about this stupid comparison:

"But comparing the tactics of the Nixon administration -- which bugged and intimidated and harrassed journalists -- to that of the Obama administration was foolish, facile, ridiculous and, ultimately, embarrassing to me. I should have known better and, in fact, I do know better. I was around during the Nixon years. I am fully cognizant of what they did and attempted to do."

This from a guy who should know full well that FOX is NOT a news organization, but a fully-functioning arm of the hard-right-wing. Cheney's home away from home. Propaganda.

This from a guy (Rudin) who compared Hillary to the Glen Close character in "Fatal Attraction".

He also apologized for that howler, too. Rudin seems to have to apologize a lot.

After eight years of stenography and looking to Drudge for inspiration, elements of our press corps now seem confused when the Obama administration made a simple statement of fact:

Fox News is a propaganda operation.

If Fox's cheerleading the Teabagger movement into existence wasn't proof enough for those presstitutes, they're either on the payroll or hoping to be. Nobody could be that credulous.

The fact that there are people in mainstream "journalism" who think of Fox as a "news channel" -- or pretend to -- simply boggles my mind. But I guess it's par for the current ill-fated course. The older I get, and the more I see, the more radically I find my understanding of American politics shifting to the left. When "Manufacturing Consent" was new I had a very hard time wrapping my head around it. Now it seems tame, even quaint, and Chomsky seems like a veritable prophet -- without honor, just as the scripture says.

I would not weep to see them all swept away -- the NYT, the "news" networks, all the consensus-reality hucksters who cheered us into the Iraq debacle like it was a game. The only public service they provide is paying reporters to gather news -- and they permit so little of the reality of our public life to reach the masses that their dominance in the newsgathering field is a mixed blessing at best. I say give your ears and your subscription money to your favorite independent media source -- including enterprises that are trying to fill this newsgathering function -- and tell the MSM -- all of them -- to shove their high journalistic self-regard where the moon don't shine.

All that said, I would never make the mistake of lumping the others with Fox. It's in a class by itself -- a fraud, a sham, a travesty, a bunch of actors performing propaganda pieces in which they pretend to be journalists. It would be funny, I mean really funny -- if so many people didn't fall for it.

Fox News is not considered a legitimate news organization because it is the only one that does not constantly spew forth Democratic propaganda!!??

Actually, by any objective criteria, FNC qualifies as the ONLY legitimate nationwide TV news channel. The Fourth Estate was never supposed to be a cheerleader for those in power. The Press' primary responsibility is to constantly investigate, and if necessary, criticize government.

Other examples of press disdain abound among Republican presidents who followed Nixon:

Almost immediately upon taking office, Ronald Reagan declared war on the Freedom of Information Act, forcing reporters to undertake long and costly legal battles to obtain public documents. And let's not forget his role in eliminating the Fairness Doctrine, without which Fox "News" spreads its lies, smears, obfuscation, and innuendo.

During George H. W. Bush's tenure, his administration set a new standard for media suppression of battlefield coverage, severely restricting journalists' access and autonomy.

The paranoia-driven Bush/Cheney White House furthered the war-time press hysteria, refusing to allow photos of America's war casualties, questioning the patriotism of editorial critics, and refusing to provide or apparently compile civilian-casualty statistics, especially in Iraq.

And who can forget W's love affair with conservative pundits, who dutifully lined up at the White House for their G.O.P. talking points? Or his fake journalist? Or his bought-and-paid-for columnist?

So when it comes to the real party of "Nixonian" tactics, nothing much has changed except that the party of bad ideas has morphed into the party of no ideas, to wit: Even when villifying Obama, a Democrat, they can't come up with a better example than a Republican.

Talk about irony...

Violating my solemn oath never to respond to right-wing trolls, I just could not resist congratulating you on your belated realization that the function of journalism is not to "be a cheerleader for those in power." But putting that truism in the same paragraph with an assertion that Faux is "the ONLY legitimate nationwide TV news channel" proves that you (1) slept through the last administration, (2) are trolling for laughs, or (3) are engaging in psy-ops on behalf of the GOP by trying to poison this discussion before it gets off the ground.

The third possibility intrigues me, especially now that we are hearing confirmation in other contexts of what I've long suspected -- not everybody posting in discussions like this one is doing it recreationally, or without compensation.

The Democratic Party slogan should be "Yeah, but that's different".

Obviously Mr. Obama. Never has any man come to the presidency with the public knowing so little about him. The strategy is that only the public image is to get out there, and Fox and talk radio are the only ones out there who are disputing its truth. Mr. Obama is at war with the only media where he can control his image. Remember when Nixon went out and mingled with the protesters who came en massee to DC? We sure didn't see this President among the almost million people who came to oppose him. Like the MSM they didn't see the crowds.

The pressures of office are clearly getting to him, because Obama keeps fumbling the very kinds of issues he should be able to tackle effortlessly.

Look, it's fine if he says "We all know Fox is skewed to the right and doing their best to see my administration fails." That's just honest. But to take an antagonistic stance is a huge blunder. Because it really is an example of the government attacking the press. As big a political sin as you can make in this country.

And, yes, Fox is a news channel. It's a very biased news channel, but it is a news channel.