MoveOn.org spokesman Adam Green is quite insistent. “The Democrats,” he says, “realize they made a mistake legitimizing Fox News. It’s not really a legitimate news outlet.” …
As it happens, MoveOn has a fallback, compromise position. “No Fox News (in the broadcast picture on the debate) “unless it is balanced by a left wing outlet.” Their idea is to have the struggling Air America radio network co-host and air the debate on the radio.
I asked Green what he thinks of his counterparts on the right’s view that there are major legitimate news outlets that are liberal to left in their political bent. But he was having none of it. What about the New York Times?
“The New York Times is not a liberal newspaper,” he said, repeating that Fox News doesn’t do any real journalism.
Isn’t this a matter of free speech for a news organization to also have a point of view?
“It is not a matter of free speech,” Green insisted. “It is a matter of fact not opinion that Fox does not do news.”
Am I the only person to whom that sounds rather extreme? The largest single news audience, and they're not a legitimate news organization?
And remember, these may be the words of one leftie. But MoveOn.org isn't some fly-by-night organization, they're a strong movement on the left and the Democrats listen to them. And if you're a leftie, tell me that you don't agree with this guy Green.
Lefties. Can't live with 'em, can't shoot 'em. =)
Greenwald laid out his view of Fox and its pernicious coverage. “They mix them up — commentators and news anchors very carefully — you can’t tell them apart.”
“You can watch for a week,” he claimed, “and not be able to tell the difference between a commentator and a news host.”
Greenwald evidently does not watch Fox News much, because it is not hard to tell the difference between Sean Hannity and Brit Hume, as I pointed out. To which he said: “Ultimately it doesn’t matter because the station is committed to a point of view.”
Which is true as well of, say, the New York Times.
“They don’t do objective news,” Greenwald insisted about Fox.
Update, 3/10/07: Looks like the Democrats may have buckled.
By Friday, the Nevada Democratic Party caved in to the lunatic fringe and beganseeking a more "appropriate" television partner.
Update #2, 3/12/07: Neal Boortz has it right:
"If you want to be the President of the United States, you can't be afraid to deal with people with whom you disagree politically." If this is going to be how the Democrats operate, it's going to be a long 20 months.
This so-called right wing bias in the news coverage on Fox News is a complete joke. Last year I asked --- no I begged my listeners and Nuze readers to watch Fox News and present me with an example of right wing bias in their news coverage...We went through a whole year of this and not once could any liberal call the show, and not once did someone send us an email detailing a right-wing bias in Fox News Channel's news coverage.
The real problem the left has with Fox News is that it doesn't have a LIBERAL bias.
Sitting back now, watching the frothing at the mouth by the lefties =)
Update #3, 3/13/07: Harry Reid flip-flops on the issue.
I will not allow gratuitous attacks, especially those directed at me, on this blog.
The comment, though, reinforced my views about lefties.
Hmm. It's always been my experience with Fox that they are crystal clear in informing the viewer of the news/commentary split. And unlike MSM outlets, whenver there are panel discussions, clearly identified liberals and conservatives are evenly represented.
I suspect part of the problem here for the left and the MSM (but I repeat myself, as Mark Twain said) is that Fox News, particularly Britt Hume's nightly news and analysis broadcast, delights in exposing MSM hypocrisy and outright falsehoods. Of course, if your world view is centered ten miles left of the middle of the road, I suppose the middle could seem to be pretty far to the right.
Post a Comment