Making the Daily Show:
Over at PrawfsBlawg, lawprof Jack Chin blogs about his experience being interviewed for a segment on the Daily Show. An excerpt:
Probably their most effective technique was one that lawyers can't emulate: Editing together a question with an answer to an entirely different question. You see, they do the interview with a single camera; first, they ask all of the questions and tape the mark's answers, and then they tape the questions, sometimes doing multiple takes, so they have several versions from which to choose. So, a couple of questions went like this:
Question: Do you think it is important that everyone have the right to vote?
Answer: Very much so, yes sir.
Question: Does the Arizona Voter Rewards Initiative make you angry?
Answer: No, but I think it is a bad idea as a matter of policy.
On TV, it was like this:
Question: Does the Arizona Voter Rewards Initiative make you angry?
Answer: Very much so, yes sir.
The last thing the Daily Show team taught me was the value of an airtight release, which they made me sign at the beginning of the process. The document made clear that they were free to present me in a false light, so nothing they did was unexpected.
<i>Question: Do you think it is important that everyone have the right to vote?
Answer: No, but I think it is a bad idea as a matter of policy.</i>
According to Stewart in another interview he later named a fourth commandment but they cut that bit from the tape.
So by his own admission 4, if there is more who knows.
Everybody? How about Chin? I suspect he didn't. I don't have much sympathy for those who don't know, but I doubt "everybody" knows "those" interviews are "spliced farces".
The Daily Show was more fun to watch before Jon decide he was the mouthpiece of the youth. Now it's like watching a PETA video edited to make you cringe, or, say watching Carlos Mencia (stealing jokes).
That said, I'll cut Stewart some slack after what he did on Crossfire.
But what about Borat? Apparently, Sacha Baron Cohen's producers lie to people and says they are going to be part of an educational program, and induce them to sign releases on that ground. Then, they get filmed being completely embarrassed and made fools of by Borat. Why isn't that fraud in the inducement?
You really think everybody who watches this show knows interviews are faked? Many of the people I know think the Daily Show is the most credible news source on TV.
The number of people using the daily show as a source of news has nothing to do with whether they believe the interviews are fake. Even knowing the interviews are somehow staged and the video clips at the beginning are carefully selected one is still informed of the major political issues of the day. Then again I watch/read a lot of news so I may just be reading in my prior knowledge.
Also why are people assuming Chin somehow didn't know he would be set up? Reading his post (some of it is sarcastic like the bit about the small probability of looking silly) it seems clear he was well aware that he might somehow be set up. Also if he was aware enough to notice that they were purposefully avoiding clocks he most likely realized exactly what was going on.
Also I have to agree that those stupid confusion segments (thinking one guy is someone else) aren't funny at all and are mostly just annoying. However, I suppose there is someone out there who finds them funny.
A cynic could argue that those two assertions are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
So could a realist.
Well, it's as credible as the NYT, AP, and CBS.
That said, I'd rather watch a "liberal news" show and leave laughing than watch a "conservative news" show and leave with a desire to bash homosexuals.
I tend to watch the first 15 minutes of the Daily show to hear Jon's monologue. He is usually very good at spotting hypocrisy in our elected officials and giving us a laugh in the process.
If liberals had a platform the way Fox News does, they'd take it. Not having that, they resort to comedy. Neither Franken nor Stewart ever claimed to be in the business of journalism qua journalism - to the contrary, they both explicitly claim otherwise.
Others,
When people say they think the Daily Show is the most credible "news" program on TV, they're talking about Jon Stewart's monologues, and not the interviews, which are fluff.
Dorf has been on the show before, as well. I'm sure he could have given Prof. Chin a few pointers.
NY Times=liberal
Wall Street Journal=conservative
ABC,NBC,CBS,&CNN=liberal
Fox News=conservative
Better to be a fake news show and have some people mistake it for real news than to claim to be a real news show (e.g., Hannity &Colmes or The O'Reilly Factor) and consistently distort the truth, slant interviews or outright lie and have people take that at face value.
That said it may have more news presented than some fox "commentary" shows, but that doesn't mean much.
Not sure why O'Reilly is attacked so much on the left seeing he is a supporter of so many liberal causes (his silly attack on the big bad oil companies for one). His main thing is the protection of children and getting more gov't action to do it. Certainly the first point both liberals and conservatives can agree. However, the gov't involvement is often the liberal answer to the problem.
Funniest thing I've read all day.
Whats wrong with Carlos Mencia? Who does he steal jokes from?
