Originally Posted by sammi jo
Perhaps it is inappropriate to single out Fox as the villain of the piece. One positive thing about Fox: despite the "fair and balanced" slogan, which is patently a joke, at least they are not pretentious in their delivery... they are conservative and make no excuses for it.
I don't agree with that. Their news coverage is far more balanced than their competitors. You may find some conservative slant, but not in the proportions one finds liberal slant and outright bias on the other networks.
Now, their opinion and analysis shows (O'Reilly, Beck, Hannity specifically) are clearly conservative. The difference is (as you say) they don't pretend to be anything by conservative (notice I didn't say "Republican.") They also have many liberal guests on their shows, even if they are berating them at times (that means you, Mr. O'Reilly and Hannity)
CNN and other networks on the other hand pretend to be "fair and balanced", yet I haven't seen much, if any evidence of corporate-media support for "liberal" causes.
Then you frankly have your head in the sand. The media has supported liberal causes since the days of LBJ. We could be here all day citing examples, from withholding legit stories, to making up illegitimate stories...from editorializing the "news," to "gotcha" interviews with conservative politicians. The list goes on.
On the other hand, they all jumped on board the war agenda without as much a single question (both Bush and Obama admins),
What, pray tell, is the "war agenda?"
they supported the $17 trillion "bailout" (read heist of the millennium) of the financial sector, and they turned a semi-blind eye to the wave of corporate crime and scandals that characterized the Bush Admin years.[
I don't support the "bailout," though I'd like to know where you got the figure "17 trillion" from. Unfunded obligations, perhaps?
As for the "corporate crime" that "characterized the Bush Administration," that's just silly. It existed, but it didn't characterize the administration. They didn't cause it and cannot be tied to it. Please tell me you're not going to go the jimmacian route of crying "deregulation!." Say it ain't so.
One of the worst things that happened to the US media was the media de-regulation in 1996 (Clinton Admin) which in effect reduced the US media to obedient lapdogs and generic trash, where honest journalism became a thing of the past, unless you worked for "boutique" or small independent publications.
AHHHHHH! No! There it is. Anyway...I'd like to know how you believe "deregulation" caused the media to behave it is today. Is it relaxed ownership rules, for example?