Happy Birthday to Fox News!

 

The person who created this faux logo probably considers MSNBC balanced.

 

The Fox News Channel launched seventeen years ago today, on 7 October 1996.

 

Unbelievable how time has flown.  It doesn’t seem that long ago.  I’ve now learned from personal experience that what older people always told me, that time goes by faster and faster the more deeply one sinks into geezerhood, is true.

 

Often denounced and generally held in utter contempt by people who lean left, Fox News was a long overdue counterpoise to what those of us who lean right saw as the undeniable liberal bias of the then-major news outlets — a bias that liberals found (and continue to find) as natural and unremarkable as fish find the water in which they swim.

 

I’m grateful for Fox News, and for the other insurgent media that have broken the liberal monopoly on news and information — and that have done so with panache, in spectacular fashion.

 

 

Print Friendly

  • Loran

    This really brings the Morlocks out of their lairs in full war paint. The degree to which so many on the Left grew fat and sassy during the decades when their and only their worldview, nostrums, values, and prejudices were represented in the reporting of news and considerations of what was newsworthy and what was not, is quite startling.

    It brings up a point in my own mind that, as both conservatives and Latter-day Saints, many of us, as fallen human beings, have to be on consistent guard that we, if the situation were reversed, did not fall into the same trap and become comfortable with the censuring and suppression of opposing philosophies and perspectives.

    The answer to bad ideas, including really bad ideas (which are available in vast profusion at the present time) are, as they have always been, good ideas. Truth is the answer to falsehood, light to darkness.

  • Lucy Mcgee

    Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist writes: “The celebrity
    trolls who currently reign on commercial television, who bill
    themselves as liberal or conservative, read from the same corporate
    script. They spin the same court gossip. They ignore what the
    corporate state wants ignored. They champion what the corporate
    state wants championed. They do not challenge or acknowledge the
    structures of corporate power.”

    He goes on to write that a mere half dozen corporations control nearly everything most Americans watch or listen to, and that a lie of omission is still a lie.

    Phil Donahue, who at one time had one of the highest rated evening shows on MSNBC, was removed, by some accounts, because he dared to put people on air who questioned the rush to war in Iraq.

    Often controversial personalities, who earn millions of dollars per year, become the corporate cheerleaders who are judged by ratings and Q Score, not by their commitment to news or truth, contends Hedges.

    I first began watching CNN during the first Gulf War, in 1991 when it was solely a Ted Turner property. This rag-tag team of journalists would go anywhere to ferret out important news stories. Today, CNN is populated by talk show host type personalities who in my opinion, add to long deterioration of what news should be.

    Our local Oregonian in Portland, has had to lay off a bevy of reporters because of budget cutting measures, which means fewer people on the ground, doing the necessary work to expose the news, where ever it may reside.

    Lately, if become a fan of Al Jazeera America which to my mind offers unbiased and in depth news of the world. And there is also the PBS NewsHour where issues are often discussed at length.

    • Loran

      “Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist writes: “The celebrity
      trolls who currently reign on commercial television, who bill
      themselves as liberal or conservative, read from the same corporate
      script. They spin the same court gossip. They ignore what the
      corporate state wants ignored. They champion what the corporate
      state wants championed. They do not challenge or acknowledge the
      structures of corporate power.””

      This is the standard neo-Marxist conspiracy theory used to explain away the Left’s utter domination of the major institutions of society every time the curtain is pulled back on the Wizard. Its not intellectually serious, Lucy, and so really deserves no further comment, unless one takes the Occupy Movement seriously enough to engage its vapid anti-capitalist fantasies on intellectually serious grounds.

      “Phil Donahue, who at one time had one of the highest rated evening shows on MSNBC, was removed, by some accounts, because he dared to put people on air who questioned the rush to war in Iraq.”

      This is so mind-bendingly preposterous that it threatens physical brain damage, Lucy. MSNBC has been long famous as the farthest to the Left of a family of leftist MSM entities who’s support for the Palestinian cause, radical chic affection for Arafat, ferocious opposition to Israel, and overt hostility to the American military is hardly arguable. Donahue was on network television for 29 years as a spokesman for the anti-anti communist, neo-Marxist cultural and political progressive Left.

      Now, back to serious discourse (and is it really any mystery that atheists tend to take these kinds of claims seriously?)