That said, I'd rather watch a "liberal news" show and leave laughing than watch a "conservative news" show and leave with a desire to bash homosexuals.
If just watching a socially conservative show makes you want to beat people up, its you who has the problem.
If liberals had a platform [other than CNN, MSNBC, PBS, ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR and most national newspapers - editor] the way Fox News does, they'd take it.
True.
I am sure it did--and being a law professor, he might have wondered why they insisted he sign it before the interview.
So I stand by my earlier statement.
If you believe that I have some magic beans for sale.
As for whether the New York Times or CBS News needed to have "strategy sessions with the Clinton White House," that is a strawman. There doesn't have to be an actual meeting for those news outlets to be biased toward the left.
Apparently Mr. Franken claims he is qualified to be in the business of a United States Senator. The idea that Mr. Stewart held the illusion that he was a serious journalist started, at least in my opinion, with his interview on CNN's crossfire. I'm sure that the readers of this blog can distinguish comedy from real political thought. I do not hold that same confidence for others.
Actually, I think he disavowed any journalistic pretense. "My show comes on after puppets making crank phone calls" or some such comment.
I never claimed that Franken believed he was qualified to do anything - just that he does not claim to be in anything other than comedy, political opinion (think Rush Limbuagh), and perhaps now electoral politics business. That he's running for a Senate seat in 2008 seems to be neither here nor there, other than obvious relevant to the fact that you personally dislike him.
As for Stewart, I think, as Tim Z said, that any reasonable interpretation of his Crossfire appearance would lead you to the exact opposite conclusion that you cite the appearance for.
I have no memos--though I do have Bernard Goldberg's book, Bias. It is a pretty decent book.
Oh, that's right, Goldberg isn't credible, because, well, you disagree with him.
He wasn't saying what he is doing is new, far from it, he is just extremely disappointed in how low our press has sunked.
Well, is that a lie, really? Even the people who signed the release got educated, as to what they should and should not sign.
I never claimed that Franken believed he was qualified to do anything
Indeed. If he were qualified to do anything (even reasonably funny comedy), why would he want to be a Senator?
I don't know? Why would a reasonably successful action-film actor want to be Governor of California?
For those who like to compare Fox to The Daily Show, here's the distinction: Fox pretends to be news. And not just news, but "fair &balanced" news. Yet, to any reasonably intelligent observer, it's rightwing propaganda. A fuckin joke, yes, but not meant to be funny. The latter, contrary to some comments above, never pretends it's anything but a comedy show. And thanks to the others who correctly pointed-out that Stewart never ever claimed to be a journalist. He's actually quite modest and humble, which his opponents would learn if they actually heard/read/saw him outside of the show.
It's one thing for the average moron to be duped into thinking that the mainstream media is liberal, but not the Volokh commenters. To say that the mainstream media's liberal is as accurate as saying Bill O'Reilly's a journalist. Yes, it may be true that the Rathers and Brian Williams's probably vote Democratic more often than not. But it sure as hell does not follow that the media is liberal.
A common theme, if you will, among most liberals is corporate dominance. That is, we claim that corporations generally have too much power over our government. Another of our beliefs is that the press is an extremely important institution that is vital to a free society. Now, how can one, with a straight face, claim that corporate-owned media is liberal? It's a virtual contradiction.
You want liberal, read the Nation. Listen to Air America. Now compare to the evening news. Oh boy, I can go on and on and on...
I agree that Stewart is humble, and his self-depricating jokes are among the only ones I find very funny. I think he's funny in the same way I find some of Ann Coulter's writing funny. They throw out red-meat to their target audience, but I don't expect anyone on the other side of the fence to see the humor. I actually think SNL's Weekend Update does a funnier take on the news, but it is generally less political. Maybe I just don't like The Daily Show because more often than not, it's my ox being gored.
Stephen Colbert, in contrast to Steward (IMO), is a talented satarist. I do wonder if his show can stay fresh, since it seems fairly one-dimensional. O'Reilly and his ilk are pompous blowhards -- we get it.
As an aside, does anyone think O'Reilly's show has changed over the years. I've always found his personality grating, but for a time, he seemed to do a lot of serious political interviews, and he was one of very few that made politicians answer questions instead of rattling off prepared talking points. Now it all human interest stories or interviews with pollsters and opposing party functionaries.
Ad hominem attacks are hardly persuasive. If you want to claim that Fox News or Bill O'Reilly can't be trusted, provide specific examples.
