Michael Wolfe

Fox News is being slammed by everyone these days, well at least everyone in the news media and white house, including two pharisees I’d love to introduce you to today, Slate and Newsweek.

Newsweek’s article, here, accuses Fox of “right wing bias,” and proceeds to do some first grade name calling without even stopping to consider something: the kind of attempted marginalization and war that the Obama regime has been waging against center-right talkers and news sources is unprecedented in the history of America. Newsweek, at the end of its repeated name callings, complaints about Fox covering the “anti-Obama” tea parties, and a sweeping passage about a “free and independent” press -which I wonder how they wrote and kept a straight face- they deliver this little gem of pure hypocrisy -keep in mind this is the same magazine that proclaimed from its cover “we are all socialists now”- and “is your BABY racist?”

“By appearing on Fox, reporters validate its propaganda values and help to undermine the role of legitimate news organizations.”

In all this I forgot the title and subtitle of the article: “The O’Garbage Factor: Fox News isn’t just bad. It’s un-American.” They can whine all they want, but the reality is, Fox is the ONLY news station that even attempts to present a conservative view of the news sometimes. And its coverage of the ACORN scandals was exclusive. If it wasn’t for Fox reporting, how many people, besides those computer savvy individuals who know all the good websites and blogs, would know about the controversies and scandals that pervade this regime? Newsweek also again claims that Fox sponsored the Tea Parties. If that’s the case, me and many others I know are still waiting on our check for the time and expense of traveling across the country to spend all day standing in protest. Its not coming. Why? Because the events were not sponsored by Fox News, that’s why!

The article asserts that Fox News is covering the charges the White House has made against it in a biased manner. Well, when you consider that Fox News and everyone there was attacked by the white house in a way that could theoretically destroy them and their jobs, I think you would tend to have an opinion and take offense. Would they accuse Ford of circling its wagons if Gibbs or some other underline came out and went into some kind of whining rant about how terrible Ford was, and about how Ford cars aren’t really cars, or some other such nonsense?

This brings us to the Slate article, here, which seems to say basically the same thing, that Fox isn’t being fair by opposing the White House attack, saying this:

Let’s do a quick study of our own. Five people are quoted in this (FOX’s) article. Two of them work for Fox. All of them assert that administration officials are either wrong in substance or politically foolish to criticize the network. No one is cited supporting Dunn’s criticisms or saying that it could make sense, morally or politically, for Obama to challenge the network’s power. It’s a textbook example of a biased news story.

A cursory search of Slate’s website finds article after article attacking Fox News, couldn’t Slate perhaps find an author that supports Fox’s view point? Hmm… Anyways, maybe it makes sense for Fox to have an opinion on this one, “are we credible?” “is it right for a president to attack a private news company?” The Nixon comparisons seem pretty accurate, in case Slate has forgotten the Administration’s  personal attacks on other right-leaning persons, from Rush “you can’t listen to him and get anything done” Limbaugh to Sarah “Lip stick on a pig” Palin.

Just in case you think Slate doesn’t have a bias, you know that terrible evil wicked thing that Fox News has? Check out this little piece where they fawn over MSNBC darling Keith Olbermann. (They note that both they and Olbermann share the same master: Microsoft. Hmmm… Looks like Slate is in bed with MSNBC and doing shameless promotion…? Na, that’s propaganda, and Slate would NEVER ever do that… I mean, that’s what Fox news is, right?)