The film also quotes internal memos from a top network executive that seem to call for pro-Bush coverage.
``Ribbons or medals? Which did John Kerry throw away after he returned from Vietnam?'' wrote senior vice president for news John Moody in an April memo to the staff. ``His perceived disrespect for the military could be more damaging to the (Democratic presidential) candidate than questions about his actions in uniform.'
That isn't a call for more Bush coverage. Its an internal memo about an issue about Kerry. He proudly throws away medals, then years later when some people have a negative opinion about him because of it, he says that they where not his medals. Later yet he says he did throw his ribbons. The medal issue is really a minor one, more serious is the accusations he made, and his support of those who lied to congress about atrocities in Vietnam, a number of whom where not even in Vietnam but who claimed to be combat soldiers who witnessed atrocities. Kerry says that he witnesses certain atrocities with his own eyes. He would have been required to report them under the UCMJ. Later he changes his story and just says that they where things he heard about.
You just don't get it, do you? A lot of us just don't care what he did with his medals. They were his medals to do what he wants with them. Only the right cares because they have an axe to grind.
The study found conservatives accounted for nearly three-fourths of ideological guests on the network's marquee news program, ``Special Report with Brit Hume,'' between June and December 2003, and that Republicans outnumbered Democrats five to one.
Republicans are in power now. If you talk to a cabinet official, or an undersecretary of something or other, you will probably be talking to a Republican. Even if this fact is not enough to account for the disparity it would only be evidence of bias, and tenuous evidence at that. It would not be evidence that FOX was a mouthpiece for Bush.
Apparently, you haven't watched a lot of FOX News programming.
``Outfoxed'' was compiled during the past seven months in association with liberal political organizations Center for American Progress and MoveOn.Org
MoveON is clearly more biased then FOX. I don't know much about the "Center for American Progress", but even this anti-FOX news article calls it a liberal political organization. That doesn't mean that their opinion is wrong (or that its correct). But its ironic that you use obviously biased sources to argue that another source is biased. If Fox is too bias to be worth paying attention to, then the same is true about MoveOn, but if your source is also to biased to be credible then the attack on Fox falls apart.
These org. do not provide the national news. Fox does. They do not make the claim they are "fair and balanced". Fox does.
I'll take logical argument from any source, even claims about fact I'll take from most sources, with the understanding that just because someone says it doesn't make it true, but ``It was almost like Fox News was working off of the playbook coming out of the White House, that he had to be torn down,'' is just opinion, and even that opinion says "it was almost like..."
Personally I think Fox is biased, but to an extent any news source will be. As far as I can tell it isn't a mouthpiece for any politician or party.
Its is. There is a big difference between the way NBC presents the news and the way Fox does. If you don't see it, you are being disingenuous, or your bias is getting in the way again.
If I was in to excluding sources because of liberal bias I would ask you not to post links or quotes from the New York Times, and certainly not from MoveON. But even if you would agree to such a restriction (perhaps in exchange for me dropping FOX, or NRO or Townhall) I wouldn't want it. Such restrictions stifle debate more then they contribute to it.
The NY Times is one of the finest newspapers in the country......how can you compare it to the NRO or FOX?
ted |
