--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" <wayback71@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" <wayback71@> wrote: > > > > > > O-Reilly and Fox News have hurt America's reputation in the > > > world. They make us look like complete morons, which I think > > > we might be. But they make us look even worse, and they > > > encourage morons to be be more so. > > > > Fox's audience is actually pretty small compared to that > > for the broadcast networks. O'Reilly's ratings are > > currently around 3.5 million, for example, whereas the > > three broadcast nets' evening news programs average around > > 26.5 million total. Fox's reputation is way out of > > proportion to its actual importance. > > Good point, Judy. But they certainly seem to ring their > tiny bell rather loudly and shrilly. The rest of the media > gives them too much weight and attention.
Yes, on both counts. But anybody who thinks Fox's audience is *representative* of the people of this country is just misinformed. > The same complaint surfaces in discussions about climate > change. In their efforts to show both sides of an argument, > mainstream media give respect to a few crackpot scientists > who deny some basic science, and that has slowed awareness > of the information that is derived from real science and > accepted by thousands of scientists world-wide. It makes > the "debate" look more significant than it is. Yes, again. The right-wing meme about the "librul media"-- which it began using quite some time ago--seems to have permanently intimidated the MSM, such that they knock themselves out trying to appear "objective" and "balanced" by airing the frequently ridiculous views of conservatives, as if those views should be given equal weight, when the facts to the contrary are clear. As Stephen Colbert observed so memorably, "Reality has a liberal bias."
