media is liberally biased. This of course comes from people who are highly biased and have a vested interest in seeing their point of view upheld, and whine when the facts don't go their way.
MLP
"The greatest lie in our political discourse is that the media is liberally biased."
This is a premise I don’t subscribe to, quite the opposite as I write.
It has become conventional wisdom that the MSM has a liberal bias (especially on social & cultural issues) after years of complaint & demonstrated bias - it broke through with Goldberg’s book and has become C.W.
Almost all fair minded, good faith actors on both sides of the debate concede this truth. Just as I concede that Fox News is a conservative/republican organ & talk radio is generally conservative.
So I don’t feel a need to “prove” a case that has already been established.
So…I welcome Fox’s open cheerleading in general (although I have plenty of criticism in the specific, on both substance & tone) as a important corrective to both print and television bias across the broadcast spectrum.
"It has become conventional wisdom that the MSM has a liberal bias (especially on social & cultural issues) after years of complaint & demonstrated bias - it broke through with Goldberg’s book and has become C.W."
Just because its CW doesn't mean its true. Just because Goldberg argued it, doesn't mean its valid either. This idea that you don't have to prove something thats is arguable is pretty intellectually shallow. Goldberg wrote that book in the what 1970s? Shouldn't we, at some point, revisit whether or not its accurate now? This idea that the news media is liberally biased after Whitewater, Monica, Gore as liar, Kerry as French, and Democrats as terrorists, is really difficult to maintain. You have to demonstrate that there is error for you to say that FOX is a corrective. And even on its best day (meaning fair and balanced) FOX news is still more biased than anything else in the media. I still haven't seen Brain Williams or Charlie Gibson entertain the idea that McCain is a Muslim plant and that his economic policy might destroy America and create a Socialist empire.
What's wrong with our secret secularization campaign Fritz? Is it that you're threatened you'll lose, or that you just don't believe in freedom of ideas?
But aren't we all missing the deeper issue here, i.e., liberals are a bunch of whining whiners?
Oh, and MoeLarryAndJesus is still a tool. Whatever happened to that guy?
Roger Ailes, former Nixon operator, former press flack for Bush 41 campaign and founder of Fox News on the Willie Horton ad, which he helped create and set the standard for racist political advertising: "The only question we had about the Willie Horton ad was whether we ran it with him holding a knife or without."
All Democrats should tell Fox News to fuck off and die when they come knocking.
They should go on Faux News.
They shouldn't allow them to sponsor their events.
This drivel is why I'm letting my subscription to The Atlantic lapse. Sure I'll read it but I'm not going to pay for it. Fallows is the main reason I bother with the Atlantic at all.
Douthat is merely a sophisticated version of Fox and if Sullivan had any integrity, after supporting the war, he would have left the media scene years ago.
There is nothing wrong with a network that takes sides, so long as they are honest about it.
Fox bills themselves as "Fair and Balanced", and O'Reilly calls his show the "No-Spin Zone". In reality Fox is a partisan outlet posing as a news channel.
Hence the boycott.
Fitz:
If Fox news was simply a conservative/republican news site only, I will not have so much a problem with it. It is ok to have a bias. Newspapers and magazines have usually declared biases. But the problem with Fox is that 1) They declare themselves "fair and balanced", which is start lying almost from the beggining, and 2) That they lie and twist information continually: they lack of rigor, they editorialize news in an overt and cynicall manner to suit their political agenda. That goes beyond simple bias: it is propaganda. If there was anything equivalent to Fox in the left, it will Pravda or Granma...and I will imagine you conservatives crying to heaven
Probably safer to say we can wish Fox news and other infotainment flacks would go away, but that's about as far as I can prognosticate at this point.
Fox news forever endeared me to their brand of journalism when Shepperd Somebody, I'm successfully not remembering his last name, first asked a correspondent for her opinion on his show a few months ago.
She tried to answer while he repeatedly interrupted her, yelled at her, insulted her and shamed her for simply trying to express a non-Fox point of view.
I hope she had the good sense to never, never go on that terrible excuse for a news show again.
Meanwhile, Mr. Somebody, who is no shepherd for anybody, is still employed. If I ever meet him face to face, I will do my best to express my disdain for his type of non-professional hatchet folk.
Journalism is far, far worse because of them.
MLP wrote:
Goldberg wrote that book in the what 1970s?
2003
Kerry as French
Who said Kerry was French?
Democrats as terrorists
Who said the Democrats were terrorist?
haven't seen Brain Williams or Charlie Gibson entertain the idea that McCain is a Muslim plant and that his economic policy might destroy America and create a Socialist empire.
