Matthew Yglesias (May 03, 2008) - The Fox Factor (Media)

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.

Posted by calipygian | May 3, 2008 10:17 AM

It's also that FoxNews isn't just conservative and masquerading as neutral, but it is wingnut crazy. They aren't replicating William F. Buckley debating Noam Chomsky, but instead trying to scare people about black people, saying the Democrats want terrorists to cannibalize your children and constantly trying to imply that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. It's more crypto- or proto-fascist than Burkean conservative in orientation. The on-screen talent all just seem to be assholes.

Posted by Reality Man | May 3, 2008 10:20 AM

I doubt many of the critics of FoxNews have ever even watched the channel for more than five seconds. Many people confuse opinion shows with news. Sure, Bill O'Reilly is conservative. Hannity, who's a bit stronger than Colmes, is too. But its news stories are relatively up the middle. Sure, compared to other left-leaning networks, it appears way right. But it isn't. The nakedly hostile attitude toward it doesn't make the left look good-neither accepting nor tolerant of any view that isn't in line with theirs.

Posted by Zarco | May 3, 2008 10:28 AM

I base my opion strictly on grounds of quality. Fox News has, in recent memory, identified disgraced Republican congressmen as Democrats, identified Joe Lieberman as a Democrat well after he went independent, and recently found itself incapable of distinguishing between Stephen Douglas and Frederick Douglass. Why on earth would anyone sully themselves by appearing on a network of such poor standards?

Posted by jonathan | May 3, 2008 10:28 AM

Democrats don't appear on Fox News to go into the belly of the beast, as it were, and defend bedrock liberalism. They go on Fox to distance themselves from other Democrats. You don't have to be a genius to figure out why rank-and-file Dems might not appreciate it.

Posted by kth | May 3, 2008 10:33 AM

'Fair and Balanced' is just part of the Fox schtick. Ignore it.

Posted by MattF | May 3, 2008 10:42 AM

Hillary sat down with Falafel Man. Now - why can't Limbaugh sit down with Olberman?

Scared?

Yep.

Posted by Noam Sane | May 3, 2008 10:52 AM

Zarco, I have caught segments of the news portion of Fox News, and they definitely have a right-wing lean, not "up the middle". If you think they are, you are either misinformed or quite far to the right yourself.

Posted by Meng Bomin | May 3, 2008 10:56 AM

Can I get a "Rosebud!" in an Australian accent?

Posted by ferd | May 3, 2008 10:58 AM

Zarco,

I used to have a boss who kept Fox News on all the time, so I've seen a fair amount of it. I watched pretty much the entirety of the Israel-Lebanon war in 2006 on Fox.

I think it's easy to miss just how slanted their coverage is when fox is all you watch. Now, when I switch back and forth between CNN/MSNBC and Fox, the difference is jarring. But back then when I didn't have control of the channels and didn't have TV at home, I couldn't pick out the specific instances of biased reporting or editorial choices. That becomes obvious only in contrast.

Posted by southpaw | May 3, 2008 11:11 AM

It's not that Fox News is "conservative." It's that they operate in bad faith. I.e. what Yglesias said.

Posted by Bill | May 3, 2008 11:12 AM

1) Real Democrats should condemm and boycott Fox News -- not go on for interviews. Everything George Bush has done to fuck the people of this country has been ENABLED by the Fox propaganda machine:

a) Stealing $3 Trillion from Social Security-- Fox didn't see nuthin

b) Give $2 Trillion to superrich so they could invest it to create jobs in CHINA --not the USA:
Fox didn't see nuthin

c) George Bush's Big Lie that Sept 11 occurred because "they hate our FREEDOM" ?
Fox will have David Horowitz tell you all about those "evil Islamofascists" -- and drag us from a conflict with a weak gang of extremists into a bloody, unnecessary war with 1 billion Muslims

d) Bush covers up the acts of US special interests which provoked Sept 11 -- Fox is right in there helping him with the coverup

e) Every right wing nut (Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter,etc) wants to falsely smear Democrats--excuse me --"libruls" with lies? Fox will have them on 24/7

f) Bush wants to lie us into an unnecessary war that kills 4000 of our soldiers and cripples thousands more for life?

Fox will be there waving the US flag and telling us how Bush is "supporting the troops" against those evil "Libruls"

2) You could make an argument that the PATRIOTIC thing to do would be to blow Fox Studios to hell and shoot every damm Fox employee up to and including Rupert Murdoch. Because they are are EVIL -- they get rich by hurting this country.

3) But Democratic leaders have always gained position, power and salaries by pretending to lead the common people -- and then betraying those constituents by sucking the cocks of the same plutocrats they had been condemming only
a few weeks earlier.

4) Richard Mellon Scaife was the vicious son of bitch that FUNDED the Republican war against President Clinton in his second term -- the second impeachment in our nation's history.

Scaife was directly responsible for the deaths of 3000 Americans on Sept 11 --because he did everything he could to ensure the White House was distracted from addressing the Al Qaeda threat. How in hell could Hillary then go and suck up to Scaife just to grab some votes in the Pittsburgh area?

Posted by Don Williams | May 3, 2008 11:24 AM

the line between Matt and Don Williams isn't as sharp as Matt would like it to be.

this sort of crap--and it is crap--is sad. By Matt's standards, there's nothing wrong with moving from running the White House press shop to being an ABC anchor, but moving from Fox to the White House is wrong. I'm guessing that the party is a substitute for higher principle. More and more Matt is showing that loyalty is a substitute for thought.

Posted by Thomas | May 3, 2008 11:40 AM

Fox News, Rupert Murdoch and Bill O'Reilly are counting on the American people's lack of memory.

If you want to see how "fair and balanced" Bill O'Reilly was in beating the drums for war back in 2002, see here:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1142

Posted by Don Williams | May 3, 2008 12:09 PM

They go on Fox to distance themselves from other Democrats. You don't have to be a genius to figure out why rank-and-file Dems might not appreciate it.

Then I guess both candidates distanced themselves from all other Dems. But really, they just go on Fox news sof they can reach the 10% or so of Fox viewers who might actually be influenced to vote for them, Fox is a media player. Maybe that sucks, but everyone should just get over it.

Posted by Dan Kervick | May 3, 2008 12:09 PM

to compare george steph, who bends over backwards to appear to be fair so much so that his head is up is ass, to tony snow is like comparing ed murrow to karl fucking shithead rove.

Posted by gregor | May 3, 2008 12:15 PM

Fox is simply a better news channel, CNN is like news from another planet.

Maybe it's a conservative idea, but on Fox, you get the idea that things happen for a reason. On CNN one person's spin is as good as another.

Posted by wellbasically | May 3, 2008 12:18 PM

gregor, that line has been rendered inoperative here until the conclusion of the primary season. for now, the line is, how can we allow someone who used to work for the clinton's to cover the campaign?

Posted by Thomas | May 3, 2008 12:25 PM

Or see David Cole's description of how Bill O'Reilly does a "fair and balanced" interview -- including the cutting room editing afterwards:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040719/coleweb

Posted by Don Williams | May 3, 2008 12:28 PM

wellbasically has just demonstrated that it has no connection with reality. Fox is a pure propaganda channel. No more, no less. In the 90s, when a Democrat controlled the White House, Executive Power was something to be contained. Once Bush the lesser gained control of the White House, everything changed and it was only those partisan meanies who would question the godlike powers granted the Executive.

wellbasically, you are a moron.

Posted by Circus Freak | May 3, 2008 12:41 PM

"Sitting down for Fox interviews is thought to lend legitimacy to this pretense of neutrality that Fox is seeking to foster, a pretense that makes Fox's anti-Democrat biases all the more damaging to Democrats."

"is thought to", the passive voice can lend credence to even the slimmest of arguments.

"all the more damaging to Democrats." Which is what Obama and Clinton were aiming for. Either that or they're not as bright as Matt. Who knows.

I see Clinton has been ahead of Obama in the Gallup poll recently. I take it Matt will be telling Obama to throw in the towel.

Posted by Neil | May 3, 2008 12:44 PM

Re wellbasically's comment "Maybe it's a conservative idea, but on Fox, you get the idea that things happen for a reason"
--------------
Yeah, but what they WON'T tell you is that the "REASON" things happen is that rich guys get amoral Fox News assholes to feed the American people whatever line of shit best advances the agenda of the rich guys. And fuck the welfare of the USA.

We haven't found Saddam's nukes in Iraq yet -- but Exxon does think there might be some oil there.

And the families of 4000 dead soldiers say --well, Fox News doesn't have them on the O"Reilly Show. Because Fox News doesn't give a shit how those families feel.

Posted by Don Williams | May 3, 2008 12:46 PM

"Real Democrats should condemn and boycott Fox News -- not go on for interviews"

I guess Obama is not a real Democrat since his Fox interview.

