Hating FOX

[igloo]

Hating FOX

Brent Bozell (archive)

February 6, 2004 | Print | Send

The dominance of Fox News in the cable news ratings -- and what liberals see as its annoying tendency to cover topics and angles that they believe should be buried for the good of liberalism -- has led to a great amount of Fox-hating in the anything-but-"mainstream" press.

These liberal elites love to pretend that the patch of dirt where they stand is the hallowed ground of objectivity, when in reality, their idea of "mainstream" is floating out on a liberal sea, on a fanciful boat where everyone thinks Howard Dean is best classified as a political moderate, as were McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis. As, one is meant to believe, are they.

From their vantage point, which is nowhere within boom-microphone distance of the center, Fox News Channel must look like Right-Wing Kooksville. Unique in standing to the right of the ossified liberal media establishment, Fox is now regularly disparaged as the only ideological news media outlet in the United States. The rest of them are all, to use Dan Rather's self-description, "common-sense moderates."

Anyone with his feet grounded in reality realizes that in fact Fox is fairer and closer to the American center than any of the liberal outlets. Pick an issue -- global warming, taxes, homosexuality -- and Fox demonstrates the temerity to allow both sides to debate, whereas other networks still pretend that only one reasonable, quotable side exists. No wonder their audience numbers are sliding as Fox continues to climb.

The latest sad anti-Fox outburst came when the National Press Foundation decided to honor respected Fox news hound Brit Hume with its "Broadcaster of the Year" award, Geneva Overholser, a former ombudsman of the Washington Post and a whining liberal windbag if there ever was one, resigned in protest since she felt Hume and Fox practice "ideologically committed journalism."

How controversial was the Hume selection? Consider the previous winners of this award: "moderate" Dan Rather, fired New York Times editor Howell Raines, loopy leftist Ted Turner, tiresome PBS propagandist Ken Burns, and NPR bias legend Nina Totenberg, who tried to destroy conservative hero Clarence Thomas with phony-baloney sexual allegations and wished AIDS on conservative hero Jesse Helms in a TV appearance.

No one, including Overholser, resigned over any of them.

But wait, there's even more phoniness in this take-my-ball-and-go-home protest. In the Nov. 28, 1992, edition of Editor & Publisher magazine, Overholser complained that there wasn't enough ideologically committed journalism out there. "All too often, a story free of any taint of personal opinion is a story with all the juice sucked out. A big piece of why so much news copy today is boring as hell is this objectivity god," she complained. "Keeping opinion out of the story too often means being a fancy stenographer."

I saw this riotous act up close on a C-SPAN set a few years ago, as Ms. Overholser sat across the table from me and announced with a straight face and a calm voice that the Washington Post was committed to "presenting the news in a straightforward manner," while the Washington Times was only committed to "representing the conservative viewpoint."

Fox News is routinely disparaged by the Left as a hard-swinging right-wing channel because of its top attractions. Populist maverick Bill O'Reilly is not reliably conservative but is regularly rebellious about liberal pieties. Then there's Sean Hannity, who is so packed with persuasive power that liberals never seem to notice he has a liberal co-host sitting across from him every night. Neither is a news reporter, thus rendering the liberal complain moot. But that won't stop the whining.

Lost in the rage at the prime-time lineup is the performance of Brit Hume, who brought all the heft of his years of fairness covering Washington and politics at ABC to Fox's table. "Fair and balanced" are not silly marketing words to describe Hume. He earned an "A" from the Media Research Center for even-handed coverage of the Iraq war. But we're not alone.

The radical left has trouble complaining about Hume, too. A report by the anti-Iraq-liberation media critics at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting put Hume in the middle in its guest selection: It "had fewer U.S. officials than CBS (70 percent) and more U.S. anti-war guests (3 percent) than PBS or CBS." FAIR's definition of "anti-war" may be ridiculously narrow (in their odd attempt to making liberal networks look conservative), but even FAIR credited Hume's show for giving air time to save-Saddam lobbyists like Rep. Dennis Kucinich and Rep. Fortney Stark.

