![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
~
Monk is still around, though he has been quiet. He's been a little busier at the adult communities, flying with his new ability to post images. Friendlier to a general audience, he did post the following debate.
___ ___ ___
"But Fox isn't exactly pursuing a stealth strategy: anyone who can't figure out that it's in the tank with the Republican party must be brain dead."
-- Frank Rich for The New York Times
Of course, it also may be said that it's no secret that Mr. Rich is rather liberal, and many argue that the Times is biased - paper of record or not. But Rich doesn't pretend to be an objective analyst, and the Times does work on trying to maintain the high road of journalistic excellence (laugh if you must).
There is now a petition before the FTC to have Fox News cease and desist from using their noted/infamous slogan: Fair and Balanced. Yes, this petition is being put forward by MoveOn.org and Common Cause, and the Fox News spokeswoman is probably right that this is more of a "transparent publicity stunt" than anything else, perhaps another attempt at some electioneering.
Yet, Fox News presents itself as objective, non-partisan journalism, and in trying to trademark that "Fair and Balnaced" slogan, the Independent Media Institute countered, ' "fair and balanced" is so prevalent as to be generic, and is "entirely mis-descriptive" when it comes to Fox News.'
For debate: Is it not clear by now that Fox News is not on a journalistic par with CNN and MSNBC, and that Fox News is as much an organ of the Republican Party as it is a journalistic outlet?
I believe that, although it may go a little too far to call Fox the al-Jazeera of the West, it is more politically interested than journalistically objective. I flirt with the theory that Fox was created out of the somewhat mistaken impression that CNN was more like the Clinton News Network rather than objective journalism, and in trying to counter that bogeyman, they became what they were fighting against - a biased, politically interested news organ.
But, more importantly, what say you?
Monk is still around, though he has been quiet. He's been a little busier at the adult communities, flying with his new ability to post images. Friendlier to a general audience, he did post the following debate.
___ ___ ___
"But Fox isn't exactly pursuing a stealth strategy: anyone who can't figure out that it's in the tank with the Republican party must be brain dead."
-- Frank Rich for The New York Times
Of course, it also may be said that it's no secret that Mr. Rich is rather liberal, and many argue that the Times is biased - paper of record or not. But Rich doesn't pretend to be an objective analyst, and the Times does work on trying to maintain the high road of journalistic excellence (laugh if you must).
There is now a petition before the FTC to have Fox News cease and desist from using their noted/infamous slogan: Fair and Balanced. Yes, this petition is being put forward by MoveOn.org and Common Cause, and the Fox News spokeswoman is probably right that this is more of a "transparent publicity stunt" than anything else, perhaps another attempt at some electioneering.
Yet, Fox News presents itself as objective, non-partisan journalism, and in trying to trademark that "Fair and Balnaced" slogan, the Independent Media Institute countered, ' "fair and balanced" is so prevalent as to be generic, and is "entirely mis-descriptive" when it comes to Fox News.'
For debate: Is it not clear by now that Fox News is not on a journalistic par with CNN and MSNBC, and that Fox News is as much an organ of the Republican Party as it is a journalistic outlet?
I believe that, although it may go a little too far to call Fox the al-Jazeera of the West, it is more politically interested than journalistically objective. I flirt with the theory that Fox was created out of the somewhat mistaken impression that CNN was more like the Clinton News Network rather than objective journalism, and in trying to counter that bogeyman, they became what they were fighting against - a biased, politically interested news organ.
But, more importantly, what say you?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-07-20 08:53 pm (UTC)From:Hate them.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-20 08:59 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2004-07-20 09:07 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2004-07-21 06:07 am (UTC)From:So, it's important to just take our joys when we can find them, heh.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-20 09:14 pm (UTC)From:And as I've said before, I'm thankful I don't get Fox News here, because if I did I know I'd end up smashing my television, and a new television is something that I can't afford.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-20 09:16 pm (UTC)From:Gee, I wonder why American media is so fucked up.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-21 06:15 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2004-07-21 08:25 pm (UTC)From:The one comment I was dying to make to the abovementioned asshat was this:
"Yeah, I agree with you completely! I don't need things like proof or direct connections to know when someone's guilty or not. I can't stand these liberals that are always harping about finding evidence! Why are we even having a 9-11 Investigation anyway? EVERYONE knows what happened. I don't see why we need "direct connections" to prove it."
I decided not to. I just don't have the energy for flamewars... it takes a lot out of me, and it also tends to make me very hateful. :P
no subject
Date: 2004-07-20 09:43 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2004-07-21 06:20 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2004-07-21 02:04 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2004-07-21 03:23 pm (UTC)From:Thanks for the perspective! I think you are probably right.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-21 06:24 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2004-07-21 08:30 pm (UTC)From:In some ways it ebbs and flows a bit with the tide... right now, I'm sure it's getting attacked for all the coverage of the Kerry/Edwards campaign... but that's more sensationalism, less neutrality or liberal bias.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-21 08:48 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2004-07-21 08:54 pm (UTC)From:I wish you got Time Canada, there were some very great articles in last week's about the new government.
I'm still plugging to get this book Fire and Ice: The United States, Canada, and the Myth of Converging Interests (or something to that effect). I've been skimming through it a bit at it has a lot of fascinating facts and figures in it.
Check out this link for more:
http://www.penguin.ca/shared/SharedFrame?0CS^PRE144662_0_0
Take the survey too (linked in the first paragraph), it's fun.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-21 09:08 pm (UTC)From:http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=3501 (an interesting article by the author)
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0627/p02s01-woam.htm
http://www.rabble.ca/in_their_own_words.shtml?sh_itm=e7f7fba84d1e538f52b443945fb5bd2c&r=1
This last one is good because it touches on the sudden and greatly delayed epiphany I had regarding lack of health care as being a root of subconscious, and very real, triggering of basic survival instincts that I suspect cause so much of some of the social problems with you guys...
"A colleague of mine likes to explain how you could always tell the difference between the Americans and the Canadians when he was in graduate school in Chicago.
The Americans were extremely job-conscious, always concerned with their ranking in the department and how it would affect them on the academic job market. The Canadians, in contrast, had a much more blasé attitude toward the “professional” aspects of their degree; many of them planned on traveling or taking time off after graduation.
What explains this difference? As my colleague sees it, there is one fundamental factor: the day the Americans graduate is the day they have no medical insurance. No job, no healthcare."
no subject
Date: 2004-07-21 09:13 pm (UTC)From:We actually touched upon it once. (http://www.blurty.com/talkread.bml?journal=monkey_knight&itemid=114755)
no subject
Date: 2004-07-21 09:14 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2004-07-21 09:16 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2004-07-21 09:28 pm (UTC)From:I think a lot about it too. And I think that's because while a huge number of Canadians define themselves as, well, "NOT American," I think that that statement is covering up something deeper. And despite the fearsome rise of the Conservative Party, I still think that there are very pronounced differences... perhaps, too, differences that can't really be put onto the political spectrum. I think that there is something unique and very subtle here in the way the culture has come up.
So I spend a lot of time thinking about it.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-21 09:29 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2004-07-21 09:24 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2004-07-21 09:26 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2004-07-22 07:20 am (UTC)From:This is the difference that America has to be the guarantor of security in the region and the world. This is a harder onus than I think is appreciated by countries that can just take it for granted. We've gone over the ground enough, and I gather that you don't buy it at all, but I just wanted to note it for the record.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-22 10:53 pm (UTC)From:At any rate, we're not talking about political differences, but social ones.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-21 08:28 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2004-07-21 08:50 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2004-07-21 09:01 pm (UTC)From:I wish you guys could get CBC Newsworld, though I'm sure it would be seen as basically a Communist invasion given the political skew of the times.