Fox News Makes You Stupid

“I would suggest either a large bottle of aspirin or Tylenol the next time you visit the bowling alley to prove me wrong, FearD. I know…I know… you’re thinking of using hemorrhoidal suppositories just because I’ve said aspirin or Tylenol. I suggest that you may want to do some research on pain management.

Evidence FearD? If there hasn't been enough evidence presented to open your mind just a little, I'm afraid that nothing I can tell you will be of any help. What evidence do you have that it is actually gravity that will make that ball fall? Say goodnight Gracie.


Of course Hollywood doesn’t stereotype. What was I thinking. The repeating image of the snobbish and unfeeling rich person is a figment of my imagination. The repeating image of the evil, greedy businessman is a figment of my imagination. No Southerners have ever complained about character stereotypes. No Christians have ever complained about character stereotypes. No Muslims have ever complained about character stereotypes. It’s all about marketing and Hollywood is full of conservatives. Whoa…whoa…wait. I can’t smoke as much crack as you guys and still maintain my sanity.”

“Well that’s pretty obvious.”

“Ha, that shows home much arclite knows (or doesn't know)....


it was brown acid, not crack....

and we weren't smoking it either.”

“Arclite - your whole line of argument on this, and apparently any other subject appears to be that unless people hold the same views as you, they are being closed minded. Could it not be that they find your arguments offer little in the way of persuasion and a limited number of highly disputable facts.

And what is it the Bible says about the rich, Camels and needles. Obviously this brainwashing goes back a few years. Maybe we can throw in Jack and the Beanstalk, or even David the underdog beating Goliath. Hollywood is obviously just continuing this constant brainwashing - or could it be that human character prefers tales of the little guy winning out over the big, powerful or wealthy, be they individuals or corporations -it's escapism.

Pity the pilloried rich, white, corporate guy with his big house, big car and stock options. I'm one of them myself Arclite, but i don't feel like a victim.”

“Evidence FearD? If there hasn't been enough evidence presented to open your mind just a little, I'm afraid that nothing I can tell you will be of any help. What evidence do you have that it is actually gravity that will make that ball fall? Say goodnight Gracie.

Obviously, I'm not looking for evidence of gravity.

When asked for evidence of his supposed facts, he gives anecdotal evidence or appeals to popular belief. Arclite, you've been turned out. Either you have no real case and are just attempting to justify your own beliefs with empty rhetoric, or are too inept to present your case in a cogent manner.

In either case, I'm unconvinced, as any thinking person should be. My opinions change on things as new evidence is submitted, so if you can prove your case, please do, and you'll find me a supporter of your cause. Until then, I'll continue to regard you as a logical charlatan.”

“Let’s review:

Fact 1- Survey conducted by Freedom Forum and the Roper Center showing that the media tends to stand much more left of center than the general public.

Fact 2- In 1995 the Los Angeles Times nationwide survey showing that the media tends to stand much more left of center than the general public.

Fact 3- Bernard Goldberg has consistently stood on the side of “liberal” causes.

Fact 4- The media has never disputed Goldberg’s contention that he was forced to resign from CBS for writing his op-ed piece in the NYT exposing the media’s “liberal” bias.

Fact 5- No one disputes the fact that: While supposedly delivering a factual news report about Steve Forbes, Eric Engberg, a Washington correspondent for CBS, called the idea of a flat-tax, “Steve Forbes pitches his flat-tax scheme as an economic elixir, good for everything that ails us.” Or that he then interviewed three different economists who opposed the flat tax. Goldberg did notice, however, that in this “balanced” news report, he failed to interview two supporters of a flat-tax, Milton Friedman and Merton Miller, both from the University of Chicago and both Nobel Prize winners in economics. In fact there were (and still are) many economists who supported a flat-tax, but Engberg didn’t interview any. Then Engberg went on to finish his report with the following: “Forbes’s Number One Wackiest Flat-Tax Promise is the candidate’s belief that it would give parents more time to spend with their children and each other.”

Fact 6- Village Voice study (definitely a right-wing publication) showing the unusual historical coincidence between sitting presidents, a particular “liberal” political position, and the stories the media tended to focus on during those times.

Fact 7- No one disputes the fact that, Bernard Goldberg, a highly respected journalist who won seven Emmy awards for his work, has witnessed many instances of “liberal” bias in the news media.

Fact 8- No one disputes the fact that millions of people in this country (“liberals” and “conservatives” alike) are concerned about “liberal” bias in the news media.

Fact 9- Bernard Goldberg, a highly respected television producer (someone who is keenly aware of viewer market share) for CBS, asserts that the news media has been losing viewer market share for years.

Fact 10- My own first hand observations about different sources of media and the slant they present.



FearD and ynami, you two seem to be the only folks still holding down the fort (God, let’s hope you’re the only ones here). You have had plenty of opportunity to dispute any of the above facts. Neither of you has bothered to do any homework on the subject, or to present any objective evidence to dispute the contention that there is “liberal” bias in the media. While I have presented a number of compelling (at the least) facts on the subject.

Tell you what guys, if we ever go hiking, I’ll show up with cream or custard pies. I can stuff them in your faces and then you can both shout, “How cum nobody brought nothin’ for desert.” That should be good for a few laughs around the campfire.

FearD and ynami, I think it’s time to review the two most important lessons your daddies taught you. First, get out that old can of Shine-ola. Second, remember what he taught you about the type of behavior, which you both are displaying, leading to blindness and hairy palms.

Because I’ll lay even money that your shoes are soiled, you wear coke bottle glasses, and your palms look like you’re holding baby marmots.”

“Back to the original point…

If the media is as ‘liberal’ as some think, perhaps that is a good thing seeing as how poorly informed Fox viewers are about Iraq as reported by PIPA.

I’d have to agree with them that if you get most or all of your news from TV or radio, you’re grossly under informed. I can read two newspapers in the time the nightly news spends on Kobe Bryant or Scott Peterson.”

“Fact 1- Survey conducted by Freedom Forum and the Roper Center showing that the media tends to stand much more left of center than the general public.

- Does this mean they can't do a professional job? Opinion polls also offer little more than a guide to the actual situation.

Fact 2- In 1995 the Los Angeles Times nationwide survey showing that the media tends to stand much more left of center than the general public.

Single survey - eight years old. Also see response to fact one.

Fact 3- Bernard Goldberg has consistently stood on the side of “liberal” causes.
Fact or your opinion?

Fact 4- The media has never disputed Goldberg’s contention that he was forced to resign from CBS for writing his op-ed piece in the NYT exposing the media’s “liberal” bias.

The media is not a single entity - who would respond to this, some overnight producer at CNN.

Fact 5- No one disputes the fact that: While supposedly delivering a factual news report about Steve Forbes, Eric Engberg, a Washington correspondent for CBS, called the idea of a flat-tax, “Steve Forbes pitches his flat-tax scheme as an economic elixir, good for everything that ails us.” Or that he then interviewed three different economists who opposed the flat tax. Goldberg did notice, however, that in this “balanced” news report, he failed to interview two supporters of a flat-tax, Milton Friedman and Merton Miller, both from the University of Chicago and both Nobel Prize winners in economics. In fact there were (and still are) many economists who supported a flat-tax, but Engberg didn’t interview any. Then Engberg went on to finish his report with the following: “Forbes’s Number One Wackiest Flat-Tax Promise is the candidate’s belief that it would give parents more time to spend with their children and each other.”

Already dealt with - or do you only read you own overdone ramblings? Hundreds of interviews and panelists in "the media" every day - of course some are going to be one-sided.

Fact 6- Village Voice study (definitely a right-wing publication) showing the unusual historical coincidence between sitting presidents, a particular “liberal” political position, and the stories the media tended to focus on during those times.

Like it or not, administrations do have a key role in setting the news agenda through their policies. Sraping the bottom of the barrel for facts on this one huh?

