How Fox News Changed American Media and Political Dynamics

The problem is not speech, the problem is ownership of the major media. Demonstrable lunatics should be practicing their free speech on street corners and in asylums, not on the airwaves.

Where?
Not in the news.
Bunch a of spineless jellyfish scared of upsetting their corporate overlords.
Or, does the lack of constant "Reagan was the greatest president ever!! ", constitute left leaning?
Shows?
Which ones?
I can't find 'em.
Anything that doesn't say "kill the fags for Jesus", is liberal?
Network shows are pretty bland, and don't take a stand either way.
Movies?
Why does Troma have such a hard time of it?
They're openly liberal, openly anti-corporate, and big studios have been out to destroy them for the past 35 years.
You'd think the dark liberal cabal would help a brotha out.

Where's this "liberal media"?
Rachel Maddow and John Stewart?
Two shows?
Two fucking shows?
That's what I get?

But it doesn't lean considerably to the left. Slightly is about as much as it leans.

But, again, what are you proposing?

The American media leans extremely to the left. The only conservatives in most newsrooms or studios are audio and video engineers and cameramen. Sometimes the on-screen personalities joke about it.

Publically-funded broadcasting, for one thing. The BBC isn't perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than what you guys have, and it promotes higher standards elsewhere.

Evidence, muthafucka, do you speak it?

NPR does some excellent reporting. But would more funding make more people listen to it?

Well, if you start from the perspective of the off-the-rails frothing lunatics, damn near everything is "extremely to the left."

Funding and other things, yes. Marketing works; that's why it's done.

Soldiers and the civilians working on post are interested in the news as much as any demographic. Matter-of-fact you go to the promotion board not knowing what's going on in the world and you can cancel Christmas on doing well in that competition. People have varying tastes in TV viewing, but pretty much every adult can watch the news. I thought it was unfair that one source (CNN) was acceptable but another (FOX) was not. Anyway I watch different news sources at home - FOX, CNN, NBC, CBS and sometimes local news.

White House corr

White House reporters supported Dukakis over Bush 12 to 1, a ratio that is probably higher than Dukakis own campaign staff. Dukakis got creamed in the election.

Washington correspondents supported Clinton over Bush 92% to 7%. Clinton won without getting a majority of the vote.

Journalists campaign contributions are 15 to 1 in favor of Democrats.

In a 2004 poll of journalists and media executives, the ratio of liberals to conservatives was 5 to 1.

In a 2014 university poll, just 7 percent of journalists identified as Republicans.

Behind the scenes, who cares?

Fat lot of good it did, then, huh?

I don't give a fuck if they're goat sacrificing Satanists.
Show me liberal leaning content.
That's where the rubber meets the road.
A commie that types his lame little manifesto all day that no one sees, and then sucks corporate dick at night is not a real commie.
I don't give a fuck what these people profess, what do they DO?

I get tired of the bitching and moaning about "corporate media".

Where is the actual evidence that corporations owning media outlets has any influence on content?

After Philip Morris threatened to crush 60 Minutes, and they held up their hands over their faces and whimpered, do you hear any exposes on them anymore?

When's the last time you heard any investigating of Monstanto?

Halliburton?
Blackwater?

It's all bloggers and documentary filmmakers tackling that shit.

Nothing mainstream about that.

It's in your media every day. It's not corporations per se, but the editorial boards they control. And it's also the advertising companies that fund the process.

Here's an excerpt from a Rolling Stone article describing the influence an individual or corporate entity brings to bear:

Ailes was also determined not to let the professional ethics of journalism get in the way of his political agenda, as they had at TVN. To secure a pliable news staff, he led what he called a “jailbreak” from NBC, bringing dozens of top staffers with him to Fox News, including business anchor Neil Cavuto and morning host Steve Doocy – loyalists who owed their careers to Ailes. Rounding out his senior news team, Ailes tapped trusted Republicans like veteran ABC correspondent Brit Hume and former George H.W. Bush speechwriter Tony Snow.​

Ailes then embarked on a purge of existing staffers at Fox News. “There was a litmus test,” recalled Joe Peyronnin, whom Ailes displaced as head of the network. “He was going to figure out who was liberal or conservative when he came in, and try to get rid of the liberals.” When Ailes suspected a journalist wasn’t far enough to the right for his tastes, he’d spring an accusation: “Why are you a liberal?” If staffers had worked at one of the major news networks, Ailes would force them to defend working at a place like CBS – which he spat out as “the Communist Broadcast System.” To replace the veterans he fired, Ailes brought in droves of inexperienced up-and-comers – enabling him to weave his own political biases into the network’s DNA. To oversee the young newsroom, he recruited John Moody, a conservative veteran of Time. As recounted by journalist Scott Collins in Crazy Like a Fox, the Chairman gave Moody explicit ideological marching orders. “One of the problems we have to work on here together when we start this network is that most journalists are liberals,” Ailes told Moody. “And we’ve got to fight that.” Reporters understood that a right-wing bias was hard-wired into what they did from the start. “All outward appearances were that it was just like any other newsroom,” says a former anchor. “But you knew that the way to get ahead was to show your color – and that your color was red.” Red state, that is.​

Granted the Stone is a liberal paper, but still...

