Why is there no organized public pressure against Fox News?

[Creationismsucks]

Hi.

Up here in Canada, if we had a tumor like Fox, spewing bile and lies and filth all day every day the way Fox News does, I'd be happy to organize letter writing campaigns, phone call campaigns, marches, etc, to get them to quit the endless propaganda. For Christ's sake, isn't anyone doing it in the US? If so, why not put more pressure directly on Fox's advertisers?

How can so much of your country be so progressive, but not just make it clear to Fox and their advertisers that this kind of bullshit will harm their bottom line?

And if people ARE doing those things, why isn't it getting any result?

Is it really true that Fox would keep behaving this way, even if advertiser money completely dried up?

Jesus I hate them.

[Metta]

1. Good point. They've consistently abused the public airwaves and the trust that comes with that.

I've often wondered why they're allowed to make up their own "facts."

[DireStrike]

2. No, cable is not public airwaves

That makes it much harder to make a case against them.

[Creationismsucks]

4. Pressure on the sponsors should work

irrespective of whether the FCC gets to regulate Fox.

[Jade Fox]

3. I think most people believe.....

there is still some sort of effective regulation of the media in the USA. They believe you can't tell blatant lies on the air or someone would stop you.

[Creationismsucks]

7. You don't need

the FCC, all you need is to let the sponsors know that you will organize AGAINST their businesses.

[Jade Fox]

13. Agree, but for some reason.....

there is a currently popular belief, voiced on this website, that boycotts "don't work".

I don't know why they don't (if that's true). Boycotts have been very effective in the past.

[alfredo]

5. I think they will stay in business even if operating at a loss. Look a Rev Moon's

scandal sheet, The Washington Times. It's been around for decades and still has not pulled a profit. It's the propaganda, not the profit that is important.

[Creationismsucks]

8. Well...

Then their profit margines should be cut to the bone by organized campaigns and boycott. Maybe they'd stay in business anyway, but DAMMIT it should cost them.

[alfredo]

40. Make them pay out of their pockets. The more they have to pump in

to prop up, the less they have to finance their movement.

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. Bingo, and they have operated in the red for years, it is only recent

that they got some of the black, and now that ratings have dropped...

It is a propaganda arm... Murdoch and Ailes do not particularly care if they operate at a loss

[alfredo]

41. Still it makes them use resources there instead of elsewhere.

[WCGreen]

68. And they are taken seriously by the netwroks...

I worked at an Alternative Newspaper that had a larger circulation than the Washington Times...

[alfredo]

69. Rev Moon is still a power broker in DC and beyond. He own UPI too.

[MADem]

6. We don't want Murdoch to leave.

His entertainment arm carries Family Guy, American Dad, King of the Hill, etc. And then, there's Cops and America's Most Wanted.

You need to give the idiots a place to play. Live and let live. It's not progressive to stamp out opposing viewpoints.

CBC in Canada has taken it up the wazoo under Harper. Talk about budget cuts! It's all reruns and bullshit, like Russian state television used to be in the Soviet era! All countries have lousy tv stations!

Advertising money won't dry up--there are lots of stupid people who like pretty colors and lipstick and boobs.

[Creationismsucks]

10. Is it 'stoomping out opposing viewpoints'

to let the advertisers know that you don't want to see this crap?

NO! Glen Beck and all the rest of these fascits would have all the speech rights they ever had. They'd just lose their bullshit bully-pulpits (as they should), and they could exercise FULL speech rights where they belong: on a streetcorner wearing a tinfoil hat and a sandwich board.

Fox is not Buckley's firing line. It's demagogery of a far more vile and dishonest order.

CBC, by the way, remains extant, and covers Harper sometimes critically, sometimes sympathetically. I've been pretty impressed with how they've held up under the cuts.

[MADem]

22. YOU have the power to NOT SEE that crap. It's called a remote control--use it.

What you want is for OTHERS to not see it.

That's just not cool. See, one day, "they" could come after your favorite programming if you start down that road.

CLICK. Problem solved.

As for CBC, why is it that I can go to Atlantic Canada one month, see a rerun, come back two months later, and see the same frigging rerun--of a show I saw a year or two ago! The production values and offerings have suffered since the Chretien years, badly.

[Creationismsucks]

32. You make a good point here, MADem

when you say:

"What you want is for OTHERS to not see it."

Guilty as charged.

