I do not endorse [nor has anyone else] a revocation of Fox's FCC license. To advocate for that would be to advocate against the free market and liberty in general. What I [specifically] rail against is a 'news' agency that is admittedly and diametrically opposed to any Administration. The position of Fox does not in any way embody the spirit of what our free press is supposed to stand for......a check and balance against the ruling system....not merely the ruling system it happens to support.
I merely wish for an end to Fox playing the victim card and promoting a 'war' of the White House against it. I want a free press that exposes corruption and abuse for the sake of Democracy, not for the sake of one of the two major party's.
This argument is such a two way street. I agree with you, but in the interest of fairness, MSNBC is just as, if not more biased than FOX. Two wrongs don't make a right, but having the option to view the other side of the coin helps keep people better informed. The days of an unbiased media are long gone. Now you don't really get the news, you get someone's idealized version of what they think is going on. I watch the commentary on FOX, CNN, and MSNBC, filter it though my bullshit-detector, and usually come up with a pretty good idea of what is actually going on.
ReplyDeleteI really can't agree with the premise of MSNBC being more biased than Fox.
ReplyDeleteTo prove that there are several hurdles to make:
The difference is that you can take study's that portray the media conservative or liberal.....take your pick. You can cherry pick statements and quotes that paint the mouthpiece as conservative or liberal....take your pick. It's a draw in that regard.
What you cannot do is show an allegedly 'liberal' media outlet that was started and is administered by a long time Republican operative.....executing it's role - in their own words - as the 'Alamo' and the 'opposition'.
You cannot show where an allegedly 'liberal' media outlet has promoted and sponsored a series of partisan political rallies, as Fox did; then lying in the national press by accusing other networks of failing to cover the events that Fox itself promoted. You get that last point right? Lying. Blatantly. That's the hallmark of a legitimate news organization?
You also cannot show where an allegedly 'liberal' media outlet formed a blatantly partisan blog/news/whatever website as Fox and the Washington Times have.
All we get are innuendo's of 'subtle' or 'covert' bias. That's a smokescreen from people who cannot defend their case. A case that is in the words of Republicans themselves, a campaign of asserting control over the media, where oppositional control does not even exist.