So credit should be granted to the National Press Foundation for having the courage to resist the Fox-haters and honor Hume's easily recognized professionalism. And shame should be awarded to Geneva Overholser, who, by her actions, is telling the world she doesn't have an honest bone in her liberal-activist body.

Brent Bozell is President of Media Research Center, a Townhall.com member group.

[jamiroguy1]

Originally posted by igloo

Hating FOX

Brent Bozell (archive)

February 6, 2004 | Print | Send

The dominance of Fox News in the cable news ratings -- and what liberals see as its annoying tendency to cover topics and angles that they believe should be buried for the good of liberalism -- has led to a great amount of Fox-hating in the anything-but-"mainstream" press.

These liberal elites love to pretend that the patch of dirt where they stand is the hallowed ground of objectivity, when in reality, their idea of "mainstream" is floating out on a liberal sea, on a fanciful boat where everyone thinks Howard Dean is best classified as a political moderate, as were McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis. As, one is meant to believe, are they.

From their vantage point, which is nowhere within boom-microphone distance of the center, Fox News Channel must look like Right-Wing Kooksville. Unique in standing to the right of the ossified liberal media establishment, Fox is now regularly disparaged as the only ideological news media outlet in the United States. The rest of them are all, to use Dan Rather's self-description, "common-sense moderates."

Anyone with his feet grounded in reality realizes that in fact Fox is fairer and closer to the American center than any of the liberal outlets. Pick an issue -- global warming, taxes, homosexuality -- and Fox demonstrates the temerity to allow both sides to debate, whereas other networks still pretend that only one reasonable, quotable side exists. No wonder their audience numbers are sliding as Fox continues to climb.

The latest sad anti-Fox outburst came when the National Press Foundation decided to honor respected Fox news hound Brit Hume with its "Broadcaster of the Year" award, Geneva Overholser, a former ombudsman of the Washington Post and a whining liberal windbag if there ever was one, resigned in protest since she felt Hume and Fox practice "ideologically committed journalism."

How controversial was the Hume selection? Consider the previous winners of this award: "moderate" Dan Rather, fired New York Times editor Howell Raines, loopy leftist Ted Turner, tiresome PBS propagandist Ken Burns, and NPR bias legend Nina Totenberg, who tried to destroy conservative hero Clarence Thomas with phony-baloney sexual allegations and wished AIDS on conservative hero Jesse Helms in a TV appearance.

No one, including Overholser, resigned over any of them.

But wait, there's even more phoniness in this take-my-ball-and-go-home protest. In the Nov. 28, 1992, edition of Editor & Publisher magazine, Overholser complained that there wasn't enough ideologically committed journalism out there. "All too often, a story free of any taint of personal opinion is a story with all the juice sucked out. A big piece of why so much news copy today is boring as hell is this objectivity god," she complained. "Keeping opinion out of the story too often means being a fancy stenographer."

I saw this riotous act up close on a C-SPAN set a few years ago, as Ms. Overholser sat across the table from me and announced with a straight face and a calm voice that the Washington Post was committed to "presenting the news in a straightforward manner," while the Washington Times was only committed to "representing the conservative viewpoint."

Fox News is routinely disparaged by the Left as a hard-swinging right-wing channel because of its top attractions. Populist maverick Bill O'Reilly is not reliably conservative but is regularly rebellious about liberal pieties. Then there's Sean Hannity, who is so packed with persuasive power that liberals never seem to notice he has a liberal co-host sitting across from him every night. Neither is a news reporter, thus rendering the liberal complain moot. But that won't stop the whining.

Lost in the rage at the prime-time lineup is the performance of Brit Hume, who brought all the heft of his years of fairness covering Washington and politics at ABC to Fox's table. "Fair and balanced" are not silly marketing words to describe Hume. He earned an "A" from the Media Research Center for even-handed coverage of the Iraq war. But we're not alone.

The radical left has trouble complaining about Hume, too. A report by the anti-Iraq-liberation media critics at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting put Hume in the middle in its guest selection: It "had fewer U.S. officials than CBS (70 percent) and more U.S. anti-war guests (3 percent) than PBS or CBS." FAIR's definition of "anti-war" may be ridiculously narrow (in their odd attempt to making liberal networks look conservative), but even FAIR credited Hume's show for giving air time to save-Saddam lobbyists like Rep. Dennis Kucinich and Rep. Fortney Stark.