"Every right wing nut (Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, etc.) wants to falsely smear Democrats"

Judging from some of the Atlantic bloggers, many progressives are smearing Democrats. Before the Iowa Caucus, the networks were fair and balanced. When Obama appeared on CNN's Faith Forum, I felt Campbell Brown's interview was a disgrace. She did everything for him except fluff his pillow.

"Bush covers up the acts of US special interests which provoked Sept. 11"

Don Williams, you sould like Reverend Wright! The US foreign policy is not perfect. We've made our mistakes. However, to claim that we provoked 9/11 is shameful.

Posted by EWard | May 3, 2008 12:48 PM

Thomas writes: "By Matt's standards, there's nothing wrong with moving from running the White House press shop to being an ABC anchor, but moving from Fox to the White House is wrong. I'm guessing that the party is a substitute for higher principle."

I wonder where he got that idea. Matt's post doesn't mention any ABC anchor or tony snow.

I'm more bothered by people who move from the white house to the networks. the difference is that ABC isn't in the business of typing up dnc talking points the way fox is a reliable arm of the republican party.

I'm especially bothered that fox lets karl rove comment on the progress of the campaign without reveling that rove is advising McCain.

CNN deserves a kick in the pants for hiring tony snow.

as to the point of whether Democrats should go on fox, i think they're wasting their time. while polls show fox's viewership includes self-described independents and democrats, fox viewers WHO VOTE, overwhelmingly vote republican.

The origins of foxnews:
Rupert Murdoch has long believed that the news media are dominated by liberals and that one of his missions is to counter this. He had long been frustrated not to have a television news network, and eventually hired Roger Ailes to build Fox News in 1996. Murdoch signs the checks. In Ailes, Murdoch found a kindred spirit, a man who shared his conservative politics, his lust for battle, and his view that a liberal bias dominated the media.

Posted by dj spellchecka | May 3, 2008 12:50 PM

Matt's trying to close the barn door after the horses have run out. Hillary and Obama have both been interviewed by Fox News in the last week.

And Matt's objection that Tony Snow was once a Fox anchor (really, a substitute anchor) and also worked as a GOP press secretary is hypocritical if he doesn't have the same objection to Chris Matthews (Carter flak) or George Stephanopolis (Clinton flak). In any case, Snow doesn't even work for Fox now -- he works for CNN.

Posted by Fred | May 3, 2008 12:53 PM

Fred pretends that there is no difference between a propagandist like Snow, whose lies have enabled the continuation of the slaughter in Iraq, and people like Matthews and Stephanopoulos (whose name he can't be bothered to spell) who bend over backwards to be fair. That's because Fred is one of those who still thinks there is a "liberal media." Despite the eight years of tearing down Clinton and another eight of propping up Bush. Sadly, Fred is not burdened with a rational thought process.

Posted by Circus Freak | May 3, 2008 1:02 PM

Don Williams: "Bush covers up the acts of US special interests which provoked Sept. 11"

EWard writes: "The US foreign policy is not perfect. We've made our mistakes. However, to claim that we provoked 9/11 is shameful."

---------------------
Osama Bin Laden, Oct 29th 2004: "And I will talk to you about the reason for those events, and I will be honest with you about the moments the decision was made so that you can ponder. And I tell you, God only knows, that we never had the intentions to destroy the towers.

But after the injustice was so much and we saw transgressions and the coalition between Americans and the Israelis against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it occurred to my mind that we deal with the towers. And these special events that directly and personally affected me go back to 1982 and what happened when America gave permission for Israel to invade Lebanon. And assistance was given by the American sixth fleet.

During those crucial moments, my mind was thinking about many things that are hard to describe. But they produced a feeling to refuse and reject injustice, and I had determination to punish the transgressors.

And as I was looking at those towers that were destroyed in Lebanon, it occurred to me that we have to punish the transgressor with the same -- and that we had to destroy the towers in America so that they taste what we tasted, and they stop killing our women and children."

Posted by dj spellchecka | May 3, 2008 1:19 PM

they WON'T tell you is that the "REASON" things happen is that rich guys get amoral Fox News assholes to feed the American people whatever line of shit best advances the agenda of the rich guys.

I don't deny that. I think that rich people see the world as operating according to a logic. News channels have an audience that is much richer than average, that's why they all slant towards the rich a bit.

However (and this is just spouting but this is a blog comment section after all) Democratic leaning rich people are ready to believe that the world does not operate according to a logic, and that people make political choices which are harmful to themselves.

