Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Monday, March 15, 2010

Howell Raines: One question has tugged at my professional conscience throughout the year-long congressional debate over health-care reform, and it has nothing to do with the public option, portability or medical malpractice. It is this: Why haven't America's old-school news organizations blown the whistle on Roger Ailes, chief of Fox News, for using the network to conduct a propaganda campaign against the Obama administration -- a campaign without precedent in our modern political history?

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

mysterytoy

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

I find two things interesting about this story. Number one the headline I used is the one used by the Post's print edition.

Number two is that this ran in their Opinion section so I suppose the editors also feel that it can't be substantiated.

Howell Raines is a former executive editor of the New York Times

I get it now.


Howell Raines is a former executive editor of the New York Times

I get it now.

Howell he ever get past his obvious left wing bias?

Ailes has overturned standards of fairness and objectivity that have guided American print and broadcast journalists since World War II

About damn time... the print media was so far left they were in danger of falling off the California coast.

Seriously, hasn't been anything fair or balanced from the socialist media in a LONG LONG TIME.

If you polled the reporters for any news organization except fox, they would be what, 80% lib? 90%? More?

Isn't this like the pot calling the kettle black?

If you polled the reporters for any news organization except fox, they would be what, 80% lib? 90%? More?

They wouldn't consider themselves libs. They are so engrossed in their reality that they would consider themselves centered.

I see. So if it's the NY Times they have an agenda, but if it's Roger Ailes all is well.

You're an idiot, miseryboy.


I see. So if it's the NY Times they have an agenda, but if it's Roger Ailes all is well.

You're an idiot, miseryboy.

#7 | Posted by LetUsPrey

So you're saying that if your next door neighbor is a thief then you are a thief too?

No, I'm saying you're an idiot. Pretty clear, but not for you. Idiot.

I watch Fox News all the time. The guy/girl sitting on the left is a Democrat and the guy/girl sitting on the right is a Republican. Sure there is bias but both sides are ALWAYS represented. That is fair and balanced and that is why Fox News will soon be the only news outlet left standing. That is unless the Government steps in and bails out the losers like The New York Times and The Washington Post. Half the country is tired of paying for Democratic propaganda.


No, I'm saying you're an idiot. Pretty clear, but not for you. Idiot.

#9 | Posted by LetUsPrey

You're not qualified to judge my inteligence since you can't understand anything beyond your simple mind.

Basically your yard stick is only 6 inches long.

"The guy/girl sitting on the left is a Democrat and the guy/girl sitting on the right is a Republican."

What the fuck does that mean? They are READING SCRIPTS PREPARED FOR BY SOMEONE ELSE, YOU FUCKING RETARD.

"Basically your yard stick is only 6 inches long.

#12 | Posted by mysterytoy"

You wish your yard stick was that long.

"You're not qualified to judge my inteligence(sic)"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAA

hey, lettuce spray...

What percentage of the press voted for Mondull? What percentage of the US Pop.

Don't care if they call themselves liberal, balanced, centrist, or fucking asshats, doesn't change their bias.

That the press has a bias towards libs and big govt has been obvious to the majority of Americans for years. That is why the number of people reading / watching that dribble continue to decline, while fox news and talk radio is going like gang busters.

Guess its time for you to whip out your 'the American people are all idiots' line that libs routinely use when the citizens wake up to the bullshit and vote for someone the papers don't endorse.

Now tell me all lawyers are bad.

Of course the doubly perfect, "Your not qualified to judge my inteligence" would have been even more funny, but we take what we can get.

Now tell me all lawyers are bad.

#17 | Posted by LetUsPrey

I am sure that there is one practicing attorney somewhere in America that is not a lowlife scum-sucking worthless piece of shit... and the rest are all so ashamed.

Two lawyers walking down the street... when a hot girl walks by. First says "Man, I'd like to screw her" and the other replies "out of what"?

What the fuck does that mean? They are READING SCRIPTS PREPARED FOR BY SOMEONE ELSE, YOU FUCKING RETARD.

#13 | Posted by LetUsPrey

So you're saying that Roger Ailes is paying Democratic Strategists and Democratic Analysts to say the Democratic Talking Points on Fox News? I think this is what you are saying. Democrats are getting paid to support Democratic Agenda on Fox News.

Why do I feel like a spider with a half dozen bitches stuck in my web?

Change your underwear.

Don't like Fox news?

Here's a few things to help.

Don't pay for it.
Pick up the remote and change the channel.
Better yet, turn off your televison. Your chances of being programmed become less.

You're welcome.

Why haven't America's old-school news organizations blown the whistle on Roger Ailes, chief of Fox News, for using the network to conduct a propaganda campaign against the Obama administration -- a campaign without precedent in our modern political history?

Was this guy in a coma during the Bush Administration?

ohhh shit . . . who will tell us what to think if something happens to The Times, CBS, ABC?

Same as now. Your mom. Now shut up and close the basement door.

but we take what we can get.

#18 | Posted by Zatoichi

Spoken like a true leftie.

If you polled the reporters for any news organization except fox, they would be what, 80% lib? 90%? More?

Who gives a shit what their personal leanings are. If they don't allow that to come through in describing the who, what, where, when and why it's irrelevant.

The problem, however, is that "news" nowadays is infotainment, with the majority of programming consisting of someone barely telling you the who, what, where, when and why but being damned sure to tell you what THEY think about it.

