Student Reads Message Board, Nearly Pees Pants

Okay, this is a long post, brought to you by the Committee to Remove Self-Censorship, for the benefit of anyone looking to kill some time. My buddies and I decided a response was necessary to an ongoing commentary on the message board regarding Fox News. Basically, there was some back and forth about our favorite fair and balanced news network. One student posted a story about a device someone had invented that blocks Fox from your TV. Repubs were up in arms, told us Marxists to just change the channel if we didn't like it, someone responded, it's not about us not liking it, it's about Fox telling outright lies, along with several examples.

Then a student posted this:

I agree with [Snipey]. If a *cable* television viewer doesn't like Fox News, then (s)he should CHANGE THE CHANNEL. It's not network news; it's cable. And, it's a choice. I choose to turn on Fox and Friends in the morning, not CNN or MSNBC or the KARE 11 morning show. If Fox just happens to attract a wide-spread audience, then great. It's just too bad that the other networks haven't yet figured out how to capture their own niche audience.

To which I responded:

"Niche" is appropriate for a talking-heads program, not something that purports to be "news."

And Matt responded:

The point of the article that [one of our Marxists comrades] posted is that Fox news is not just biased, but it tells blatant political lies. The point is not that they have shoddy fact-checking, but that they did not fact-check at all, shoddy or otherwise--they lied. If Fox editors had done even "shoddy" fact-checking, they would have realized that the story about Kerry's statements on his cuticles was not remotely factually grounded. Instead, somebody else had to fact-check Fox's story, so that Fox could retract its story and issue an apology.

News is not entertainment. It is for the purpose of informing people. News may present news in one style or another to meet a target niche's expectations. If Fox's target niche expects lies, then they have found their network.

And Geoff responded:

I agree entirely with the last post about networks needing to find niches. It IS too bad that the other news networks haven't figured out how to get their own niche audience yet.

I have hope for them though. They COULD do it. If they just did what Fox News did - like resort to, you know, pandering - they would really get that core constituency of viewers. The ones who just want to hear somebody tell them what they "knew" all along and call it "news." Hmmmm. Maybe they should call it "knews."

Unfortunately, ABC, CBS, and NBC haven't quite made the leap yet. They might, from time to time, engage in shoddy reporting, like the stuff Dan mentioned. But for the most part, they have attempted to maintain high journalistic standards. Fools. They could learn a thing or two from Rupert Murdoch's crew over at Fox News, where you get to hear the new just the way Scott McLellan would report it! In fact, that could be a daily segment. "The News, with Scott McLellan." On second thought, nevermind. The current administration would never attempt to infiltrate the news media with paid operatves.

Or better, you could parade talking head after talking head on air to shill for the party of your choice!

What's that? Fox News already does that?

Wow. Those glorious bastards! No wonder they have found such a loyal niche!

I think we should just get rid of any pretense of unbiased journalism altogether! Whad'ya say? If all we really want is to be told that we are right, we might as well
stop listening to anyone who might tell us we are wrong. That's the niche, right?

Okay, here's the good part! Snipey responds:

Oh WOW!...liberals really need to grow up (can dish it out but can't take it) and quit the whining! Some of the postings are plain ridiculous. I mean, how do you know what is a lie and what isn't? Were you there when the news happened? Hasn't society over and over again through out history proven that people will hear what they want to hear? I mean look at the abortion issue, euthanasia, capitol punishment, sexual harassment, abuse, and so on. We all accept things on different moral foundations. When a news media reports criminal news such as the recent nation wide manhunt for Stephen Stanko, society is already biased in how they accept the news ("Oh my gosh! There is a rapist/killer loose!!"). Even though he is now caught, people believe he did it. So is the media wrong in their reporting on the manhunt? I mean I have never heard a network say "the police are looking for a suspect in a murder, but viewers, PLEASE remember that the suspect is INNOCENT until proven guilty".

Also, stop crying about the Bush administration and your "black government" theories. Bottom line is the democratic voice of the American people spoke (yes, all those dumb redneck naive uneducated voters) and the country as a whole voted for George W. Bush. (We won't talk about all the felons that voted for the D. Party, I mean why didn't they vote for the R. Party? Oh wait they can't vote). Make sure you get someone of your agenda in office next time (with out the aid of non-eligible voting felons). Also, maybe use more "civil" tactics rather that silly demonstrations with silly signs parading around downtown. I do believe that we as a society can do this.

If you don't like how things are done, please go make changes but don't be bitter and dwell upon the past and start mud slinging because of what certain corners such as the Fox News network has to say. Proposing censorship on media networks such as Fox News is against everything that our country stands for. (Or do we change the rules for whiners?) Or maybe we should follow Nazi/Communism regimes of only certain "truthful" media. This being controlled by whatever Party is in the White House. I mean, come on!

Again, push the remote button on your cable and go watch Dan Rather (I mean CBS) for your "pure" no lie, hidden agenda, middle road, news media. Don't try to tell me or others that I can't watch a certain show because it just all lies, thus wrong (Or am I in this "lies" niche, which I take as being unintelligent, which I DO take offense to and makes me want to....but I won't since I cherish people's freedom of speech). This is a free country, and I don't harass people that I see reading silly things such as the City Pages, because of what you as an American has chosen to read.

It's hard to decide which is my favorite part. I think it's the section about silly signs and silly demonstrations, although the suggestion that liberals get their news from the City Pages is pretty rich. What is a "civil" tactic? Maybe the Bush administration's practice of penning protesters up in certain restricted areas is civil, that's free speech in this country. And what was he going to say near the end there, "makes me want to..." ? You know, the whole thing is really just too good for words, there's not much else I can say. I'll just keep drinking my coffee and try not to pee my pants from laughing so hard.