Only someone at the New York Times would claim that their paper was not “anywhere close” to Fox News on bias. What was surprising was the source of this trashing. Clark Hoyt, the just retired ombudsman of the New York Times, supposedly served as the conscience of the paper, mediating questions of whether the paper fairly and unbiasedly covered the news. If anyone at the Times is going to warn the paper that they have gone too far, it is the ombudsman.
Yet, when Mr. Hoyt recently appeared on C-SPAN’s Q&A with Brian Lamb, he held little back.
I watch Fox News from time to time, and I’m always fascinated by its view of the world compared to the view of the world you see in other media outlets that I would not consider partisan. The stories they choose to highlight, the way they are described, and I’m not even getting to [Bill] O’Reilly or some of the unabashedly opinionated parts of Fox News. I do not believe the New York Times is anywhere close to that.
Even worse, Mr. Hoyt attacked Fox News for poising a real danger to society:
There are many, many more voices today. In many respects, I think that’s healthy. But the one thing, the danger for any society, is if you don’t have some sort of core of shared facts and values, I think ultimately, there’s a great danger for the society. And I do worry about that.
So how biased is Fox News compared to the New York Times? Why don’t we ask Democrats whom they trust more for news: Fox News or the New York Times? With all the vitriol directed against Fox News, one would think that it is a no-brainer. But a recent Pew Research Center for the People & the Press poll shows that it is Fox News. While 43 percent of Democrats have a positive view of Fox News, 39 percent of Democrats feel the same way about the New York Times.
Of course among Republicans or Independents it isn’t even a close contest. Seventy-two percent of Republicans have a favorable view of Fox News compared to only 16 percent who have a favorable view of the New York Times. Almost twice as many independents have a favorable view of Fox than the Times.
There are other methods of measuring media bias and the New York Times looks quite biased on covering the economy and gun control.
There are surely other ways of measuring whether Fox News is biased, but it is a bit much for the man the New York Times hired to investigate bias at the Times to use such inflammatory language, claiming that what Fox News does represents “a great danger for the society.”
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
115 Comments
The NY Times has faux news and a faux ombudsman. One thing they have that is real is their decline.
Leftists always view opposing viewpoints as 'a danger to society'.
The continued denial of bias by liberal media outlets will be their own undoing. Good.
"…the New York Times would claim that their paper was not “anywhere close” to Fox News on bias."
And today's "Half Right, Half Wrong" Award goes to…………………….Clark Hoyt!!!!!!!!!!!!
"But the one thing, the danger for any society, is if you don’t have some sort of core of shared facts and values, I think ultimately, there’s a great danger for the society. And I do worry about that."
The question most people would have to what you opine too here Mr. Hoyt, is just WHO decides what those shared facts and values are? Is it you? Is it the political party in power at the time? Or is it Hugo Chavez in the case of Venezuela?
No sir, ultimately, the great danger to society is when people of your ilk feel that it is their duty to decide what I should know, and when I should know it. (for my own good of course) Just because you think you are so much wiser than I.
And I DO WORRY ABOUT THAT.
The NYT, PMS-LSD, All Bama Channel , See-BS, Huffing-paint Post, Daliy Kosmonaut(s) and Washing-Poop Post are nothing but official puppets and pawns of the new totalitarian dictator.
Time to tear the puppet media down completely and restore objectivity in "reporting the news".
Opinion is one thing, deliberate omission of facts is quite another.
Answering your question is simple Mr Lott, the NTY deals in manufactured "facts" and "opinion" masquerading as "journalism" and FOX separates facts from opinions.
Hands down it's FOX.
Thanks, this is great ammo to squash liberals with.
By "danger to society", he means danger to the great utopian society that he and his leftist buddies are trying to create.
//// "But the one thing, the danger for any society, is if you don’t have some sort of core of shared facts and values, I think ultimately, there’s a great danger for the society. And I do worry about that." ////
Says the guy who's 'facts' are twisted to fit an agenda, and who's 'values' are worthless.