Who entertained the idea that Obama is a Muslim plant? Who said his economic policy would create a socialist empire?
The hilarious thing MLP is that you have the nerve to accuse others of being "intellectually shallow."
When people speak of the tone of some of Fox's opinion shows they forget that the trend towards this type of journalism pre-dates Fox news.
PBS has the McLaughlin group, CNN had Crossfire, MSNBC had "hardball" all shows notorious for clashing and opinionated pundits.
Keith Olberman is probably the biggest hack in all of T.V. news. Before him I did not know the "real" opinions of allot of their journalists. Now I know.
Fitz:
You are right that Fox had precursors in its style of journalism. But what is unprecedented, is the level of bias and dishonesty. I mean, "Hardball" and "Crossfire" are shows made of pundits, but at least it tends to be far more "balanced" (ok, I admit that CNN "Crossfire" was inclined a bit in favor of democrats). But I never saw anything like Hannity and Colmes, where the "liberal" Colmes usually acts a decoration and even many times joins Hannity in its assaults against many of its guests or against liberal positions. And lets not talk about O´Reilly, a monologue of self rightneouness, lies and cynism never seem before on TV
Only Nixon could go to China.
"The hilarious thing MLP is that you have the nerve to accuse others of being "intellectually shallow."
Wow Mark you just knee-capped me with you deeply insightful, slightly inane, questions. Look I can do it too: Who said water is wet? Who said the sky is blue? Who said pigs don't have wings? Geez this is fun, and it makes me feel real intellectual too.
But lets go to your questions (and now that I have learned from you the art of making intellectual points through question asking, I going to throw some in):
Who said Kerry was French: Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Fred Barnes, Brit Hume, John Gibson, Neal Cavuto. I am not playing the game that there is a difference between FOX news and the opinion shows, the fact is the news programs bring on pundits as much as the opinion programs.
Who said Obama was a plant: Do I have to recount the Madrassa story??? (see in this question I used three question marks to demonstrate incredulity) Really?
Democrats as terrorists: Once again do I have to recount what was said during the 2002 election on Hume, Hannity, Gibson, and O'Reilly. What do you think Fred Barnes is getting at when he says that the Democrats are giving aid and comfort to our enemies, or Democrats are siding with the enemy in the case of torture?
Obama as socialist: This comes from good ole Neil Cavuto's show and on FOX Business. One guest made the point that the reason the stock market was in the tank was because Obama might be president and Wall Street is afraid of socialism.
Now you might agree with these opinions, but at the end of the day it is not Fair and Balanced, and you know it.
So thanks Mark for showing me this really cool rhetorical technique. For your last comment, where you deftly turned my own phrase against me, I would like to make a comment. I might be intellectually shallow, but at least, at the very least, I am not intellectually vacant as your response demonstrates
So thanks Mark for showing me this really cool rhetorical technique.
MLP,
You're welcome.
deeply insightful, slightly inane, questions. Look I can do it too: Who said water is wet? Who said the sky is blue? Who said pigs don't have wings? Geez this is fun, and it makes me feel real intellectual too.
I don't understand your point. I wasn't attempting to engage in some brilliant rhetorical technique. You said the media had engaged in certain conduct. I was asking for some kind of citation, verification, or proof. How is that the same as asking, "Who said the sky is blue?" ?
You haven't actually answered any of my questions. Just saying these people said such things doesn't mean they said them without at least providing a quote or link or some kind of reference (and remember that your accusations regarding Kerry=French and Dems=terrorist were made against the mainstream media not Fox).
Mark (sigh, heavy heavy sigh)
Comment sections on Blogs are not spaces for a freakin formal research paper.
However, here are some juicy Fox quotes
Democrats and terrorist:
Karen Hanretty HC (8/18/06)It’s going to come down to one thing in November.” Democrats “essentially want to tell the terrorists we’re going to put you in time out and maybe enroll you in midnight basketball.”
Newt Gingrich former House Speaker Newt Gingrich told the conservative pundit that “the left wing of the Democratic Party, frankly, kind of admires American terrorists.”
Ann Coulter, “Anyone named B. Hussein Obama should not use the words ‘hijack’ and ‘religion’ in the same sentence.”
Fox Internal Memo: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/11/14/fox-news-internal-memo-_n_34128.html
The Democrats being apologists for the terrorists and directing all their fire at the United States, and our defenses against the terrorists are a serious internal threat now”
John Gibson 10/24/06 "What's so hard to figure out about this? Democrats — OK, correction — leftists want America out of Iraq and so does bin Laden's insurgency. Iraqis may want us to stay to protect them from each other but that is not going to matter to the "let's redeploy now" crowd."