So credit should be granted to the National Press Foundation for having the courage to resist the Fox-haters and honor Hume's easily recognized professionalism. And shame should be awarded to Geneva Overholser, who, by her actions, is telling the world she doesn't have an honest bone in her liberal-activist body.

Brent Bozell is President of Media Research Center, a Townhall.com member group.

[igloo]

Originally posted by jamiroguy1

Once again, your inability to show perspective simply means you are a clown who can not be taken seriously....

[jamiroguy1]

Originally posted by igloo

Once again, your inability to show perspective simply means you are a clown who can not be taken seriously....

This article can't be taken seriously. Nice try.

[igloo]

Originally posted by jamiroguy1

This article can't be taken seriously. Nice try.

Why, because you, resident clown, say so?... :laugh:

Fucking fool

[ghhhhhost]

Fox allows both sides to debate?? come on now...

just drawing on O'Reilly...he brings guests on his show..who have views opposite of his and then goes on to lambast them for having these views.

he consistently cuts off his guests in mid sentence , is always rude , and allows speakers who conform to his views freedom to say as much as they want (up until its commercial time when he must plug his book)...

from what i know...this isnt a debate..its an inquisition

[jamiroguy1]

Originally posted by ghhhhhost

Fox allows both sides to debate?? come on now...

just drawing on O'Reilly...he brings guests on his show..who have views opposite of his and then goes on to lambast them for having these views.

he consistently cuts off his guests in mid sentence , is always rude , and allows speakers who conform to his views freedom to say as much as they want (up until its commercial time when he must plug his book)...

from what i know...this isnt a debate..its an inquisition

Kinda like this dick head igloo.

[igloo]

Originally posted by jamiroguy1

Kinda like this dick head igloo.

Retard, you have received so many justified ass kickings for your ignorant, one-sided moronic views, it is remarkable you still post here.....

Better check yourself douche bag.....right now, you amount to being a jerkoff

[pattbateman]

Originally posted by ghhhhhost

Fox allows both sides to debate?? come on now...

just drawing on O'Reilly...he brings guests on his show..who have views opposite of his and then goes on to lambast them for having these views.

he consistently cuts off his guests in mid sentence , is always rude , and allows speakers who conform to his views freedom to say as much as they want (up until its commercial time when he must plug his book)...

from what i know...this isnt a debate..its an inquisition

think about this, we have been reduced since the start of television listening to liberal do the same thing

how do you know they are not wrong when oreilly attacks them?

you are just used to democrat kissing ass

its nice to see someone not take any of their BS

why do you think people are turning to fox news???

and it is only regarded as a liberal bias news network by liberals who feel a threat by fox

let me dabble into the new liberal news and radio shit a little but here too

now for one the conservatives never came out saying they were gonna start conservative news services and radio services this was a label imposed my liberals

im gonna tell you one thing that if liberals want to start a network of their news and shit it is already skewed from the get go

they are already biased because they are labeling themselves and liberal newsnetworks

it will never work they are going about it the wrong way

[jamiroguy1]

Originally posted by igloo

Retard, you have received so many justified ass kickings for your ignorant, one-sided moronic views, it is remarkable you still post here.....

Better check yourself douche bag.....right now, you amount to being a jerkoff

It's funny how you acuse me of being one sided. Forget about me for a seconded and try to argue the issues and not hurling insults when your intelligence is threatened, you fucking moron.

[igloo]

Originally posted by jamiroguy1

It's funny how you acuse me of being one sided. Forget about me for a seconded and try to argue the issues and not hurling insults when your intelligence is threatened, you fucking moron.

:laugh:

Nice try douche bag......I have kicked your ass on so many issues, so many times it is embarassing for you.....

...silly clown....stop trying to hide behind the pussy "please stop insulting me" cry........

Spend a little more time trying to get educated and show some intellect you fucking blowhard.....