I remember that once upon a time, journalists were supposed to be highly competitive trying to out-scoop the other guys in order to win ratings. How often does any of the major news outlets really scoop any other these days? How often does one outlet's reporting on a story differ in any way from any others? The only real difference in many cases if the choice of talking head that delivers the news. All that similarity between competing outlets seems to be becoming obvious to people and might explain why they look to the differing points of view rather than simply deciding whose head is the prettiest for delivering the same story.
Oh and as for the Pew Research pole showing that more Dems trust Fox News over the NY Times. My guess would be that most Dems feel the way I do. That is to say, I like my news the way it actually happened whether I like what I'm being told or not. Rather than tweaked, twisted, and carefully selected so as to keep my mind (eh hem) thinking correctly.
I suggest we send him for a drug test. He is clearly smoking something, or worse. I think the ratings speak for them selves.
How right you are robobbob, after all, just what is a society? His idea of a society does not necessarily include you or I. In fact a society is much like a club, or say….a political party or ideological view, its members are selected, recruited, or seek membership. Its the fool who thinks the word "society" includes all the people. It most assuredly DOES NOT.
That says it all. When Pew Research can't give you the desired poll outcome, you are screwed. Looks like Soros, Inc. will be writing checks to support the NYT for a bit longer as it is not likely to make money in the lifetime of any newborn who saw today's sunrise as their first.
There is no hope for these people. The only way to be rid of them is to slowly drive their newspapers, magazines, and news divisions out of business by canceling subscriptions… and urging others to do likewise.
'a core of shared facts and values'?…
That is the definition of NewSpeak, Orwell's admonitions to us about a totalitarian society. That is NOT the definition of a Free press, and Hoyt knows that. He is just another liberal Kool Aid imbiber who leads a pampered existence and, like others in his circle, blissfully unaware of that which exists outside his own worldview.
So, Big Brother would be pleased by anyone who turns from the naked truth for the 'core of shared values'…
Fox News !
Don't let ANYBODY kid you-
even all the screens at the White House
are SET on Fox News.
Too bad,
they don't take advantage of all the free advice,
they would be better off-
Big, Democratic Dummies !
If they just
captured & followed the advice
of Charles Krauthammer, alone-
America and the whole world
would be more safe, sane & solid.
"The New York Times"
has long been
irrelevant,
nasty & anti-American-
Hence, their true moniker….
"The New York Slime".
If the question was,
"Which News outlet would you want, if you were only allowed one" ?
Fox news would leave them all in the dust-
begging for work !
Nailed that one!
Amen! Well said!
How journalism used to be taught:
Who? Who was involved?
What? What happened (what's the story)?
Where? Where did it take place?
When? When did it take place?
Why? Why did it happen?
How? How did it happen?
So, when did it all change? I think it's all Lou Grant's fault!
The American Founding Fathers: Greatest Social Experiment in History
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzYl48V0HTM
"if you don’t have some sort of core of shared facts" then you make them up, like the progressives do, and then you put them on the front page of the NYT.
Liberals have to stay blind to reality to justify their world view. The man actually thinks his newspaper isn't biased because he see their opinion as the reality and everyone else's as biased.
That reminds me of that old film clip of lib icon George Bernard Shaw. paraphrase…"Wouldn't it be marvelous if scientists could produce a type of gas, that could be administered to the undesirables and unfit that would painlessly put them to sleep." Its not like that wasn't the attemped solution in all of their past lab experiments in Russia and China.
The left wants us to just be quiet, for now. After they have solidified their power, what will they want next?
People like that always advocate unethical solutions, expecting to be sitting ON the review boards, not in FRONT of them.
MyKu:
Fox news could improve.
A step in that direction?
Fire Geraldo.
I didn't realize anyobody but Fox actually aired news. I thought all the other channels were only running puff pieces and wondering why they all sucked so bad.
