Tweet
Sorry to those who are unhappy with my obsession with Fox/O'Reilly bias (and idiocy), but here is my monthly rant 
So far in all the time I've watched Fox or the Krugman - O'Reilly debate, I've heard two defenses Fox people have put up against the charge of bias:
1) Fox invites more liberals on. (probably BS, but)
Okay, why? To debate liberal or centrist Fox hosts? Wouldn't that lead to charges of a liberal bias? That's not only invalid evidence of fairness, its evidence of a Republican bias. They need liberals as cannon fodder for all the obnoxious hosts.
I've noticed that most of the Republican hosts will often ask a long question in which they make their argument and then give the liberal maybe 7-10 seconds to talk before talking over them so we almost never get a complete answer. I see this happen on almost every show so its clearly a pattern.
Is that just a coincidence? Did Fox just make an honest mistake when hiring hosts and the luck of the draw resulted in all these nasty people getting jobs? The only liberal - Alan Colmes - just happens to be rather meek, honest, soft-spoken and well-mannered. Rather strange I'd say, the only host with manners is the liberal (Brit Hume is the exception, but he doesn't have a long list of guests, just a regular group to discuss events). Combine these coincidences with the propensity for "mistakes" in favor of government/Republicans, i.e., how Fox has consistently smeared anti-Bush whistleblowers while embracing anti-Democrat/liberal
whistleblowers. They trashed Scott Ritter, Joe Wilson, and Paul O'Neill for example. I'd say Fox qualifies as a propaganda outlet.
2) Bill O'Reilly's defense in the Krugman debate:
If you look just at the primetime line up, Alan Comes and Greta Van Susteren are liberals. Sean Hannity is a conservative, Brit Hume is center-right, and Bill is a "traditionalist".
Now, Greta has a legal show where they run around to the latest celebrity trial or create a celebrity trial by focusing on a specific case...like Aruba... I didn't even know she was a liberal until O'Reilly outed her in the Krugman debate. Her show is the least political in the Fox line up.
Alan Colmes, as I said above, may be a liberal, but he's the mouse cowering before the elephant Sean Hannity. Al Franken asked Colmes why he lets Hannity get away with all the lies and smearing and Colmes said the format does not allow the hosts to go after each other like that. No kidding, the more subtle propagandist wants the other side represented just to avoid the obvious charge of being unfair and imbalanced. But they want no debate in their debates.
Brit Hume is center-right IMO so Bill gets a pass there to a degree. But Bill is a "traditionalist"? He tried to explain how that was different than a Republican/conservative and said traditionalists want the Constitution enforced. What BS, O'Reilly constantly calls for the feds to do all sorts of stuff that isn't in the Constitution. The only proof I need of Bill O'Really's bias is the line up of people he has guest host his show. Trust me, they ain't liberals (or "traditionalists"), they're all Republicans and conservatives.
But Bill intentionally tried to hide the truth by specifically excluding the day time line up from his "proof".
John Gibson - almost as rabid as Sean Hannity, he wants to give a Rove a medal for "exposing" Valerie Plame because she allegedly sent her husband Joe Wilson to Niger. She may have recommended him but lacked the authority to authorise the trip or send him. Now, the President is thinking of using an allegation about Niger and Saddam as a justification for war. What is the CIA supposed to do? Hey guys, what do we have on Niger? Not much, we better send someone to look into the matter. Oh, my husband has alot of experience and contacts in that area, he might be a good choice for the assignment. You evil b!tch Valerie Plame!
Aren't the Rove defenders really telling us the CIA should not have investigated Niger? Or are they telling us the CIA should have investigated but reached a conclusion supportive of the administration's assessment? The stench of hypocrisy coming from Fox would repel a starving vulture.
Neil Cavuto - now I like the guy, he's among the least obnoxious Fox hosts. He has a business show so politics is secondary. But he still does engage in political analysis and its decidely to the right; in his case, a decent dash of libertarian in Neil but still a Bu****e.
Shepard Smith - soft "news" mainly, but a Republican nonetheless. He doesn't get very political, a typical news item on his show is: image of monkey washing cat, hey folks, look at that.
I count 1 wallflower liberal and at least 5 Republicans and conservatives. Aren't those the kind of odds Republicans have been complaining about for years when they're the one and not the five? Fair and balanced is not being as or more biased than liberals.