And that's why Fox is a problem from the get go-they try and present themselves as actual news.

#1 | POSTED BY MYSTERYTOY
"this ran in their Opinion section"

Where the hell else would you put it? lol

"Number two is that this ran in their Opinion section so I suppose the editors also feel that it can't be substantiated."

More likely it's because it isn't news. It's an obvious fact that Fox News is just Republican propaganda, you'd have to be a complete idiot not to figure that out.

'They wouldn't consider themselves libs. They are so engrossed in their reality that they would consider themselves centered.'

#6 | Posted by andyuhenet

Kind of like Andy - He always proclaims how middle of the road he is...

But we KNOW that he is nothing but a right wing extremist.

'Seriously, hasn't been anything fair or balanced from the socialist media in a LONG LONG TIME.

If you polled the reporters for any news organization except fox, they would be what, 80% lib? 90%? More?'

#4 | Posted by 1libertarian

Claims he is a libertarian but from his posts he is OBVIOUSLY another right wing extremist pushing the tighty righty agenda.

Mainstream media is socialist? GIVE ME A BREAK nothing could be FARTHER from the truth.

Perhaps Individual reporters tend to be more liberal, because of the simple fact that being an objective open minded journalist tends to make one more liberal minded.

But the owners and editors are very much middle of the road or conservative.

Fox news is mostly propaganda and lies and ANY OBJECTIVE survey of their news items would bring you to that conclusion quite rapidly. Your stupid little excuse about individual reporters being liberal notwithstanding.

Raines is the guy who was fired for making up stories by the NYT, the left wing propagamda King. Neither have any credibility.

...well? So is this along with all other liberal media. If FOX weren't killing all other strugglers we would not even hear about it. It is lonely on top and all those complaining are hypocrites of the first order!

It is lonely on top

Fox is the highest rated 24/7 cable news...which is a bit like being winner of the tallest midget award.

But they make it sound as if they are #1 news ratings in the top spot on regular (non paid for) channels. They're not.

Why am I not surprised that a foxnews watcher is too stupid to already know what I've just typed?

"Raines is the guy who was fired for making up stories by the NYT, the left wing propagamda King."

No he wasn't. Get your facts straight.

"Why am I not surprised that a foxnews watcher is too stupid..."

Check the PBS watchers-that's the crowd worth, ah, something. While you at it-all tv buboises are worth watching. Well, there you go-now that it is in a proper prospective.

It's amazing how many libbies here watch Fox. If it's unfair and unbalanced--why do you?

Switch over to CNNMSNBCCBSABCNBC. Plenty of choices out there.

Number two is that this ran in their Opinion section so I suppose the editors also feel that it can't be substantiated."

More likely it's because it isn't news. It's an obvious fact that Fox News is just Republican propaganda, you'd have to be a complete idiot not to figure that out.

#30 | Posted by danni

I wouldn't characterize Fox as being Republican propaganda, but it definitely has a conservative slant/bias to it. On the other side the "mainstream media" (NBC, ABC, CBS, Washington Post, N.Y. Times) have had a leftist slant/bias for years and didn't even try to hide it---the positive about Fox is it'll force the rest of the media propaganda outlets to reform or face extinction. I like information from both sides and when I didn't get it from the "mainstream media"; I turned them off years ago---am starting to watch them again since I'm starting to see some balance in some of their shows----forced on them by the Fox revolution---it can only be healthier for America in the long run.

"If it's unfair and unbalanced--why do you?"

I can't speak for everyone, but I watch it, when I do, in order to understand the mindset of the average American for whom Fox is their primary source of news.

Monst - I don't know where you got the idea I claim to be middle of the road. I'm a registered Republican and I will likely vote Republican for the foreseeable future.

"I wouldn't characterize Fox as being Republican propaganda, but it definitely has a conservative slant/bias to it. On the other side the "mainstream media" (NBC, ABC, CBS, Washington Post, N.Y. Times) have had a leftist slant/bias for years and didn't even try to hide it---"

I have to disagree. The major networks don't have a left slant. If they did, I'd be able to stomach a lot more of it. What they have is a left slant as viewed from the right. To me, you don't start getting into slanting leftward until you get to Amy Goodman territory. And even then its not a bad thing until you start lying in your coverage.

It's kind of like Montsman and Danni saying they're "fair and balanced" and accusing 1libertarian and Mysterytoy of spewing propaganda.

I'm a registered Republican and I will likely vote Republican for the foreseeable future.
#40 | Posted by andyuhenet

That's not what you said in your email. Its okay though. Your secret is safe with me.

Oddly, I didn't need a Times Editor to tell me Faux news was, well, Faux news.

I have to disagree. The major networks don't have a left slant. If they did, I'd be able to stomach a lot more of it. What they have is a left slant as viewed from the right. To me, you don't start getting into slanting leftward until you get to Amy Goodman territory. And even then its not a bad thing until you start lying in your coverage.

#41 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine

I don't know about that, Hag, I find some of your posts to be quite reasonable and not particularly with a "flaming" leftist slant.

I can't speak for everyone, but I watch it, when I do, in order to understand the mindset of the average American for whom Fox is their primary source of news.

* * * *

Oh. That's probably the reason given by DanniForthSarvis Unity too. And millions of other libbies who "can't speak for everyone".