Funny how common sense isn't really known for being a liberal trait.
'core of shared values'
Does that not sound a bit like" social justice"?
Would be nice if Mr Hoyt had explained what he mean when he said "core of shared facts and values". My core of shared facts and values might not agree with him at all since mine are based on the Constitution and law..
Remember the old movie escape from NY? They walled off NY as a prison to keep the evil doers in. Sounds like a good idea. That city spawns some of the strangest people on the planet. The runners up are San Fran and LA. These guy is a perfect example of someone we should cage up there.
bingo! …
Right out of Orwell's NewSpeak; it means exactly that…
I'm pretty sure that Daniel Ellsberg got the ball rolling followed by Woodward and Bernstein and we have come to the Ezra Kleins of the world that have utterly gutted all five of the concepts you listed in favor of their ideology.
It took Chairman O to murder journalism.
This clown's got to get out of the analysis business, pronto. If you can't read a poll, please don't write about it like you can. And why are you writing about a year-old poll, anyway?
Here's your first problem: 53% of Democrats said they couldn't rate the New York Times, which is hardly surprising since it's New York-centric and a newspaper. By contrast, a majority can voice an opinion on Fox, which is a national cable channel that most people are very familiar with. This disparity means that it is useless to compare top-line favorability percentages. By the same logic, you could have compared unfavorables and you would have found that only 8% of Democrats have an unfavorable view of The New York Times, whereas 36% have an unfavorable view of Fox. If I were an unprincipled hack, like you, that's the way I would spin it, but it is still apples to oranges. You need to adjust for the percentage of people who can't answer the question.
The way to do this is to compare fav/unfav ratios. When you do, you see that The New York Times has a five-to-1 favorable vs. unfavorable ratio (39% vs 8%) among Dems, compared to Fox, which has a ratio close to one (43% vs 36%). Your thesis fails. (The trend is also working against Fox, which had a Dem-favorability rating above 60% two years prior)
Finally, you failed to show that favorability rating is the same as "trust." President Obama's got a favorability rating that is persistently higher than his job approval rating. It would be a mistake to conflate the two. This is a similar case. Unless you have information not supplied in the report you linked to, you are jumping to a conclusion that is baseless.
To summarize. Part of your analysis is wrong. The rest is baseless. Don't you guys have editors? Or is this another case of reckless disregard for the truth?
Well, no one else mentioned it so I will. It appears that Hoyt is out of touch with his NYT team members on the ground. Fox was awarded front seat status in the WH briefing room UNANIMOUSLY by the WH press corps. Their peers. Which means that even the NYT staff assigned to the beat at the WH agreed.
What say ye to that Mr. Hoyt?
Honestly, I just adore your MyKus. +1
Mr Hoyt and his peers need to read the recent piece, 3 parts, with two published thus far, by Clint Clizbe,
titled "Russian Operation Changed America", on Breitbarts Big Peace.
MR HOYT……..YOU HAVE BEEN BRAINWASHED,
report for deprogramming immediately.
.
your an idiot if you think nyt is unbiased.
Yeah, that part gave me pause as well. I think you put it better than I would have.
Mr. Hoyt, the wealthy liberal elitist, says "the danger for any society, is if you don’t have some sort of core of shared facts and values, I think ultimately, there’s a great danger for the society."
Mr. Hoyt, I reject your "shared facts and values" – of the alternate universe in which you and your wealthy liberal elitist hypocritical media pals reside.
In the mind of a liberal, George Bush was an evil, greedy, selfish Republican. Clinton & Obama are Democrats, and so they really care about the "little people". That is pure propaganda, not based in "fact".
Compare Jenna Bush's wedding, to the royal wedding of Chelsea Clinton – its enormous cost & the fawning attention it's received from the corrupt press. Enough said.