Many liberals would say therefore that Bush beat democrat_whomever because people are dumb or were taken in. Fox can say that Bush wins because he was right. Fox therefore agrees with the actual outcome and can explain the world. CNN or semi-liberal tv can't explain the world, so has to say that people are irrational.

Posted by wellbasically | May 3, 2008 1:29 PM

Circus Freak helpfully reminds us about The Liberal Media:

Every Poll Shows Journalists Are More Liberal than the American Public — And the Public Knows It.

The data are all their: Pew polls, studies by journalism professors, etc. They confirm what everyone outside of the lefty blogosphere echo-chamber already knows.

Posted by Fred | May 3, 2008 1:35 PM

Re Eward's comment "Don Williams, you sould like Reverend Wright! The US foreign policy is not perfect. We've made our mistakes. However, to claim that we provoked 9/11 is shameful "
----------------
From a November 2001 Interview that Bin Laden gave to Hamid Mir of Pakistan's DAWN:

------
HM[Hamid Mir]: In your statement of Oct 7, you expressed satisfaction over the Sept 11 attacks, although a large number of innocent people perished in them, hundreds among them were Muslims. Can you justify the killing of innocent men in the light of Islamic teachings ?

OBL[Osama Bin Laden] : This is a major point in jurisprudence. In my view, if an enemy occupies a Muslim territory and uses common people as human shield, then it is permitted to attack that enemy. For instance, if bandits barge into a home and hold a child hostage, then the child’s father can attack the bandits and in that attack even the child may get hurt.

America and its allies are massacring us in Palestine, Chechenya, Kashmir and Iraq. The Muslims have the right to attack America in reprisal. The Islamic Shariat says Muslims should not live in the land of the infidel for long. The Sept 11 attacks were not targeted at women and children. The real targets were America’s icons of military and economic power.

The Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) was against killing women and children. When he saw a dead woman during a war, he asked why was she killed ? If a child is above 13 and wields a weapon against Muslims, then it is permitted to kill him.

The American people should remember that they pay taxes to their government, they elect their president, their government manufactures arms and gives them to Israel and Israel uses them to massacre Palestinians.

The American Congress endorses all government measures and this proves that the entire America is responsible for the atrocities perpetrated against Muslims. The entire America, because they elect the Congress.

I ask the American people to force their government to give up anti-Muslim policies. The American people had risen against their government’s war in Vietnam. They must do the same today. The American people should stop the massacre of Muslims by their government.

HM: Can it be said that you are against the American government, not the American people ?

OSB: Yes! We are carrying on the mission of our Prophet, Muhammad (peace be upon him). The mission is to spread the word of God, not to indulge massacring people. We ourselves are the target of killings, destruction and atrocities. We are only defending ourselves. This is defensive Jihad. We want to defend our people and our land. That is why I say that if we don’t get security, the Americans, too would not get security.

This is a simple formula that even an American child can understand. This is the formula of live and let live.
------------
Ref: http://www.dawn.com/2001/11/10/top1.htm

Posted by Don Williams | May 3, 2008 1:35 PM

Re Eward's comment "Don Williams, you sould like Reverend Wright! The US foreign policy is not perfect. We've made our mistakes. However, to claim that we provoked 9/11 is shameful "
---------------
In a 1997 interview with CNN, Bin Laden gave 3 reasons why Al Qaeda was declaring war on the US:

a) For a long time, the US government had propped up a puppet regime in Saudi Arabia in order to "plunder the wealth" --i.e., steal the oil
b) US government had supported Israel's killing of the Palestinian people
c) US government had killed 600,000 children in Iraq

(Aid groups like the Red Cross agree that the bombing of Iraqi water plants --and the blockade of water purification materials under sanctions in the 1990s -- had killed roughly this number of children via waterborne diseases/forcing Iraqis to drink polluted water. When Leslie Stahl accosted Madeleine Albright on this issue in a 1995 60 Minutes interview, Albright basically said the Clinton Administration didn't give a shit.)

From CNN's 1997 interview with Bin Laden -- source: http://www.anusha.com/osamaint.htm
------------

"REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, you've declared a jihad against the United States. Can you tell us why? And is the jihad directed against the US government or the United States' troops in Arabia? What about US civilians in Arabia or the people of the United States?

BIN LADIN: We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal whether directly or through its support of the Israeli occupation of the Prophet's Night Travel Land (Palestine).