Oh, this will be fun for days.

Have you noticed that the press almost never asks Obama or Hillary tough questions? The first press reporter to ask Hillary about her e-mails, weeks after they'd come to light, worked for TMZ of all places. Similarly, even though the major journalists knew all about John Edwards infidelities, they refused to report it until the National Enquirer got the scoop. Yet they went balls to the wall with obviously fake Bush Air National Guard documents. Midway through Obama's first term the left wing "journolist" group was exposed, where members of the press colluded to cover for Obama and present him in the best possible light. They also rushed to blame the right wing for the Gabrielle Giffords shooting, without any evidence, yet refused to cover "Fast and Furious" except to somehow try an pin it on Bush, just as they're doing with the ongoing disasters in the Middle East. They scream about the Koch brothers all day long, never once mentioning that the Koch brothers are social liberals, but won't dare mention George Soros control over a vast range of media outlets.

And of course on gun control, the Tea Party, abortion, religion, unions, or almost any other issue, they're reliably to the left of most Democrat candidates.

When did any of them have the balls to grill Bush in the buildup to Iraq?
They gleefully spread their cheeks, and begged for him to get a running start before slamming into their willing hungry jasmine scented bungholes.

I call our corporate lawyers "the dentists" because, out of fear of getting sued, they take the "teeth" out of many of our investigative stories.

But do you like Rachel Maddow?

Yes. Yes I do.

I don't know, what should be done about MSNBC, ABC, NBC, PBS and CBS? Maybe we should ask Brian Williams and George Snuffaluffagus, I'm sure they'll be honest and forthright?

They grilled Bush far, far more than any of them have questioned Obama.

For example, in Bush's March 2003 press conference, among many other pointed questions, Terry Moran asked:

Thank you, sir. May I follow up on Jim Angle's question? In the past several weeks, your policy on Iraq has generated opposition from the governments of France, Russia, China, Germany, Turkey, the Arab League and many other countries, opened a rift at NATO and at the U.N., and drawn millions of ordinary citizens around the world into the streets in anti-war protests. May I ask, what went wrong that so many governments and people around the world now not only disagree with you very strongly, but see the U.S. under your leadership as an arrogant power?​

Nobody outside of Fox News has remotely used the word "arrogant power" with Obama, even though most of the rest of the world refers to Obama constantly in such terms.

Jim Angle's question was:

Thank you, Mr. President. How would -- sir, how would you answer your critics who say that they think this is somehow personal? As Senator Kennedy put it tonight, he said your fixation with Saddam Hussein is making the world a more dangerous place. And as you prepare the American people for the possibility of military conflict, could you share with us any of the scenarios your advisors have shared with you about worse-case scenarios, in terms of the potential cost of American lives, the potential cost to the American economy, and the potential risks of retaliatory terrorist strikes here at home?​

Another question was:

Thank you, sir. Mr. President, millions of Americans can recall a time when leaders from both parties set this country on a mission of regime change in Vietnam. Fifty thousand Americans died. The regime is still there in Hanoi, and it hasn't harmed or threatened a single American in the 30 years since the war ended. What can you say tonight, sir, to the sons and the daughters of the Americans who served in Vietnam to assure them that you will not lead this country down a similar path in Iraq?​

In contrast, when Obama is about to start yet another war he's asked things like "How awesome is it to be President?"

Right. It's the die-hard union guys who are the right-wingers?

Citation Needed.

Well, statistics would indicate that their responses would be more honest and forthright than anything said by anyone at Fox.

Don't waste your time on gturner. This is where he cribs his "news":

http://archive.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp

Maybe you should grow up and read your news from multiple sources instead of having it predigested for you.

So basically, the people whose job requires them to pay attention to what's going on, placing them among the very small minority of Americans who are extremely well-informed, tend not to vote for Republicans?

Are you sure you want to advertise this fact?

And the New York Times was top cheerleader for invading Iraq. Obvious liberal bias.

An executive order directing the FBI to arrest everyone at FOX News and the IRS to seize all their assets - corporate and personal.