I think you guys are their biggest demographic. If it's silly for righties to assume that just because people are tuning in to mainline networks whose journalists vote Dem 90% of the time that they must be libbies themselves, isn't it stupid of you to do the same?

"the positive about Fox is it'll force the rest of the media propaganda outlets to reform or face extinction."

As Roger Ailes says, he is ratings driven. Ratings are hardly the best goal for a news organization.
If Fox News has any effect on the rest of the networks it is to force them to become ratings whores instead of real news organizations. I also think your assertion that the rest of the media is "left leaning" is a bull shit talking point which has been around since the days of poor Richard Nixon getting kicked around by the evil media.

Cable news is just a small segment of where people get their news, and a lot of Dems watch it because they don't want to hear only stuff they agree with. I watch a lot of MSNBC because some of that shit is just insane, but it's good to know what the dems think.

If anyone doesn't like Fox, then don't watch it. I don't know why some people have troubles censoring things themself.

And Hag, thanks for keeping my leftist extremism secret.


#1 | POSTED BY MYSTERYTOY
"this ran in their Opinion section"

Where the hell else would you put it? lol

#29 | Posted by TheTom

I would suggest the comics section.

I don't know about that, Hag, I find some of your posts to be quite reasonable and not particularly with a "flaming" leftist slant.
#45 | Posted by matsop

Thanks.... wait.... what are you saying? Are we going to have to fight?

"Oh. That's probably the reason given by DanniForthSarvis Unity too. And millions of other libbies who "can't speak for everyone".
I think you guys are their biggest demographic.
#46 | Posted by rightisright

I didn't say I was a regular viewer. I watch Fox less than I read National Review.

And Hag, thanks for keeping my leftist extremism secret.
#48 | Posted by andyuhenet

That's what I'm here for, comradski.

This is sort of like the lilly all white MSNBC criticizing the tea party for being racist.

By the way, Raines had his sorry rearend fired because of his poor handling of Jayson Blair (the young guy who plagiarized details in news stories he wrote) and the subsequent revelation of said scandal.

poor handling of Jayson Blair
#53 | Posted by matsop

Uh oh... somebody want to give Matsop a heads up here?

Might as well start bashing Bev Harris again.

"Why haven't America's old-school news organizations blown the whistle on Roger Ailes, chief of Fox News, for using the network to conduct a propaganda campaign against the Obama administration -- a campaign without precedent in our modern political history?"

If pointing out the flaws of this ridiculous HC bill is being bias, maybe the reason their ratings are so much better than their competition is because they are actually reporting the truth. Seems like all the other outlets want to point out what is good in the bill and ignore the bad. Did something change in the way news is reported, has it not always been the rule, negative news out sells positive news?

I also think your assertion that the rest of the media is "left leaning" is a bull shit talking point which has been around since the days of poor Richard Nixon getting kicked around by the evil media.

#47 | Posted by danni

Does this surprise me? You wouldn't understand this reality if it hit you with a 2 by 4 between your two left eyes.

I don't know about that, Hag, I find some of your posts to be quite reasonable and not particularly with a "flaming" leftist slant.
#45 | Posted by matsop

Thanks.... wait.... what are you saying? Are we going to have to fight?

#50 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine

Nah, I'm generally a lover--especially since my younger years.

I also think your assertion that the rest of the media is "left leaning" is a bull shit talking point which has been around since the days of poor Richard Nixon getting kicked around by the evil media.

#47 | Posted by danni

Does this surprise me? You wouldn't understand this reality if it hit you with a 2 by 4 between your two left eyes.

#56 | Posted by matsop

I'm sorry---maybe you understand it but don't want to acknowledge the obvious truth.

"I'm sorry---maybe you understand it but don't want to acknowledge the obvious truth."

You "obvious truth" is clouded with right wing propaganda thus I don't think you have any idea what would even constitute "fair and balanced."
Anyone who watches Fox News and doesn't almost instantly understand the bias is hardly someone who I would take seriously.

I'm sorry---maybe you understand it but don't want to acknowledge the obvious truth."

You "obvious truth" is clouded with right wing propaganda thus I don't think you have any idea what would even constitute "fair and balanced."
Anyone who watches Fox News and doesn't almost instantly understand the bias is hardly someone who I would take seriously.

#59 | Posted by danni

Thank you then for taking me seriously---I am very humbled by your endorsement and respect---see post #38

If people vote the same way they do with their TV remote control then we are in for a Republican led landslide this midterm election.

Fox is at least honest. CNN and MSNBC try to pass their propaganda off as news with a straight face.

MATSOP I think you usually are coherent conservative so your ability to notice and acknowledge Fox's "conservative" slant is no real surprise to me but to pretend that a network which employs Karl Rove as a commentator isn't shilling for the Republican Party is sort of laughable.

There is a difference between leaning left or right when reporting and outright attempting to change the political climate through propoganda. MSNBC leans one way. Fox news is a wing of the GOP.

"But the owners and editors are very much middle of the road or conservative."

#31 | Posted by Monstman

the bias according to MSNBC does include: editors, anchors, columnists, reporters and editorial cartoonists

"The investigation turned up donations from 143 journalists, including editors, anchors, columnists, reporters and editorial cartoonists, but not executives or publishers. They came primarily from the 200 largest newspapers in the country."
www.aim.org

which employs Karl Rove as a commentator isn't shilling for the Republican Party is sort of laughable.

