Randy wrote: >The revelation of the story killing should be a bigger >story than the Augusta story behind it- there are MUCH >bigger implications. >It was indeed a discussion topic on the Fox News Channel >this evening, but I doubt it got any commentary on the >other networks. >But to just yank stories >outright simply because editors believe a viewpoint >different than there own HAS to be erroneous- well, >that's a bunch of garbage. Why would anybody want to >subscribe to a paper like that? I'm sorry, but a screed on media editing the content of news - combined with a plug for Fox News Channel - is too deliciously ironic. I guess if you never hire anyone without a litmus test, you don't need to kill their stories... Fox boss Roger Ailes, of course, was the one who was sending Bush memos on how he should react after 9/11 to come off well in the news cycle (as opposed to those oft-decried 'liberals' over at CNN, who were instructed "You want to make sure people understand that when they see civilian suffering (in Afghanistan) it's in the context of a terrorist attack that caused enormous suffering in the United States.") The NY Times has decided that the Augusta story will sell, and they've latched onto it like a pit bull. If you don't think that virtually every media outlet doesn't have pet stories they develop and keep in the news cycle with a single lockstep viewpoint, then you're naive or delusional. For my money - the NY Times has some great articles on track and field, and Fox barely knows our sport exists. Case closed. Phil (who is patiently waiting for Fox's hard hitting piece on the long term legal implications of the Supreme Court ruling in Bush v Gore, or a discussion of the social benefits of estate and progressive income taxes that doesn't involve shouting.)