..... :boohoo: ..stop insulting me..... :laugh:

Stop vomiting bullshit, stop demonstrating stupidity, stop expressing ignorant views in the face of facts, and simply get a fucking clue.......and perhaps you would ot get insulted pussyboy

[igloo]

Originally posted by jamiroguy1

It's funny how you acuse me of being one sided. Forget about me for a seconded and try to argue the issues and not hurling insults when your intelligence is threatened, you fucking moron.

:laugh:

Nice try douche bag......I have kicked your ass on so many issues, so many times it is embarassing for you.....

...silly clown....stop trying to hide behind the pussy "please stop insulting me" cry........

Spend a little more time trying to get educated and show some intellect you fucking blowhard.....

..... :boohoo: ..stop insulting me..... :laugh:

Stop vomiting bullshit, stop demonstrating stupidity, stop expressing ignorant views in the face of facts, and simply get a fucking clue.......and perhaps you would not get insulted pussyboy

[ghhhhhost]

Originally posted by pattbateman

think about this, we have been reduced since the start of television listening to liberal do the same thing

how do you know they are not wrong when oreilly attacks them?

you are just used to democrat kissing ass

its nice to see someone not take any of their BS

why do you think people are turning to fox news???

and it is only regarded as a liberal bias news network by liberals who feel a threat by fox

im not talkin about them being right or wrong..what kinda journalist/host cuts off their "guest" in mid sentence and tells them they're wrong and just goes to commercial?

[bigpoppanils]

i was neutral on Fox news until they tried to sue The Simpsons.

frivolous lawsuits piss me off to no end.

[jamiroguy1]

Originally posted by ghhhhhost

im not talkin about them being right or wrong..what kinda journalist/host cuts off their "guest" in mid sentence and tells them they're wrong and just goes to commercial?

The kind that hates debate and decent. "Listen to me... I'm a big know it all douche bag" O'Reiley is an arrogent asshole.

[pattbateman]

he did graduate from harvard, your leftist elite haven!

[bigpoppanils]

Originally posted by pattbateman

he did graduate from harvard, your leftist elite haven!

he also worked on "Inside Edition".

[marksimons]

graduating from a good university doesn't always mean that much.

a great deal of problems, and lack of vision and bias in the media and political debate was down to the influence of private schools and elite universities, oxford and cambridge, whilst providing a good education they did tend to create 'our type of man' 'one of the boys' that sort of thing.

an elite layer of education is vital for training the people to adminster the empire, at home and abroad.

do a bit of looking into 19th century england to see what I mean...

[pattbateman]

umm..... yeah..... douche bag! one of the boys kind of thing

seeing that one of the 'boys' from harvard would mean being on of the liberal 'boys'

[normalnoises]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/artsentertainment/2001757992_kay06.html

Kay McFadden / Times staff columnist

Study shows TV news viewers have misperceptions about Iraq war

Fox News Channel, like the White House, got a ratings boost from the aftermath of 9-11. The tactics were remarkably similar.

Network executives gauged the nation's anger and panic and recognized war in Iraq as a rallying point, provided they gave viewers the sort of firm leadership unsullied by second-guessing. It was a smart call.

Once war arrived, of course, Fox wasn't alone in the media campaign to win audience hearts. Other cable channels and networks made self-promotional hay from dashing correspondents, surrendering Iraqi soldiers and masterful bombardment set to music.

What great TV we got. Too bad a lot of us were knuckleheads about the facts.

A just-released report by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy (PIPA) finds a majority of respondents have misperceptions about the war.*

The results show 48 percent incorrectly believed that evidence of links between al-Qaida and Iraq has been found; 22 percent that weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq; and 25 percent that world opinion favored the United States going to war with Iraq.

A walloping 60 percent overall held one or more of these misperceptions.

How did we get to be such dopes? PIPA quizzed respondents on their main sources of news information. Their findings are at right.

As you'll note, Fox's audience scored lowest. That's fodder for arguing the only place its "fair and balanced" motto really belongs is on the cover of a satirical best seller.

"The more closely you followed Fox, the more misperceptions you had," said Clay Ramsay, PIPA research director. "No other news outlet came anywhere near that."

He said that in a separate examination of viewers citing Fox as their primary source, 45 percent held all three misperceptions.