I suppose that Mr. Hoyt, like his colleagues at the NYT, considers "shared facts and values" to be marxism and every other form of its collectivist cousins — socialism, fascism, communism, etc.!
The left doesn't believe in debate – it believes in telling people what to do, and stifling debate when they don't agree with it. The New York Times through its former editor, admitted its liberal bias. The problem is that the stories the paper carries combine fact with fiction – it makes a pretension to objectivity when what it does is something altogether different. And it's path has been ever more leftward….to what end who knows?
The last real scoop was the National Enquirer taking down John Edwards!
I don't care one way or the other. Nothing and no one is wholly unbiased. I didn't make that argument. I just deflated a sloppy argument.
I think The New York Times gets its facts right the vast majority of the time. You may take issue with its story selection and some of its angles. It does a great job on most topics.
I tried wrapping a dead fish in the New York Times but he got away…
Well stated. The amount of censorship wished upon people by the left is really becoming disconcerting.
Even dead fish can't stand the smell. Excellent. LOL
Going backwards would be a more fitting title to your name.
……..the truth is the cross to the Dracula left ………!
And what direction is Washington76? Last time I checked 1776 came before 2010. So who wants to go backwards? And why would that be a bad thing? I honestly came here expecting some kind of coherent argument for the views of your side. I find nothing but distortion and misinformation and blind rage. I am truly saddened. My conclusion is that you are a bunch of outrage junkies. And truth is meaningless to you.
Quick, call the climate guys from East Anglia University. They specialize in hiding declines.
That's fine, because I fully intend to be a danger to their definition of society.
Actually crosses aren't much of a problem for Dracula. It's only effective if the person wielding it has true faith. The more faith, the more powerful it is.
And coming face to face with a vampire would probably do a number on anyone's faith. I'd suggest chain saws and solar lights.
The problem with Progressives is that they can't even lie very well. They have a fake ombudsmen, giving fake facts to prop up a fake newspaper NYT.
Fox is not a threat to society, it's a threat to NYT lies and to the progressives.
.
…….Stalin could have told you what shared facts and values were……when asked by a western reporter when was he going to stop killing his own people, he replied; when it is no longer necessary…..the NYT always warmly referred to Stalin as "Uncle Joe".
The funniest thing about Woodward and Bernstein is they didn't figure it out. They were freakin' clueless. Deep Throat had to lead them by the hand like a nanny to get the story out.
They were losers who some how got turned into modern liberal saints.
What do you have against wealth and wealth creation? Or are you only a defender of capitalism when it fits your partisan aims?
If the Clintons earned it, the Clintons can spend it. Who are you to judge?
We did think George was evil and stupid and power hungry. Greedy? Not so much. He may have been a shill for big business, but he was not personally greedy. He genuinely seemed not to be racist, too. Of course, his party was another matter, as the immigration debate proved.
Agreed. They should have gotten a Pulitzer for that report. Bring back some credibility to the award.
How about a ratio of articles intended to do harm to the US? The times wins that one, hands down! How about which entity is losing advertisers and viewers or readers faster? times wins again!
How about a ratio of communist journalists, actively working against the US, and given medals by a hostile foreign government, even allowing the so-called journalist to be buried there? times wins again.
Yes, you proved everyone else wrong, the times, a communist manifesto since its inception, is better for America then Fox, all of us are just too stupid to realize it.
Ron Reale
realetybytes@yahoo.com
realetybytes.townhall.com
realetybytes.com
It's too bad you had to lay on the sarcasm and false smugness. It prevents people from bothering to read your points.
Contrary to popular opinion, politics and current issues can be discussed with out that extra baggage.
So, let's review…the shared facts and values of our country are based on our history and the natural rights possessed by man (Natural Law). The Progressives have rewritten and warped both of those, presented them in the public square and imposed them onto our children in school. Some of us aren't buying the tripe and he complains. Bemoaning the intellect of the masses is not what one usually hears from the Progressives.