#63 | Posted by danni

Now, that's an excellent point---personally, thought that was not an appropriate move--

#61
That's like saying that people who slow down to watch a car wreck actually hope for the chance they can be in one themselves.

"MSNBC leans one way. Fox news is a wing of the GOP."

The leftward lean of MSNBC is undeniable but at least they try to present honest facts and provide, on many shows, legitimate representatives of the opposition who get to present their arguments pretty much in a fair exchange. Morning Joe, an MSNBC show, is very popular yet has a rightward lean to it and Scarborough goes on on conservative rants all the time.

"If people vote the same way they do with their TV remote control then we are in for a Republican led landslide this midterm election."

Not really, though Fox has the highest ratings it doesn't have more viewers than the rest of the networks combined.

MATSOP I think you usually are coherent conservative

#63 | Posted by danni

How about adding compassionate to that:

MATSOP is a compassionate coherent conservative---you could refer to me in the future as CCC---- as an acronym.

"legitimate representatives of the opposition who get to present their arguments pretty much in a fair exchange"

Were you laughing while you typed this??? The opposition is no where to to found on MESSNBC

I would be glad to refer to you as CCC but I wouldn't think a self-respecting conservative would want to be associated with the CCC.

en.wikipedia.org

"The opposition is no where to to found on MESSNBC"

You obviously don't watch it and have no idea what you are talking about.

Danni, you're on a roll: Scarborough definitely has a conservative bias although I wouldn't know about his co-anchor and others. Also, the ratings of FOX is not greater then all the other networks combined---noticed this awhile back. Now if you could just keep rolling and use your assessment powers in a more fair and balanced way toward your left leanings you'd cross the finish line.

I would be glad to refer to you as CCC but I wouldn't think a self-respecting conservative would want to be associated with the CCC.

en.wikipedia.org

#72 | Posted by danni

I might surprise you---this actually was one of the better FDR programs (in my opinion)--some of his others I certainly would question.

On that CCC thing, seems to me we'd be smarter to be spending money with jobs like the CCC than just giving people unemployment checks. At least we'd get some sort of work out of them on projects that need doing anyway.

I love the CCC. Anyone who's spent any time in National or State parks have come across CCC programs that are still in use. I'm all for spending federal tax dollars on those things that actually accomplish something for the betterment of citizens as a whole, obviously with reasonable cost and return. Unfortunately most of the "stimulus" money has not done this. I'd be all for more road projects, but studying fleas and the mating habits of freshmen women are simply stupid. The CCC built things that have lasted. Name a few things that the "stimulus" has done that will still be around in 70 years.

"studying fleas"

Who cares how plague is transmitted?

idiot

Looks like Zat the insane rat has an opinion. Who woudda thunk? Of course his only real argument is just another insult, as usual. The question, Zat the fucked up insane rat, is whether making such studies creates jobs and stimulates the economy, not simply whether that at some level there may be some distant aspect of the program that is helpful. So, before you call someone an idiot, you brain dead fucking moronic fuck, try actually understanding the concept of the previous post.

Or I could just say "sticks and stones..."

the bias according to MSNBC does include: editors, anchors, columnists, reporters and editorial cartoonists

"The investigation turned up donations from 143 journalists, including editors, anchors, columnists, reporters and editorial cartoonists, but not executives or publishers. They came primarily from the 200 largest newspapers in the country."
www.aim.org

#65 | Posted by FreddyK

What bias? What investigation?!?

This is very funny - a GREAT example of righties blowing out BS like it is a known fact - A given in your world...

MEANWHILE back in the REAL WORLD no one but a fox supporter would believe anything from AIM - they are a KNOWN right wing front group.

Accuracy In Media is ANYTHING BUT!!!

MEANWHILE back in the REAL WORLD no one but a fox supporter would believe anything from AIM - they are a KNOWN right wing front group.
Accuracy In Media is ANYTHING BUT!!!

Monst

All caps is cruise control for awesome.

"What bias? What investigation?!?"

#80 | Posted by Monstman

Are you so simple minded that you believe that the editors donating money to liberal organizations and that does not reflect a bias?

Sure liberals are so fair, LOL!

The only difference between FOX and the other cable "news" networks is that FOX is popular. FOX could be 100% controlled by the republican and still not offset the liberal bias in the rest of the media.

It is funny that the high ratings for Fox News is driving the Left through the roofv.

I was just watching the CNN coverage of Barry's Snake Oil sales pitch. The Anchor TJ who is obviously a huge Obama fan is promoting Obama's agenda and not reporting. It is totally obvious he is not an objective journalist. CNN is totally a biased news organization and that is why their ratings are in the toilet. CNN fairness in reporting is usually displayed by having 4 liberals surrrounding 1 conservative discussing an issue. I guess that is a liberals idea of a fair debate

FOX NEWS - telling them what they want to hear whether or not it is the truth!

That my friend IS THE definition of PROPAGANDA.

Why does no one challenge this most asinine of asininities, the Big Lie that the media is somehow tilted leftward? The media is owned by corporate interests listed on the stock exchange. They used to be the stenographer for the problem but have become the problem itself. Second most outrageous is some people suggesting that Fox emits "fair and balanced" news. About as fair and balanced as were Der Sturmer and Pravda. herm

"Why haven't America's old-school news organizations blown the whistle on Roger Ailes, chief of Fox News, for using the network to conduct a propaganda campaign against the Obama administration"

Maybe they don't wish to be hypocritical?

Morning Joe, an MSNBC show, is very popular yet has a rightward lean to it and Scarborough goes on on conservative rants all the time.

#68 | Posted by danni at 2010-03-15 10:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

Its a "rant" if a conservative speaks out?

If Rachel Maddow speaks out is it impassioned or a rant?

"FOX NEWS - telling them what they want to hear whether or not it is the truth!

That my friend IS THE definition of PROPAGANDA."

#84 | Posted by Monstman

Perhaps you could give us a specific example of FOX presenting the news as biased propaganda. Not one of their opinion shows mind you, but the news.

Specific examples please..............

This coming from a shill for the administration.

I think the reason FOX and Ailes have been able to pervert journalism so successfully is because they have a large and hungry audience that are eager to have their rightwing preconceptions catered to. They will defend their right to be told what they want to hear to the bitter end.

#88 | Posted by FreddyK

You're joking, right? Facts do not belong in a liberal argument. CNN, MSNBC, etc. can provide the same type of programming, albeit with a liberal slant, and the left will support them all day long. No different with the NYT, LAT, McClatchy Corp., etc. To hear folks like Moder8 speak, one would think that Fox is only watched by hot-headed racist Republicans bent on the overthrow of Obama and Company. But its ratings say something completely different. Otherwise the Dems would be in sore shape indeed, come November, given the 4:1 advantage that Fox has over pretty much every other news program. Must be a lot of propagandizing racists out there, eh?

"MATSOP I think you usually are coherent conservative so your ability to notice and acknowledge Fox's "conservative" slant is no real surprise to me but to pretend that a network which employs Karl Rove as a commentator isn't shilling for the Republican Party is sort of laughable."

#63 | Posted by danni

Because this is a lot different than George Stephanopoulos on ABC's This Week?

This is why you can't be taken seriously.

Fox News Opinion shows slant right - those who show faux surprise like DANNI are idiots. I bet DANNI and the like think The View is fair and balanced.

Fox News News shows report the news no differently than CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, ______. On most of the "opinion" shows, they have panels or multiple guests representing both sides. They usually are more weighted to the right than the left - but the MSM is usually the opposite.

Fox News is what it is. Intelligent people discern what is "agenda" driven news, and what is factual news. Liberals are missing the required gene to do so however and can only parrot Jon Stewart news sound bites.

Perhaps you could give us a specific example of FOX presenting the news as biased propaganda. Not one of their opinion shows mind you, but the news.

Specific examples please..............

#88 | Posted by FreddyK

TEA PARTY RALLY LIVE coverage from the DC Mall when Fox news inserted a previously taped (not live) political rally that was much larger than the actual tea bagger rally...

by mistake...

right...

It takes one to know one.

Talk about propoganda...HOW many stories have had to be retracted by the TIMES? How many Prize winners have had to give back prizes for 1) Plagiarism 2)Out right lying

Jayson Blair (born March 23, 1976, Columbia, Maryland) is a former New York Times reporter who was forced to resign from the newspaper in May 2003, after he was caught plagiarizing and fabricating elements of his stories.

By THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: February 16, 2010
A New York Times reporter accused of plagiarizing portions of several articles resigned from the newspaper on Tuesday, according to two people briefed on the matter

The reporter, Zachery Kouwe, who had already been suspended, met late Tuesday afternoon with representatives of The Times, The New York Times Company and the Newspaper Guild of New York. The participants were to discuss possible disciplinary action, including dismissal, but instead Mr. Kouwe resigned

******
How many times will The New York Times publish a disreputable reporter's work before it learns its lesson?

Perhaps the third time will be the charm. Alexei Barrionuevo has under come under fire for plagiarism on two separate occasions, but the Times printed a story March 27 ("Salmon Virus Indicts Chile's Fishing Methods") by Barrionuevo anyway, prompting a response from the salmon industry.

******
September 2, 2008, 10:32 pm Alaska Party Official Says Palin Was Not a Member
By THE NEW YORK TIMES
The chairwoman of an Alaskan political party that advocates a vote on the state's secession from the union said Tuesday that she had been mistaken when she said Gov. Sarah Palin was a member of the group.

A front-page story in The New York Times on Tuesday and articles in other news media reported that Ms. Palin was a member of the Alaska Independence Party for two years in the 1990's.

On Tuesday night, Ms. Clark said that her initial statement was incorrect and had been based on erroneous information provided by another member of the party whom she declined to identify.

December 26, 2007, 8:24 pm Editors' Note: The Ron Paul Vid-Lash
By THE NEW YORK TIMES
A post in The Medium that appeared on Monday about the Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul and his purported adoption by white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups contained several errors. Stormfront, which describes itself as a "white nationalist" Internet community, did not give money to Ron Paul's presidential campaign; according to Jesse Benton, a spokesman for Paul's campaign,

WASHINGTON The New York Times Wednesday issued a statement agreeing to correct a story it ran earlier in the day suggesting the White House was well involved in the discussions about whether to destroy CIA tapes showing interrogation methods of two Al Qaeda terrorists.

The decision to run a correction online and in the print edition of Thursday's paper was based on the subheadline of the story

**** How Many Stories has FOX NEWS had to retract? NONE. ***** Notice that all the smears were against people on the Right by the Times - so which one is Propoganda?????****

Fox News is what it is. Intelligent people discern what is "agenda" driven news, and what is factual news. Liberals are missing the required gene to do so however and can only parrot Jon Stewart news sound bites.

#93 | Posted by ELCIDCE90

SAY IT DUMBASS

Fox news is ________.

(insert the word PROPAGANDA here and stop avoiding the issue)

Fox news IS what it IS. Fox news IS Propaganda.

That is the precise accurate term, thus you dance all around it and attempt to avoid the truth - kind of like Fox news does!

Monst..like all good liberals - when the truth hits home - ignore it or attack the person.

In my post 95 I lay out ALL the issues with NY TIMES - but there are NONE of those issues with FOX ..yet FOX is propoganda? Even you have to admit that given the facts between the two it is the NY TIMES that actually is the biased one.

**** How Many Stories has FOX NEWS had to retract? NONE. *****

#95 | Posted by foshaffer

BZZZZT! WRONG ANSWER.

Here is a link to a REAL media watchdog which lists at least 2 dozen lies and retractions issued by Fox news since 2004.

That should be enough to get your research started!

mediamatters.org

Perhaps you could give us a specific example of FOX presenting the news as biased propaganda. Not one of their opinion shows mind you, but the news.
Specific examples please..............
#88 | POSTED BY FREDDYK AT 2010-03-15 04:06 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Besides the TEA party bullshit that was already mentioned, and was absolutely hideous and blatant:

Wow, is this guy a worthless moron or what?
Propaganda ia ideological, so what the hell is the spew coming from the times? He is pissed along with the rest of the worthless mentally challenged marxists because Americans have an alternative news source, and " YEAH " it swings to the right, or the American side of the argument. You fucking marxists believe in your brain fucked ideology, no matter how repressive and perverted it is. We REAL Americans believe in our ideology and believe the marxists should be educated or destroyed before they totally bankrupt America.
Tutamen Deus

Not sure if my post #99's affecting anyone else, but dammit, I may owe the D.R. an apology for the pluggin required. If so, RCade, please dump my post!

Wow, is this guy a worthless moron or what?

No. We need truth tellers in this day and age of right wing bullshit peddling.

Worthless morons are the fools that are being programmed like cheap Chinese VCR's by the brainwashers at Clusterfox. The few folks I know that watch that crap station are either over 75 years old or slack jawed idiots that think 'professional wrassling' is a real sport.

"The few folks I know that watch that crap station are either over 75 years old or slack jawed idiots that think 'professional wrassling' is a real sport."

That's true Fox is like 60 Minutes, with a demographic of old geezers.

"**** How Many Stories has FOX NEWS had to retract? NONE. *****
#95 | Posted by foshaffer"

"BZZZZT! WRONG ANSWER.
Here is a link to a REAL media watchdog which lists at least 2 dozen lies and retractions issued by Fox news since 2004.
That should be enough to get your research started!
mediamatters.org
#98 | Posted by Monstman"

Monstman: 1
Forshafter: 0

#99 | Posted by YAV

PARTY FOUL!

PARTY FOUL!

Please flag it for RCade so it comes to his attention and can delete it!

Worthless morons are the fools that are being programmed like cheap Chinese VCR's by the brainwashers at Clusterfox. The few folks I know that watch that crap station are either over 75 years old or slack jawed idiots that think 'professional wrassling' is a real sport.
#103 | POSTED BY AXE

I wonder where Axe gets his programming from?

Ray,

My clock is still flashing 12:00........12:00.......12:
00.........

Foreshafter did you know that Fox News actually went to court for the right to lie?

After all there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.

In a stunningly narrow interpretation of FCC rules, the Florida Appeals court claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a "law, rule, or regulation," it was simply a "policy." Therefore, it is up to the station whether or not it wants to report honestly.

During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves.

Indeed. This is what our corporate media, led by such as Rupert Murdoch, have come to. How low we have fallen.

www.relfe.com


"Therefore, it is up to the station whether or not it wants to report honestly."
#110 | Posted by donnerboy

Sounds fair enough to me. I sure as hell wouldn't what the government in control.

Dirk

The point is since it appears to be up to the station that Fox has made the decision to NOT report honestly. Seems to me there should be some regulation requiring that if a broadcast station uses our publicly owned airwaves and makes a decision to deliberately distort the news that they be made to issue a disclaimer to that fact.

Issuing false news reports can harm the public.

For an extreme example see the War of the Worlds radio "news bulletin" in 1938.

...an episode of the American radio drama anthology series Mercury Theatre on the Air. It was performed as a Halloween episode of the series on October 30, 1938 and aired over the Columbia Broadcasting System radio network. Directed and narrated by Orson Welles, the episode was an adaptation of H. G. Wells' novel The War of the Worlds.

The first two thirds of the 60-minute broadcast was presented as a series of simulated news bulletins, which suggested to many listeners that an actual Martian invasion was in progress. Compounding the issue was the fact that the Mercury Theatre on the Air was a 'sustaining show' (it ran without commercial breaks), thus adding to the dramatic effect. Although there were sensationalist accounts in the press about a supposed panic in response to the broadcast, the precise extent of listener response has been debated. In the days following the adaptation, however, there was widespread outrage. The program's news-bulletin format was decried as cruelly deceptive by some newspapers and public figures, leading to an outcry against the perpetrators of the broadcast, but the episode launched Orson Welles to fame.

en.wikipedia.org

It is just a matter of whose propaganda you choose to believe more.

It's all propaganda. There is always a hidden agenda.

Yeah, some are following their personal principles, principles that we may disagree with quite a bit. But we can still respect their principles if they'll respect ours.

But there are only a few I wouldn't have a beer with, Olberman, for example. Even if he was paying.

Don't think I'd have a brew with O'Reilly either.

Try the "have a drink with" test...

orielly last week using clips showed this asshole to be a liar...and dont forget that he was FIRED by the times because of his people lying and plagerizing....
but IM sure that doesnt matter to most of you

and BY THE WAY..

anyone else see who was added to the panel on fox news sunday

JOHN PODESTA....you cant get more leftwing radical ASSHOLE than that prick....

AND guests were GIBBS
and at the same time as kanter was VON HOLLEN who not only is leftist but also an asshole ..

cnn cant even come close to that for balanced...

Bill O'Reilly Being Himself

times is propaganda ... ooooo ya I said it! take that poopy pants!

all this childish bullshit is annoying as fuck.

Democrats: well republicans pee themselves in the bed!
republicans: well democrats pooped their pants!

Democrats: well republicans voted to burn down your house

republicans: well democrats voted to kill your children

times: well foxnews people are a bunch of poopyheads!

whitehouse: well foxnews isn't even a news station

Like really is that what we are? A bunch of a cry babies that can't compromise or agree to anything. Just call everyone names. Well you're a nazi! you're a denier because you question our science! You support people dieing because you question science!

It's absurd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

you are all children bantering about shit in which none of you know what the fuck you're talking about. It's all about scoring political points.

... k done ranting a little ...

If you can't see fox is blatant republican corporatist plutocratic propoganda, you never will. unfortunately, youre also not intellectually curious or engaged enough to have an actual debate with. i know, fox teaches you how to stick to talking points and have screaming matches, but debate is not your strong suit.

fox news is a litmus test to me. if you like it and think it's actual news, you live in an alternate reality. if enough people subscribe to that reality, humanity is going to suffer greatly.

msnbc is even more pathetic. they think, 'hey, we can just be the left wing equivalent of fox news and present the other side in the same format.' the reason they fail is because the opposite of fox isnt msnbc. the opposite of fox is the library. or a university. or some books.

the opposite of fox is intellectually informed debate with well educated experts, where subjects aren't covered in 2 minute segment with people from opposite sides yelling at each other.

the opposite of fox is bill moyers, charlie rose.

the opposite of fox would be a news network that exposes what's really going on in the world: the theft of the world's resources by the already rich. the rigging of the game by those already on top. and you can't do that on tv, because to be on tv, you need money. and the only people with money any more are those who play the money game.

CNN thinks they can compete with their constant 'twitter' talk and their 'ireporters'. theyre a joke and they deserve the demise they're currently experiencing.

so keep watching fox. when this society falls apart and we're all surrounded by retards with no attention span and no intellectual curiosity, thank yourself.

I get it now.

#2 | Posted by mysterytoy

FF!

You get nothing.

FOX spews obvious, odious propaganda with their opinion shows and then their so-called hard news divisions repeat the same propaganda note for note.

Only a complete and utter moron would not see or acknowledge this truth.

If you polled the reporters for any news organization except fox, they would be what, 80% lib? 90%? More?

#4 | Posted by 1libertarian

If you polled the people who actually owned the so-called liberal media, the ones who decide what constitutes news or not you'd find they were what, 80 Con? 90%? More?

See, the MSM isn't left or right.

Much like the government itself, it is a corporate entity first and foremost.

But at least it tries to maintain the journalistic ethic of being non-partisan with the exception of the occasional lefty opinion pieces and shows.

Fox, on the other hand, makes a huge pretense of being "fair and balanced".

O'Reilly, in a twist that Orwell would have appreciated calls his show the "No-spin zone" despite the fact that it is very obviously a right wing spin zone.

RW radio, due largely to a media over-consolidation that Stalin would have appreciated, is even worse.

If you can't see or acknowledge these truths then you are either a partisan hack or an utter fool.

Possibly both.

Be Well.

/Tater O' Doom, beeyatches, entering the DRagon
stage left.

AFKABL2 is a Fox News junkie.

nuf said.

Good call on the Oreilly show Spud.

IT should be called the RIGHT WING SPIN ZONE.

What we truly NEED is a NO SPIN ZONE but you will never be able to depend on Fox to provide America with THAT!

AFKABL2 is a Fox News junkie.

nuf said.

#120 | Posted by danni at

shows how limited your knowledge of me and other conservative posters are on this site..and there is NEVER nuf said...you know that.

BUT I can see why radical leftists like yourself love the times...you never have to think for yourself.

AND AS ALWAYS ./....your comment has nothing to do with my post.

on one program..one hour...fox had the STUPID Lying spokesman of the president for a full segment and an arrogant asshole dem name von holland and john podesta on the panel who approaching being an ENEMY of the state he is so radically progressive and STILL its not enough for you biased and prejudiced people...

its amazing....grace..

monsta

so how many times last week did you actually watch orielly...in my opinion he has gone overboard to be fair and in fact is getting too damn chummy with many of the radicals..

...in my opinion he has gone overboard to be fair and in fact is getting too damn chummy with many of the radicals...

A radical to afkabibble is anyone who doesn't watch Fox news. I quit watching Fox news years ago because I figured any news organization that had to advertise that they were fair and balance was trying to brainwash people that were too stupid to know better.

All news groups are bias to a degree, but Fox goes beyond that. They are just plain propaganda in it's purest form.

Pay no attention to the BABBLER behind the curtain...

'I quit watching Fox news years ago because I figured any news organization that had to advertise that they were fair and balance was trying to brainwash people that were too stupid to know better.

All news groups are bias to a degree, but Fox goes beyond that. They are just plain propaganda in it's purest form.'

#125 | Posted by RingMaster

Good call - the more FOX tries to convince people they are FAIR AND BALANCED the more they are straying from that goal.

AND STILL no real answer to my original post.

at least last week on fox news sunday there was a complete and total balanced airing of the issues..something the others NEVER HAVE...

and the amount of viewers answers the real question anyway...

thats right monsta

make sure you only get one version of issues..that way all you have to do is listen and go

ARUMP/////

at least last week on fox news sunday there was a complete and total balanced airing of the issues..something the others NEVER HAVE..

Sad thing is the moron actually believes this.

...or is that the funny thing?

and the amount of viewers answers the real question anyway...

Which is wot?

Is FOX a assclown college complete with shiat-fer-brains bimbettes (aka NILFs), laughably insane lunatics and pre-digested propagandistic pablum ferweak-minded morons like yerself?

Answer there is YES, of course.

Or was yer question "Are there more stupid people in America than smart ones?"

Ya get the same answer with both questions.

Be Well.

MSM - "The world is flat"
FOX - "The world is round."

MSM - "The sun revolves about the earth."
FOX - "The earth revolves about the sun."

MSM - "FOX is a propaganda outlet."
FOX - "Yada yada yada"

"at least last week on fox news sunday there was a complete and total balanced airing of the issues..something the others NEVER HAVE..."

Yes they presented the Republican view and the "why Democrats are evil" view too.

According to the UCLA study:
there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.

The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet. While this news program proved to be right of center, the study found ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found.

I think I speak for many people when I say my problem with Fox News is not the conservative bias, but the techniques they use.

For example, during the 2004 Presidential Campaign, the right can up with the term "flip-flop" to describe John Kerry's change of heart over a particular defense spending bill. The statement "Senator X originally supported Bill Y but later reconsidered and decided it was not a good bill.", is accurate and factual with no bias. That is the type of statement a NEWS organization should make. Fox News corespondents consistently used the derogatory term "flip flop" (which connotes having no backbone) to describe Kerry changing his mind and used "Flip-flopper" to describe Kerry himself. This would be analogous to a CNN reporter using the word "stupid" to describe President Bush. No mainstream, so called "left-leaning", media outlets ever called Bush "stupid". That is the difference between Fox News and real news.

I don't think any liberal has a problem with conservative-biased news (e.g US News and World Report). It's conservative-biased propaganda that's the problem.

I made a mistake in my post here is a link to the UCLA study

newsroom.ucla.edu

I think I speak for many people when I say my problem with Fox News is not the conservative bias, but the techniques they use.

#134 | Posted by TX_IND

You do very much speak my feelings. Freedom of the press belongs to them that owns one.

Fox news can do whatever they want. Let the viewership be entertained.

But to call them a news organization? They are more a propaganda outlet than a legitimate news organization. Their techniques are the evidence.

No wonder the White House had a problem granting them PRESS credentials! They don't let Jon Stewert or Colbert have PRESS credentials either! Comedians don't get them so why should the clowns at FOX?

Issuing false news reports can harm the public.
#112 | Posted by donnerboy

Why don't I feel comforted by the government being able to dictate what gets broadcast. You think a free speech line might get crossed here? Just maybe? Jesus Christ do you really need coddled from cradle to grave by big government daddy?

News flash your going to die and you will be completely alone with your fear when you do and by the way in about 50 years after you die lonely absolutely no one will remember you even existed.

You might want to get over your fear and start living.

God i so wish we could do a survey of the IQ's of people who get most of their news from fox, and those who get it from anywhere else.

Any foxfans want to put money on which one comes out on top?

Dirk

What does this strange projection of some fear of yours have to do with Responsible Free Speech and my concerns with the 1st Amendment.

Just as it is unlawful to yell fire! in a crowded movie theater it should be unlawful to distort the truth and tell lies on the public airwaves. There should be accountability for those that use the public airwaves.

You remember accountability right?

Now tell me again what the hell this (News flash your going to die and you will be completely alone with your fear when you do and by the way in about 50 years after you die lonely absolutely no one will remember you even existed.) has to do with any of that?

The only television I watch is FOX news.

The only time I watch television is in the waiting room at the oil change place.

Howell Raines lost his executive editor's job at The New York Times for promoting the career of Jayson Blair, a black drug addict and fantasist who invented entire stories describing the hills of West Virginia from a saloon down the street in New York. But somehow Raines still imagines himself a media bigfoot who can pronounce on the State of Journalism, a one-man Pulitzer Prize panel. This is a little like a White House chef who poisoned an entire state-dinner crowd mounting a soapbox to lecture that the new chefs can't be trusted.

Read more:

newsbusters.org

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable