In case there was anyone out there who still took them seriously, they hired WHO?! You've got to be FKM! I get that networks hire folks with ratings in mind, but no real NEWS network would do that to the point of hiring someone completely unqualified to read news, would they? Oh wait, nevermind, it's Fox. Of course they would because they don't expect to be taken seriously.
I joked during the presidential election that I was more qualified to be a vice president than Fox's newest commentator, but geez ow! If you're here, reading this, then this time you know this 'blog alone is proof that I'm not joking when I say I think I've really got her beat in the qualifications department. You betcha.
Think about it:
-I spout off un- or ill-formed opinions with little basis in reality
-I used to be able to see Canada from my back porch
-I once edited a newspaper
-I'm professionally trained in communications
True, I'm no Joe Beercan. I'm happily married. My spouse has a degree and a better job than I do and no one in our family has supported a bridge to nowhere or been involved in domestic disputes. I was never in a beauty contest. I'm actually a veteran. In fact, I prefer thinking for myself... occasionally even before I speak!
Now, I should mention (not in the name of fairness, cuz let's face it, that has no business anywhere near this discussion) that Mrs. Palin and I do have some things in common. I've already mentioned the thinking for myself and the being able to see a foreign country from the back porch, but there 's more. I too once ran for a local public office. I too questioned why Americans should be sent to Iraq (though I wasn't referring only to an immediate family member at the time). I too believe in smaller government, although my version of it would mean gov't keeping its hands out of our wombs and weddings and coroporate sponsorship... and maybe out of marijuana enforcement! I too believe in evolution, no wait....
Look, I'm sure Mrs. Palin is a great gal and just like W, she's probably great to have a beer with, but if that's the qualification for high profile jobs these days, then I went to college with some great potential commentators and U.S. presidents even if some of them never finished. In fact many of the ones who were most fun to have a beer with didn't make it past Thanksgiving of our freshman year!
I also understand that both Fox and Palin have their loyal followers - MILLIONS on Twitter!! - but this really comes down to one of those things where you can't have it both ways. Either Fox News is serious about being a news channel, or they're not. If they were serious, they'd hire professional journalists rather than just ratings grabbers. Likewise, I think the Republicans need to decide if they're serious about a candidate to run against Obama. If they think like Fox, they can only be serious about giving Obama a second term!
Luth,
Out
7 comments:
The true journalists are in the field Chris. They just put the people on TV who will get ratings.
Like in Dirty Laundry.
Well... that was kind of my point. Fox doesn't place enough of a premium on true journalism for those hires to get any attention. Even if they did spend any money on those folks, they can't produce "news" that is inconsistent with where they spend their big money.
Thus, what they put on is not "news."
Who's Chris?
The problem is that too often there is confusion between news and commentary. There can be a fine line between the two, but they have distinct differences.
Much of what you complain about with Fox is really commentary, not pure news. Palin wasn't hired as a news reader, she was hired as a commentator on the news.
And, I would propose that the same is true with PBS, their talking heads comment on the news of the day, only from a liberal viewpoint more often. Fox = right, PBS = left.
So, I suppose to be truly balanced, one should watch both Fox and PBS. I think we do need to be careful, just because we strongly disagree with the opposing point of view, doesn't mean they don't have a right to voice their opinion and Fox and Palin have millions of followers, it might be wise to take seriously what they have to say.
That said, I never watch Fox but do watch PBS. And I'm not in love with Sarah Palin either.
PBS News? Really? I'll give Fox vs. MSNBC, maybe even CNN, but PBS? Now you're only proving that you really don't watch any news... maybe not even Fox?!
If you did, you'd know PBS only runs about 1 hour of news per day. (and If there is a news show on TV that is NOT biased, it's PBS Newshour.) I believe they run a little BBS World News as well, but they don't produce it.
C'mon Ray. Only a Fox loyalist or someone who simply watches NO news at all would ever make this claim. It's just plain silly.
I'll acknowledge your point, but the example is truly bad.
As far as the difference between news and commentary, that's only valid to a point. That point was breeched when Fox added yet another commentator to their stable... another mouthpiece who pays the bills for the "news" by spouting bile purely for the purpose of ratings.
Fox makes no bones about the fact that "fair and balanced" actually means "countering the left." And they pay for the "news" with Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, Palin, and O'Reilly.
Does anyone really expect us to believe that their "news" is not consistent with the views of the folks paying for it? Ya can't shake the Devil's hand and say yer only kiddin.
It's entertaining for a few minutes a day, but it ain't news and it ain't fair and balanced any more than this 'blog is.
I need to get you back into shape!
Luth, I have just basic cable TV - too cheap to pay for full cable - and do not have access to Fox, MSNBC or CNN. Yes, MSNBC and CNN have a rep for being quite liberal with their interpretation of the news, so I hear, but since I never see them, can't really comment on them. But, I suppose then I shouldn't comment on Fox either.
PBS is not a major news source, but PBS in general tends toward the more liberal end of the spectrum, and I do watch some of their news and analysis. Bill Moyers, he's a self proclaimed liberal who broadcasts weekly with an analysis of current events, not too different than what some of the analysts do on Fox. On the "News Hour" David Brooks is the resident conservative analyst, but he's also a darling of the left and is really more of a centrist. You won't find any true conservative analysis on PBS. But, that said, PBS deserves credit for not having any Limbaugh types of either stripe, they are rational.
I really get my news from the newspaper and online - primarily MSN online news. And my favorite commentator is a very popular blog about horses.
You're right, Luth. Chris Matthews of MSNBC is making Rush look good. He must be a righty masquerading as a lefty since he is overtly a racist.
I'm glad I happened back here... it's true that PBS's Newshour doesn't have a truly conservative analyst. Nor does it have a truly liberal anaylst. It just has analysts. They aren't beholden to any corporations or public sposnors. They don't play the game of those "sides."
The problem with that is two-fold these days.
1. most true, intelligent, rational analysis tends to look like it's targeting modern conservatism
(not ALL conservatives, not ALL republicans, but the canned crap Fox tells us that modern conservatism is)
2. unless news agents pander to one side or the other, they're accused of being the agents of the opposing side
We have lost our ability to see analysis as truly that... neutral, non-imposing or implying of anything other than what it is.
Post a Comment