Fact 8- No one disputes the fact that millions of people in this country (“liberals” and “conservatives” alike) are concerned about “liberal” bias in the news media
- first time you've raised this one. If all the "concerned" hold your extremist views than I think we can see why this would be an issue.

Fact 9- Bernard Goldberg, a highly respected television producer (someone who is keenly aware of viewer market share) for CBS, asserts that the news media has been losing viewer market share for years.
Single producer - you could find thousands of others who would tell you he was wrong - and how!

Fact 10- My own first hand observations about different sources of media and the slant they present.
As strong as your other "facts".

Oh and the final bit... that was a bid at some sort of humor was it?”

“Anyway arclite, I think we've done this to death now - bub-bye.”

“I am sure glad someone has time to give arclite hell while I am so busy in the office.

Keep up the good work Phaedrus.

As soon as I get through with these projects I am working on to help corporate America to thrive, I will tag back in and go to work on him some more.

;-)”

“Jesus, Arclite. You're a walking cliche of ineptitude.

Webster defines the word fact in the following way:

a piece of information presented as having objective reality

Now let's see how your "facts" stand up.

1. You, like any good right-wing shill, bring up the Freedom forum and Roper Center surveys. There has been a good deal of serious doubt about the methodology of this "survey".

Robert Parry of Consortium News reported back in 1997 that out of 323 surveys sent out, only 139 were returned -- a little over one-third. The list of recipients was compiled from the press credentials list of the Congressional Press Gallery. And there are a lot more than 323 journalists covering Washington.

The problem? Many conservative journals are organized as non-profit corporations so they can accept tax-deductible donations, Parry writes. And non-profits have difficulty getting credentials from the Congressional Press Gallery.

The result of this was clear when Consortium examined the names of news organizations represented on the the original mailing list and the number of questionnaires they received. Missing from the list were many major conservative journals; The Washington Times got four questionnaires, Human Events one, and The New York Post one. "The other big-name right-wing publications got zero," Parry writes.

What does this prove? Only that the survey was poorly done. It really proves nothing.

2. I'm unable to find anything about the 1995 LA Times study. I can't speak to that.

3. Bernard Goldberg as a champion of liberal causes: I have seen no evidence of this. I haven't looked much either, but it's your assertion, so you should provide the evidence.

4. Forced to resign after... While I don't know the specifics of the reasons he was fired, or forced to resign, I think that it is only an indication of bias if it is the REASON he was fired. I don't know that this is the case, and you have not proven that point, either.

5. Forbes' flat tax was hardly the kind of issue that sharply divided proponents along liberal and conservative lines; some conservatives hated it. There weren't any marches on Washington over it, either. The flat tax wasn't even a bold new idea; it had been kicking around for decades. While Enberg's piece was obviously not a shining moment of journalistic objectivism, it was hardly left-slanted. I, among other "liberals", believe a flat tax could work. I know a good many conservatives who think it's a terrible idea. I didn't see that the three economist interviewed were all liberals, either. It's a bad example.

6. please provide a link to it. I'll read it.

7. Again, you pass opinion for fact. Bernard's opinions have been disputed over and over by equally qualified people. This is an appeal to a dubious authority.

8. Appeal to popular belief. Definitely not a fact.

9. Okay, I'll grant this. Unfortunately, Goldberg attributes this decline solely to bias, while ignoring any and all other possible reasons for a decline in news interest in the US. Hardly air-tight, is it?

10. Your personal experience is obviously different than mine! While I am able to detect bias in individual stories from both the left and the right, and am able to weed this slat out by thinking about the facts of the issues, I do not notice an overwhelming slant toward the political left, other than I mentioned above in regard to media and status quo.

As to the last part, AKA your rant:

Obviously, we come from different perspectives, and if you expect to convince anyone that doesn't already agree with you of something, you'll need to take a different tack.

Also, you can shove your dessert. I bring my own.”

“BTW, in case you han't realized it by now, Fear Drugs is my halloween costume.”

