The problem with the below is that the traditional media are too lazy (and corporate) to go beyond the "one side (usually Fox and the Republicans) does it, so we must find equivalent evidence to 'prove' the other side (usually MSNBC and the Democrats) does it as well."
Fox is all about advocacy for the right and the GOP. MSNBC slants toward the Democrats, but comes nowhere near the level of Fox's propaganda and outright fund raising. What irritated me about the interview was Stewart's mantra of neutrality and "we just present the clips, we don't take sides." Bullshit. They've slammed Fox and the GOP far harder than their occasional swipes at Obama and the Dems, which is fine with me; there's far more fodder. But, on the other hand, Obama's sellout of his base and his embrace of some of the worse parts of the Bush agenda or the Democrats' general spinelessness could get far more attention from TDS, but gets ignored when Palin says something stupid -- again -- or Hannity or O'Reilly or Beck show themselves to be hypocrites -- again. --Dave Sikula On Nov 13, 9:43 pm, PGage <[email protected]> wrote: > But can't we get beyond this simple dichotomy? There are more points on the > continuum than simply "like Fox News" or "paragon of journalistic > integrity". The defenders of MSNBC have to stop relying on the "FN is worse > than us" defense - we know they are, but that is irrelevant. But media > critics need to stop arguing that because MSNBC falls short of the > journalistic ideal they are really nothing but a variant of FN. -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
