Fox News: Turn the Channel.

After watching Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism, I've made it a policy to change the channel whenever I walk into a room with a TV tuned to Fox News. The use of public airwaves to promote a political agenda (unbeknownst to most viewers), turns my stomach. Of course, I usually ask first, if someone is watching. But using this keychain remote control takes this concept one step further (thanks to Matt for the tip.) It gives anyone the power to "turn off most TVs - anywhere from airports to restaurants ... and it's selling at a faster clip than it would take most people to surf the channels on their boob tubes." Go ahead, change the channel. It's good for democracy...

Comments

[Nell-T]

Try watching: "Uncovered:The Whole Truth about the Iraq War"

Just as frightening.

[B. Eakin]

I wonder how you would react to someone else exercising, or attempting to exercise, on you the level of censorship which you want to impose on those watching a TV show of which you do not approve.
Since when does democracy prosper by refusing to hear ideas with which you do not agree? Your version sounds more like dictatorship rather than democracy.

[J. Denton]

Yeah, right. Like CBS, NBC, CNN, ABC, et al... don't have a political agenda? Fox News at least has liberals on to give the lefts point of view. How many times have you seen a conservative on other main stream media outlet news shows besides Sunday Mornings? By the way, we don't live in a democracy....this is a Republic. People really ought to know their own nations history.

[Mike]

Last time I checked, there was no shortage of conservative voices on the major networks (e.g. George Will on ABC), cable (e.g. Joe Scarborough on MSNBC), or radio (Rush Limbaugh et al), so we hardly need an entire network devoted to the Republican platform. In fact, if the mainstream media (which I define as the three major tv networks, magazines like Time and Newsweek, and the 'paper of record', the NY Times) is guilty of anything, it's herd mentality. They go where the audience is. Period. Btw, I'm hardly advocating censorship -- all I'm saying is that there is a choice, and more people should exercise that option whenever possible.

[J. Denton]

So it's just "herd mentality" that caused Rathergate. It's just "herd mentality" when ABC news political director Mark Halperin writes a memo to ABC staff saying that they do not need to hold both sides (Kerry and Bush) equally accountable.

Newsweek assistant managing editor Evan Thomas even admits this, "There's one other base here, the media. Let's talk a little media bias here. The media, I think, wants Kerry to win and I think they're going to portray Kerry and Edwards I'm talking about the establishment media, not Fox. They're going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and there's going to be this glow about them, collective glow, the two of them, that's going to be worth maybe 15 points."

Do you still believe there's no left wing media bias in the main stream media? The people you mentioned are all conservatives but they don't hide that fact. They don't try to peddle their opinions as news like Rather, Brokaw, and Jennings do. You know what you're getting when you tune in to hear Rush, Hannity, Will, et al.

[bill]

well more than likly it a kerry backer turning the tv so real american dont find out kerrys a war crimnal

[John]

Fox, ABC, CBS, MSNBC or any other "media outlet" that purports to be delivering "news" is engaging in gross misrepresentation - they are simply passing along their liberal or conservative opinions. The problem is when outlets like Fox "News" use tag lines like "Fair and Balanced" - It is well known that they have a right leaning bias. They should admit this, call a spade a spade and stop trying to pass their "comments" off as "News Reporting" since unfortunately, too many of us stupid Americans believe that this is what getting the news is supposed to be. For true, unbiased and straight reporting of the "news", watch the BBC or even Al Jazeera. At least these institutions don't have the overblown notion of such self important American "news" outlets that their "opinions" matter more than their journalistic responsibility to simply gather information and deliver all sides of the story so that the consumer can form his or her own opinion.

When did we loose the ability to think for ourselves? As far as I'm concerned, Mike is right: There is no value in crap like Fox "News". Let's turn them all off until they get back to the serious business of treating us like intelligent adults by reporting the NEWS instead of spinning to their own agendas.

[Mike]

"Do you still believe there's no left wing media bias in the main stream media?"

We can argue all day about media bias, but in the end, you have to look at the results. The media jumped on the Clinton impeachment bandwagon in the 90's and pushed the Iraq/WMD story after 9/11. On the most important events in recent history, they've gone right where they think the majority of their readers want them to go. That's classic herd mentality.

And one other thing: CBS apologized for their amatueur mistakes on "Rathergate." When was the last time you saw anyone from Fox admit to an error?

[Serapheem]

ROFLMAO... BBC isn't biased... lets see who they are bringing on to do election coverage shall we.

Hmmm I think they sare bringing in:

BBC World, the BBC’s global commercial service, has unveiled details of its US election coverage.