I'm going to have to rethink my position on this.

After all, how democratic are my underlying beliefs if I don't trust my fellow citizens to be able to critically appraise FOX and make the right decision?

That really is an excellent point. Thank you.

I would add however, that my motives are a seperate issue from whether telling the advertisers that you want no part in helping them support Fox's assault on honesty.

But seriously, you made me think.

Have a good day.

[MADem]

36. It's very hard to defend Fox News.

Why? Because they're jerks. But in America, even jerks can have their say! That's why I feel compelled to do it. I wouldn't want those jerks on the right to be shutting down the voices on the left, using the left's own past behavior as precedent to so do.

I just don't give them any business on my home tee vee, and if I'm in a venue where it's on, I try to con the establishment to switching to something else. They usually won't go for MSNBC or CNN, but they'll sometimes turn it to ESPN--which doesn't often show stuff I'm interested in watching (Red Sox or Celtics being the exceptions) but it's at least benign programming that won't do damage to my blood pressure.

[Creationismsucks]

33. As for CBC

CBC tv is not exactly the best CBC has to offer. When I speak glowingly of CBC, it's CBC radio, which has wonderful news programming.

[vadawg]

51. applause, applause, applause, this fact seems to elude people

if we shut down everything and everyone we disagree with, whats to stop the same happening to everything we agree with, the door swings both ways.

[drmeow]

54. "See, one day, "they" could come

after your favorite programming if you start down that road."

They already do that. The Christian Reich and the Bushbots engage in massive letter writing campaigns to silence stories which, in my mind, are not even biased but are giving both sides of the story. We're already playing with a deck stacked against us. I have no problem with telling advertisers that I object to them paying for fiction which is presented as fact, for paying to mislead the American people, for paying for bigotry and hate. My view has been censored for 30 years. Even the more "left" (aka, center) leaning media outlets don't tell the story the way I see it. Fine, if my far left view is censored, I want the far right view censored as well.

[MADem]

58. Knock yourself out. And keep watching Fox "just to keep tabs on them" if that floats your boat, too

The people who are looking at who watches what don't give a shit WHY you tune in, you know.

Look, here's the truth--if MSNBC pulled down the numbers Fox does, no show would be on the chopping block there, ever. Even with the recent "success" over there, there are informercials that pull in a bigger share. Why? Because people would rather be outraged than to be told to eat their vegetables.

Advertisers care about eyes on the commercials, and if the product they are selling "marries" with the program content--that's all they care about. For example, the beef industry isn't going to sponsor a show on Mad Cow disease, no matter how well it is done. A travel company like Orbitz is a natural fit for a show on the tourist places to visit in the Carribean or elsewhere. Other than that, they just don't care about the individual poutrage of a politically biased viewer, from the left or the right.

And you say your view has been censored...so you're going to 'exact revenge' by doing to them what you didn't like? The concept of "You be mean to me, I'll be mean to you" retaliation is something most of us get over in grammar school. Two wrongs NEVER make a right.

Vote with your remote.

[drmeow]

59. First of all,

I don't watch Fox - except when Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert show clips.

By the same token, I have no qualms about writing to a sponsor and saying, "I won't buy your products because you advertise on a show that perpetuates racial stereotypes and discrimination and by doing so, in my mind, your companies views are the same and I won't support racist companies" (for example).

Its not a matter of exacting revenge - its a matter of using the same tools against speech on the public airwaves I don't like that the right wing uses against speech on the public airwaves they don't like.

[MADem]

61. Well, the title of this thread has to do with organized opposition to Fox News.

So, if you don't watch Fox, why would you complain to the sponsors about programming you don't even watch? How would you even know who the sponsors are, unless you watch or you're taking the word of someone else without seeing with your own eyes?

You can have "no qualms," but you've also got no credibility, if you're complaining about an entire program based on a brief clip that's displayed on a comedy show, for laughs, to ridicule a POV. Stewart and Colbert aren't going to go overboard in doing the "fair and balanced" routine. They'll show the "Dumb Rightwing" person making an ass of themselves, but they might not show the two or three other people saying "Jesus, that was stupid."

I continue to urge people to just vote with their remote.

But, like I said, knock yourself out if that is what floats your boat.

[drmeow]

62. I don't just base it on TDS or Colbert

I base it on media watchdog groups like FAIR.

Voting with your remote is, as far as I'm concerned, not powerful enough.

