Does the election spell the end of FOX News dominance

Interesting that onetime employees of Democratic politicians, Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, George Stefanopoulos (I'm sure I'm wrong on the spelling), Pierre Salinger and Bill Moyers all have been presented as straightforward, down-the-middle journalists by various networks who, at the same time, have been careful to stamp George Will, Pat Buchanan and other righties in some way as "conversative commentators." (In fairness, Russert is a straight shooter and Matthews is more of an entertainer who does not deny his leanings. Moyers, on the other hand, is Jimmy Carter preachy.)

Is this to suggest that liberal is the center/norm and viewers must be given fair warning of any rightward deviants?

 

Thank you, Bernie Goldberg.

 

George Will is a straight shooter. So is Kathleen Parker, IMO.

Don't know of anyone who would put Will in the Ann Coulter/Cal Thomas wing of the insane asylum.

 

dowd isn't actually a beacon for the left - she's too quirky. that would be paul krugman - an economist descended from FDR - his analyses of skewed income distribution - and of CEO greed - are the bedrock of democratic resurgence and republican shame.

 

henry,

Uh, Dowd is far more beloved. It's she, not Krugman, who shows up on all the shows. And she, not Krugman, writing on Colbert and Stewart in this week's Rolling Stone.

 

alma - that's pop culture froth - a mile wide and inch deep - krugman builds the engine that pulls the train

 

I agree that Dowd is not very insightful or good anymore. Of all the things that are out of place in "the post 9/11 world," her celebrity gossip style approach to political column writing is among the foremost. That being said, I'll never forget this column -- I remember my jaw dropping at the time I read it:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_19980926/ai_n10454391

 

henry,

No, he doesnt. Krugman's an economist, and his writing is clean, explanatory and occasionally insightful.

Baltimore,

Yeah, isn't that a great twist? And it's written without all the atmospherics of her Bush critiques. There isn't any question Dowd can write - it's that she's shifted into some bizarre public persona of tee-hee cynicism.

I think she had a heart for exploring the entire Clinton scandal and what it meant, but has missed the boat post-9/11. The "Daddy" stuff is just dumb. She should expect more of herself.

 

I'm still trying to figure out why this thread is in the Journalism Topics Only section. Shouldn't it be over in the Anything Goes section, where all of the political rants are?

 

The "Daddy" stuff is dead-on . . . but as is the case of most columnists who get drawn into the nickname game, the shit gets really, really old, fast.

 

A few quick points...

-- People were asking if Rush Limbaugh was done when Clinton left office, since he wouldn't have anyone to rail against anymore. Fox - and Rush - will benefit from the election, if anything.

-- I don't get why everyone gets so caught up in the influence of Fox because it beats CNN and MSNBC in the ratings. It's a little like pretending Lehigh is an unstoppable football power because it dominates the Patriot League. NO ONE is watching these networks. You can add the total ratings from Fox, CNN, CNN Headline, MSNBC, the C-Spans, and CNBC, and you still have a tiny fraction of the number watching Nickelodeon at any given time.

-- I don't like the deliberate lean of Fox much, but I don't find it nearly as offense as the occasional propaganda piece CNN airs in Lou Dobbs' personal battle against Latinos. The reports on illegal immigration running on CNN these days twist the facts outrageously to support the crusade.

 

While being Nancy Reagan's handmaiden, even Will has been marginally offended by some of the
trough-diving atrocities we've been forced to endure since '01 . . . and he's a good writer,
though he sometimes meanders too much for my taste . . .