Mort Kondrake (9/18/2006) “You would figure that Iraqi insurgents will plan more upsurges of violence in Iraq to help President Bush’s adversaries
Gingrich “Its not an insult to compare Bush administration’s critics to those that enabled Hitler (HC 9/5/06).
Kerry as French:
Brian Kilmeade Fox Friends (2004) “Kerry looks French”
Chris Wallace Fox News Sunday (2004) Discussing the weaknesses of the Kerry campaign said that one draw back to his candidacy is because “he looks French”
During a segment (2004) entitled “Kerry Criticism”panelist said “John Kerry the man who would be America’s first French president”
Advisor to Ashcroft Comstock during the day segment “In foreign affairs you have the Churchill, Reagan, George W. Bush model or the French John Kerry model”
John Gibson “Good afternoon everybody, or as John Kerry would say bonjour” During same segment he brought on a French business consultant that said Kerry’s Frenchness disqualifies him from being an effective president because, he thinks too much.
Now I got all of these quotes inside of 30 minutes. This childish "documentation troll" stuff doesn't work when discussing FOX News. Now I see that I left you some openings. You might say 1) You only found a few quotes so you can't say the whole station is biased or 2) You didn't find examples of all of your other issues. You might have some other questions, considering you are so good a asking them. You might hide behind the fact that I cannot give every single biased quote that has been said on Fox. However, at the end of the day COMMENT SECTIONS are not places for formal research papers, and I don't have the time. But you can have the last word big guy, because at the end of the day if all you got is "where's your sources" then you prove my comment about being intellectually shallow.
This childish "documentation troll"
It's actually pretty common in the blogosphere to ask for some kind of citation. In any event you haven't offered any proof of anyone saying that Democrats are terrorists or that Kerry is French -- you haven't even tried to offer examples of the mainstream media doing so, which is what your original accusation.
And if you think that by discrediting your central point about how anti-liberal the mainstream media is I've proven your point about being intellectually shallow then you're even more of a lightweight than I originally thought.
"Karen Hanretty HC (8/18/06)It’s going to come down to one thing in November.” Democrats essentially want to tell the terrorists we’re going to put you in time out and maybe enroll you in midnight basketball.”
Newt Gingrich “the left wing of the Democratic Party, frankly, kind of admires American terrorists.”
Ann Coulter, “Anyone named B. Hussein Obama should not use the words ‘hijack’ and ‘religion’ in the same sentence.”
Fox Internal Memo: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/11/14/fox-news-internal-memo-_n_34128.html
"The Democrats being apologists for the terrorists and directing all their fire at the United States, and our defenses against the terrorists are a serious internal threat now”
John Gibson "What's so hard to figure out about this? Democrats — OK, correction — leftists want America out of Iraq and so does bin Laden's insurgency. Iraqis may want us to stay to protect them from each other but that is not going to matter to the "let's redeploy now" crowd."
Mort Kondrake “You would figure that Iraqi insurgents will plan more upsurges of violence in Iraq to help President Bush’s adversaries"
Gingrich “Its not an insult to compare Bush administration’s critics to those that enabled Hitler"
These quotes are not to far off the mark. They mmirror my own opinion in multiple ways.
There have always been appeasement parties in this country. They always make up a significant percentage of one party or another. Post Pearl harbor some 80% + Americans wanted to stay out of world war II.
Multiple North Vietnam flags can be seen waving at multiple footage of anti Vietnam war protests. People like Jane Fonda and multiple others did give aid and comfort as well as great propaganda material to our enemy.
We know from captured eternal terrorist communications that Iraq is the central “must win” war for radical Islamists. The considerable leftist intellectual front wants to see a demoralized and defeated America. Neither Hillary nor Obama speak (now) to how embolden the Islamicists would be if they chased America away from its commitment in Iraq. How a failed state would leave room for recruiting, basing, propaganda and indoctrination.
If Fox news is the only station to point out the obvious nexus between multiple terrorist apologists and appeasers among the left in this country – then that’s to their credit.
"The considerable leftist intellectual front wants to see a demoralized and defeated America."
Now I will take a feather from Mark's cap. What leftist intellectual said that they want a demoralized and defeated America? Name them, tell me exactly what they said. Ward Churchill is not a leftist intellectual that anybody takes seriously. There is a huge gap between not supporting the policy of the Bush Administration and wanting America to fail. This seems to be a distinction lost on the right (especailly giving their own conduct towards foreign policy during the Clinton years).
Neither Hillary nor Obama speak (now) to how embolden the Islamicists would be if they chased America away from its commitment in Iraq.