      • Lucy Mcgee

        This has nothing to do with “left” or “right” but with corporate control of the vast majority of our national media. How often, for example, have you heard at length discussion of global ocean acidification, or decline in the ocean’s most important fish stocks, or the destruction of coral reefs, etc.?

        Ted Turner, who is media savvy, has discussed this at length.

        My point, is that there is a definite bias among large corporately owned media conglomerates, which craft their content for ratings.

        I’m happy that the internet offers less biased news reporting sites, some of which offer live news feeds (Al Jazeera America).

        • DanielPeterson

          It’s leftist ideology. The pretense of being non-leftist and non-ideological is mere spin.

          • Lucy Mcgee

            Happy Birthday Fox News!

          • Crixus

            You’re pretty much embarrassing yourself Dan when all you can do is act like the typical FOX News knuckle-dragger we come across at work or on facebook. The only people I know who speak so highly of FOX, and do so with a straight face, and those who have never finished school. You know, people like Loran Blood, or Glen Beck, or Sean Hannity. That’s some great company you’re in! You just praise FOX for saving journalism from the Left and then when facts are thrown in your face, you just dismiss it all as liberal bias or what not. Circular reasoning at its finest. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, given your history of responding to critics of Mormons. You debate nothing. You just whine about how their perspective is flawed and biased because they’re anti-Mormon.

          • DanielPeterson

            With Crixus/Kevin, it virtually always comes down to personal attacks. The basic menu is pretty limited; those whose views he dislikes are, typically, either idiots/morons, liars, cowards, or some combination of these.

            Here, those whom he targets are “knuckle draggers,” “never finished school,” are guilty of “circular reasoning,” and, implicitly, cowards.

            This is why I don’t engage Kevin Graham.

            I do hope, though, that he’ll soon decide to forego ALL the products of those who never finished school — such as Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Ted Turner, David Geffen, Larry Ellison, Mark Zuckerberg, and Michael Dell.

            Life would probably be better for Kevin, and certainly for many of the rest of us.

          • Loran

            “With Crixus/Kevin, it virtually always comes down to personal attacks. The basic menu is pretty limited; those whose views he dislikes are, typically, either idiots/morons, liars, cowards, or some combination of these.

            Here, those whom he targets are “knuckle draggers,” “never finished school,” are guilty of “circular reasoning,” and, implicitly, cowards.

            This is why I don’t engage Kevin Graham.”

            And also why I left the Trailerpark, where this style of “discourse” is the coin of the realm

        • Loran

          Crixus…is this who I think it is?

          • DanielPeterson

            It’s Kevin Graham, of course.

            His style — as it were — is unmistakable.

        • Loran

          “This has nothing to do with “left” or “right” but with corporate control of the vast majority of our national media.”

          There would barely be an American Left without corporate America, Lucy. Count your blessings.

          “How often, for example, have you heard at length discussion of global ocean acidification, or decline in the ocean’s most important fish stocks, or the destruction of coral reefs, etc.?”

          Oh, I don’t know, countless times since the early seventies. By the middle seventies, eco-hysteria and apocalyptic scares were already at saturation levels on many science documentaries and the nightly news (and other places – the junior high school science handouts I still have when we studied ecology are loaded with environmentalist propaganda).

          Oh, and just a couple things: the oceans are not becoming acid, and cannot become acid. Barring a cosmic catastrophe of some kind, this is a physical impossibility.

          Coral reef bleaching has been (as most environmental problems, when they actually exist) substantially exaggerated. The causes are complex (and have been occurring, periodically, for millions of years).

          “Ted Turner, who is media savvy, has discussed this at length.”

          Ted Turner is a sugar frosted flake, Lucy, if you hadn’t noticed previously.

          “My point, is that there is a definite bias among large corporately owned media conglomerates,”

          Yes, overwhelmingly to the Left, which has been noticed by many millions of people and some of the best minds modern American intellectual history.

          You seem to be laboring under the delusion that corporations qua corporations are somehow associated, in some necessary way, with conservatism, or with free-market philosophy.

          Nothing could be further from the truth, and that never was the truth. Ask any Austrian economist. Ask David Horowitz. American corporations are among the major funders of the Left, second only to the foundations, and they have never been inherently pro-free market.

          Ever here of the ethanol industry? The wind generation industry? The solar panal/cell industry? The electric car battery industry? GM?

          • Lucy Mcgee

            Your ignorance is scary and troubling.

          • Loran

            Thanks for not sharing any further deep fat fried junk science, Lucy.

