Ed Aycock wrote: Rob, Pauline Kael was a movie critic.  Her opinion isn't really one to readily cite unless she was referring to Stone's 1995 biopic.

Ed, no shit in plain english,. I was citing her opinion to back up the point that no one really voted for Nixon or nobody knew anybody who voted for Nixon

The point, which you seem to miss, is that it is illustrative of how when people surround themselves with one point of view, they can't even imagine another.  It was an example to illustrate a point.

she lived the same lifestyle of most big city based media.

By the way, she was also a critic at NY Times, infected from top to bottom with bias, including the entertainment pages (which frankly, aren't very entertaining).

The liberal bias is obvious to me at the networks CNN and many papers. The point is that too mnay lpeople seem to live in a bubble where they only know one group and thus see what they want to see.

Fox is biased, at least in its opinion people at night.  NY post is conservatively biased.

But so is the TImes, ABC, CBS, CNN, it goes on and on. PBS. NPR.  I mean damn.

But because all of the media people just live around each other and in big cities where everyone else believes that, they don't have a damn clue.

Look at the shock some people, particularly in NY, had after the last election. SHOCK. If Kerry won, i wouldn't have been shock

So we got Jesusland, threats to mvoe to Canada, "dumb" "rednecks" "fooled" "blinded" etc.

Not reasonable intelligent people saw things differently than me.

My God, I have lived my whole life around people with differing views. Why it would be so shocking that others might not share one's views is unfathomable.

But, their parents were liberals, and their friends are liberals, and their peers and co-workers are liberals, and their city is liberal, and their Republican Mayor is liberal, and all of the "elite" and "smart" people they  know are liberal-and this is the world most reporters live in.

So Fox stands out to them far more than it should and they don't notice the other bias at all. Because it is assumed to be the correct opinion-unless you're just some total ignorant racist nazi or whatever else people are called who believe differently and live in some "other" world.

After all, the Europeans disagree with Bush, he must be bad.

Mike O'Brien wrote: OK - we get your point - that the Big Cities are Dens of Liberalism, and the rest of America is different - we were shown that in the last election, but what I still don't get is why the rest of the nation suffers this supposedly liberal media?  Why isn't FOX the biggest thing EVER now that the suffering masses finally have an alternative to the porn and evils that is the liberal media?  Is it possible that while, there is a liberal aspect to the media, that it's not, as a whole, as liberal as you think, or that the people of America aren't, as a whole, as conservative as you think?

The FOX prime-time is far more watched than CNN. But not everyone has cable, and not everyone gets Fox.  But there is a hunger for something different-hence the rise of talk radio.  Networks will always have an advantage with advertising and being carried everywhere

The country, as a whole, is moderate and pragmatic in general.  Some areas are bastions of conservativeness, usually with a religious or southern tint. I never said it was super conservative

I said there was a bias in news. Now that the big city typical news areas have less of a stranglehold, you see something different.

Personally, I would like fair, responsible media.  The problem isn't really solved by having alternatives like FOX.

I can't get the truth unless I watch FOX, CNN, and read 3 newspapers.

It's like AMy Fisher-they made three movies-one she was a slut and Joey Buttafuco a saint, one Joey was a scoundrel and Fisher a virgin, and one somewhere in between/  If you watched all 3, you kinda got a sense of what happened.

Well, two points - at least sore losers make sense.  I still haven't gotten a satisfying answer to why cons are sore winners.

Next, again, your logic is all wrong - you keep putting thoughts into our heads that just aren't there.  Why do you assume that I am shocked that people feel differently than I?  That's fairly obvious.  I'm not shocked.  (I'm dissapointed, yes, but hey, that's natural.)  And that's just speaking for me.  I can't talk for other Dems or Libs here, but you've been beating that point for a while, and not only is it self-rightious non-sense, but it's wrong, too. 

Mike O'Brien wrote: Next, again, your logic is all wrong - you keep putting thoughts into our heads that just aren't there.  Why do you assume that I am shocked that people feel differently than I?  That's fairly obvious.  I'm not shocked.  (I'm dissapointed, yes, but hey, that's natural.)  And that's just speaking for me.  I can't talk for other Dems or Libs here, but you've been beating that point for a while, and not only is it self-rightious non-sense, but it's wrong, too.

If he was saying you personally were shocked, that's a reach.  But there were stories post election of a stunned shock in NY and the outbreak of PEST in Florida.

Ok - to your last post - I'm going to cry ignorance on this - since I don't watch much TV, but I understood that FOX news was syndicated, no?  I mean, we get it on Channel 2 (KTVU) here in the Bay Area (or we did, last time I checked!) - not the constant news network, but the daily broadcast - the equiv of the Corporate Whore News (ABC, CBS, NBC, etc). 

Next - yes there's an awful lot of right-wing radio, but I don't see that as a rise against the left-wing machine - it's more an example of a market that had long been cornered by the right, and is now taking hits from the left - in nationally syndicated Air America and local shows all over the nation.  (We enjoy Bernie Ward, Ray Taliafaro and Karel here on KGO!)

I don't know, Rob, your logic is faulty today.

I don't believe I brought up the media, Mike, i was responding to a question.

Some die hard conservatives are having a lot of fun, based on the bloggers and others discrediting a lot of what has come out in the "liberal" (quotes for you Mike) media.

I wouldn't. What goes around comes around.

The goal should be a media that pursues the truth of stories, uses investigative journalism, airs both sides of an issue, at least one that is heavily debated, and is not infected by bias on either side. and that responsibly polices itself through checks and balances to make sure reporters and stories are fair and accurate.

I shouldn't have to read Newsday which has something like 8 lDemocrats are great, Republicans are demons columnists/editorialists and 1 semi-Republican guy. and then the Ny Post is the opposite. But only the Post is the rag.

I shouldn't have opinion in the front of the paper. Or in the sports sections regarding politics when there isn't even a political issue (unlike say the steroid hearings)  I shouldn't get political pandering in movie reviews even when the movie has nothing to do with politics.

You need to get out more, Rob.  I live in Los Angeles, a decidedly Dem city with liberal views.  Although some of my friends hold the same beliefs as me, others do not. One of my very good friends is a staunch Neo Con (I supplied a link to his website a few weeks ago) and we get along just fine. I find it hard to believe that all those associated with mainstream news media huddle together in a little club, excluding anyone who holds a different opinion, and are locked in a bubble of their own liberalism.  That's antithetical to reporting in general and, as Mike's post up thread concerning mainstream media playing it soft on Bush during his first four years in office points out, just plain wrong.  To define an entire populous as just "liberal" or "conservative" simply because of location would be wrong on its face. 

I'm also with Mike in regard to this whining winners circle that many Reps have fallen into.  If the liberal media is so pervasive, so all-encompassing, with such a massive far reaching agenda, with millions upon millions of viewers, how in the world did Bush achieve two-term status and the House and Senate being Republican led for those two terms in addition to the final term of Clinton (well over a decade!)?!? They're either complete failures at their "mission" or it's not as pervasive, not as all-encompassing, with no massive far reaching agenda as some would have us think.  Me, I believe it's the latter and that Americans are smart enough to know the difference.  That's me being "glass-is-half-full guy", BTW.

Fox television entertainment is a regular network. However, they don't have a news division like NBC CBS or ABC.   They don't have an anchor at 6:30 like a Rather Jennings or Brokaw. and I don't believe they do many news specials like 60 minutes primetime live or whatever. 

When  they do have major events, they just take the Foxnews feed, usually, which is cable.

Foxnews is comparable to CNN.  I don't think fox the entertainment channel has a comparison to the Big Three network anchors.