What was wrong with the shared facts and values we had before the Progressive freedom-haters started rewriting our history and traditions and teachng the lies to children? NOW they bemoan the loss of that which they stole?
If you'd lose the superiority complex you might find the indepth debate you were looking for.
Funny how people don't really care to spend time with people who insult them. As for me, I know I'm not going to waste my time with it.
That is unless I'm specifically trying to waste time.
I find nothing but distortion and misinformation and blind rage from leftist as you. Common sense seems to be lost with your type.
Geniuses, aren't they?
Very nice of you to say. I have a lot of fun with it.
+1 back at ya.
“But the one thing, the danger for any society, is if you don’t have some sort of core of shared facts and values, I think ultimately, there’s a great danger for the society. And I do worry about that.”
Core of shared facts and values???????? Clark, can you spell this out for those of us who did not get the memo?
I must come from the great unwashed masses because I always thought facts is facts.
Clever.
Or Racists! (in Keeping with the NYT Narrative).
One behind every bush!
Racist, as the immigration debate proved?
Yep, it proves liberals are racists.
When people are talking about legal status and liberals are looking at skin color, it's the liberals who are the racists.
Oh, and as usual, you missed the point.
It's the liberals who are always screaming about the evil rich when the majority of the wealthiest districts are represented by Democrats and the majority of the wealthiest Congress members are Democrats, including 8 of the 10 wealthiest.
"Print is dead" Ghost busters!
Not at the Times.
It's truly amazing how clueless the NYT is.
So your argument is, America has not been exceptional since Teddy Roosevelt in 1912? Bash America all you like –without progressives, women would have no vote and children would still be working in sweatshops. The civil rights movement would never have happened. Conservatives stood in the way of all those things.
Again, if you let Glenn Beck think for you, you are guaranteed to look stupid. Dude's clueless. Wouldn't know American history if he lived it. I've even seen him use fake Thomas Jefferson quotes. Completely made up.
That's why they're called the New York Slimes.
Regressing, you say:
"If the Clintons earned it, the Clintons can spend it."
I totally agree. But Bill & Hillary are hypocrites, just like Al Gore. Bill at some Global Initiative speech, saying how only a dollar or two helps, and governments & countries aren't stepping up to the plate. Hillary saying how the rich must be taxed more. Hey Hillary – bet the IRS would just love to receive your donation.
The Clintons are buying an $11 mil estate in Bedford Hills, NY. Al Gore bought a $8.9 mil estate in Santa Barbara, which is going to take up quite a carbon footprint.
The Liberal mantra – do as I say – not as I do. Force others, through a tyrannical government, to do what I refuse to do as an individual. Liberals are hypocrites – pure & simple.
So Regressing has seen Beck use fake Thomas Jefferson quotes? Really?
And we would believe you … why?
Liberals lie for any reason, at any time. The end always justifies the means – any means, at all.
What group was first & foremost against slavery, against sweatshops & child labor, against the exploitation of women? Who stood up for the poor, and the orphans, and the newly-freed slaves during Reconstruction?
Christians did – that's who.
This analysis is flawed. You forget to mention the percentages of Democrats who answered "don't know/can't rate" when asked if they favor the NYT. When you factor that in, your point gets diluted. You failed to mention that Dems who answered that they view the Times favorably outnumbered those who view it unfavorably by FIVE TO ONE. Over 50% of Dems don't have an opinion of the Times. But only 21% don't have an opinion of Fox. Among those that do, 43% favor Fox to 36% who don't, a much, much smaller margin.
Now if I were to take a poll and ask people who view your analysis, I'm sure you'd get an overwhelming "thumbs up" from the viewers on this blog, but does that make you credible? Sadly, to the viewer here, YES IT DOES.
whoops, I see Progressing already made my point, but with a more in depth analysis. I guess I need to catch up as his/her unfavorable rating is more than double mine. wah!
Yep, I came to the same conclusion as you Progressing. This analysis is FLAWED!
