You're right, it IS about time. For too long, Freedom of the Press in America has been interpreted to mean "factual reporting" and "objectivity". It was never like that in earlier times; witness the many papers around the country with Democrat or Republican in their names. When those papers were founded, there was no pretense to being fair and balanced. Everyone had an agenda, or at least worked for someone with an agenda.

This is Fox's Dirty Harry "make my day" moment.

I for one have no problem with news outlets leaning left or right, so long as they are honest about it. Fox News at least gives the discerning viewer a chance to hear things from a standpoint not often found in the mainstream media. Most people, though, will likely settle for one network or the other. That is why I prefer the internet; I can compare and contrast coverage of events from a number of different reporting outlets, including weblogs, which are almost universally editorial in nature.

The funniest thing about this is that they're playing right into Roger Aisles' strategy.

Aisles is perfectly content to see every other media outlet line up against him because he's "right wing." He just responds by saying "fair and balanced" over and over. It drives his competition to distraction, but it resonates with the average news consumer, who no longer believe in the media's objectivity (including Fox's). They just want a chance to see more than a single point of view. They want a chance to decide "fair and balanced" for themselves by comparing differing perspectives.

Fox is the ONLY outlet in television for a non-left biased point of view in the entire television media. To get a balanced view, you can choose between any other media outlet - and Fox. Fox ends up positioning itself as the only indispensible media voice out there. And the competition helps build this image. They think this documentary will discredit Fox. All it will do is assist Aisle's attempt at differentiating his media offering from all the others.

so the majority. . sorry. .VAST majority of talk radio is left? the majority. . .sorry the VAST majority of business, weekly news papers, murdoch/hearst papers are biased to the left? Or do you guys see anyone not a rabid nationalist as "left wing"?

Dont you guys get that this news because IT IS that wacky. it is THAT blatant. Y'know that in most folks lives they come to a pot when they realise that either THEY are wrong or the WHOLE rest of the world is. . .

the sane ones realise that maybe they might not have ALL the answers ALL the time. you guys have been going the other way a lot lately.

circle the wagons?

JasonDL wrote:

“so the majority. . sorry. .VAST majority of talk radio is left?”

How much of the broadcast media is actually composed of talk radio? In terms of the Twin Cities market, its probably (in terms of programs not necessarily market share) about an even split with AM1500, the Patriot (I and II), and the Christian and Catholic stations (I’m presuming here that they’re at least socially conservative) on the right while NPR, Err America, WCCO, KFAN, and talk 107.1 (sans Dr. Laura) are pretty much on the Left.

“the majority. . .sorry the VAST majority of business, weekly news papers, murdoch/hearst papers are biased to the left?”

How much of the print media is actually composed of business papers? Or did you think that you were fooling anyone trying to define the media markets so narrowly that you outright eliminated daily newspapers and television broadcasting?

"majority of business, weekly news papers, murdoch/hearst papers "

PJZ- if you read the entire sentance you will realise that im describing a huge percentage of american print media. Hearst/murdoch alone account for hundreds of dailies and when I said "weekly newspapers" i should have been more clear and said "weekly magazines like time and newsweek"

the point is still that in their effort NOT to be called "liberal media" even the media not owned by those with an agenda as obvious as murdochs have held much closer to the rights line.

What part of Hearst does not mean liberal bias? Here in Seattle, Hearst has one paper left of Michael Moore, and is taking over the one right of Michael Moore. Newspapers are not exactly the most intellectually diverse medium.

Besides, have you ever tried to determine the reach Viacom has? Trying finding a single anti-Bush book Viacom publishes that hasn't been highlighted once or twice by its CBS franchise? ANy notice of how Viacom has Clinton's book read /as news/ on its radio networks?

“PJZ- if you read the entire sentance you will realise that im describing a huge percentage of american print media. Hearst/murdoch alone account for hundreds of dailies and when I said "weekly newspapers" i should have been more clear and said "weekly magazines like time and newsweek"”

Actually you weren’t describing anything close to the majority of print media and even trying to change “weekly newspapers” to “weekly magazines” (Time is pretty much biased to the Left and Newsweek is arguably more centrist) doesn’t help your point much either. And it still excludes daily newspapers which account for most of the printed media.

“the point is still that in their effort NOT to be called "liberal media" even the media not owned by those with an agenda as obvious as murdochs have held much closer to the rights line.”

And your point fails for lack of evidence despite your dishonest attempt to stack the deck in order to exclude most of the broadcast and print media.