And we believe the US is directly responsible for those who were killed in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq. The mention of the US reminds us before everything else of those innocent children who were dismembered, their heads and arms cut off in the recent explosion that took place in Qana (in Lebanon).

This US government abandoned even humanitarian feelings by these hideous crimes. It transgressed all bounds and behaved in a way not witnessed before by any power or any imperialist power in the world. They should have been considerate that the qibla (Mecca) of the Muslims upheaves the emotion of the entire Muslim World.

Due to its subordination to the Jews the arrogance and haughtiness of the US regime has reached, to the extent that they occupied the qibla of the Muslims (Arabia) who are more than a billion in the world today. For this and other acts of aggression and injustice, we have declared jihad against the US, because in our religion it is our duty to make jihad so that God's word is the one exalted to the heights and so that we drive the Americans away from all Muslim countries.

As for what you asked whether jihad is directed against US soldiers, the civilians in the land of the Two Holy Places (Saudi Arabia, Mecca and Medina) or against the civilians in America, we have focused our declaration on striking at the soldiers in the country of The Two Holy Places. The country of the Two Holy Places has in our religion a peculiarity of its own over the other Muslim countries. In our religion, it is not permissible for any non-Muslim to stay in our country.

Therefore, even though American civilians are not targeted in our plan, they must leave. We do not guarantee their safety, because we are in a society of more than a billion Muslims. A reaction might take place as a result of US government's hitting Muslim civilians and executing more than 600 thousand Muslim children in Iraq by preventing food and medicine from reaching them.

So, the US is responsible for any reaction, because it extended its war against troops to civilians. This is what we say. As for what you asked regarding the American people, they are not exonerated from responsibility, because they chose this government and voted for it despite their knowledge of its crimes in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq and in other places and its support of its agent regimes who filled our prisons with our best children and scholars. We ask that may God release them. "

Posted by Don Williams | May 3, 2008 1:54 PM

Are we supposed to read all that? I'm as convinced as anybody that the USA has a provocative foreign policy. But Osama is crazy.

Posted by wellbasically | May 3, 2008 2:42 PM

Even worse than working for Fox News, Tony Snow used to sub for the fat, traitorous, drug-addicted, asshole, draft-dodging, pedophile Rush Limbaugh, who had this to say about human nature yesterday during an interview with noted wing-nut and Arab-hater, Andy McCarthy -

We are all born as little savages. If we were not raised by parents — if we were not instructed in right and wrong, morality and so forth — we would turn out however we did.

(Troll repellant - Yes, I am convinced that Rush Limbaugh probably buggers children. After all, he was caught with a fistfull of Viagra while going down to the Dominican Republic, notorious for it's child prostitution. So, until Rush denies it, I can only assume the worst. After all, to quote another great conservative, Peggy Noonan, It would be irresponsible not to speculate.)

Posted by calipygian | May 3, 2008 2:56 PM

Re "Are we supposed to read all that?"
--------------
Hey, I tried to condense it -- just look at the references.

I envision Bill O'Reilly one day being in the Seventh Circle of Hell and having to interview Bin Laden --with a long list of questions given to O'Reilly by the Devil.

O'Reilly having been condemned to sit patiently --without interrupting -- while Bin Laden gives his full response to each question. heh heh heh

First question: "Mr Bin Laden, why do you hate Islam?"

Posted by Don Williams | May 3, 2008 3:06 PM

But its news stories are relatively up the middle. Sure, compared to other left-leaning networks, it appears way right. But it isn't.

Yes it is, Zarco. Yes it it.

Posted by Jules | May 3, 2008 3:19 PM

In response to the question above asking why Limbaugh won't appear on Olbermann, that's a pretty silly inquiry. I don't like Limbaugh, and haven't listened to him for more than 15 years, but whatever you may think of his lack of courage, a guy with a minimum audience of about 13.5 million a week doesn't give interviews to a show which is hostile to him, and has about a maximum audience of 3 million per week. That would be dumb.

Posted by Will Allen | May 3, 2008 3:20 PM

Any Democrat who appears on Fox news is seeking short-term personal benefit at the expense of everyone else. Fuck 'em.

Posted by The Fool | May 3, 2008 4:32 PM

Any Democrat who appears on Fox news is seeking short-term personal benefit at the expense of everyone else. Fuck 'em.

Posted by The Fool | May 3, 2008 4:34 PM

"But its news stories are relatively up the middle. Sure, compared to other left-leaning networks, it appears way right. But it isn't. The nakedly hostile attitude toward it doesn't make the left look good-neither accepting nor tolerant of any view that isn't in line with theirs.

