Is that intended as parody? Or do you seriously believe that?
Fox has both conservative and liberal people on it, which automatically makes it more balanced than the other news stations.
It has a greater viariety of opinion. The Left like to lob folks like Glenn Beck, O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity all into one group, but actually Beck is a strict Libertarian, O'Reilly is a traditional independent who rails against big oil companies, believes in global warming, rails against Wall Street "speculators," etc...(but because he has more socially conservative values or also criticizes big government, he is "conservative"), and Sean Hannity is a flat-out, textbook conservative.
The Cable News operation appears to clearly be targeted to the Bible Belt areas that McCain managed to carry in the last election. That shrinking island of red in the middle of the country.
For being a "shrinking island of red," they must be incredibly numerous in that small spot, considering Fox continues to crush the other news stations in the ratings. Fox is one of the highest-rated cable news stations period.
And just what is it that they "uncovered" about Obama? That he was bright, personable, hard working, and has the best interests of the Republic and all its citizens at heart? The best they could do was pick on his use of the teleprompter? Or whip up a tempest that his public fist bump with his wife was a terrorist high sign? Or flog the fact that he served on an Annenburg Foundation Board promoting inner city education with a Viet Nam anti-war activist? They uncovered nothing, so much as expose how little they actually could turn up about Obama.
It wasn't whether they uncovered anything or not, it's that they didn't bother to check and were going to cover anything up that could harm his campaign. And IMO he is nothing but a standard, textbook politician who was power-hungry, and the facts bear that out. He attended a racist church with a Marxist philosophy for twenty years, stayed close to a racist pastor who traveled with one of the most racist people out there, Farrakhan, was involved with a corrupt real-estate businessman, sat on the board with an unrepentant terrorist, spoke in a completely elitist fashion regarding middle Americans, has an outright extremist view on abortion that should offend even strongly pro-choice people (which no one ever questioned him on), is completely anti-2nd Amendment, and an extremely high-degree of arrogance proven by his refusal to actually DEBATE any of the ridiculous policies he was proposing (and now enacting thus far).
Ronald Reagan had the people's best interests at heart as he didn't shy away from debate. If you asked him a tough question, he was on you like a mongoose on a cobra. Barack Obama, on the other hand, shied away completely and let the media rip away at anyone who dared question him.
You think a man who was willing to say absolutely whatever was required to get elected has the people's best interests at heart?
You think a man who refused to debate any of his policy proposals has the people's best interests at heart? Everyone says he's so smart, he should have gone onto some conservative shows and ripped apart the conservative values, and explained why they were wrong. Instead, all he used were talking points with crowds, such as "failed Bush policies," blah blah blah and claimed it was McCain who was four more years of Bush, when it is him who wanted to spend incredible sums of money, which was one of the main criticisms of Bush.
You think a man who folded up like a cheap suit when he was asked a few real questions, and then refused to debate further, as he did with the Philadelphia debate with Hillary, or that Joe the Plumber character, who asked a very basic question (which Obama folded again on), only to then allow the media to rip the guy up, has the people's best interests at heart?
You think a man who supports the Orwellian-named "Employee Free Choice Act," which will take away a worker's right to a secret ballot vote, has the people's best interests heart?
You think a man who wants to raise carbon prices high (as he himself said in an interview), which will destroy the very rustbelt region of the country he claims to be for, has the people's best interests at heart? (and yes, I know McCain and Palin supported a carbon cap-and-trade program, but there isn't a video of them speaking about it in terms of driving up prices so high as to skyrocket energy prices).
And he also played the race card throughout the election.
Now his administration is trying to micromanage firms with new legislation to grant enormous new powers over the economy.
He is nothing but snake-oil, and his lipstick-on-a-pig comment regarding Palin solidified that, as he could not have been that stupid. One can only imagine the result if McCain had made a monkey joke, like if he had said off-handedly, "Monkey-see, monkey-do." He is an ideologue.
And IMO, anyone who voted for him is a complete and utter hypocrite, because no "liberal" would EVER have let a white Republican who had attended a radical church for twenty years and befriended a minister who had traveled with a KKK or Nazi leader, off the hook (and justifably so).
If you had has said white Republican running, and people were feinting and huge rallies forming, you can bet your butt Chris Matthews and all them would be running split-screen coverage of Hitler and proclaiming it was the 1930s all over again.
But because Barack Obama was black, and good-looking, and could speak very well, and can flirt and dance with Tyra Banks and Oprah and Ellen DeGeneres and act cool, everyone conveniently ignores all of this and sticks their head up their fourth point-of-contact (and yet these are the same folks who proclaim Bush wanted to remove freedoms or was a fascist-Nazi-Hitler-whateverstupidnametheycalledhim).
Why people are so blind to see through him is truly beyond me, but they are, for whatever reason.
Meanwhile they spent the election cycle trying to lionize this Sarah Palin? Herself in bed (literally it seems) with Alaskan Separatists? Yet no matter how much lipstick they put on her, she still came out looking unqualified and ill suited to lead the country.
"Fox News" did not try to "lionize" Sarah Palin, they just gave her fair treatment, as they did Obama and Hillary and McCain. Certain people on Fox News, such as Sean Hannity did, and even then, Alan Colmes was right there criticizing her up and down, O'Reilly criticized her to an extent as well. The basic news programs on it, did not lionize her. People criticized her and people defended her. As for the Alaskan Separatists, while that is questionable in and of itself, as pointed out, there is plenty to question Obama on as well, and the Alaskan Independence Party doesn't have a history of setting bombs off to try and get their way, like the Weather Underground and William Ayers.
I am not too concerned about someone involved with a group that would like Alaska to separate and become its own country in a legal manner because they believe strictly in individualism and liberty. Such a person isn't going to crush people's freedoms if put in power.
And she "looked" just as qualified as Obama, the only difference is the media actually vetted her and asked her real questions, like why did she support the Bridge to Nowhere, why did she spend money for a sports complex as Wasilla mayor, what about foreign policy did she know, etc...to question if Palin alone was qualified to be President or VP was fine. To claim she was not qualified, but somehow Obama was to be President and Biden to be VP, made no sense and was completely unfair.
But no one asked any of them anything tough. When Biden made his comment about FDR going on TV during the 1929 crash, the media ignored it as best they could. If Palin had said that, she'd have to have been pulled from the ticket.
The media sent an army up to Alaska to scour the state from top to bottom, and found nothing, yet none of them will even go near Chicago because of all of the flashing red lights on Obama.
The toughest interview Obama had was on O'Reilly, and he was limited in what he could ask and it was only for thirty minutes.
As to Glen Beck ... he looks to me to be just a Quaalude short of institutionalization. I think his bizzaro dramatics from his Bunker of Doom was pure Theater of the absurd masquerading as pseudo-serious news analysis. The best face I can put on it was that his bunker was irresponsible fear mongering. It left no question in my mind that how that sausage was put together would have indeed been repulsive to anyone that values reasoned factual analysis.
Beck isn't "news," his is an opinion show.
Journalism professional and ethical standards:
- Find and report every side of a story possible
- Report without bias, illustrating many aspects of a conflict rather than siding with one;
...
You might consider about finding a better new source.
You think CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, etc...do this all far better?