"Here's your first problem: 53% of Democrats said they couldn't rate the New York Times, which is hardly surprising since it's New York-centric and a newspaper."
Or maybe they just can't read.
nothing wrong with opposing, but misrepresenting the news and allowing inciteful provocateurs to exploit misconceptions and then claiming to be balanced? Give me a freakin' break. I'm not saying MSNBC is any better. I don't watch it. Reactionary news is not fair news or balanced news. I don't know if we should really call it news at all. FOXNews is a fraud.
and they're dangerous. hahaha
NYT readers are often pompous liberals, Fox watchers appeal to a much wider audience. Fox is the Daily News of tv, no?
Funny sh!t…Nice work,
The New York what?
Dat NYT rag still works good in da outhouse, sprinkle a little lime on it and da thing smells just like New York streets, make me home sick, can't use da online, gets stuck in da ole butt crack.
He is right that they are nowhere close to Fox. Fox is even-handed and gives voice to all sides including left. NYT is a lefty yellow rag fit for cage liner only.
As usual, you miss the ENTIRE point, but nice circular logic. Lets try this again. If NYT had credible content and was trusted, they wouldn't have a 53% DK/Can't Rate. Fox has a 21% DK/Can't rate. That means MORE DEMS are watching Fox and recommend Fox News, or else they'd have a much higher DK/Can't rate percentage than they do now. Also, last I checked, NYT has a website, that can be accessed by anyone with a computer, so your "New York-centric and a newspaper" argument fails. If it was a quality news agency, consumers would demand it. Currently, they aren't.
A hack who served as omsragman for a fish wrap.
Example of misrepresenting the news please? You must have at least one no?
Or…………are you misrepresenting as factual an unsubstantiated accusation made by both Pres. Obama and HIS Press Secretary Robert Gibbs?
Please cite one specific example of this misrepresentation of an actual news event so that I can substantiate it and stop watching Fox News, I want to be as informed and enlightened as you are, but you wouldn't have me make a decision like that without verifying it for myself like I know that you would. Right?
Looking forward to your reply.
(P.S.) Please don't send me hundreds of examples, it really isn't necessary, just one will suffice to show me the correct course of action I need to take.
Anyone who must, for whatever reason, read the NY Times, WaPo, etc., it might well qualify as an act of patriotism to stop at the local public library and read it for free. The libraries pretty much have to subscribe; the rest of us don't.
Hey Progressing, I love it when leftists like yourself opine on political or philosophical matters. If you want to debate, to borrow a line from Schwartzenegger in The Predator – "do it, I'm heahh!!"
So, to use your logic, 2010 is more "progressed" than 1776, does that mean 1939 is as well?
Philosophical ideas are either well-founded or ill-founded; facts are either correct or incorrect as they bear on reality. Temporality has naught to do with it. Change is not positively deterministic; it is a rearrangement of particles as animated by forms of energy. Man can both regress and progress according to how well his ideas and ideals allow him to adapt to changing reality. Conservatism, in the American context, is not an ideology that disputes change in reality, it is a core set of ideals that seek to liberate each man to adapt to reality according to his nature.
Progressivism is an ideology of the dysfunctional; it promotes economic and political chaos through the centralization of decision-making in a coercive body, promoting rigidity in man's ability to adapt to local circumstances and to satisfy his demands according to his own internalized value system. (And to clarify, men will only internalize values in the long-term as they accord with personal and inter-generational experience). Men may be equal according to morality and the law, this does not mean that they are homogenous.
Please, debate me, "Progressing." I find most leftists to be boring in their knee-jerk presumptions and unwilling to engage in true debate. That is, if you would condescend to debating a "right-winger."
