Fox News is Disgusting
Full disclosure: I am not currently a Ron Paul supporter. Nor am I a registered Republicrat or Democan. Moreover, my readers will know that I hardly discuss politics here and that’s largely because I see politics as a put-your-money-where-your-mouth-is kind of activity, and talk is particularly cheap in that domain. However, being that I DO blog about media, and being that I do think Ron Paul is an intelligent man worthy of respect, the treatment he received on Fox News is worth objecting to. Over on the Daily Paul, there is a video post of an interview with some ass from Fox News and Ron Paul. I think my favorite part is when the journalist asks “I want to remain clear, you’re against taxes.” This is neither clarifying anything or even a reasonable representation of anything that Ron Paul had said up to that point. Either this journalist did no research before meeting Ron Paul, or he has an agenda set by Fox to obfuscate the positions of candidates that Fox does not approve of, or he’s an idiot. Whichever one it is, he should not be on television reporting the news.
By the way, I posted this under the “Advertising” section of the blog because that’s all the commercial news is anymore: advertising. Commercial news is news about sponsors delivered by public relations companies, shrill and inhumane examinations of personal tragedies, and propaganda for the owners’ agendas and the companies that pay their bills. CNN, Fox, NBC, CBS, ABC, ((You’ll note that I will not link to these organizations, I’m so sick of them. And anyway they almost never link to their Internet sources.)) they don’t even get the facts remotely correct anymore, and their prioritization of entertainment and sensationalism over important facts is virtually surreal at this point. The new British Prime minister came into office today, but on CNN, one of the top articles is “Girl, 7, Says She’s Trapped in Boy’s Body.” Who the f**k cares! I hope she and her parents work that out, I do, but the world is at war.
McNeil/Leher, the BBC and CBC are responsible and thorough in what they cover and their allegiance is to the facts precisely because they are not funded primarily by commercial interests. If they want to do a story on the oil companies or MacDonald’s they don’t have to worry about those companies or their subsidiaries pulling their advertising. It’s clear to me that it’s the economic incentives and the system in place that allow for these informational distortion whirlpools to exist, but what I don’t know is how we get rid of them. Public policy is going to be incredibly hard to significantly change so long as the public debate is as vacuous as this:
“The immigration bill is amnesty. You can tell by looking at it.”
“No, no, it’s not amnesty. We wrote it and made sure it wasn’t”
“But it’s amnesty! I read it and that’s what I think. And amnesty won’t solve anything!”
“You see but it’s not amnesty because I just said that it wasn’t.”
Ironically, this one reason why I can’t support Ron Paul. His attitude that markets can solve everything is called into question by the very treatment he received on Fox. When commercial and private interests run the public airwaves and news, that interview (ignorant and politicized) is the kind of garbage you get fed to you. For what it’s worth I have BS in economics and I can tell you extreme Libertarians out there that markets do not always solve everything, and that is especially the case when information is not already transparent.
GO RON PAUL! GO RON PAUL! GOD BLESS RON PAUL! RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT
2008!
Ron Paul in CNN debate on June 5, 2007!
“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the galleys, heard in the very hall of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor—he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and wears their face and their garment, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation—he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city—he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared.
— Cicero: orator, statesman, political theorist, lawyer and philosopher of Ancient Rome.
“In the time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act” GEORGE ORWELL
Ron Paul is a constitutionalist.
Ron has never voted to raise taxes. Ron has never voted for an unbalanced budget. Ron has never voted for the Iraq War. Ron has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership. Ron has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch. Ron has never voted to raise congressional pay. Ron has never taken a government-paid junket.
Ron voted against the Patriot Act. Ron votes against regulating the Internet. Ron voted against NAFTA and CAFTA. Ron votes against the United Nations. Ron votes against the welfare state. Ron votes against reinstating a military draft.
Ron votes to preserve the constitution. Ron votes to cut government spending. Ron votes to lower healthcare costs. Ron votes to end the war on drugs. Ron votes to protect civil liberties. Ron votes to secure our borders with real immigration reform
How can you not love this guy listen to him he is truly a man who tells the truth “We The People” are taking our country back and restoring the original Constitutional Republic and returning Amerika back to America not the Homeland.
Listen To Ron Paul Speeches: http://www.ronpaulaudio.com Review over 100 Articles Ron Paul Authored by Subject: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html
“None are more enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” — Goethe
I think the freemarket for information is doing just fine. Afterall I came here from Digg.
Yes, but free markets allow for free internet which allows for free information that is accurate. Meaning because of the free market you don’t have to believe everything you see on T.V.. Free market wins again.
I think I see where you’re going with this.
Since there is no other alternative to the MSM (other than the internet of course) that must mean that there is a failure in the market.
Though the fact that there is an alternative (the internet) seems to counter that reasoning.
I don’t quite understand though why you wouldn’t support the one candidate that might be able to influence the debate and maybe even help change things.
Oh well. Let your conscience be your guide.
Peace.
@everyone
I’ve updated the post to say that I’m not currently a Ron Paul supporter. I have been very recently impressed by things that he has said in interviews on PBS and during the debate. All I meant to say was that I was not campaigning for him; his interview just represented a good example of media abuse.
But to everyone here that has pointed out that the Internet is a good alternative, you would do well to remember that the Internet has been around since the 70s and was funded by DARPA initially and largely built and designed by Universities (who are publicly funded). In fact, the one organization that could have done anything to help the growth of the Internet was AT&T and saw it only as a toy, until now that it’s a threat, and of course they want to cut off net neutrality.
The problem is the phrase “Free Market” and to that end I stand by what I said. If a market is open, has a level playing field, no barriers to entry, transparent information and public standards, the I’m for it. If by “Free Market” you mean massive international corporations that refuse to adhere to standards, dominate their markets, abuse their customers, and erect barriers to entry by bribing government to pass laws in their favor (i.e. ClearChannel, Disney, Microsoft, MacDonald’s, NewsCorporation, Ticketmaster) then I am against it. Those markets are not free despite any rhetoric to the contrary.
Hey guy,
that’s the problem right there:
“by bribing government to pass laws in their favor” … that is not any “Free Market” that RP would recognize. In fact, that is what he is expressly against. And that is what he would like to try to chop out of the government, that connection. You’ll see no RP supporters spouting rhetoric in favor of that kind of corporatist problem.
Now, of course, the most critical issue for us is the War – and that is where RP shines against all the others. None of them will end war as a philosophical principle, because they want to keep the Corporatist/Government gravy train a’rollin’.
Time to stop ’em!
Ron Paul in 08.
I’m no television historian, but I would think that universities were in one way or another participants in their research, design and development.
Also the MSM wasn’t always in the god awful state that it is in now.
You… â€I can’t support Ron Paul. (now?)â€
Who is better?
Peace.
@Troped
I think by “Free Market”, a Ron Paul supporter would mean exactly as you have said. Corporatism is NOT laissez faire. I despise corporations feeding at the public trough. It is unfair, and in the end, we all pay for it.
free markets allow you to reject ridiculous media organizations like Fox News and depend on alternate sources. Ultimately its the responsibility of private citizens to filter the good information from the bad, we shouldn’t depend on government regulation to do that, since those making the regulations are just as culpable to making errors and being corrupted as private citizens.
I strongly urge you to take another look at Ron Paul and perhaps give the idea of free markets and private individuals solving problems rather than government regulations another think-over.