“Plucking examples of alleged liberal bias out of the hundreds of hours of network news programming each week does not establish media bias as a “fact”. If Goldberg were to select examples of “liberal bias” and examples of “conservative bias” and somehow try to compare the amount of time devoted to each on a particular network, he would have something much closer to a “fact”. I haven’t done such research myself but can identify the bias of FOX and MSNBC. Can anyone seriously suggest that the other networks are as overt shills for a particular point of view?”

“And we're not even beginning to cover other channels and religious news shows like the 700 club.”

“"Religious News"???

I like the story about how Pat Robertson was partners with Charles Taylor in Liberian gold mines.”

“Looks like the commies came out today!”

“After Charles Taylor absconded with the Liberian treasury, the Rev. Pat was incensed that we allowed a bunch of Muslims to drive away a devout Christian Baptist.”

“Ahhh, Darth Phaedrus, so you finally show yourself.


You’re too easy; you’ve definitely got soiled shoes.


1. Fact- You asked for evidence. You could try to jerk folks around forever with your sophist (If only you were so clever) attitude. You could deny any evidence of gravity by saying there’s no proof of gravity, which would be a true statement. What I have provided is overwhelming evidence that I believe would convince any jury in the land. What you have done, is provide the intellectual stimulus of a fruit bat to this discussion.

2. Fact- You have given no indication that you have read the book that you assert is untrue.

3. Fact- I have neither the time, nor the inclination, to rewrite every piece of evidence, offered by the book, in this forum.

4. Fact- my post says that there was a survey done by the Freedom Forum and the Roper Center. I make no assertions about its validity.

5. Fact- It’s not my assertion that Bernard Goldberg has consistently stood on the side of “liberal” causes, it’s his own.

6. Fact- You’re right, I did not prove the point that he was fired because he wrote the article. I should have never stated it that way. (Do I detect a glimmer of intelligent life? Nah). What he describes happening to him, after years of exemplary work, is surely just a coincidence in your mind.

7. The Eric Engberg piece is a bad example? It’s what spurred his whole op-ed piece and the book, you idiot! I don’t normally call folks idiots, but you are one dense puppy. The Engberg piece was brought to his attention by a phone call he received from someone else who couldn’t believe what he was hearing on a serious news program.

8. You are lazy. You won’t read a book upon which a discussion is based, and upon which you voice an opinion. I have shown you the courtesy of taking the time to post excerpts from said book. Your argument has consisted largely of a philosophical position that I discussed with violin some time back: “Contradiction is not arguing.” “Yes it is.” No it’s not.” “Yes it is.”… And now you expect me to spend time handing you more information for which you can then assert, “What does this prove? Only that the survey was poorly done. It really proves nothing.” How does someone like you graduate from High School? You did graduate from High School?


Even though I have provided much evidence, and a source of research, I have never had the ability to convince an idiot to learn something new.

“By dint of railing at idiots we run the risk of becoming idiots ourselves”
Gustave Flaubert

A few more discussions like the one here, and I’ll be drooling too.”

“Actually, the more I think about this, the more obvious it becomes that Goldberg's entire methodology for proving media bias is crap. Violin hit the nail on the head as far as a scientific study of bias is concerned.

Further, to take a truly representative sample of "the media" one would have to include ALL television channels, movies, publications, blah blah blah. If one wanted to take a representational sample of the News Media, one would have to include all news media, including the non-profits and the religious programming.

After you determine the sample, then you'd have to determine slant. Who decides that?

The more I think about it, the more it becomes apparent that labeling most news sources liberal is a good way of discounting investigative and potientially unbiased programming based on arbitrary political stances. In other words, if it does not agree with one's pre-concieved notions about the world, label it liberal, dismiss it, and move on. If it happens to agree with your notions, then trumpet it as absolute truth that even a liberal media outlet couldn't ignore.

It also clears the way for "equal time" crap that is obviously purposely slanted, and objectivity is thrown out the window.”

