So, the brain trust at Fox News decided to alter photographs of two New York Times reporters because they dared to report that MSNBC and CNN are closing in on Fox New in the ratings.  I should surprised by this why?  Is there is a more thin skinned group of people out there please point them out.  The first instinct of these playground bullies is to attack; attack mean, dirty, and underhanded.

So, Fox News is saying it’s OK for them to be a bunch of right wing fanatics, but MSNBC is not allowed to be left-leaning?  This so-called “news” channel better hope a Democrat gets elected in November or they face ever greater irrelevance.

I just don’t understand the Bancroft family’s reluctance to sell Dow Jones and Co. to Rupert Murdoch on the basis of editorial independence for The Wall Street Journal.  The editorial page pf WJS is already one of the most right-wing editorial pages in the country; what about Rupert Murdoch’s politics will not mesh with that? OK, maybe they’re concerned with reports that Murdoch has killed stories in his New York Post that didn’t make his best friend China look to good, but again would something like that end up on the Journal’s editorial page?  If the Bancrofts don’t want to sell they need to tell the man no; otherwise, put up or shut up.

You don’t say? I think we can file that under “No shit, Sherlock!” He goes on to say the atmosphere among the news media has grown toxic in reference to President Bush, which I find extraordinarily hypocritical considering the far more toxic environment that existed during the Clinton administration. An environment, Mr. Murdoch’s various news media helped create and foment.

Some are raising questions about the implications of Democrats withdrawing from debates co-sponsored by Fox News because of alleged pressure from online liberal activists. I find myself both agreeing and disagree with these so-called implications. First, why should candidates fear any sort of retribution from Fox News? By itself Fox News is not all that powerful. The network is seen by an average of 2 million viewers a day — quite literally a drop in the box of all television viewers. Moreover, they are a niche cable network pandering to a specific political group that doesn’t even speak for a majority of the nation. Granted, the Conservative Machine is quite loud and powerful, but again the people who will listen this this Machine are people who would never vote for Democrats to begin with, so what’s the loss here in terms of voters. The people who listen to Fox News and its many sister outlets in Conservative are never going to vote for a Democrat unless he’s a “democrat” like Joe Lieberman. People have been overestimating the power of Fox News for years and the fact that a three of the major candidates are choosing not to participate in a debate sponsored by them means, in my humble opinion, very little.

However, one reporter in this piece brings up a valid point: if the Democrats cannot stand up to the loud mouths of Fox News what kind of impression are they giving? As fools like Bill O’Reilley prove on a daily basis, they cannot stand it was a Liberal or Progressive has the guts to call them on their bullshit. It’s not even that difficult to do if you have the balls for it. Hillary Clinton has shown on more than one occasion she has the balls the stand up for herself against Fox BS and more candidates should be like that.

Should they attend the debate? At this point I don’t think it really matters. There will be more than enough debates heading towards the primaries, so getting out the message will not be the problem. By side-stepping Fox News the candidates are avoiding having to deal with a group who will be hostile to their message and spend the post-debate time tearing them to piece. However, once the candidates are chosen, I think they should reach out to Fox News and this idea that Fox News will not be receptive is just foolish. They need Democrats to rails against to keep their viewers happy.

According to Roger Ailes, head of Fox News, Democrats will rue the day if they choose to boycott his network during the upcoming election.  First, I think Ailes needs to get over himself.  Fox News may still be popular, but the network has been losing viewers for years.  They have no more control over who Americans vote for than any other network. Yeah, Fox News is pretty much the mouthpiece of right wing bullshit politics, but those people aren’t going to vote for a Democrat anyway.  So, get over yourself, Rog.  Second, I think Democrats are handling this wrong.  No, unlike Ailes I don’t think the boycott infringes on freedom of speech.  Get real, Rog, they’re not stopping you from comparing Barak Obama to Osama bin Laden; they’re just saying they won’t participate.  However, what Democrats are doing is giving Fox News too much power over them.  It would have been better to attend the debate, I think, and denounce Fox News there.  Moreover, Barak Obama needs to develop a thicker skin because this is nothing compared to what could happen if he wins the nomination.

URL: Fox News Channel’s Smith Buoys Reputation (AP)

Let me say this first:  I despise the Fox “News” Channel.  I think its entire existence is to be little more than an unrelentingly loud advocate for conservative politics of the asinine kind — the Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly kind.  That being said, I have on occasion taken in Shepard Smith’s newscast.  Unlike so many of his Fox cohorts, Smith does a relatively good job of presenting the news.  Of course, that doesn’t stop him from parroting Republican talking points like any other FNC personality.  However, since Hurricane Katrina we’ve seen a different Shepard Smith, a real journalist for a change.  Like so many journalists who witnessed the aftermath of Katrina, he spoke from the heart and wore his emotions on the outside.  I will give him this, he was good. 

This has, of course, caused Smith’s star to rise.  His ratings are up, he’s more well-know, and he’s even appearing on the late night talk shows.  In this article by the AP, a puff piece to be sure, he says something I find interesting:

“I didn’t get into this to be an advocacy journalist,” he said. “I think our job is to tell people what’s going on and let them make their decisions on how to react to things based on the facts and just the facts. It’s a very difficult world we live in, in this business, to just stick to the facts, and I try very hard to do that.”

That statement alone flies in the face of what FNC does on a daily basis and also flies in the face of what some bloggers say journalists should be.  Many would say that FNC is successful because its “reporters” have shed the onerous idea of objectivity.  Smith seems to be saying the opposite.  He seems to be saying his objectivity, while certainly emotional, is what made his reporting on Katrina so good.  When his Conservative cohorts attempt to blame those who were too poor to get out of

New Orleans

, he was more concerned with presenting a full picture.  That’s reporting.  Objectivity with a heart should be, in my opinion, the future of journalism.