[Creationismsucks]

11. As for the good Fox entertainment programming

Targetting advertisers can allow you to surgically hit those bad pragrams, while actively supporting the good ones.

You wouldn't have to lose Family Guy, House, etc.

[MADem]

21. No, they are two different channels. Murdoch likes his "political arm"

Fox entertainment (the network, over the air stuff) is not bad. Even their local news is "vigorous," at least in my region.

The cable channel is his private plaything, which helps him earn influence with legislators...or not.

I don't agree with torch-and-pitchfork efforts to get rid of "bad" speech, sorry--even if I don't like it. I don't watch Fox News, that's how I boycott them.

In fact, if I see anything I don't like on my tee vee, I do what a thinking person should do--I vote with my remote.

If advertisers respond to that kind of shit, they're cowards. They were cowards when they axed Bill Maher from ABC, too.

[Creationismsucks]

29. So if advertisers listen to the public

and ax Glen Beck, that's just like Bill Maher being dropped from ABC?

That doesn't add up to me.

Shouldn't it make a difference WHAT is being axed?

How many abortion doctors need to be terminated before Fox changing their programming wouldn't compare to ABC pulling Maher?

Seriously, are you telling me that even if after 6 more abortionists get offed by right wing zealots who have watched too much "Factor", Fox would be "cowardly" for pulling Bill-O in response to a public campaign?

How many deaths did Maher pehaps contribute to again?

Trying to turn this into a free speech issue is illegitimate.

Telling an advertiser you don't want them to fund something is perfectly above board, and probably the right thing to do.

[MADem]

35. You're convoluting issues here.

Free speech is free speech. Even when it's distasteful speech. If someone steps over the line and engages in prosecutable "acccesory before the fact" behavior, that is an entirely separate issue from the muzzling of free speech. I don't watch O'Reilly, so I don't know precisely what he said or if his speech was even "prosecutable speech." I imagine if he went over that line, he'll be prosecuted. I suspect he was clever enough to dance right up to it, as many do.

When the right wing returns to power (and they will--these things go in cycles, have a look at history) do you want them axing your beloved programs on the basis that "WHAT is being axed" isn't good for your little ears to hear?

One more time--vote with your remote. Grab that thing and push the button, it's not that hard to do. If you don't want to hear it, do not listen to it. But don't try to be judge, jury and executioner for the rest of America--that's a rather high-handed role you want to assume.

This "is" a free speech issue--trying to turn it into something other than that is what is, apparently, the "illegitimate" thing you've got working--you want to be "the decider" of what people may watch on their televisions. We didn't like Bush when he gave himself that title, why should we like it any better when YOU affect that role? We can decide for ourselves--with our remote control devices.

You have the "right" to tell an advertiser you don't want something funded, and the advertiser has the "right" to look at the ratings for the shows where they place their ads and conclude that you are a "contrarian crank," opposed to the views espoused on that program, and send your demand to the circular file.

[Lorien]

49. Speak for yourself. The country was better without him. nt

[MADem]

53. I like his entertainment arm. And if you think that the Right Wing News Void

would have remained unfilled, you're dreaming. If it weren't Murdoch, it would have been the Jerry Falwell News Network...or the Allbritton Cable News Channel. Someone was going to pick up that flag and march with it--the demographics were there, the money was waiting to be made.

Vote with your remote if you don't like the channel. If you watch it, and then complain about it, you are either part of the problem in terms of the numbers the network pulls in, or it's obviously serving some need for confrontation and agita in your life.

I think it sucks. I demonstrate my disdain with my remote. I click right past it with no problem, and I'm happy and content.

[DireStrike]

9. Many reasons

1) It would be seen as unamerican to try and force a "successful" private "enterprise" to cease existing because you don't like what they say. It is also an easy argument to say that if their ideas are so terrible, surely they can be argued against rather than silenced. This goes directly to the first amendment.

2) A boycott would be extremely hard to pull off. People just are not dedicated enough. I can't even find a list of current Fox advertisers. Even if we all stopped using their services, they do have a fairly sizeable audience of fanatics, and there are plenty of right wing business owners who would be "Glad" to be rid of liberal customers for the sake of ideology. As I saw in a discussion when looking for the advertiser list: (of a boycott) "These ideas don't work.. It's the same kind of thing the hosts of every show on Fox News calls for on a regular basis and nothing comes of it"

3) Yes Fox would probably still behave that way without advertiser money. They would be propped up as a propaganda spitting device.

[Creationismsucks]

15. I don't know your constitution well, but

I don't think this goes "directly to the first amendment".

Telling a business that you are upset by their support for lying hate-mongers, and that you will vote against that support with your dollars is NOT an infringement of free speech. They can still spew their filth all day long, just not on TV.

For Christ's sake, at the RNC and DNC, protesters were made to stand in "free speech zones" where nobody could hear or see them. I'm not even advocating that kind of oblivion for Fox's 'views' and speech. They can still say their vile shit, but if they want to put it on cable, and pay for it with advertising dollars, YOU would be well within YOUR speech rights telling the advertisers that you plan to punish them for supporting a bunch of racist, homophobe anti-democratic liars.

[DireStrike]

19. You are right, legally it doesn't hold water

Although it would take a lot of text to sort that out and some lawyers would come down on the opposite side.

However, all arguments in the public are based on emotion, not rationality.

It would take too much explaining to untangle why this is not an attack on free speech and you would lose the argument. All arguments here must be pithy and emotionally resonant. You cannot appeal to reason with long, well crafted, thought out arguments. It doesn't work.

Yeah I was at that 2004 RNC protest. It was very lacking in energy, like the people knew it wouldn't have an effect. We passed by the convention center down a heavily blockaded road, several blocks away, all of us turning to eye it balefully as we walked by. There is also some infuriating footage of Amy Goodman, a journalist covering the protest, being detained by armored police thugs, her protests and press IDs completely ignored. And then all of the media outlets pretty much ignored it. The papers posted stories claiming there were "thousands" of us, when there were some half a million. That "thousands" trick is very effective.

This is a depressing country to live in.

[Creationismsucks]

24. But what you've said here

is inconsistent with a country that elected a president as nuanced and legalistic as Obama.

If what is actually correct can never trump what is flashy and emotional sounding, then democracy is impossible.

I refuse to believe that.

[DireStrike]

27. We didn't elect him because he is nuanced and legalistic

In my opinion.

We elected him because he was running against a doddering, unlikeable fool with a simian-brained cohort as backup should he die. Said old man (note the emotional arguments, one guy is old, really old, too old, and the other is a stupid bimbo.) The republican party is also a heavily poisoned brand. Obama is young and hip, "historic", a living face of "change". "Change", "Hope", and "Yes we can!" are the arguments that won for him, because they were believable given his opponent.

Also his manner of speaking did as much for his speeches as the content did. The content got the thinkers believing him, but the delivery got the masses.

Never underestimate anti-intellectualism in the US. I'm actually still kind of amazed that Obama won, even given all these advantages, being saddled with the disadvantages of being black and intelligent.

[Leftist Agitator]

55. "... being saddled with the disadvantages of being black and intelligent. "

Truer words were never written.

[DireStrike]

23. Actually, not sure about the legality of it

By "legality" I mean official legality as interpreted by our courts:

http://www.civilianism.com/gate/2009/06/fox-news-gets-court-ok-to-lie/


Fox News Gets Court OK to Lie
By admin, on June 26th, 2009

FOX News has been lying to people in various ways for at least the last 10 years. Only a few days ago, when Governor Sanford admitted to an affair with a woman in Argentina, Faux News put a “D” after his name. That is only a small example, but it’s indicative of the general dishonesty of their news culture. It was obviously done on purpose, because he’s a prominent Republican whose name had been mentioned as a presidential contender in 2012. All Republicans, certainly those who populate the staff at FOX, know who he is. FOX has done that exact same thing before with other politicians who get into “trouble” — label them as “Democrats”. Later, they might correct it, or they might not. It’s unethical and bizarre that in the world of Faux News, they think they can do anything that want, no matter how dishonest, and get away with it by playing dumb. That’s the essence of Faux News — playing dumb. Their anchors are dumb, their news writers are dumb, and their viewers are dumb. Dumb, dumber, and even dumber.

Unfortunately, their dishonesty is court-sanctioned and completely legal. Think of the implications of this. It means broadcast news can be purposely wrong and false, and that’s OK. We expect that from right-wing talk radio, but many people do not yet expect that from “the News”. Here’s my advice: trust no U.S. news on TV or radio. It’s mostly slick, packaged garbage, in my humble opinion, and if you are lucky, it’s half right. Watch news online from international sources. It’s really getting alarming how ignorant not only the American public is but also the people they elect (watching C-SPAN makes that all too clear), and much of that is the fault of the nonsense presented as news by the mainstream U.S. media. Here’s an example: What did cable news cover today, non-stop? A celebrity death. So what if there are wars going on and record unemployment and a massive climate change bill being debated in the House — Michael Jackson died.

(more at link)

[Cleita]

14. The best public pressure would be to turn the channel off.

However, they seem to appeal to a lot of people and frankly I can't go anywhere in public where there is a TV blaring, like waiting rooms and the gym, where they don't have Fox News on. I don't get it myself because I don't know anybody who likes them or puts them on at home. So I think whoever is promoting them, those puppeteers behinds the scenes running our secret government, are using them as their propaganda outlet, sort of like Hitler took over all the newspapers in Nazi Germany so they would print whatever he wanted them to say. It never used to be this way and decades ago the TVs out in public ran CNN and back then CNN actually broadcasted unbiased new programming based on journalistic principles. Things started to change during the Reagan presidency and the shift to conservatism has brought us where we are today with a minority of hard core conservatives dictating what is and isn't in our society.

[RagAss]

16. The flagship station of the cretins.

[Creationismsucks]

17. By the end of that post

you had explained to me why your opening statement was incorrect, and I say that with complete respect.


Fox can't tell when you turn them off. And their advertisers can't tell whether business is coming in from an ad they placed on Fox, or the same ad placed on CNN.

...unless we tell them!

I couldn't agree more about the Hitler point.

Godwin's law can be a friend of fascist defenders. After all, if you lose the argument the moment you identify something as fascism, then when fascism comes galloping back (and it ALWAYS does, this time dressed as Bill O'Reilly), then the first person to correctly call it for what it is is immediately pronounced to have lost the argument. Fuck Godwin's law, seriously.

[Cleita]

18. They can tell if you are a Neilsen family and I do Neilsen ratings every now

and then when they ask me. I do a paper list for a week of my TV viewing and I never watch FOX News. They have never invited me to have a meter, so maybe they don't like the results that they get from me, but if they ever do, I will let them put one on my TV. Even if Ruppert Murdoch doesn't care about the ratings, advertisers will and that will shrivel his income down to nothing. Also, it might make the cable companies think twice about carrying a cable channel that no one is watching. I hope any body invited to do the Neilsons will participate. I feel it's the only way we will get the TV programming we want in the long run.

http://www.nielsenmedia.com/nc/portal/site/Public/menuitem.3437240b94cacebc3a81e810d8a062a0/?vgnextoid=bc29eac0e8854010VgnVCM100000880a260aRCRD

[spanone]

20. americans must love fake news.

[Creationismsucks]

25. Absolutely

Look at all the resistance I get (here at DU!!) when I suggest that the public take legal, obvious action.

Enjoy Fox, America, if the cynical answers I've recieved here are any indication, you DESERVE it!!

[DireStrike]

28. I'm trying to give an explanation, not resistance

Some legal action has been taken but nothing has come close to shutting them down or making them tell the truth.

[Still Sensible]

26. Because it is a numbers game in a fragmented media

landscape. They are watched by a small, but vocal, portion of the audience. To be competitive with other media they still make bundles of money, keeping this small (by percentage) vocal minority happy with their bile. Your observation would have probably proved out before the explosion of cable and satellite because then there were many less options, their ratings--with the same small group of right wing viewers--would have paled against the fewer alternatives, and their corporate masters would not have been satisfied.

But since they can make a competitive bundle by pandering to their neanderthal, fundamentalist, and wacko racist base, they won't go away.

Faux got a big break when the rah rah, bomb the bastards mentality following 9/11 took over. It was the opportunity to grow the loyal group of misguided people that were susceptible to the message. Now, they pander constantly to that right wing because it is important to their financials that they keep those folks tuned in. They don't have much of an opportunity to expand their viewership any more but they are just fine financially with what they've got.

[Creationismsucks]

30. Good points, but...

...the businesses that advetise on Fox are in the mainstream. Their customers can make it clear to those advertisers that they don't want their dollars supporting this kind of filth.

Fox can have all the boutique, fragmented, demographically pinpointed audience it wants, but if for example Burger King finds out, powerfully and consistently, that its customers don't want their money going to pay Sean Hannity's salary, then eventually Fox will be left with only the sponsors it deserves: rifle manufacturers and televangelists.

They don't deserve the current illusory maintream image that their mainstream advertising base would suggest.

[Still Sensible]

43. You are right. So we can only assume

the customers of those mainstream advertisers don't care enough about the issue to effectively protest with their pocketbooks. It is probably accurate to say that most of the rational people that buy those products--which would be the vast majority--are unaware that the purveyors of those products so consistently support the RW wackos on Faux.

[madokie]

31. I think with faux the bottom line is deep pockets

rupert murdock is on a mission and that mission would or should be considered unamerican, treasonous maybe even

[KharmaTrain]

34. We Have A Winner!!!

Faix Noise is only one tentacle of a larger organization...one that few people really understand. It's a model many corporations use. Boycott one arm and he just goes to one you don't see to feed the beast. Try boycotting the "news" division, there's the sports (boycotting the NFL and MLB) or the Entertainment (meaning boycotting the Simpsons & Family Guy) or Random House books or MySpace or Dish Network.

The worst enemy is Faux itself. It's long destroyed its credibility with a majority of viewers...and its demographics are as narrow as can be. Given time...and the clock is already running...Faux's current audience will die off and there aren't many yougner people to fill the gap.

[MADem]

37. I think Murdoch's mission is to make money. He'd have taken the left's POV if it

had been the "growth industry" at the time he fired up his Cable News franchise.

Corporate America--which is where the money is--leans right. Murdoch isn't stupid; he knows where the dough is.

He's not at all "ideological." He just likes money--lots of it. And liking money, being greedy, being selfish, isn't treason.

[timeforpeace]

38. It's gonna end any day now. They must be hemorrhaging money.

[rhett o rick]

45. What? They have money to burn. CorpAmerica is bursting at the seams with money. nm

[Blue For You]

39. Many people right here on DU are "Fox enablers" by subscribing

to cable/satellite programming. If more people would just say no to their cable/sat suppliers and refuse to fund this crap, Fox might go away. The way I see it, if Fox is included in someone's cable/sat package, they are financially supporting Hannity, Beck and O'Reilly etc. People, please pull the plug on this crap.

[Serenades]

42. I would guess

Generally because most people don't care. Do most people actually watch the news? Conservatives who do watch think it's 100% truth. So, that's like half the country. Or maybe my point of view is off because I'm from Texas. Fox News is a lot more exciting because they have raving lunatics and good looking women. I think people want to be entertained by everything. CNN is boring for the most part and looks like a knock off of Fox now. MSNBC isn't shown in a lot of areas.

[rhett o rick]

44. We've been beat down so much that we no longer know what reasonable is. nm

[abumbyanyothername]

46. I would think that the best path

would be to organize produce boycotts against Fox News advertisers.

[Johonny]

47. most Americans don't watch the news

there are 250 channels on a lot of Americans TEE VEES.

[tomreedtoon]

48. Because America has no organized public. Period.

Take a look at the posters on DU. Does anyone here look organized?

[Lorien]

50. The far right fundies are organized

which is why a tiny minority has had such a devastating effect on our Nation. The rest are just as you say. And organizing Dems? You'll have better luck herding cats with ADHD.

[The Doctor.]

52. Because they and their fellow entities of malinformation have created a wall of morons.

A wall of solid ignorance, hatred, and fear that they can use to protect themselves from nearly anything.

[newspeak]

56. this is a dilemma

we, as Americans, respect free speech, but today, I believe that there is no fair discourse. The networks are owned by huge corporations that have interests in other areas, our food sources, war, etc. They will act in their own best interests--sad to say, it may not be our own. Phil Donahue was pushed off his show because he wanted honest debate over attacking Iraq. That was not in the network's best business interest. Our government spent millions of dollars to PR firms to "sell" us both Iraq wars. During elections, their talking heads "sway" their audience by focusing on the positives of a candidate and sweeping the dirt under a rug. For example, * is the one you just want to have a beer with-Dean is a screamer, easily excitable-Gore is a liar-Kucinich is a wimp and a loony. The cleanest candidate they will find a way to ridicule or assassinate their character in some way, while catapulting their corporate whore candidate. They make villains into heroes and heroes into villains, and most of the public buys into their mechanisms.

I've watched a panel on PBS on the environment with various talking heads, some politicians, but not one environmentalist on the panel. I've seen panels on the networks where there were two neo-con, talking over, windbags, against one "mild" opposition. That's what they wanted Phil to do, put a number of pro-war promoters against a lesser number of anti-war promoters. He wouldn't, they sacked him.

What our media is today is nothing but a corporate propaganda machine. It's too bad the teabaggers haven't realized who really is sponsoring their little protests. When a network is constantly talking about the protests and where you can attend--I'd be a little leery who actually is promoting such a protest. I mean, when thousands marched in the streets against invading Iraq, did any of the networks promote the protests, did they give locations so you could attend? No? You mean it wasn't in their best interests?

A democracy can not be sustained without a free, honest, open media--
One that has open, honest debates--one that exposes corruption and tells the public the truth--not intentionally lying to the public for it's own ends-like FAUX has done numerous times. How many of the clueless actually know that FAUX has won a lawsuit about lying? So, we are in a dilemma-a dilemma between free speech, even if it may be lies, and having honest open discourse (without all of the vile, hatred that's been spewed) and knowing the truth. How can we be truly informed voters without all of the facts laid before us? What is the most regrettable thing of all-is the corporate, greedy whores think we're lemmings and that they can lead us over the cliff anytime they want to. After 9/11, most bought into the FEAR, the HATE, the NATIONALISTIC FUROR--we played a game--who could be the most patriotic and some would turn on their neighbor in a heartbeat for simply asking questions.

I blame the media for the shape we are in today. They play a major role in not informing the public adequately, outright lying, and "catapulting the propaganda." In my opinion, they bare a share of blame in what has happened in the past eight years of this country.

[Boddingham]

57. Because our media is run by the government and corporations.

They will stay on the air no matter what you think, do or feel.

[IcyPeas]

60. see this thread - they are legally allowed to lie.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6086344&mesg_id=6086344

[Synicus Maximus]

63. Because it is the most watched cable news network?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/24/fox-news-ratings-crazy-hi_n_178615.html

[Lagomorph]

64. Who watches TV, anyway?

Click.

Internet for news, thank you.

[slackmaster]

65. In my country, the usual way of handling programming we don't like is to change the channel

Problem solved.

[chucker47]

66. Jesus You hate them!

See, freedom of the press means that polarizing entities like Fox and MSNBC can continue to exist. Why "Jesus" you hate them. Hate? I guess you have a whole lot of hate huh?
Perhaps, and it's just a suggestion, you see how lucky we are to live where the freedom to speak and dissent is guaranteed to us. Canadians and citizens of the USA!

[spanone]

67. i don't think you can compare faux to msnbc, except msnbc has a vile turd like joe scarborough on

[newspeak]

70. where do we rate with freedom of press compare to other countries

in the world? Were we once rated at 53rd and now have moved to 48th? If we as a people, do not have an access to the truth or what's really happening in the world, how can we maintain a democracy? Who really has public access to express their ideas or viewpoints? Mainly, what I see is some who are allowed to spew shite with no rebuttal. Those who are given access to lie, exaggerate and talk over anyone who attempts to rebut their sometimes over the top shite. Now some of these talking heads would have been great in Hitler's regime. I mean, did we hear of any debate about the jews ruining the economy or that homosexuals are ruining our country or that gypsies are all thieves or slavs are an inferior race or socialists are really to blame for the laborers plight? No, Germany was saturated with repetitive propaganda on who was really to blame for all of Germany's woes. There was no intelligent dialog, just a bunch of hate mongering spewers of propaganda. Those who attempted to rebut were literally shot down, usually by Hitler's thuggish Brown shirts or zealots.

I'd say, the key is who is granted access to our networks and air waves. I remember there was a popular progressive radio host in SF who lost his position after Clear Channel took over. He refused to follow their corporate agenda. Do ya think they might have wanted to make him into another Limpballs? It's not merely about who is popular, it's about who fits their corporate agenda.

Unfortunately, the majority of Americans obtain their information from TV, and some with newspapers and radio. Many are just trying to make a living, staying alive, they have no time or interest to dig deeper accessing information--even though, it may be in their best interest to do so. As long as some of the most over the top talking heads keep telling them that it's their fault, or some other poor persons' fault for their dilemma, they will believe it without questioning--for their heroes have told them so. Those same talking heads will use any tools necessary, any scapegoat, to divert the attention from the real culprits of the economic hit this country has taken.