“Oh, and Arclite, I'll read the book as soon as I'm finished with the complete guide to homebrewing. I've mentioned a number of books on the subject, which I HAVE read, which you have not. If you're really interested in going equal time, you might try reading What Liberal Media? by Eric Alterman, who actually documents his well-formed arguments.

You can call me names all day, and it won't change the fact that you have shown no evidence for your argument other than a flawed survey, your personal opinion, and a number of name-calling rants.

Let me explain something to you. When you refer to and call into evidence a "fact", it becomes one of the premises of your argument. It is relevent to attack your premises, if we are having a discussion. If your premises do not hold water, your argument is weak from the get-go. Don't blame me for pointing it out. I know your pride probably stings a bit, but you'll get over it and be better educated on the other side.


1. I have pointed out the flaws in your "evidence". The burden of proof lies with you: The person making the assertation.

2. point taken, see above.

3. Hopefully, you have other readings on the subject besides this ONE book?

4. Your assertion of the survey implies validity. I could refer to children's books in argument, but it would make my argument no sounder.

5. I haven't seen that assertion, but I'd question it. Have you?

6. again, I haven't read the book. The discussion wasn't about Bias, when you came in. And I was under the impression that we were discussion the subject of bias in the media, not necessarily the book by Goldberg...

7. Of course it's still not a representative incident of left versus right bias. Do you disagree somehow?

8. Ad hom, ad hom... let's see, ad hom... Okay, nothing to answer in this bullet point, except to throw one back at you, ya knuckle-dragger.

Just because you can't recall how to make a valid point of debate, Arclite, don't try to make it out like you're the victim, ya pansy.”

“I was going to ignore this thread, but I get obsessive-compulsive sometimes. Sometimes that’s a good thing.

I was way too harsh on you Phaedrus, and I appreciate your talking the high ground. I'm not so abrasive in person, but on the web, my dark-side seems to take over some times. Very thoughtful response, you jerk.

I glanced at What Liberal Media? by Eric Alterman. Which means that I am hypocritically guilty of the same lazy research as I have accused you. I will read the book thoroughly. I appreciate you and violin pointing out the source. I would also appreciate any other books/articles, which you believe to be interesting on any subject.

My intentions were never to convince people that Goldberg’s book is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It is merely one man’s point of view.

Throughout my life, I have known many people who refused to read the NYT because they said it was slanted. These were highly educated people. These were well read people. In some cases, these folks had extensive libraries. Why would they refuse to read what many consider to be the most well written paper in the country? I had always assumed that the media were objective. Even though I had always heard, “Don’t believe everything you read in the newspaper”, I had always taken it to be a caution on inaccuracy. It started a life-long fascination with this subject. Propaganda is a fascinating subject. I’ll be interested to see the documentation that you mention exists in Alterman’s book. And exactly where that fits into my own research.

Even the NYT said this about Goldberg’s book: “Mr. Goldberg has done real homework…He asks questions that are worth asking.” Do you not think so, Phaedrus? If you are even considering reading the book you must. I realize that many of us just don’t have the time to read everything. Lord knows I’m way behind in my reading. I subscribe to two book clubs, three political journals, and six magazines. I appreciate that you are even considering reading a book that I suggest. Now if I can only convince my fiance that I would like more reading time…

One of Goldberg’s contentions for the existence of “liberal” bias in the media is that many “liberals” divide the world into “moderates” and “right-wing wackos.” I have seen, in person and on this site, this very same attitude. Although you can’t always tell how far people like violin and me, are jerking around. Many “liberals” are convinced of bias in the television media. And that it exists solely on the Fox News channel. Folks on this site have contended that the media reacts to marketing; that they sell what the people want. Some folks have also contended that the media does a professional and objective job in their reporting. If these two propositions are true, then why would there be a market for a “conservative” news channel? Wouldn’t there be a market for a “liberal” news channel as well?

