This one sentence says it all- "There is no longer any need to get bogged down in this phony debate, which itself constitutes an abuse of the fair-mindedness of the rest of the media"

So the debate is "phony" and "it's an abuse of the fair-mindedness of the rest of the media." How utterly comical this is. The "phony" part that the author just spent two pages engaging in, is indeed phony, but it's phony because of the liberal left trying to make the one network that is opposed to poor Obama, to please go away and stop embarassing the Administration with your "phony" news breaking stories like Van Jones and ACORN. Fox can't you just understand that opposition to Obama means that your not "real news." It's so simple, agree and you're legitimate, disagree and your "just talk radio." Fair is agreement, and opposition is "an abuse of the fair-mindedness of the rest of the media."

Ironically, Fox is the ONE station that is real News, asking the tough questions and breaking stories like Van Jones and ACORN, the others just give the standard Administration approved non-confrontational melba toast official Obama approved story, all of them in lock step uniform agreement with one another.

Thank you for your opinion, it is duly noted. And meaningless.

Fox didn't break those stories. They came out of reactionary blog culture. You are all full of piss and vinegar about Van Johnson, but Monica Goodling? Not so much. Of the two, which one did actual damage to government and the political process? Which one was Fox all upset about?

The conspiracy to make Republicans look like schmucks was launched by Dick Cheney, Roger Ailes, and assorted nuts and frauds from Federalist, Heritage and Enterprise. You want to whine? Go whine at them.

The first half of you rant makes sense. Fox is a network with a different spin than other networks and what is wrong with that. Nothing. The White House shouldn't comment on Fox and of course it must grant Fox equal access.

Of course libs will say Fox isn't real news. Note I agree with this to some degree since Fox mixes or blends too much of their talking head shows which are NOT news shows which Fox admits),with their straight news programs buy hey BFD, it is a great way to get ratings.

But to say they are the one station with real news is a joke. Since you are a Con of course you believe this but it isn't true. I would never say MSNBC has the real news since they would be folly also. All stations have their slant on the news and smart people get their news from multiple sources for this very reason.

Take the ACORN story. This was reported on CNN and the other networks. They underplayed it just as much as Fox overplayed it.

to ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, right? Without Fox, how would you know anything negative about Obama? Democracy needs media critical of the government, when the media becomes the government lapdog, you lose democracy.

This would only have a shot at being true if your only source for news was network television. Since you're ranting on a news blog, the proof of your dishonesty is all over you.

gringo_911:

Democracy needs media critical of the government, when the media becomes the government lapdog, you lose democracy.

The USA did not have any counterweight to the Bush's administration's WMD propaganda campaign. What you call the "liberal" media, even Slate, sang the praises of Colin Powell's duplicitious UN presentation. Congress shirked its constitutional responsibility and put war making power in Bush's hands.

Remember how they refused to air negative mateiral about him - they said it themselves...

Slate is an extension of the DNC, which publishes pseudo-articles teabagging Obama regime.

Anyway, if you want the TV to be completely under Obama control, why don't you say so? Why the need for smart alecking?

CNN's supposed pro-Saddam bias explains why they ran with the rest of the American media herd to proclaim that Powell's fact free presentation cinched the Bush admin's case on Iraq.

Commentator William Schneider on CNN Live Today (2/6/03) dismissed the possibility that Powell could be doubted: "No one disputes the findings Powell presented at the U.N. that Iraq is essentially guilty of failing to disarm." When CNN's Paula Zahn (2/5/03) interviewed Jamie Rubin, former State Department spokesperson, she prefaced a discussion of Iraq's response to Powell's speech thusly: "You've got to understand that most Americans watching this were either probably laughing out loud or got sick to their stomach. Which was it for you?"

Colin Powell has since called his UN presentation "a blot" on his record.

It'll be interesting to see how far it goes. The US is post-Constitutional now. A new era of state-capitalism has begun and a lot of wierd shit is possible.

unlike Fox, a 24X7 political operation which claims to broadcast straight news.

gringo_911:

to ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, right? Without Fox, how would you know anything negative about Obama? Democracy needs media critical of the government, when the media becomes the government lapdog, you lose democracy.

We don't a want media that is a lapdog to the government anymore then we want one that is persecutor of government.

<link>