            I’ve had more than my share over the last thirty years

          • Lucy Mcgee

            And I’m certain the majority of the world’s scientists, including those
            at the NAS are happy about that. Complex topics are difficult to
            explain to those who have their heads buried in the muck.

          • DanielPeterson

            “‘I find your lack of faith . . . troubling,’ Lord Vader replied.”

    • DanielPeterson

      Sorry, Lucy McGee, but I regard “corporate state” conspiracy theories as, on the whole, pure lunatic leftist fantasy.

      • Lucy Mcgee

        Of course. One would expect nothing less.

        • Loran

          See my response above, Lucy, to your Michael Mooreish flight into ideological navel gazing.

      • David_Naas

        :) As opposed to the pure rightist fantasies which surround the President of the United States? :)
        Not that any “side” has a monopoly on silliness, but my understanding is that contention (which fuels TV ratings and internet blogs) comes from You-Know-Who. I truly wish that we could eliminate “sides”, or “faction” as Madison called it.
        Better, I recall reading of the supplication Ollie Cromwell made to the Long Parliament, “I beseech ye, by the bowels of Christ, think ye may be wrong.” This last weekend, people heard good advice to “doubt their doubts”. There are, especially in regard to secular goop like politics and economics and sociology, for which “science” is a long way off, good cause to “doubt our certainties”, and have charity, rather than resorting immediately to calumny, vilification, and demonizing the opposition. (Like what happened to Mormons a century or so ago.)
        We do, absolutely, need to hear all sides, but the proliferation of specialized media outlets simply ends with folks only hearing what they want to hear and ignoring the rest. I know of no one but myself, sadly, who checks our regularly both TAC and TAP, Townhall and Mother Jones — and if you don’t know who those are, well, you should.

        But, what do I know?

        • DanielPeterson

          “As opposed to the pure rightist fantasies which surround the President of the United States?”

          I’m not at all into birther conspiracies or that sort of thing — is that what you’re referring to? — and I regard them as utter paranoid fantasies. Not much different, in other words, than Lucy McGee’s leftist “corporate state” nonsense.

          • David_Naas

            Not referring to any particular, as it was an obvious (to me?) tongue-in-cheek cheap shot at the phrase used (not at the person). I find that none of us are innocent, and all of us can stand a call to repentance, as the remainder of my comment should have made clear. Unless, you were implying that I said something which I did not mean to?
            That the first remark was not clear as satire was entirety my fault. I should perhaps learn to communicate better, before casting aspersions on an infelicitous phrase.

          • Crixus

            But FOX is notorious for its staunch position on such things. Heck they even created a lot of these conspiracy theories.

        • Loran

          “I truly wish that we could eliminate “sides”, or “faction” as Madison called it.”

          How might this be accomplished?

          • David_Naas

            Loran,
            In all honesty, I wish I knew. My only solution is one which I can implement only for myself, namely to remember that those who disagree, even vehemently and violently, with my opinions are human beings and children of the same Father, and to recall how often I have voiced silly notions only to find they were wrong. That, and giving other people the Benefit of Doubt. After all, most of the socio-political commentary out there on TV and internet is deliberately designed to cause hate and discontent, and to crank up rating for money, power, or ego. This is what is destroying society, but the endorphin rush is so much fun, almost all of us (including myself) tend to like stomping into combat to slay the Evil Dragon. There aren’t any Dragons, just fallible human beings out there, even the trolls.

        • Phil

          Count me as uninformed, but what are TAC and TAP?

          • David_Naas

            The American Conservative and The American Prospect.

    • Minjae_Lee

      It’s the Jews! The Jews control it all! – conspiracy theories are so fun.

      • DanielPeterson

        Be careful. Don’t write so loudly. They’ll get you.

  • Grotoff

    Surveys are clear. Watchers of FoxNews are consistently less informed about the world than those who eschew obvious propaganda.

    If you want a specific example, just look at the last election. Right up until the final moment FoxNews was stubbornly insisting that the polls were wrong and that Romney was on the path to victory. Their anchors actually got up and challenged the statisticians who called Ohio for Obama. That is how deluded they are. No wonder so many TEApublicans are certain that there must be mountains of voter fraud for Obama, despite a total dearth of evidence.

    • DanielPeterson

      I’m aware of the much-criticized Fairleigh Dickinson University study. Got anything else?

      (Even in that one, by the way, MSNBC scored nearly as low.)

      • Grotoff

        Actually, the survey demonstrated that MSNBC did not produce more knowledgeable consumers of news while FoxNews actually made people LESS informed. I’m no particular fan of MSNBC’s blatant attempt to become the left-leaning version of FoxNews, but the very fact that they have had to transform themselves demonstrates FoxNews’ inherent right-wing bias.

        I take it you have nothing to say about my specific example? People like that “unskewedpolls.com” lunatic demonstrate how damaging it is to only feed your mind with things that you already agree with.

        Here’s another of many studies showing that when it comes for basic facts, FoxNews makes you dumber. Note, being conservative doesn’t necessarily make you dumber, but FoxNews helps.
        http://www.people-press.org/2007/04/15/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions/

        • DanielPeterson

          No, I have nothing to say about any of this, which all strikes me as rather stupid.

          • Grotoff

            Yes, relying on FoxNews for anything other than right-wing propaganda is pretty stupid. At least even Ailes couldn’t stomach that clown Beck any longer.

            Libertarian columnist Conor Friedersdorf examples why Conservatives need to lay off the infortainment propaganda.
            http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/11/how-conservative-media-lost-to-the-msm-and-failed-the-rank-and-file/264855/

          • DanielPeterson

            Color me stupid, then. Because I’m plainly too dumb to realize that George Will, Jennifer Griffin, Bill Kristol, Michael Barone, Steve Forbes, Judith Miller, Britt Hume, Brett Baier, Catherine Herridge, and Fred Barnes are just right-wing propagandists.

            Of course, some of them have fooled the faculties at Oxford, Harvard, and Princeton, as well, not to mention, in at least two of their cases, the Pulitzer Prize judges.

            Good thing YOU’RE so smart, Grotoff!

          • Grotoff

            All of those people confidently called the election for Romney. Many of them predicted a landslide. You don’t have to be very smart to be smarter than them.

          • DanielPeterson

            Don’t be so modest, Grotoff. They’re obviously all idiots — even though most of them had absolutely nothing to do with predicting the results of the 2012 presidential election, and even though absolutely NOBODY “called it” for Romney — and, very plainly, you’re a genius. As, of course, all leftists are. (That’s why the country’s doing so well!)

          • Crixus

            That moron who appears on FOX every election cycle, Dick Morris, called it for Romney and your friend Scott Pierson (from ZLMB) told me on facebook “mark my words, Romney will win in a Landslide.” He admitted that his source for this was none other than FOX News’ Dick Morris. Despite Morris’ awful track record of predicting elections, FOX keeps him on because he tells them what they want to hear. And who could forget Karl Rove having a conniption fit on FOX News as they called it for Obama!

          • DanielPeterson

            “Moron.”

            Typical Crixus/Kevin.

          • kiwi57

            But Dan, that’s your fault. Remember, you’re the uncivil one.

          • DanielPeterson

            That’s right. It’s always my fault. Always. I’m vicious.

          • Grotoff

            George Will specifically said that Romney would get more than 300 electoral votes.
            http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/11/04/george_will_predicts_romney_wins_big_321-217.html

            Seriously, you’re only deluding yourself with this defensive posture. You don’t have to be a liberal to see how poisonous FoxNews partisan infortainment is. Friedersdorf certainly isn’t. Neither is David Frum, an actual speechwriter for Bush.

          • kiwi57

            Grotoff,
            Can you tell the difference between “could” and “would?”

            It’s relevant. It might be useful.

            And he outright admits that one of the states he predicted going to Romney was a long shot.

            It looks to be somewhat short of “calling it for Romney.”

          • Grotoff

            Yeah, no. He’s predicting that Romney will win the election in a landslide. He’s saying that he might even win Minnesota, which Obama would go on to win by 7 percentage points. Any way you slice it, that’s just fantasy. It misinforms. That’s the point here. Will and other Republican operatives used FoxNews, and other outlets, to misinform the rank and file. It’s simply self-destructive to rely on it for actual news.

      • Crixus

        A lot of these studies that refer to liberal bias do nothing more than count the number of shows that criticize the left vs. the right and then engage in correlation = causation fallacy. For example a recent FOX episode said the media is blaming Republicans for the Government shut down. This is true, but for FOX, this is proof of bias! But the facts are the facts. The government shutdown is absolutely the fault of GOP Teapublicans, and many Republicans have admitted as much. There is really no room for debate on this matter as Boehner refuses to permit a vote to end the shutdown. But for the idiots at FOX, this is an “Obama shutdown” because he won’t negotiate the dismantling of a law that Congress passed! SO the fact that FOX goes against the facts is proof that they are the ones with an agenda. There was a great documentary about this called “Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s war on Journalism” and it can be seen online here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IwIRNM5noY

        • DanielPeterson

          “Idiots.”

