The Most Biased Name in News

[babylonsister]

I know, no surprise here, but the date sort of shocked me; don't know why.


Extra! July/August 2001

The Most Biased Name in News
Fox News Channel's extraordinary right-wing tilt

By Seth Ackerman

"I challenge anybody to show me an example of bias in Fox News Channel."--Rupert Murdoch (Salon, 3/1/01)


Years ago, Republican party chair Rich Bond explained that conservatives' frequent denunciations of "liberal bias" in the media were part of "a strategy" (Washington Post, 8/20/92). Comparing journalists to referees in a sports match, Bond explained: "If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is 'work the refs.' Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack next time."

But when Fox News Channel, Rupert Murdoch's 24-hour cable network, debuted in 1996, a curious thing happened: Instead of denouncing it, conservative politicians and activists lavished praise on the network. "If it hadn't been for Fox, I don't know what I'd have done for the news," Trent Lott gushed after the Florida election recount (Washington Post, 2/5/01). George W. Bush extolled Fox News Channel anchor Tony Snow--a former speechwriter for Bush's father--and his "impressive transition to journalism" in a specially taped April 2001 tribute to Snow's Sunday-morning show on its five-year anniversary (Washington Post, 5/7/01). The right-wing Heritage Foundation had to warn its staffers not to watch so much Fox News on their computers, because it was causing the think tank's system to crash.

When it comes to Fox News Channel, conservatives don't feel the need to "work the ref." The ref is already on their side. Since its 1996 launch, Fox has become a central hub of the conservative movement's well-oiled media machine. Together with the GOP organization and its satellite think tanks and advocacy groups, this network of fiercely partisan outlets--such as the Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal editorial page and conservative talk-radio shows like Rush Limbaugh's--forms a highly effective right-wing echo chamber where GOP-friendly news stories can be promoted, repeated and amplified. Fox knows how to play this game better than anyone.

Yet, at the same time, the network bristles at the slightest suggestion of a conservative tilt. In fact, wrapping itself in slogans like "Fair and balanced" and "We report, you decide," Fox argues precisely the opposite: Far from being a biased network, Fox argues, it is the only unbiased network. So far, Fox's strategy of aggressive denial has worked surprisingly well; faced with its unblinking refusal to admit any conservative tilt at all, some commentators have simply acquiesced to the network's own self-assessment. FAIR has decided to take a closer look.

more...

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067

[Doctor_J]

1. I think our refusal to do anything about Fox "News"

or any of its personalities qualifies us as "Good Germans"

[damntexdem]

2. The claim could be inaccurate because it assumes ...

the "in news" part. ;-)

[66 dmhlt]

3. We Need to Teach Our Kids about Faux

[Uncle Joe]

4. That's a brilliant toon.

:rofl: :thumbsup:

[JohnWxy]

7. LOL! I needed that!

[clarence swinney]

5. Yes! Limbaugh is honest

Few years ago he said-"That Media Watch Group FAIR edited 4,000 hours of my transcripts and found 45 little errors"

Sho Nuff! I got the report. I have the report

It was over 10,000 LIES(intent to deceive)

When he was on TV I taped while off whupping Tiger and reviewed in afternoon.
I found a LIE in every 30 minute program. Sometimes many.
The last time I reviewed him the first four things he said were very obvious blatant lIES.

He uses all of Goebbels techniques.

olduglymeanhonest

p.s. check of Ann Coulter years ago
155 pages I found 117 Lies

[MedicalAdmin]

6. Sometimes I wonder about that old philosophy exercise.

It goes like this. If you knew that your young neighbor, Adolf Hitler, was going to go on and do all the damage he would, would you kill him before he did it? If so would you be ethically or morally justified.

It's a thought experiment. But it brings this question to mind. Given that we are sure that Rush will just keep damaging our country, would someone be morally or ethically justified in killing him if we KNEW that it would help avoid future pointless wars or hate crimes?

A note to any federal employees reading this - it's just a thought experiment. I am not advocating killing the old pedophile.

[Doctor_J]

8. Probably will get to the point where it will be us or them

He and his pals have completely destroyed the country I grew up in. It will continue to get worse until someone does something about it. For myself I would hate to spend my last 20 years on Earth under the rule of Hate Radio, so I am hoping we take it back sooner rather than later.