Is that really accurate Judy? 3 million? I had no idea.....fascinating. (And kind of a relief!)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" <steve.sundur@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" > > steve.sundur@ wrote: > > > > > > > > Again. It's hard to believe that they can get away with > > > > this, without being castagated across the board, but maybe > > > > I'm just that naive about it. > > > > > > They *did* get castigated for the Steinberg and > > > Reddcliffe photo alterations, at least across the lefty > > > blogosphere, as well as politically neutral blogs like > > > Editor and Publisher (and PhotoShop News!); and it was > > > reported by UPI. > > > > I think I do remeber it now. I guess they play us, > > fellow Americans, as such fools, that they can foist almost > > anything on us, and we will accept it. And maybe we do to a > > certain extent. I am sure you read the piece in the NYT > > about a month ago about Roger Ailes. No one appears to be > > his peer in putting forth a product to promote a certain > > agenda like he does. > > The one saving grace of Fox News is that only a tiny > percentage of people watch it, 3-something million at > most. Of course, that's more than the other cable news > channels, but it's still not all that significant > overall. News and political junkies tend to forget that > and talk about it as if it's a lot more influential > than it really is. > > What's a lot more significant is how the *rest* of the > news media are falling down on the job. They aren't so > much deliberately promoting an agenda, at least not the > way Fox does; but they're terrified of being accused of > being too liberal, so they tend to bend in the other > direction. And they DON'T TELL US WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW! >