          Kevin/Crixus probably can’t go more than two or three posts without using this word or a synonym.

    • RaymondSwenson

      Karl Rove, clearly a partisan, who was working as a comnentator, was the one who argued about the pollsters’ projections. It was not any “anchor” person. Indeed, my recollection is that the anchor on duty (Megan Kelly?) Argued with Rove for the validity of their projections, and walked him down to the polkster office so they could rub his.nose in it.

      • Grotoff

        She was as shocked as Rove and certainly was not “rubbing his nose” in his disbelief. FoxNews had been confidently proclaiming the polls skewed and Romney on a path to victory for weeks leading up the election. In the end, they did actually have to hire objective statisticians to call races as quickly as possible and get as ahead as possible of other news organizations. Classic modern infotainment tactic, but it certainly undermined their narrative.

        Read this Friedersdorf article.
        http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/11/how-conservative-media-lost-to-the-msm-and-failed-the-rank-and-file/264855/

        • RaymondSwenson

          I watched it live with my own eyes. Rove’s criticism was being rebutted, and she walked down to the polling analysis office, taking the camera along, to force him to admit he was wrong. And then the polling analysis people did it.

          • Grotoff

            Sorry, I saw it too. Rove insisted that Romney was going to win Minnesota and Kelly (as driven a radical shill as any on the network) went down to the polling analysis to make sure there hadn’t been a mistake. FoxNews had been confidently declaring that Romney was ahead or at least neck and neck right up until election day. That’s been carefully documented.

            And now, they are working to undermine rank and file understanding of the current shutdown and default threat. They are poison on the body politic.
            http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/10/conservative-medias-tribal-loyalty-weakens-the-gop/280446/

  • Heath Dowers

    It is sundown in America! After reading almost everything of President Ezra Taft Benson, the self avowed libertarian, it is clear to me that he and President J. Rueben Clark Jr. are being vindicated by the current events in this country.

    • Heath Dowers

      As Hugh Nibley stated, “Time Vindicates the Prophets.”

  • rockyrd

    While I agree that most news outlets are “balanced” to the left, the Muslims I talk to all say that if there is one place Islam will not get a fair shake (or any shake) is on Fox News. I seldom if ever watch it.

    • DanielPeterson

      There may be some truth to that. Not a huge amount, but some.

  • Crixus

    I used to be one of those Right Wing nuts who swallowed the corporate funded propaganda about a terrible “leftist” media bias, and I loved FOX news during the early Bush years until I started to realize how it drove me to become more and more of an anti-Muslim, anti-Immigrant, and anti-science. Their quality of news and accuracy is quite frankly the worst there is, and it is scary to know that this is the news program people watch the most. Take for example this recent attempt by FOX to turn a lie into news, only because it got people to fear Muslims: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/10/05/fox-falls-for-fake-story-about-obama-personally/196304 This is something that is a regular thing at FOX, and they are never held accountable because that would be “liberal bias”! So it is rather ironic that Dan Peterson of all people would come out of the closet and admit he’s been “Hannitized” by FOX News when it is by far the most anti-Islam program there is. Of course it does explain his incessant ranting and misinformed posting about Obama, every time one of the college drop outs at FOX (Hannity, OReilly or Beck) tells him some juicy conspiracy theory. His attempt to verify anything FOX says is non existent. He knows it has to be true because he begins with this silly presupposition that everything is liberal and therefore biased. I remember when the FOX news attack dogs snagged a remark out of context to assert that Obama told a business owner he “didn’t build that.” While legitimate news agencies and fact-checkers were exposing it for teh deception it was, Dan was one of the first among the Neo-Con zealots to praise this “news” as if it were factual. He then wrote a blog entry attacking Obama for something he never said. That’s just crazy coming from a man who expects absolute charity when people are left to interpret his own remarks on whatever topic.

    • Loran

      “I used to be one of those Right Wing nuts who swallowed the corporate funded propaganda about a terrible “leftist” media bias, and I loved FOX news during the early Bush years until I started to realize how it drove me to become more and more of an anti-Muslim, anti-Immigrant, and anti-science.”