Maybe it was the way I was educated. Most of my teachers didn’t tell me what to think, they taught me how to think for myself. They opened me to possibilities. They encouraged me to research subjects on my own. They stressed that education was a life-long process. In my conversations, these appear to be general maxims throughout the country. Why is it then, that many people rail against the poor quality of education in this country while refusing to educate themselves. Do people want to be spoon-fed what to believe? Are people that lazy? Many, many people appear to be so.

I’m not trying to convince people what to think, Phaedrus, just to think. And to educate themselves. Because of your (and violin’s) help, I’ll start with myself.


Homebrewing, huh? Cool subject. There is a guy here at work who does that. He has won some awards for his brew. If you would like, email me and I can give you his email address.”

“goldbergs coming out with a new book soon.



If the miedia is so Democratic how come the Democrats don't win every election?
It must be a case of those brave Republicans fighting the good fight against the stream is misinformed biased reporting


had to respond to this....it's because people are smart and reject failed ideas.....hopefully liberal activist judges won't overturn the people's will(like california, texas, florida). i'll elaborate when i have more time...

i know you all can't wait...


i conservative is a liberal who has been mugged.....


california voters have been mugged by liberals and it turned them conservative(62% voted for republicans)”

“Wow, Arclite. That's a lot to answer all at once.

First, I also get pretty worked up here, often, so no offense taken, and no apology needed on your end. If I purposely pushed your buttons a bit, my apologies.

It's strange that you should bring up the topic of propaganda, as it is one of my interests as well. I have read a number of very good books on the subject, of which I would recommend the following, if you haven't read them already:

Trust Us, We're Experts by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton (a warning that the authors are lefties, but the methods of observation for media propaganda are sound)

Propaganda by Edward Bernays (the book that started it all...)

I've also found PRWatch.com to be a good source of information about spin and propaganda in public relations and corporate interest.

In my estimation, finding out where the money comes from almost always gives an idea of which way the tilt will lean. That said, the Columbia Journalism Review has an extensive database of media and ownership, traced back through the corporate hierarchy. If you'd like to know their political contributions, Political Money Line will allow you to trace hard money contributions.

My opinion is that if there is a democratic/republican slant in mainstream media, it should come fromthe top, i.e. the corporate owners, and political contributors. This would tend to affect reporting down through the ranks to some extent (people know where their money comes from).

... More later. Work calls.”

“I see the liberals have a new channel on cable. The WE channel.”

“They've already had one for quite awhile UU. It was the merger between the failed Playgirl channel and the Pax channel. It's called Fudge Pax.”

“Thanks Phaedrus. I really appreciate your sharing those sources. I copied them, and will keep my eyes open next time I visit the library.

Ya know, I don't give a dingle if the slant is left or right, I want my news straight, no chaser. The Tampa Tribune used to do a pretty good job of objective reporting. I used to compare articles in The Gainesville Sun and Tampa Tribune. Wow! What a difference. Unfortunately, they no longer deliver it in my area. Now I mostly just read The Sun and The Wall Street Journal. I feel like a ping-pong ball sometimes.

I saw something very interesting in my local "liberal" rag today. They ran a short piece on Ben Affleck's speech to People for the American Way. The article not only identified People for the American Way as a liberal political action group, but also described his speech as a rant. Well blow me down! I'm glad they identified the group. And I sure am surprised they used the word rant.

I knew you were jerking me around Phaedrus. That's why I did the hairy palms sketch. You're good at it too. But as far as calling me a pansy- Just how big'a boy are ya?

I’ll be on you like red ants on a spilt snow cone

I’ll kick your ass so hard you’ll be able to cough and fart at the same time.

I’ll be on your chin like melted pizza cheese.

I’m gonna be on you like stink on an Adam Sandler movie.

I’ll be on you like ugly on a baboon’s ass.

I’ll kick your ass so hard you’ll be able to apply Preparation H with a toothbrush.

I’ll get on you like a boar hog on a corncob

I’ll get on you so hard you’ll be eatin’ dingle berries in your Captain Crunch.

I’ll be on you like a cockroach on a honeybun.