The 24-hour news and information channel will provide analysis over the next two weeks, with live election night coverage fronted by David Dimbleby.

BBC World will also broadcast a special edition of ‘Question Time’ featuring film-maker and author Michael Moore, columnist Richard Littlejohn and former Bill Clinton adviser Sidney Blumenthal.

Other discussion programmes feature guests such as Madeleine Albright, George Soros and former CIA director James Woolsey.

Yup that is really freakin unbiased programming.

[John]

You mention two key phrases that tell me that at least the BBC is being honest in what they are delivering: "Discussion Programme" and "Analysis" More than what fox is doing by cloaking their bias as NEWS. The BBC by the way, has a far more credible and trustworthy record of delivering balance on what they rightly call the NEWS; which again they make clear is very different than a talk show / discussion format. Good on them for finding the liberal point of view more interesting for these particular NON-NEWS shows.

[am]

More media bias...?

"...The launching of an invasion against a country that posed no threat to the U.S., the doling out of war profits and concessions to politically favored corporations, the financing of the war by ballooning the deficit to be passed on to the nation’s children, the ceaseless drive to cut taxes for those outside the middle class and working poor: it is as if Bush sought to resurrect every false 1960s-era left-wing cliché about predatory imperialism and turn it into administration policy. Add to this his nation-breaking immigration proposal—Bush has laid out a mad scheme to import immigrants to fill any job where the wage is so low that an American can’t be found to do it—and you have a presidency that combines imperialist Right and open-borders Left in a uniquely noxious cocktail."

http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover1.html

Or to quote Rob Corddry (the Daily Show): How does one report the facts in an unbiased way when the facts themselves are biased?

[bill]

no all i know is that the people who will use these in public are the same one who wanted to stop and stopped the movie that told the truth about kerry from aring

[Serapheem]

Ahh.. but you can watch STOLEN HONOR for free online.

http://www.stolenhonor.com/

Watch and wake up people.

[Mike]

I was up at 7am this morning, and caught most of "Stolen Honor" on PAX. Amazing how the far right still blames protestors for the humiliation of Vietnam. You may label John Kerry a war criminal, as he himself admitted to participating in free-fire zones on swift boat duty. And you can make every effort to link him to Jane Fonda. But know this: While Kerry was in the line of fire every day in Vietnam, George Bush was partying with his Air National Guard buddies in Houston, Texas. He never saw active duty.

All I can wish for is that you end up on the front lines somewhere like Fallujah, when it's entirely obvious to the troops fighting this war that it's been for no good reason. And while you're at it, go ahead and watch Going Upriver (http://www.thekerrymovie.com/) to get a true account of Kerry's service in Vietnam.

[Serapheem]

Here is everything you need to know about Kerry and the military and how he truely would fight the war on terror

John Kerry pressed for the President to pass a test before taking action against terrorists,

"While I stated that my initial inclination was to support the President, I pointed out that two essential tests had to be met in determining whether or not the U.S. action was appropriate. First, the United States had to have irrefutable evidence directly linking the regime to a terrorist act and, second, our response should be proportional to that act."

But this wasn't 2004, it was 1986. This was John Kerry's response to Ronald Reagan's military actions against Libya. It gives a very interesting insight into what John Kerry thinks of fighting terrorists.

Admitting that the evidence tying Tripoli to the disco bombing was "irrefutable," the U.S. had failed the proportionality test, Kerry argued - "It is obvious that our response was not proportional to the disco bombing and even violated the Administration's own guidelines to hit clearly defined terrorist targets, thereby minimizing the risk to innocent civilians. ... "There are numerous other actions we can take, in concert with our allies, to bring significant pressure to bear on countries supporting or harboring terrorists."

You see, even in the face of admitting "irrefutable" evidence linking a country to terrorism against the U.S., John Kerry was still calling for sanctions, rather than action. John Kerry keeps reiterating his red herring argument that Saddam was not tied to 9/11. His stance in 1986 persents a very clear indication that even if Saddam had personally packed the luggage for Mohammad Atta on September 11, 2001, John Kerry would've still opposed military action in favor of sanctions.

I will weep for this country if that coward and traitor is elected

[KC]

Typical liberal reaction. Turn it off. Don't listen to opposing points of view. Good points made here. Fox gives opposing points of view with NPR and other left-leaning media types unlike other other mainstream news channels. And if the blogger watched carefully he would notice that Fox regular news is pretty straight up objective news.The talk shows have a conservative bent. And they don't try and hide it. That's who they are.