      Whether “Crixus” was ever authentically a conservative, or whether he’s really authentically a leftist now, you just cannot combine the bubbling paranoia of Michael Moore, the sputtering hostility of Keith Olbermann, and the intellectual depth of Jerry Brown without creating something pretty Halloweenie.

      “…Dan was one of the first among the Neo-Con zealots to praise this “news” as if it were factual.”

      Hmm…I didn’t know Daniel was a Jewish ex-Trotskyite radical from the East Coast who became a Reaganite in the eighties just in time for the collapse of the evil empire. Live and learn, I guess…

  • Lucy Mcgee

    The greatest several things (to me) about Fox News, are that Dr. Peterson wished it happy birthday, and that its owner, Rupert Murdoch was once a socialist, who built his media empire with sales of trashy tabloid papers which offered up not only the latest scandal, dishing dirt on any failing human proclivity found out, but also offered titillating images of nude women. Sales soared as did Murdoch’s media empire.

    His once prosperous flagship “News of the World”, was shut down in 2011 after Murdoch and his paper were implicated in a massive phone hacking scandal in Great Britain to the chagrin of those who wanted to see his massive UK media empire (including Sky Television), succeed. His story is filled with intrigue as can be seen in this Frontline documentary.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/murdochs-scandal/

    FOX News is Mr. Murdoch’s foray into the US TV news market, along with his properties “The Wall Street Journal” and “Dow Jones” among others. His list of media properties is massive.

    Who needs conspiracy theories when you’ve got the news and control of information?

    • RaymondSwenson

      I was just reading Bill Bryson’s account of how Murdoch purchased the English newspaper he worked at, where feather bedding (nonjobs protected by the unions) was rampant, and instituted common sense reforms to pay people only for working. Fiscal sensibility is increasingly necessary if newspapers are going to survive.

      • Lucy Mcgee

        I agree. But there is also the scandal of hacking into thousands of voice-mails, (to come up with tabloid sensational articles to sell copy, which ultimately led to the end of that paper) to consider.

        Corporate entities reporting news should have the public’s best interest in mind. Rupert Murdoch built his empire on publishing the worst within society.

        • DanielPeterson

          And Joseph P. Kennedy made much of his money with lowbrow Hollywood movies and importing liquor (at least some of it, most likely, bootleg).

          So what?

          There are plenty of reasons for failing to reverence his son Jack, but Joseph’s personal corruption, sympathies for fascism, and obsessive womanizing aren’t high on the list.

          And William Randolph Hearst was the prototype for “Citizen Kane.” Does that discredit the Hearst newspapers?

          • Lucy Mcgee

            Joseph Kennedy and Prescott Bush, as well some Wall Street bankers also had ties to the Nazi regime (I.G. Farben, etc.) as discussed by John Loftus (more conspiracy theory).

            So what? So it’s important to have an understanding of history and especially the history of those who are among the controlling elite within our nation. Unfortunately, only a small minority have the time or inclination to understand the history of our “purveyors of truth”.

            For me, history is important, because it offers a glimpse into what motivates people. I don’t believe that Rupert Murdoch’s life ambition was to produce a news channel that faithfully reported news in an unbiased format. Far from it.

            What’s interesting is that Ted Turner, a true nemesis of Murdoch, believed in unvarnished news which can be seen in the early days of CNN.

          • DanielPeterson

            I suspect that Mr. Murdoch wants to make money.

            An unprecedented revelation, and certainly something that hasn’t been true of leftists like George Soros, who seem to have fallen into their wealth by the financial equivalent of the Virgin Birth, suddenly waking up, eyes blinking, to find themselves enormously rich.

            I have no problem at all with watching rich people. I don’t believe them to be any more righteous than the poor and the middle class.

            I just don’t like conspiracy theories.

            I love William F. Buckley’s response when he heard the claim of the John Birch Society’s Robert Welch, that Eisenhower was a conscious, card-carrying member of the Communist conspiracy. “Eisenhower’s not a Communist,” Buckley replied. “He’s a golfer.”

          • Lucy Mcgee

            Of course humans want to make money. It is seemingly innate, or is it? How many yachts, mansions or commercial properties does one need to own to feel successful or accomplished in life, as the vast majority of the world’s population lives on a few dollars a day?

            As a religious scholar, you surely understand Matthew 19:24. I don’t understand how any believers in the New Testament reconcile this passage given the income disparities existing in our world, but I’d be interested in understanding your viewpoint.