I’ll tear into you like a hobo does a bologna sandwich.

I’ll tear into you like corduroy into a hemorrhoid.

I’ll put a pop knot on your head you could drill holes in and bowl with.

I’ll put a pop knot on your head big enough to need a support garment.

I’ll knock a pop knot on your head big enough to need a birth certificate.

I’ll put a pop knot on ya big enough to have its own social security number.”

“Yep, I've seen some pretty big, tough, biker-lookin mama's boys before, but you take the "cake" as it stands now, Nancy.

More on the other issues later!”

“Hey, be careful Phaed...

arc has used the urinal beside some biker babe who could pi$$ standing up....


Anybody running in those circles is to be feared......





LMAO.”

“i saw a sorority girl doin that the other night chili....no kidding!”

“Last night (10/22/2003) on ABC News, a story caught my attention:

1. A story about Terri Schiavo was titled Right to Life. The story discussed the legal ramifications of the Florida Legislature’s new bill allowing Gov. Bush to intervene in the decision to remove a feeding tube from this woman who doctors say has been a vegetable for thirteen years. In discussing the issue, they interviewed only one “legal expert.” This would be Laurence Tribe. A noted legal scholar no doubt. Anyone want to guess what are his political leanings? Let’s make it multiple choice: Far right-wing, moderate, far left-wing?

It doesn't matter to me which perspective a person has on this matter, but I do wish the news would be more objective in their coverage. If you believe that there are white hats and black hats, with no gray area for discussion, then this type of coverage is wonderful. The News Hour, which followed the evening news, had two different perspectives. The perspectives were discussed and different opinions were put forth. That was news to me.

Anyone notice the ABC News story about prescription drugs? Want to guess who was portrayed as the “bad guy?” Did anyone see these stories? Anyone have any discussion on these points?”

“Esteemed journalist lectures on ethics

The media industry has been infested by the rise of pseudo-journalists who go against journalism's long tradition to serve the public with accurate information, Los Angeles Times Editor John S. Carroll told a packed room in the Gerlinger Lounge on Thursday.

[...]
"All over the country there are offices that look like newsrooms and there are people in those offices that look for all the world just like journalists, but they are not practicing journalism," he said. "They regard the audience with a cold cynicism. They are practicing something I call a pseudo-journalism, and they view their audience as something to be manipulated."

In a scathing critique of Fox News and some talk show hosts, such as Bill O'Reilly, Carroll said they were a "different breed of journalists" who misled their audience while claiming to inform them. He said they did not fit into the long legacy of journalists who got their facts right and respected and cared for their audiences.

Carroll cited a study released last year that showed Americans had three main misconceptions about Iraq: That weapons of mass destruction had been found, a connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq had been demonstrated and that the world approved of U.S intervention in Iraq. He said 80 percent of people who primarily got their news from Fox believed at least one of the misconceptions. He said the figure was more than 57 percentage points higher than people who get their news from public news broadcasting.

"How in the world could Fox have left its listeners so deeply in the dark?" Carroll asked.

[...]
Carroll had a few words of advise for student journalists; he told them to pick their boss carefully.

"Don't be lured by the money or the big name of the employer," he said, adding that journalists should not allow their integrity to be compromised by unscrupulous employers.

"Don't be a piano player in a whorehouse," he said.”

“A piano player in a whorehouse has more honor.”

“In related news, a poll found that 90% of ABC/NBC/CBS watchers found that the war on poverty in American would work if only everyone who worked would willingly give 25% of their paychecks to those who don't.”

“No Tilt, it's, "Don't tell my Mom I'm a FAUX News Correspondent- she thinks I'm a piano player in a whorehoue."”

“Maybe it isn't Fox that's misleading, maybe the network just appeals to really stupid people?”

“At least it appeals to you guys anyway. You can't talk of anything else. is that what you mean?”

“LOL Aero”

“What do you mean, appeals to me? I talk about lots of stuff.”

“I'm glad they keep reminding me they're "fair and balanced"!”