Yes, and the NYT uses a host of journalistically dishonest tactics, such as repetition (Abu Ghraib), PC choice of language (we are a "democracy" meme), "narrative" (otherwise known as "story-telling," or eisegesis), insertion of ideologically amenable (and sometimes anonymous) sources, context-dropping, burying the lead or ideologically unsavory stories, hiding retractions, discounting ads for fellow-travelers (like the Petraeus-"Betray Us" ad), journalists who make-up stories (Jayson Blair), political hit-jobs (McCain and his supposed "lover" before the election) – really, no bias there.
Jester,
Thank you.
I can now go to bed and dream of sweet nothing progressive ideologue mumbo jumbo being disseminated and handed back to the idiot progressives in a format that makes them clam up like a rookie on opening day.
Oh the smell of progressive pant-wetting…………………………
I no longer ever watch C-Span but from what I've seen in the past, the probability of Brian's responding critically to Hoyt are slim and none. It became an organ of MSM, when the politically correct phone lines were instituted 'temporarily,' and never replaced by the geographic ones. Most programs are just vehicles for 'RAT spin, and that is delivered blandly by the guests and hatefully by the callers. Really quite worthless.
Alfred E. Newman's father is what I see in the photo above.
"What, me worry?"
haha, I wish I had hundreds of examples but I don't spend that much time watching FOX News. Let's see….well for one the continued misrepresentation of the Health Care bill. I heard Glenn Beck mention the dreaded "Death Panels" recently. c'mon. That is such a misrepresentation started by Gov Palin and proliferated by the reactionary right wing media. It is a sound plan to give all citizens information about end of life care to help them make educated decisions. Nothing was ever planned that would create a scenario where a panel would decide whether someone should live or die.
I personally don't want to pay for your grandma's prolonged care, but if you want her to stay alive by artificial means, have at it. Just take it out of her piggy bank, not mine.
However, Progressing was a little too smug and jerkfacey.
At least you were simply to the point and not hostile.
I thank you kindly for your comment Badda.
I don't think they get it.
Non idea-logs can't take much of MSNBC anymore. I am a fiscal conservative and a social moderate.
I do not care for either political party( Jeff Christie is really pulling me in to the republican party).
I really want a news station that people of from both spheres of political thought are presented fairly and honestly, and other than beck and Hannity you can get that on FNC, or they do a better job of hiding it.
I want opinions for intelligent liberals, and intelligent conservatives.
I like how fox presents intelligent and honest liberals like.
1. Leslie Marshall
2. Juan Williams
3. Kirsten Powers
4. Geraldo Rivera
5. Nancy Skinner
6. Ellis Hanican
and countless democratic politicians. these people express there views, and give me a chance to see the liberal political points of view without it being talking points. there are of course some token liberals, who are completely left wing and not left objective thinkers.
Even though there are heated debates, they do debate for the most part and I have never seen anyone on fox news act like this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qMFU95ZAig
to someone they disagree with( or just not in his political party), well maybe Barney Frank but I digress.
After all I am a fiscal conservative who believes in
1. Gay civil unions.
2. true Correct Health care reform, with a public option (private companies competing for the bids) if economically possible for working Americans, children, senior citizens and those with medical conditions leaving them unable to work.
3. ending affirmative action.
4. Muslim radicals represent the second worse threat to US security.
5. Closing the borders.
6. protecting American civilians and legal immigrants from illegal immigration.
7. I truly disapprove of Sara Palin, I find her not to be anything more than a talking point, but thats my opinion and gathered it freely on FNC without the person interviewing her saying she was. I was given an honest chance to come to that opinion.
8. ending farming subsidies.
I am like most people I guess, on the fence on some issues and prefer objective reporting, and political debates.
Fox isn't perfect, but wow the other guys aren't even trying.
Don't thank me… though it is nice of you to say.
I thank you for simply disagreeing with Dr. Lott in a reasonable manner.
I think his point still stands… folks would think there would be an overwhelmingly negative response from Democrats when it comes to Fox News, considering the public perception of Democrats' opinion of Fox News.
You must be logged in to post a comment.