          • DanielPeterson

            You’re drifting.

            And I need to tell you that I’m going to be in classes and office consultations and the library for most of the rest of the day, and then am flying out of state tomorrow. I’ll be on the road into early next week.

            Anyway, my own personal feelings about how much is enough are irrelevant here. Seeking to make money in a free and open market is legal and, as such, ethical. It’s not for me to impose my personal standards of sufficiency on other free people in a free republic.

          • Lucy Mcgee

            I tend to drift, frequently. Best of luck with your agenda.

            By the way, it’s not the making of money that is the concern, but the sharing of it. How many yachts can one water ski behind?

          • RaymondSwenson

            When a wealthy person buys a yacht, he is employing the people who design it, provide the components, build it, and then operate it. He can’t help but put money iinto the pockets of other people, because he can’t use his wealth without “sharing” it in exchange for what he wants. While we might want him to give out more money as donations to the poor, the people who are employed when he spends his money would rather get paid that way than as recipients of gifts. For one thing, it is a mor reliable way of life for the recipients.
            Recently a large private yacht sailed up the Columbia River to Richland. In an interview with the local newspaper, the river pilot said that the yacht had sailed from Miami to Alaska and was on its way back when the owners decided to see the river. He said the yacht cost $36 million a year to run. Again, that is money that the owners don’t see again, which goes into the pockets of those who provide goods and services to them. Nobody is harmed by these facts. If you are jealous and want your own yacht, you are free to so order your life to try to achieve the same level of wealth.

          • Lucy Mcgee

            What I find interesting about your statement, is that it is the very same one used by the uber wealthy who make excuses for their greed as the income gap between the planet’s population and them grows ever wider. What’s interesting is that in the USA, this income disparity has climbed each year for the past 30 years while middle America’s wages have stagnated or decreased.

            But please, they need cheerleaders. Oh, and by the way, how many kids could be educated for $36 million a year, a number by the way, which seems just a bit ludicrous to me for operating a yacht. Even Warren Buffet would have trouble with that one I suspect, given that he’s lived in the same modest (by a billionaires standards) home for many years.

            And there are people harmed, especially when wealth is made by extracting resources from third world nations, leaving them indebted, or having lobbyists write laws which direct spending toward a particular industry (thinking of the industrial military complex).

            How is it that the entire world financial system could have been brought to the edge of the abyss, with millions of people still recovering from the financial mess created by wealthy Wall Street bankers (thinking Richard Fuld, etc), and have them earning more today, than they did in 2008?

            You are absolutely incorrect when you write that no one is harmed by the wealthy. Enron comes to mind.

    • DanielPeterson

      The Wall Street Journal. Just another right-wing rag.

      Rich people own things. Scandalous!

      • Lucy Mcgee

        Rich people control things, and their history should be noted.

        • DanielPeterson

          “Noting” is fine. Paranoia, though, is not.

          • Lucy Mcgee

            Fortunately, I don’t suffer from that affliction.

  • noel

    I watch Jon Stewart to keep me up to date with the silliness that passes for news on Fox.

    • DanielPeterson

      I hope that was a joke, noel.

      • noel

        Its a shame that Romney did not appear on his show. A lot of conservatives were falling over themselves to appear on the show. Jon is always civil to them, does not talk over them like O’Reilly does and does not think he is infallible (like O’Reilly). BillO’s wife left him for a young detective who O’Reilly tried to get investigated by his superiors. Jon made an interesting comment “Its no wonder some conservatives are against gay marriage and support traditional marriage, they do it so often”. Sometimes I see you dan as the Bill O’Reilly of Mormonism. Large, opinionated and sometimes a bully.I suppose Jon’s show is on a bit late for you.Get yourself some hot postum and slippers and watch. One of his staff, a female comedian and LDS puts bleeps over any bad language that may offend your ears.

        • DanielPeterson

          You think you know me, noel, But you don’t.

          To those who know me, your comment above would be laughable.

  • RaymondSwenson

    The illustration appears to show a KC-135 aerial refueling tanker dropping bombs, with an extra engine on one wing. Ignorance made manifest.

    • DanielPeterson

      The illustrator must have been a Fox News fan.

      No. Wait. I’m confused.

  • DanielPeterson

    I think, Jeff Elhardt, that you think you have some sort of point. Care to share it with the rest of us?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X