“Not really fair.... definitely 'unbalanced', LOL”

“No wonder I don't come here anymore....it may interest you that friends and relatives serving in Iraq consider Fox News a more accurate portrayal of the facts than CNN, ABC, NBC...blah blah blah. But since that doesn't fit your agenda of finding something to complain about I'm sure you've already forgotten that sentence. In the meantime look at the source of your information, liberal media putting down that which is not skewed left or liberal, how shocking!!!....While I may only come here once a year now, it's still good for a laugh. Until next year.”

“By all means, don't let the truth get in the way of a good story....

It appears that Roger Ailes' people have reported so many unsubstantiated stories about finding the dreaded WMD that some people believe that they've actually been found.

It's unconscionable.”

“I'm sorry Sheldon, could you repeat that?”

“Can't the pussies who denounced this beautiful God-given war at least acknowledge the American bravery that's making Iraq and the world more perfect every day?”

“My BS alarm was going off within reading the very first line…

“who go against journalism's long tradition to serve the public with accurate information”

Yeah RIGHT! Bahawhahahahaha!”

“Yer losin' it dude! LOL”

“And the funniest thing is it was someone from the L.A. Times saying it. What a hoot! 8P”

“Bill O'Reilly for president!”

“More proof that neo-cons are a-holes! And where do they get this "liberal media" stupidity? Faux is liberal? Talk radio is liberal? Ultra-rich families and giant corporations (owners of almost all media) are liberals? What morons!”

“I love the way the libs try and act so intellectually superior and snobbish! It's rather fun to watch, especially when the best news agency to come around in a long time, Fox News, snags more viewers than the other cable news networks COMBINED! YAAAA! People like to see news fair and balanced, the people decide what they feel is fair and balanced. Fox News asks America to "decide", with their common "we report, you decide". Well, America has decided that Fox News RULES! I know that pisses libs off and they think America is stooopid, but maybe it says something about themselves, I dunno.

As for the obvious liberal bias in the rest of the fading TV network news world, here's what ABCNews.com team of political reporters had to say about their own admitted liberal bias:

Straight from ABCNews.com:

---------------
"Like every other institution, the Washington and political press corps operate with a good number of biases and predilections.

"They include, but are not limited to, a near-universal shared sense that liberal political positions on social issues like gun control, homosexuality, abortion, and religion are the default, while more conservative positions are 'conservative positions.'

"They include a belief that government is a mechanism to solve the nation's problems; that more taxes on corporations and the wealthy are good ways to cut the deficit and raise money for social spending and don't have a negative affect on economic growth; and that emotional examples of suffering (provided by unions or consumer groups) are good ways to illustrate economic statistic stories. ...

"The press, by and large, does not accept President Bush's justifications for the Iraq war – in any of its WMD, imminent threat, or evil-doer formulations. It does not understand how educated, sensible people could possibly be wary of multilateral institutions or friendly, sophisticated European allies.

"It does not accept the proposition that the Bush tax cuts helped the economy by stimulating summer spending.

"It remains fixated on the unemployment rate.

"It believes President Bush is 'walking a fine line' with regards to the gay marriage issue, choosing between 'tolerance' and his 'right-wing base.'

"It still has a hard time understanding how, despite the drumbeat of conservative grass-top complaints about overspending and deficits, President Bush's base remains extremely and loyally devoted to him – and it looks for every opportunity to find cracks in that base.

"Of course, the swirling Joe Wilson and National Guard stories play right to the press's scandal bias – not to mention the bias towards process stories (grand juries produce ENDLESS process!).

"The worldview of the dominant media can be seen in every frame of video and every print word choice that is currently being produced about the presidential race."
----------------

Thanks for your honesty and finally admitted your own bias, ABCNews.com!

FOX NEWS RULES THE WORLD OF NEWS!!! YAAAAAAAA!!! TV news has been "left" for so long that "fair and balanced" is perceived as "right wing" by the libs, and REFRESHING for the rest of America!”