If I had a nickel
for every time a liberal called Fox News Channel a biased, lying, untrustworthy
news source, I’d be as rich as Rupert Murdoch. There have been whole books and
movies (e.g., Outfoxed) dedicated to how this single evil right-wing
propaganda machine has polluted an otherwise pristine news landscape and
corrupted the honorable news business as practiced by mainstream media stations
(ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, BCC, MSNBC, NPR, etc.) and major newspapers (NY Times,
LA Times, WaPo, Boston Globe, Phila. Inquirer, Houston Chronicle, Minneapolis Star, etc.)
To many
Democrats/liberals, FNC is the devil in electronic form, to be demonized and
avoided like the plague. John Edwards—who’d have us believe he’d be a strong
enough president to protect us from ruthless mass murdering dictators like
Ahmedinejad and Kim Jong Il—was too much of a wuss to attend a presidential
debate simply because it was on FNC!
Oh, what a
topsy-turvy world we live in.
Would I say that FNC has a more right-wing tilt than the MSM? Of course I would. But it’s a matter of perspective: The MSM tilts so blatantly left that any other news source looks radically right-wing by comparison. The truth of the matter is that FNC is closer to the center than the MSM. Unlike FNC-haters’ claims that it tries to prop up Republicans and conservative perspectives and condemn Democrats and liberal policies, FNC airs the dirty laundry of both sides, as well as the failures of both sides. For this, liberals deride FNC for its slogan “Fair and Balanced.”
So, let me get
this straight …
When FNC reports good
news about the Bush administration (e.g., tax cuts benefiting economy,
record low unemployment rates, terrorist attacks in U.S. thwarted) as well as bad news,
that’s right-wing bias. But when the MSM dismisses or ignores the good news,
while emphasizing the bad news (e.g., Republican setbacks and scandals, immigration policy, performance during Hurricane Katrina), that’s objective and trustworthy news reporting.
When FNC reports good
news from Iraq (e.g., toppling and executing Saddam, historical elections, decreases in violence and casualties) as well as bad news, that’s right-wing bias. But when the MSM dismisses or ignores the good
news, while emphasizing the bad news (e.g., Abu Ghraib, military and civilian
casualties, Abu Ghraib, every single roadside bomb, Abu Ghraib), that’s
objective and trustworthy news reporting.
Have I got this right?
If ever the
MSM reports good news for Republicans or the successes of a conservative
policy, it does so begrudgingly. For liberals to refute this is to engage in denial. Not only denial, but
hypocrisy. I have yet to meet a FNC-hater who will admit that the MSM’s
non-stop coverage of Abu Ghraib or some other black mark on the Bush administration was overkill, or question the nearly non-existent coverage of the Clintons’
shady dealings and campaign donations.
Recent Comments