So far in all the time I've watched Fox or the Krugman - O'Reilly debate, I've heard two defenses Fox people have put up against the charge of bias:
1) Fox invites more liberals on. (probably BS, but)
Okay, why? To debate liberal or centrist Fox hosts? Wouldn't that lead to charges of a liberal bias? That's not only invalid evidence of fairness, its evidence of a Republican bias. They need liberals as cannon fodder for all the obnoxious hosts.
I've noticed that most of the Republican hosts will often ask a long question in which they make their argument and then give the liberal maybe 7-10 seconds to talk before talking over them so we almost never get a complete answer. I see this happen on almost every show so its clearly a pattern.
Is that just a coincidence? Did Fox just make an honest mistake when hiring hosts and the luck of the draw resulted in all these nasty people getting jobs? The only liberal - Alan Colmes - just happens to be rather meek, honest, soft-spoken and well-mannered. Rather strange I'd say, the only host with manners is the liberal (Brit Hume is the exception, but he doesn't have a long list of guests, just a regular group to discuss events). Combine these coincidences with the propensity for "mistakes" in favor of government/Republicans, i.e., how Fox has consistently smeared anti-Bush whistleblowers while embracing anti-Democrat/liberal
whistleblowers. They trashed Scott Ritter, Joe Wilson, and Paul O'Neill for example. I'd say Fox qualifies as a propaganda outlet.
2) Bill O'Reilly's defense in the Krugman debate:
If you look just at the primetime line up, Alan Comes and Greta Van Susteren are liberals. Sean Hannity is a conservative, Brit Hume is center-right, and Bill is a "traditionalist".
Now, Greta has a legal show where they run around to the latest celebrity trial or create a celebrity trial by focusing on a specific case...like Aruba... I didn't even know she was a liberal until O'Reilly outed her in the Krugman debate. Her show is the least political in the Fox line up.
Alan Colmes, as I said above, may be a liberal, but he's the mouse cowering before the elephant Sean Hannity. Al Franken asked Colmes why he lets Hannity get away with all the lies and smearing and Colmes said the format does not allow the hosts to go after each other like that. No kidding, the more subtle propagandist wants the other side represented just to avoid the obvious charge of being unfair and imbalanced. But they want no debate in their debates.
Brit Hume is center-right IMO so Bill gets a pass there to a degree. But Bill is a "traditionalist"? He tried to explain how that was different than a Republican/conservative and said traditionalists want the Constitution enforced. What BS, O'Reilly constantly calls for the feds to do all sorts of stuff that isn't in the Constitution. The only proof I need of Bill O'Really's bias is the line up of people he has guest host his show. Trust me, they ain't liberals (or "traditionalists"), they're all Republicans and conservatives.
But Bill intentionally tried to hide the truth by specifically excluding the day time line up from his "proof".
John Gibson - almost as rabid as Sean Hannity, he wants to give a Rove a medal for "exposing" Valerie Plame because she allegedly sent her husband Joe Wilson to Niger. She may have recommended him but lacked the authority to authorise the trip or send him. Now, the President is thinking of using an allegation about Niger and Saddam as a justification for war. What is the CIA supposed to do? Hey guys, what do we have on Niger? Not much, we better send someone to look into the matter. Oh, my husband has alot of experience and contacts in that area, he might be a good choice for the assignment. You evil b!tch Valerie Plame!
Aren't the Rove defenders really telling us the CIA should not have investigated Niger? Or are they telling us the CIA should have investigated but reached a conclusion supportive of the administration's assessment? The stench of hypocrisy coming from Fox would repel a starving vulture.
Neil Cavuto - now I like the guy, he's among the least obnoxious Fox hosts. He has a business show so politics is secondary. But he still does engage in political analysis and its decidely to the right; in his case, a decent dash of libertarian in Neil but still a Bu****e.
Shepard Smith - soft "news" mainly, but a Republican nonetheless. He doesn't get very political, a typical news item on his show is: image of monkey washing cat, hey folks, look at that.
I count 1 wallflower liberal and at least 5 Republicans and conservatives. Aren't those the kind of odds Republicans have been complaining about for years when they're the one and not the five? Fair and balanced is not being as or more biased than liberals.
Comment