Back to that chart. While the findings for Fox may not be a surprise, second among ill-informed viewers is CBS, long considered a bastion of anti-war liberalism by subscribers to Web sites like www.ratherbiased.com.

Apparently, benightedness cuts across ideological lines, and no network or cable channel can claim its viewers are well-informed about the war's most critical issues. We're like one nation under "Duh."

According to PIPA, political position was a minor factor: Supporters of President Bush and Republicans were more likely to have misperceptions.

However, the report adds, Americans with opposing political beliefs held misperceptions, too.

Three explanations spring to mind while contemplating this equality of ignorance.

The first is that our entire for-profit television sector is engaged in a sinister conspiracy of misinformation. The industry so desperately wants favors from the White House, it suppressed facts contradictory to support for invading Iraq.

But this is too wacky. It also unfairly discounts many reports — for instance, on ABC — that pointed out our grounds for war were shaky. And poor ABC still ended up with 61 percent of its audience believing at least one of those justifications.

A more persuasive notion is that television's emotional story-telling superseded its factual reporting.

All those stories honoring soldiers who died in Iraq had a self-justifying impact. So did the endlessly replayed scenes of joyous citizens toppling statues of Saddam Hussein. So did the patriotic frills adorning network graphics and that thrilling martial music.

The end effect was a tacit endorsement of the venture.

Let's also not forget that in the case of cable channels, this position had a practical payoff: The war raised ratings.

Still, it's hard to sell a product that doesn't resonate at some level with consumers. That brings us to a third possibility: The attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, created a passion for action that overcame core beliefs.

"We found a plurality of Americans felt a value conflict with the war," said PIPA's Clayton. "They had serious reservations even when they went ahead and supported it."

Clayton also volunteered a fact about respondents asked to describe how closely they follow news.

It turns out that print readers and those who listen to National Public Radio or watch PBS describe themselves as being devoted to keeping abreast of events — a profile that did not fit most commercial television viewers.

In any event, both the news media and the audience could use some self-improvement. Luckily, it's never too late; I hear there's a presidential election just 13 months away.

* The PIPA report analyzed seven nationwide polls conducted from June through September of this year.

Margin of error is 3 percent; sampling size for the seven polls was 9,611, and sampling size for in-depth analysis was 3,334 respondents.

Kay McFadden: kmcfadden@seattletimes.com or 206-382-8888

____________________

[pattbateman]

this gives no proof how the people were illinformed

who is to say npr is right over what fox says????

where is the proof

this is nothing but bs

my mother watches fox when im home with me and my step dad and she has no clue what the fuck is going on

[jamiroguy1]

Pundit O'Reilly Now Skeptical About Bush

Tue Feb 10, 9:25 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Conservative television news anchor Bill O'Reilly said on Tuesday he was now skeptical about the Bush administration and apologized to viewers for supporting prewar claims that Iraq (news - web sites) had weapons of mass destruction.

The anchor of his own show on Fox News said he was sorry he gave the U.S. government the benefit of the doubt that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s weapons program poised an imminent threat, the main reason cited for going to war.

"I was wrong. I am not pleased about it at all and I think all Americans should be concerned about this," O'Reilly said in an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America."

"What do you want me to do, go over and kiss the camera?" asked O'Reilly, who had promised rival ABC last year he would publicly apologize if weapons were not found.

O'Reilly said he was "much more skeptical about the Bush administration now" since former weapons inspector David Kay said he did not think Saddam had any weapons of mass destruction.

Full Article

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040210/people_nm/campaign_bush_oreilly_dc_3

[bigpoppanils]

Originally posted by jamiroguy1

O'Reilly said he was "much more skeptical about the Bush administration now" since former weapons inspector David Kay said he did not think Saddam had any weapons of mass destruction.

wait a minute.....i thought dissenting was unpatriotic?

:laugh:

[pattbateman]

at least he is not full of shit like you all think he is for somereason

[jamiroguy1]

Originally posted by bigpoppanils

wait a minute.....i thought dissenting was unpatriotic?

:laugh:

It is!!!! And are you trying to talk back you no good commie sympathizer!