Posted by Zarco | May 3, 2008 10:28 AM"

Actually I have and I often laugh out loud about how stupid it is, especially when reporting on foreign countries and how they get basic facts wrong.

Didn't Stephanapolous quit the Clinton WH because he was disgusted with Bill Clinton?

"The data are all their: Pew polls, studies by journalism professors, etc. They confirm what everyone outside of the lefty blogosphere echo-chamber already knows.

Posted by Fred | May 3, 2008 1:35 PM"

Nobody is denying this. However, look at things like the Iraq War. The media cheerleaded that. MSNBC fired their highest-rated host because he was against the war. Reporters may tend to lean left, but that doesn't mean they report to the left. It's pretty clear by now that a critical mass of reporters are scared of ever being called liberal or part of the liberal media that they try to make the right happy to no avail.

Posted by Reality Man | May 3, 2008 4:52 PM

Regular Fox viewers are provably the most uninformed (and misinformed) citizens in the country. Polls bear out that relying on Fox and right wing hate radio as the primary source of news leads to a flawed perception of reality. That's why I'm torn about Democrats going on Fox. On the one hand, some non-GOP voices could give much-needed perspective to mind-numbed, fact-deprived Fox viewers. On the other hand, Fox controls the dials and will do everything it can to ensure propagation of the Republican agenda.

Liberals should probably adopt something like the hippocratic oath when it comes to Fox: above all else, do no harm. Until you can be sure you're not going to be aiding Fox's agenda, stay away from it.

Posted by Jake | May 3, 2008 5:28 PM

I'm surprised that nobody else has pointed out yet, that Matt himself goes on Fox from time to time. Matt, your post shows you understand perfectly well why Democrats and progressives should not appear on Fox. I wish your actions would conform to that understanding.

Posted by Tom | May 3, 2008 6:37 PM

I love listening to Dems complain about media bias. Fox isn't any more biased than any other number of stations and papers. Stop whining and start your own station if you don't like it.

Posted by John | May 3, 2008 10:58 PM

Suderman perfectly illustrates the difference between conservative and liberal media -- he assumes that if he went onto Olbermann or The Nation that his views would be accurately represented, if contested.

This assumption is patently false for Fox, so of course liberal/Democratic/sane persons should not appear on Fox.

Posted by Punditus Maximus | May 4, 2008 1:02 AM

Many liberals would say therefore that Bush beat democrat_whomever because people are dumb or were taken in. Fox can say that Bush wins because he was right. Fox therefore agrees with the actual outcome and can explain the world. CNN or semi-liberal tv can't explain the world, so has to say that people are irrational.

So what was Fox's 'explanation' after the 2006 mid-terms? That only makes sense if the prevailing viewpoint happens to dovetail with the network's bias - which, admittedly, has been the case for a generation of young conservatives. However, that clarion call you've come to rely upon may waver a bit as the national consensus diverges from FN in the next few years.

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | May 4, 2008 1:11 AM

I once heard Brian Williams in an interview where in he described an NBC town hall meeting of sorts. He was proud that there were equal numbers of conservatives and liberals that thought NBC was unfair. Although not stated, the implied statement was, "we really are fair and balanced."

This little story demonstrates how far Fox News has shifted the point of mainstream journalism. While it is obvious the Fox News is anything but 'fair and balanced' the real point is that's not even the job of journalism. Their job is find and the broadcast the truth, no matter where that truth happens to lay. The mainstream press needs to reinvent themselves and align themselves once again to the mantra of, "without fear or favor."

Perhaps to be completely bias free is only an ideal, but it is an ideal for which all journalist should strive. "Fair and balanced," even the premise is a crock.

Posted by Steven Davis | May 4, 2008 2:07 AM

I don't watch fox because I am a lefty. But lefty's are fools to complain about Fox when MSNBC too is a propaganda machine. Olbermann and matthews were defiantly against the war and olbermann is on a crusade against Bush. This is fine with me because they echo my position. But it is bias and propaganda.
I watch less of it now because they also are propaganda for obama, buoying him up for hours everyday. it's fine that they do this but its boring for me and I disagree with them.
We live in a pluralistic society and we have hundreds of channels. I don't watch the food netwrok or the shopping channel either but fox is part of our pluralistic society.

Posted by Michael C. | May 5, 2008 8:03 AM

The Fox Factor

Comments (46)

Post a comment

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories