Does Fox News Coverage = Republican Campaign Contribution?

Post Reply New Topic

Actually to throw it back in both of your faces, what does Jesse Helms' grandkids have to do with this? Wishing his grandkids get AIDS and die...

Excuse me?!?!

First things first--she did not wish he or his grandchildren to get AIDS, she said that such a thing would be a retibution for his efforts to cut funding to fight AIDS. Puts rather a different character on the remark. Now, it may be odious, nonetheless. But it's not illegal. Other commentators (conservatives, to boot) on the very same broadcast were equally scathing of Helms, calling his remarks bigoted, cruel and hypocritical.

Saying something offensive, ignoble or mean-spirited is not necessarily a justification for disciplinary action--and even when it is justification for disciplinary action, that is a private, contractual matter between the employer and the employee.

So, is there a double standard at NPR? Perhaps there is. But looking at two incidents, 15 years apart seems to me to be a highly anecdotal approach to establishing that.

I find it highly unlikely that NPR had any conservatives in that broadcast, for that matter I seriously doubt there is even a conservative pundit that works at NPR.

The two in question were Charles Krauthammer and Tony Snow. Their remarks during the broadcast are reported here: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/201 ... said-on-tv

Admittedly that's an NPR news blog, but their admonishment of Helms' remarks is reproduced elsewhere: http://mrc.org/specialreports/2011/PBS/ ... hWish.aspx

NPR being a news organization really does not have pundits per se Daniel Shore was the closest thing.
Opinion pieces are usually given by guests the Cato institute and Heritage foundation being featured quite
prominently.

When the owner of the media conglomerate that includes Fox News can freely spread his right-wing propaganda without having to answer to no one, I call that a fair contribution.

I'm also disgusted that Canada apparently has entered into an unholy alliance with the Murdoch news empire by creating the "sun News" network, which is as trashy as its American counterpart, and has no standard of information at all. According to excerpts shown at a regional investigation show (which has even posted its methodology and ethic code on its site), the interviewers of the Sun News network have been quite hostile towards our own ministers, and criticized the use of public funds for the career of a reknowned canadian dancer who had been honored previously for her work.

Then should we say that the other media outlets' coverage is equivalent to campaign contributions for Democrats, or is that okay cause they support left wing views?

That depends if other medias want to declare themselves advocate of Democrat or left-wing politicies. Ideally, as long as they give the same time to both sides on one given channel, that'd be "fair". Additionnally, to be considered left or right-wing, shouldn't a media channel give its own opinions about the happenings of politics? Impartial media coverage would present all the sides: Democrat, Republican and even minor parties. That is how you give people choice (about who to vote for) and how you can't complain afterwards that you've been discriminated against. =/

For more references, you can go see Italy's Silvio Berlusconi, who owns a media outlet and is the richest man in his country. I'm quite sure any Republican candidate for a presidential campaign would kill to have this kind of coverage. <.<

It would if they did.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m9Gbb6NSwM[/youtube]

Except he wasn't joking.

Read this article:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/view ... asp?id=207

Fact is liberal journalists can't even understand the fact they have a bias, they don't even realize they are being partisan.

Conspiracy is very much integral to your worldview isn't it?

Actually I was saying that the liberal media is so partisan that they don't even realize the fact that they are injecting their left wing bias into their media coverage.

The information from the source I put up the link for seems to back up what I'm saying.

I'm interested in what this implies regarding your beliefs about the conservative media.

If we start from the proposition expressio unius est exclusio alterius, then your specific reference to the "liberal media," is intended to exclude other media. All well and good.

But why do you exclude them.

Do you exclude them because they are free from right wing bias?
Do you exclude them because they are simply not so partisan that they still realize that they are injecting right wing bias?
Do you exclude them because they expressly disclose their bias?

I have no objection to your complaint about bias--it is a legitimate complain to level at media. What I do not accept is your failure to take the plank from your own eye.

I'm excluding them from the bias argument because we have all the other media outlets jumping on Fox News' case whenever they "get something wrong," even if this screw up is an imagined one.

The other media outlets however all circle the wagons and try to fall all over themselves to back up what one left wing outlet says however, so that is why their bias is more of a concern.

Fox News actually has people trying to look over their shoulders and catch them on anything, but the other media outlets aren't being held up to the same level of scrutiny (not counting bloggers).