Monday, March 19, 2007

Fox Hounded - 4 Years On

This column in the Los Angeles Times is absolutely correct. Rather than take the word of Fox News and some in the so-called professional media that radical left-wing activists were responsible for canceling the Fox News sponsership of a Democratic debate, he asked Democratic professionals. They uniformly applauded the idea as Fox News is the Republican Party propaganda arm.
"Everything Fox does is directed toward aiding and abetting the Republican Party, and it uses its newsgathering organization more or less as a cover for that."

"They are in business to promote the Republican Party and to hurt the Democratic Party, and they have every right to do that, but to the extent that their pretense of objectivity can be challenged, it should be."
I decided to check out Fox News today, the fourth anniversary of their Iraq War. Surely they would want to celebrate that. Nope, they were trying their best to ignore it. They upped their commercials, at times it seemed like more commercials than news. They found a missing Boy Scout to go wall-to-wall coverage on. They had very long national weather reports. They briefly covered domestic news, "the Supreme Court will decide if students can make banners supporting drugs - Bong Hits 4 Jesus." Then they brought on Ann Coulter for her domestic news insights of the day. Their new advertisement during this: "We are not slanted Left-Wing like the other news, We are Fair and Balanced." Then my TV exploded.

No, sorry, that was another Fox News special effects logo.

CNN was doing a blend of coverage. Some on the fourth anniversary of the war, some on domestic and other news, some on the missing Boy Scout. (It's true, Fox News and Drudge determine some of CNN's coverage.) MSNBC was doing a special day of looking back at the war and where are we now and very brief reports on any other news. Lots of viewpoints from all sides being expressed. I switched to Al Gore's Current viewer supplied TV and saw a long report on the large Women's protests in Brazil against Bush's visit. They urged anyone with an opposing viewpoint to sent it in.

I report, you decide. Which of these seemed the least fair and balanced?

BTW, The New York Time's Frank Rich spots a lot of errors in a timeline but doesn't mention their own.

No comments: