Originally Posted by jessi
Liberals had a stranglehold on journalism for years and still do. Like any good business would do is to fill a gap. Fox is capitalizing off something that was not offered in that industry for years. Are they biased? Hell ya! There is no doubt. The Obama administration made a big flaw. A BIG EFFIN flaw. They went after one network. One network that was a opponent of its policies. They did not go after MSNBC... another radical outlet on the other side of the spectrum. The question is why would they do so? If we are going accept this idea of the so called "post partisan era" why is the white house seemingly adopting a tactic adopted by Hugo Chavez. Started with "They are not a legitimate news outlet."
A new spin on Goodwin's Law
I see your point, and while I don't dispute your central argument that the other news outlets are, at times, lacking in journalistic integrity right up there with Fox--I cannot agree with your assertion that they are "radical" to the same extent as Fox. MSNBC has never to my knowledge organized a protest, paid for the transport of protesters to the event, and then chided the other outlets for "not covering" the event (despite actual coverage by all networks). Fox has. One merely has to look at its tea bag...tea party...tea bag? shenanigans for evidence of this.
Additionally, the line between news and opinion shows is much more clearly defined on CNN and MSNBC, whereas Fox blurs that line by repeating talking points on "news" shows promulgated--if not fabricated--by its own opinion shows. For example, no one watches "Countdown" with Keith Olbermann and thinks they are watching the unbiased news--it is clearly opinion. Ditto The Glenn Beck Show. Where the WH was justified in calling out Fox is from the Glenn Beck memes crossing over into Fox's hourly programming, and then worming their way into questions asked at WH press conferences. That is just nuts....and a different sort of creature than MSNBC/CNN is at this time