And no Republican ever deals with how there support brought us to a place where defeat in Iraq is possible. Blindly letting Bush have his way in Iraq without any oversight cost us dearly in terms of foreign policy positioning, and the surge, which now seems to be dissipating, is not going to correct that. No supporter of the administration ever looks at how their conduct emboldens the enemy, they always place that burden on the Democrats.
And lastly, Fritz, FOX News defines appeasement as whatever the Democratic position is with regards to Iraq. Not supporting torture, does not mean you are an apologist for terror, nor does not supporting the NSA wiretapping mean you want to give terrorist a free pass. Fox news define appeasement as disagreement with the Bush Administration, and thats just plain stupid. See what you and Mark, have gotten away with during the last seven years is by placing the burden of proof onto the left. Prove to me your patriotic-Prove to me that you love this country- Prove to me that you hate terror and want to capture and kill terrorist. This is/was a way for you never to think about how your own support for war, the administration, has caused America to be in place that it now is in. Blind support does not help the dollar in the world market, Blind support didn't help us to crush the insurgents, Blind support didn't help us to have an occupation plan, and blind support has not led us to victory. By boxing yourself into the corner that appeasement means contradicting the Bush administration, you effectively have no other alternative but look for leftist bogey men, who you think want America to fail. poltergiest
Democrats and leftists should not go on Fox News. They are not news, they are a neoconservative proganda channel. Don't bother with them, you won't get a fair shake.
Fitz: re: your claim about there obviously being a liberal media bias--in 1992, Rich Bond, who was then the *chairman* of the RNC, admitted that what the Republicans really do when they complain about bias is playing the refs:
"There is some strategy to it [bashing the 'liberal' media].... If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is 'work the refs.' Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack on the next one."
James Baker: "There were days and times and events we might have had some complaints [but] on balance I don't think we had anything to complain about,"
Patrick Buchanan, among the most conservative pundits and presidential candidates in Republican history, found that he could not identify any allegedly liberal bias against him during his presidential candidacies. "I've gotten balanced coverage, and broad coverage--all we could have asked. For heaven sakes, we kid about the 'liberal media,' but every Republican on earth does that," (1996).
William Kristol: "I admit it," he told a reporter. "The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."
Those quotes can all be found at
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030224/alterman2
By the way, have you read "What Liberal Media?" by Eric Alterman or seen "Outfoxed"? If not, I recommend them both.
FOXNEWS O'REILLY 2,979,000
Hey Matt from Chicago, half those numbers are so old they leave the tv on so they don't have to speak to their wives,and don't trip when they go tinkle at night.
The other half are so old, they're dead.
Fitz:
Concerning your claims on Iraq, I think you don´t realize real left wingers want the US RIGHT NOW (and not the "plans to leave gradually"; gradualism in practize means NEVER). That has nothing to do with seeing the US "demoralized and defeated". It has to do with the fact this war was started on lies and deceit, that is immoral, illegal and criminal.
Real leftists also think poorly of the democratic status quo, with people like Hillary that actually VOTED IN FAVOR of the war. We don´t want to have anything to do with such people. Concerning Obama, it is near the same: we hardly trust him, nor feel any confidence in his "lets get all along" discourse. There is nothing to reconciliate with the right and in particular with this administration that has brought wars of agresion, religious zealotry, economic deficits and destruction of civil liberties.
Just in case you didn´t know.
You liberals can bury your head in the sand about Fox News all you want ... the fact of the matter is - it is a Fair and Balance view of the news. That is why it is so popular. It's hilarious to see the Dems talking about Fox being so right wing - when any idiot who watches the network news can see just how in the tank they are for the liberal/Democrats.
Just as an example, the next time there is a scandal involving a Democrat, watch and see if the networks give his party affiliation - is there a (D) after his name? I guarantee you there won't be. However, if there is a scandal involving a Republican - they will play up his party and make sure the viewer knows that the person involved was a Republican.
After watching Fox for several months now - it is striking to turn back to CNN or MSNBC for even a few minutes. I simply can't stand it and turn back to Fox!
"When will Republicans go on Olbermann's show?"
KO doesn't allow them on....the new "Murrow" dose not allow any opposing views on his show because he doesn't have the ability to debate the issues..only give Media Matter's and Daily Kos talking points.
Biased news networks have existed long before FOX came along..it's just they were all Liberal biased...and when you have CNN help rig debates for Hillary,ABC having a debate hosted by a former Clinton aid,MSNBC rooting for Obama and CBS and memogate..the attacks on FOX's bias seem almost laughable.
| 
Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream
Privilege: Harvard and the Education of the Ruling Class
Nah. Fuck Fox.
Posted by ed | May 2, 2008 12:15 PM