Atman being two days behind Rush.

[Carl]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7914179

Atman  (1000+ posts)          Sun Mar-14-10 09:33 AM
Original message
WP: "Why don't honest journalists take on Roger Ailes and Fox News?"
   
Or, as Patriot Majority's Facebook posting labels it: RIGHTWING PROPAGANDA "WITHOUT PRECEDENT IN MODERN HISTORY"

What is truly scary is how many people I know who still think Fox is a legitimate news source, oblivious to its genesis, its agenda, its reason for being...

----------------

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?

Through clever use of the Fox News Channel and its cadre of raucous commentators, Ailes has overturned standards of fairness and objectivity that have guided American print and broadcast journalists since World War II. Yet, many members of my profession seem to stand by in silence as Ailes tears up the rulebook that served this country well as we covered the major stories of the past three generations, from the civil rights revolution to Watergate to the Wall Street scandals. This is not a liberal-versus-conservative issue. It is a matter of Fox turning reality on its head with, among other tactics, its endless repetition of its uber-lie: "The American people do not want health-care reform."

Fox repeats this as gospel. But as a matter of historical context, usually in short supply on Fox News, this assertion ranks somewhere between debatable and untrue.

The American people and many of our great modern presidents have been demanding major reforms to the health-care system since the administration of Teddy Roosevelt. The elections of 1948, 1960, 1964, 2000 and 2008 confirm the point, with majorities voting for candidates supporting such change. Yet congressional Republicans have managed effective campaigns against health-care changes favored variously by Presidents Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Clinton. Now Fox News has given the party of Lincoln a free ride with its repetition of the unexamined claim that today's Republican leadership really does want to overhaul health care -- if only the effort could conform to Mitch McConnell's ideas on portability and tort reform.

(continued at link...)


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

I listen to Rush driving home and back during lunch and still heard him talk of this coming on Friday.

Pedro needs to get out of mission control more often and be ahead of the curve.

Atman  (1000+ posts)          Sun Mar-14-10 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. I was going to add to my post that I expected people to say "The Washington Post?!"
   That's part of the problem. The Washington Post has an editorial page, but it publishes mostly real news. It is a NEWS organization, and like every newspaper still in existence in this country, it has an EDITORIAL page wherein the editors and the board gets to state their own case. Newspapers have always done this. You miss the point entirely by saying that a WP editorial was by "a puke." So what? Has Fox News EVER allowed "a 'Rat" unfettered access to its airwaves? No Alan Colmes bullshit, I'm talking about giving a real Democrat 5 minutes uninterrupted, without a panel of right-wing axmen waiting breathlessly for him/her to finish so they can move in for the kill and pick the carcass clean? Never. That's the point, NOT that the WP actually has enough faith in it's own integrity to allow genuine opposing viewpoints to see the light of day.

If the WP was ONLY a left wing rag the way Fox is ONLY a right wing mouthpiece, then they'd be worthless, too.

Since you admitted a while back you don`t watch them how would you know idiot?

high density  (1000+ posts)        Sun Mar-14-10 09:50 AM
Response to Original message
8. We know this isn't unique to Fox News
   Jake Tapper this morning was pimping the Fox News idea that "the plurality" of Americans are against reform even though people are very much in favor of the pieces of it. Both he and Tom Brokaw on NBC were playing crap from Scott Brown. Who gives a shit what he has to say?

Look at polls fool and see.
Oh btw a pretty clear poll happened in Mass on Jan 19 so maybe that is why.

Cleita  (1000+ posts)          Sun Mar-14-10 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
11. They do all the time like Keith Olbermann, Amy Goodman and
   Bill Moyers. You also see criticism in magazines like The Nation, but as long as Ruppert Murdock, the Rev. Moon and GE own the majority of media outlets, very little of it happens in the MSM where most people get their information. The worst part is that they claim immunity under the First Amendment. I would like to see that modified. I would like to see them fined every time they print or say a lie, or ignore real news like what's really happening in the wars, if they don't retract it or make up for it with equal space or time if it was a mistake as soon as they discover the mistake. I know many disagree with me but I think straight news and reports should be kept honest and cover everything that is important to Americans and that affects their lives no matter how unpleasant it may be. Just recently, hardly anyone reported on the Copenhagen Climate conference except Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! It was stunning in its failure of reaching any consensus, many walked out on it, and yet was largely ignored by the MSM. As far as opinion, sure blather on Rush/Sean/Billo. You do have that right under the Constitution.

In other words "If I don`t like it or agree then it needs to be silenced".

Sort of boring but that is the DUmp today,still funny to see Atman make the usual fool of himself that he does.

[ChuckJ]

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?

Through clever use of the Fox News Channel and its cadre of raucous commentators, Ailes has overturned standards of fairness and objectivity that have guided American print and broadcast journalists since World War II.

You mean "fairness and objectivity" like Dan Rather used during the fake memo fiasco concerning W's time in the Guard? Or do you mean "fairness and objectivity" like all the liberal MSM used during the entire Bush administration when they talked of the "terrible economy"?

[jukin]

Yet every poll taken on what source of televised news is the most objective, FOX News wins by a landslide.

This is like the crazy guy in the "Kooky Ranch" that thinks everyone else is insane.

[DumbAss Tanker]

That's a laugher, a Washington Pravda 'Journalist' talking about his 'Professional conscience.'

 

[USA4ME]

Atman

7. I was going to add to my post that I expected people to say "The Washington Post?!"

That's part of the problem. The Washington Post has an editorial page, but it publishes mostly real news. It is a NEWS organization, and like every newspaper still in existence in this country, it has an EDITORIAL page wherein the editors and the board gets to state their own case. Newspapers have always done this. You miss the point entirely by saying that a WP editorial was by "a puke." So what?

The article was written by Howell Raines who's a liberal and the last person who would ever care about "journalistic integrity."  Who are you trying to fool except yourself, Pedro?  It's been widely polled and proven time and time again that those in the MSM are overwhelmingly Democrat and left-of-center.  Once you enter that realm, the idea they could remove their opinion from reporting the facts isn't even a consideration; they can't.  The WP, when it comes to reporting events on Capital Hill and in the WH, is far from "it publishes mostly real news."  It's a left-wing rag and every line virtually drips with love for liberalism and hatred for conservatism.

That's one of your many problems, Pedro, along with those of your fellow primitives.  You're so far to the left, you believe the left is the right.  You have no prespective of where the center really is.  I, on the other hand, am perfectly positioned to know where the center is located, something you can't recognize because you're so far left of the average liberal that when you view someone like me, who's mainstream conservative, you believe I'm far right.  And you're too stupid to ever be taught differently.  If political beliefs were on a line with "0" being the center, "+10" being the far right, and "-10" being the far left, you would be around "-8" and I'm around "+3."  Your idea of the center is what would be correctly defined as "-5."  That's how far off you are.  That's why primitive Cleita's idea of fining those who lie would consist of a board of jurors made up by a bunch of "-6's" who will tell everyone they're a bunch of "0's" (which, in a way, they sorta are).

Like so many liberals, they hate Fox News because it's not "Here's what we libs are telling you that you must believe" 24/7 like it used to be.  You've still got CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, NPR, etc... that are consistently pushing the lib mantra.  Be happy with only having 90% of the airwaves to push the lib agenda.

Oh, and all you libs out there that believe that "right vs. left" is really "corporate vs. non-corporate,"  you're too mentally challenged to do anything but laugh at.  It's never been about corporate vs. non-corporate; it's always been limited gov't vs. big gov't.

Poor Pedro.

.