Fox News Channel is now accusing Peter Arnett of being a
traitor even when its own embedded reporter, Geraldo Rivera,
a.k.a. Jerry Rivers, drew a map in the sand of where he and
the military he was covering were stationed at that time and
where they were going.
Interesting to have heard one of the radio-talk-show-on-tv
news channel's anchor's, not commentators, introduce a
segment with, "In other axis of evil news." Fair and
balanced?
One of the main problems has to do, I think, with the
influence of right-wing news outlets, such as Fox News
Channel and Rev. Moon's Washington Times. Even mainstream
news organizations, such as CNN, the NY Times, MSNBC, etc.
have been drifting increasingly to the right.
Self-proclaimed "liberal," Chris Matthews, host of MSNBC's
Hardball and the syndicated, Chris Matthews Show, has
himself been sounding more and more like a conservative (at
least on his television shows), and CNN's American Morning
is looking more like Fox News Channel's Fox and Friends
every week.
The "right lie" that the mainstream media are liberal has
been a resounding success, and one of its consequences has
been the media's anti-Muslim bias.
Unfortunately, the mainstream media has shown that there is,
in reality, no significant difference, other than in window
dressing, between the two major parties, or between liberals
and conservatives. They have all uncritically bought into
whatever they are being told.
Likewise, the news media have gone from watchdog (at least
pretending to be) to unabashed cheerleader. All three all-
news cable networks now have a waving American flag on the
screen.
I would have expected as much from Fox News Channel and,
maybe, MSNBC, but CNN? Ted Turner has a reason for not being
pleased with what Steve Case has done to his news networks.
Actually, what I said is pretty much in line with what is
being reported in the alternative media - the stuff that no
one will ever hear about reading the Kansas City Star (or
any mainstream newspaper) or watching any of the television
news outlets.
Good example: Phil Donahue, though hardly a journalist, had
the top-rated show on the American cable news channel -
MSNBC (owned jointly by the National Broadcasting Company,
or NBC, and Microsoft). It was cancelled two weeks ago. Why?
Because Phil is a left liberal (not quite a leftist) and
opposed to the war. MSNBC executives feared that Donahue's
dovish, anti-corporate attitudes would pull down the
network's ratings in the event of a conflict with Iraq. (On
the other hand, MSNBC's Chris Matthews, though also anti-
war, is conservative on many, maybe most, other issues.)
The real reason is that there are three cable news channels
in the U.S. - Fox News Channel (which is number one), CNN
(number two), and MSNBC (a distant third). To remedy this
situation, MSNBC is entirely revamping its primetime
schedule in order to emulate Fox's neoconservative slant. If
an anchor, correspondent, or interview show host, wants to
keep her or his job, she or he has to be willing to comply
with it (at least to an extent). Donahue made it clear that
he was not about to budge.
The result? Donahue was the only true left liberal remaining
on American cable news. (There are many "liberals," on some
social issues, but not left liberals.) Previously, Ron Kuby,
a self-proclaimed "commie" (communist), co-hosted a show on
MSNBC. That show was cancelled after only a few months. Such
is the state of cable news in the U.S. today.
IMO, some of them are, yes. Many of the news outlets linked
on that page do not accept advertising. However, bias is
inevitable. American news media are usually unwilling to
admit it. For News Channel, for instance, refuses to
acknowledge its bias (although individual anchors and hosts
on Fox have admitted the channel's conservative "slant").
The European news outlets, by and large, do so more readily.
However, in some countries, such as Italy, the front page is
almost indistinguishable from the editorials page.
Exactly, and Fox News Channel is a good example. They claim
to be "fair and balanced," and yet they are, along with
American talk radio and the Washington Times, the primary
proponents of neoconservative empire building (neo-fascism)
in the U.S. Just by selecting particular words, we are
putting a spin on the facts.
My problem with what is going on right now is not the
military response per se. I think that there needs to be
one.
I had optimistically hoped that one result of the terrorist
disasters would be a call to world governance and collective
security. Instead, we have American flag waving, militant
nationalism, and neo-fascism. Even the U.S. news media has
jumped on the bandwagon (especially, and predictably, Fox
News Channel).
The U.S. needs to be broken of its tendency to dictate
policy to other nations. I would have liked these incidents
in New York City, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania to have
been sufficient to turn American jingoism into a call for
global confederation, but the result appears to have been
the exact opposite.
Well, I get a lot of hate mail, even some death threats, so
not everyone "knows" it. ;-) Of course, Israel became a
state mostly through engaging in terrorism. The media
ignores that fact because of a fear of reprisals. When CNN
began telling the truth, Israeli cable TV companies
threatened to pull the plug. CNN quickly fell into line. The
Fox News Channel is, IMO, much like a contagious disease. It
is gradually infecting the rest of the U.S. media.
I interpret much of what I see in the various newspapers I
read and hear on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News Channel (the three
all-news cable channels in the U.S., for anyone who doesn't
know) as jingoistic, quasi-fascistic, and militantly
nationalistic. Rather than expressing pride in the emerging
global coalition (all of those countries which will work
alongside of the U.S.), instead, I hear many (most?) people,
including many of my own students, speaking
"triumphalistically" of the victory of the U.S. over the
various terrorist networks.