On the other hand, several posters have pointed to the liberal bias in the mainstream news media, myself included. I mentioned Bernard Goldberg's book Bias--written by a former CBS News correspondent who claims in his book that he had never voted for a Republican Presidential candidate in his life. Of course, Goldberg has been smeared in the mainstream media for his heresy ever since.
Michael Barone, a Democrat but one with a great deal of common sense, points to another example of media bias here.
To claim that corporate ownership necessarily promotes conservativism is simply not true--or did George Soros make his billions in some way I don't know of?
My edit of Adeez's comment is about as accurate as the original. Sure Fox is editorially biased toward the conservative viewpoint. That doesn't make it any less news than the NYT, which is biased towards the left. Any reasonably intellgent observer should realize that story selection, editing and focus are influenced by the opinions of the staff and editors.
Now, how can one, with a straight face, claim that corporate-owned media is liberal? It's a virtual contradiction.
This is a silly argument. OK, I will agree that the NYT, NBC, CBS, etc. do not represent idealogically pure, 100% left wing organizations. Neither is the Democratic party. But to say that they aren't left-liberal because they are corporate doesn't pass the giggle test.
This is the best thing I've read all day.
Nick
All you did is point to a view books that agree with your statement. Do you really think that there isn't a pile of books that say the opposite (even ones written by people who are nominally republicans or conservatives)?
---
It's quite a stretch to say that Fox is simply the right-leaning parallel to the left-leaning NYT, CNN, etc. Most "liberals" are significantly to the left of the NYT or CNN, while Fox is, if anything, to the right of the average republican/conservative. Something like "Democracy Now" on PBS would be a more accurate parallel to Fox.
The same goes for the comparison of Coulter to Stewart, Coulter is far right, Stewart is center-left. A better parallel to Coulter would be someone like Michael Moore.
Not all biases are created equal.
And these are just the errors that they'll ADMIT to.
Back to the original point. I'm generally a fan of "the Daily Show." I think especially in the first couple of years of the Iraq war it was quite noble in speaking truth to power -- through satire and irony -- in a way that pretty much all other mainstream media sources were too afraid to do in this period. Plus, I think it's often flat out hilarious. So, in some ways, I agree with the folks who wrote "it's faked and it's the most credible."
But I've always had mixed feelings about the "make the average person, or quirky person look dumb" segments. Some people and ideas are fair game for ridicule, to be sure. But the type of editing Jack Chin describes -- making the answer to one question appear to be the answer to another question -- seems unfair and making it no longer really satire.
And in what universe are most liberals to the left of the NYT, particularly its editorial page?
I mean, whoever thought this up at the DNC was obviously an idiot. When this idiocy is then repeated word for word as "fact" in newspapers across the country, to continue to deny that there isn't any bias in favor of the DNC is to proclaim that the emperor's clothes are amazingly well crafted.
Interesting you should use 'universe'. First, while I believe the NYT editorials are center-left, they are mainstream in America, and certainly to the right of the true left within America. But instead of looking to the Universe (I have no idea how the Andromedans feel about our quaint discourse) let us look to the world. Our left/right divide, considered in a 'world' perspective, takes place almost entirely on the center/hard right arena. Russ Feingold would be considered moderate centrist, or perhaps even slightly to the right, in many European countries for example. This is not a criticism, but an observation- the Democratic party, from a 'world' (let alone 'Universe') perspective, is a center-right party, the Republicans are a far right party, and the majority of the American discourse varies from the slightly-right of center to the far right of center.
On a world contuum, both political parties are right of center (in fact, both major political parties are members of the same international organization for right-of-center poltical parties).
However, you cleverly played a word game, describing the Republicans as "a far right party" in one paragraph to "far right of center" in next.
Frankly, the "Republicans are fascists" meme, which you perpetuate by implication ("far right party") is just as offensive and just as untrue as the claim that Democrats are "socialists."
All that said, on the American political spectrum, the NYT, particularly in its editorial page, is left wing. Not as left-wing as the Nation, I acknowledge, but I suspect well to the left of most Democratic voters.
I fear that you are reading words into my text that I never put in there. I think that any reasonable reading would have "far right" and "far right of center" to be synonymous. At no point did I accuse the Republicans of fascism, even by implication. My post was simply about the narrow constraints of what we consider the 'left' and the 'right' in America. While you may believe 'far right' equates with the Nazis, I can think of no better way to illuminate the point I was trying to make.
Would it have been preferable if I had written,
From a world perspective, the Democratic Party is a center-right party, while the Republican Party is a really, really, really right party? (But not is the sense of being correct).
No duck, you just assumed I don't watch it. Actually, every time this admin. fucks up, which is often, I tune in just to see the spin they give it. More often than not, I'm disappointed. Why? Because usually they don't even discuss the topic at all. But indeed, I do watch it from time-to-time for entertainment. And yes, that shit sure is entertaining! Until I wanna throwup, that is.
Fox is too easy. Anyone who thinks Fox is news, and who compares it to the NYT, is either ignorant, dumb, or just plain disingenuous.
Here's how "liberal" the MSM is. I cite this example b/c it's extremely current: Orrin Hatch was just on Meet the Press stating all these lies about Carol Lam; demonstrable falsehoods. Rachel Maddow, an Air America host, has been persistently writing to both Hatch's people as well as Meet the Press's people demanding a correction. No response from either. Surely, as such a "liberal" program, the show would jump on the opportunity to set the record straight and smear a Republican, no?
Since I brought up Maddow: why, when she went on Paula Zahn's CNN show on the date of the Iraq war anniversary, did she have to virtually beg the producers to make any mention of it?
Why do we never here about Afghanistan. You know, that other country we're still at war with? Every liberal I know cares dearly about the issue. Surely the "liberal" media would want to publicize such a vital national issue, no?
Every liberal I know despises the "drug war." Surely, the "liberal" media would want to show us on a daily basis what a disaster it is, no?
Why are most MSM reports reporting that Nancy Pelosi visited Syria, but conveniently leave out the fact that Repubican Cogressmen joined her as well?
Why did Fox label Mark Foley a "D" instead of an "R" in one of its reports. A mere typo, right?
I mean, these are just off the top of my head. There are books and websites that will cite more examples than I could dream of.
And I agree with your last post, Loki. Which is why I crackup when people actually refer to the Clintons as liberal.
Granted I don't watch O'Reilly or Hannity much because I can't stand them. You can find all kinds of examples of O'Reilly's lies on this website, but my favorite is when he claimed that the Paris Business Daily had reported that his boycott of France had been devastating (at the time he was threatening to lead an "O'Reilly Nation" boycott of Canada). Not only was that a lie but there isn't such a publication.
As for the odious Sean Hannity, for some reason I couldn't avert my eyes from him during the Terry Schiavo debacle. Among the many lies he told during that whole episode a couple were just so outrageous they really annoyed me. There was the woman who claimed that Terry was able to eat on her own and that she had actually fed Terry jello. Sean and the TV caption referred to her as a nurse. She was actually a nurse's aide. Then there was the parent's medical expert who Sean repeatedly called a "Nobel Peace Price in Medicine" nominated Doctor. Of course there is no such thing as a "Nobel Peace Prize in Medicine" and the idiot who wrote the Nobel Committee on that quack's behalf was not eligible to nominate him for either the Nobel Peace Prize or the Nobel Prize for Medicine.
Hannity is not a newsman, he is a commentator. So is Keith Olberman on MSNBC. Yet had I cited Olberman specifically as an example of left-wing bias, I would have been accused of not differentiating between news coverage and commentary.
Okay, but since I was trying to place them in the context of the world as a whole, placing them in context of each other isn't very helpful, is it? I *could* say that Tampa is west of Miami, but what does that tell me about how far West it is in America?
I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from. The Republicans are a far-right party, compared to the world as a whole. Doesn't mean they're Nazis. It just means that on the political spectrum of the world, they would be considered farther out to the right than most political parties. Don't you think that's a good thing? Sheesh.... never thought I'd see the day when a Republican (and I hope I'm not mischaracterizing you) was ashamed that I was disparaging his party by not being to the right of those darn Europeans.
Just because you are a commentator does not give you license to lie. The instances I cited above were not matters of opinion--which of course Hannity is entitled to, he can call all Democrats evil, that is his opinion which he can say on his show. But when he calls a nurse's aide a nurse he confers on her expertise and a degree she simply does not possess. He is lying, not stating an opinion. Likewise, saying someone is a "Nobel Peace Prize in Medicine nominated Doctor" is not only a lie, it is completely stupid because any moron should know there is no such thing. He never apologized for or corrected either of these mistakes which leads me to believe that he is either a complete idiot or simply a liar who doesn't care about the truth.
I am reminded everyday how some commentors are way out fo this planet. It is a natural reflex to restrict information to local or national sources, and Americans are not different than citizens of foreign countries in that matter. I'd recommend some to open their minds as they live in a different world they imagine they actually do. From my outsider perspective, I'm pretty confident the NYT would fail by many standards to be filed as a left paper in most countries I have lived in so far (Canada, France, UK, Taiwan).
This being said, I appreciate Jon Stewart's show for what it represents: a satirical news report, a comedy, although my preference goes for Stephen Colbert. But I do understand many may watch the show as their main, if not only, daily source of information. No matter how aware the spectators may be of the fact they are not viewing a show with journalistic pretentions, we can easily understand it may inflict the public's opinion in a certain way. One can make the parallel with editorial cartoons: they are maint to untertain rather than to inform, but they nevertheless deliver a message.
My point of disagreement is that on a world-wide political spectrum, NEITHER American political party is very much more than right of center.
There are truly right-wing political parties in other parts of the world--well to the right of the Republican Party.
So yes, Tampa is west of Miami and that doesn't say much. Tampa is also east of New Orleans, which doesn't say much, either. But if you were to do a worldwide political continuum, with say, the unapologetic Communists of North Korea and Cuba on the left (on a political scale of 1 to 10, the clear 1s)--and fascistic states like Iran on the right a 10, the Democratic Party is about a 5.5 and the Republicans are about a 5.7.
Geez, that brain can become some rough jelly somedays...
Sorry all.
While Bill O'Reilly is a pompous blowhard, he does occasionally do a good interview, unlike Larry King who always unbearably boring and uninformative. CNN on the other hand, occasionally helps international terrorists. For example, the chief bomb designer for al Qaeda, Ramzi Yousef, learned from a CNN program that airport metal scanners couldn't detect metal below an inch above the ground. Acting on this valuable piece of information, he hid two nine-volt batteries in the heels of his shoes before boarding a PAL flight in 1994. Once on board he assembled a small bomb using the batteries and liquid explosives. On the second leg of the PAL flight 434, after Yousef deplaned, the bomb he planted under a seat exploded killing a passenger and almost destroyed the entire airplane. This was a practice run for the notorious Bojinka plot to blow up ten airplanes simultaneously. This year another CNN program aired information on the vulnerable spots of US military helicopters.
It happens to the best of us--and to me more often than I would like to admit. So no reason to apologize.
As to the part of your other post responding to my comment, I was being somewhat snarky and definitely sarcastic though I was using the term "liberal" in the more narrow sense of American liberals--as opposed to Socialists or others in other parts of the world who are to the left of most American liberals.
I believe I can see our point of disagreement. I don't believe including N. Korea and Iran on the political spectrum is useful- they have more in common (as dictatorial and/or totalitarian regimes) than a simple description of 'left' or 'right' would handle. Is N. Korean a left-wing communist state or a right-wing totalitarian state? Is Iran a left-wing Islamist state or a right-wing totalitarian state?
As I should have made clear, I was confining my remarks to parties within democratic systems (perhaps I would go even further, and add "Western-style liberal democracies"). By those metrics, the discourse in America is strictly confined to issues that vary from the center to what most countries would consider the far-right. From the perspective of most world democracies, if normal discourse goes from 1-10, then Democrats would rank around 6 and Republicans around 9 (to pull numbers out of my... umm... hat).
As a thought problem, imagine transposing the Republican party to any country in Western Europe. I am fairly certain they would be to the right of the current 'right' party. By the same token, I believe the Democratic party would mesh nicely with the policies of most country's 'right' parties. Use France as an example- I believe Sarkozy, who is to the right of the majority of the French populace, would be considered a leftist within the Democratic voting populace.
Opinions are, or at least ought be, based on facts. So, I don't understand this point. No one here trashing--and even supporting--Fox is making the rather nonsensical point that "Fox is lying." I, and those who tend to agree, are saying that the commenters are often full of shit. A lie is a lie, whether it be made in the context of news or editorial.
And Dave N: you called me out but did not respond to my response. That's cool, and I do not try to pick "fights" with anyone here. It does seem that you're the only one of the familiar commenters here supporting Fox. I think that tells us all something. You attempted to undermine my initial comment by wrongly assuming that I never watch Fox. That leads me to the following: as a good bleeding-heart liberal, I am very open-minded. If I were the equivalent of many in this country (like our warm, compassionate V.P., who ensures that ALL TV's are tuned to Fox in his presence) then I'd limit my exposure to those with whom I agree. But I don't. I understand that true conservatives and libertarians make some valid points. I am therefore willing to learn from them. Hence the reason I'm here right now arguing with you!
I am quick to correct anyone who makes sweeping generalizations (e.g., ALL Republicans blah blah blah) b/c I know that honest and moral conservatives and libertarians can certainly contribute to the national debate. So contrary to so many commenters here who are so quick to villify liberals, I will not viscerally attack those on the other side of the aisle. But that's also the reason why I speak about Fox with such irreverance and disrespect. They are NOT what I consider the honest and intelligent representatives of the right like some who visit here, with whom I disagree but can respect. Rather, they are a perversion of the right, kinda like how Al Qaeda and Ted Haggard are perversions of their respective faiths.
Do you really want to be associated with the Fox crowd? As a flaming liberal, am I wrong to distinguish the clowns and whores on Fox from people like Prof. Volokh? Should I instead lump you all together?
Adeez:
"I am very open-minded."
That's the kind of judgment that others make about us. It becomes narcissistic when we assert that claim about ourselves.
Second, several studies document a similar result -- the media is biased in favor of the left. Here's a link to one such study: UCLA Study The study concludes unsurprisingly that the NYT is a liberal newspaper. Surprisingly, the study concludes that the WSJ's news pages are MORE liberal than the NYT! From the news release announcing the study's publication:
Tell that to the NY Times. When the liberals start holding the leftist media outlets to the same standards that they hold Fox News to, I will start to take them more seriously.
I love to do that, how do I get in contact with them? Do you have names and phone numbers?
I'm pretty sure you're right Loki. But right vs. left relative to center is all a matter of perspective. Someone on the left might think the Dems are center-right and bemoan the lack of a left leaning parties in this country like there are in Europe. But someone on the right might similarly think the Repubs are too center-left and bemoan the lack of (sane) right leaning parties in Europe.
When talking about American media outlets we are generally talking about bias or inclinations relative to the American center.
A.Zarkov: according to the closest dictionary I could locate, narcissism is "self love; specifically, excessive interest in one's own appearance, etc."
So, you have absolutely no idea who I am. You take a long-winded comment of mine, extract one tangential line, and then decide to make a personal judgment about me. And it's not even accurate. Calling myself open-minded is self-love? Huh? Why don't you try actually responding to the substance of my comment. If you have no response, say nothing. But to call me a narcissist b/c I dared call myself open-minded does not further the debate. Perhaps it's because I'm not afraid to call myself a proud liberal, you don't like liberals, thus you don't like me, so you figured you'd grab onto anything you could.
But since you brought it up, and I have time to kill, I suppose you don't consider yourself either open or closed-minded? To each his own. I would guess it's the latter, but I don't know.
But yes, I do believe suppression of the ego and utter selflessness is the key to leading a just, moral life. And yes, suppression of the ego also happens to be one of the hardest human endeavors. So, yes, loving oneself is important inasmuch as it allows one to have the self-esteem to be able to love others unconditionally. And that's why I also try really hard to be respectful here when I address other commenters directly. Because it's so easy to make snide, sarcastic remarks when one's hiding behind a monitor. So although I find some comments outrageous, I do try very hard to bite my tongue and be measured in my responses.
I respectfully suggest you take rothmatisseko's advice and watch Outfoxed.
Who said that it's alright for the NYT to lie in opinion pieces? Obviously we should hold all media to the same standard, I don't think that anyone is questioning that. Your response is simply a cheap shot to avoid having to respond to the substantive evidence presented that fox news personalities have stated lies on a regular basis (note, I have no idea whether this claim is true, but either way your BS snark does nothing to disprove the allegation).
Your long-winded post was mostly about you as opposed to the topic at hand. My comment was meant more as a nudge than an attack.
As to Fox News, I'm hardly a fan. It's tabloid journalism with food fights thrown in to entertain—more heat than light. The whole of TV news has declined over the last forty years because news departments are more dedicated profit than public service. The 1975 book CBS: Reflections in a Bloodshot Eye by Robert Metz relates the sad story of the decline of CBS news from days of Edward R. Morrow. Alas they have gotten much worse over the last thirty years reaching a low point with their use of forged documents in 2004. Fox is simply exploiting the news-as-entertainment business model. In this aspect they do better than the other cable news channels that are desperately trying to catch up in the race to the bottom. It's all about ratings and revenue. Howard Stern proves that you can say virtually anything on the air and get away it as long as you bring in revenue for the station. Of course he eventually did go too far and had to go into orbit with satellite radio. Ditto for Michael Savage. But let's face it. The MSM has aliened a lot of people with their obviously biased coverage creating a void that gets exploited by the likes of Fox.
Is that OK because darker people obviously don't compare to Western-style (white) ones as well as green aliens do?