RE: More enthusiasm than news in Fox's coverage of war

From: gts (gts_2000@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue May 13 2003 - 21:51:47 MDT

  • Next message: Harvey Newstrom: "RE: "Hysteria, Thy Name is SARS""

    Lee Corbin wrote:

    > I wonder how they would respond; perhaps by saying that
    > Hannity is balanced by Colmes.

    Yes I think they would respond that way. However I think Hannity is not
    balanced by Colmes. Unlike Colmes, Hannity is nice-looking, articulate,
    fast-taking and photogenic. Looks to me like Colmes is a punching bag for
    Hannity.

    > But if so, who balances O'Reilly?

    No one does. And if his guests try to put him in place then he cuts them
    off.

    > Unless someone can name another show on Fox hosted
    > by someone as left- leaning as O'Reilly is right, then I must agree
    > with you.

    We'll be waiting a long time on that one. :)

    > I don't really know what they mean by "News without the
    > Spin".

    Mike tells me that I am mistaken about this; that only O'Reilly talks about
    no-spin, but if so then my memory is failing me. I could swear that I've
    seen Hannity and others make similar claims many times.

    > Have you seen me
    > in this discussion, or do you expect to see me in this
    > discussion, take pot shots at the left?

    No. Not sure why you ask.
     
    > Sorry, I don't swallow a bit of this. There was no way, for
    > example, that CBS could have gotten rid of Cronkite and the
    > huge network of left-biased reporters around him.

    They would have dumped Cronkite in a heart-beat if the ratings had dropped.
    But the people *loved* Cronkite.

    Your conspiracy theory is what is hard to swallow.

    > Why do you think these apathetic people liberal? I think
    > them to be almost completely non-ideological.

    Speaking generally, it is a basic fact of society that economically
    challenged people tend to be liberal-minded even if many of them are too
    apathetic to get out and vote. This in fact is the strong suit of the
    democratic party: the key to the party's success is getting those large
    masses of people to vote. Clinton did a fine job of it, and now he even has
    an office in Harlem as a sort of gesture of gratitude to the people got out
    and voted for him. Unfortunately for the Dems, for every under-privileged
    person who votes for a Bill Clinton there are probably a dozen more who
    don't bother.

    However many of those folks *do* watch the evening news. And Neilson calls
    them on the phone at night to find out what they're watching, and why. (I
    know, because I once long ago had a job making those telephone calls). If
    the people tell Neilson that they like liberal reporters like Walter
    Cronkite then the networks keep giving them liberal reporters like Walter
    Cronkite. Good Neilson ratings sell more advertising which makes more money
    for the network, and it is money that makes the world go 'round.

    -gts



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 13 2003 - 22:02:22 MDT