Advertising or "Commercial speech" enjoys somewhat less First Amendment protection from governmental encroachment than other types of speech. The Federal Trade Commission, for example, may regulate speech that is found to be "deceptive."

If corporations, even media and news corporations, want to publish falsehoods and lies for monetary gains, a stiff fine imposed by a regualtory agency may have the desired effect of keeping them honest.

@kdwmson

I don't have any beef with unions per se or with collective bargaining. I dislike laws that give unions exclusive privilege to represent people or that force others to do business with them.

Then you either don't understand the law, sir, or you do have a beef with unions per se.

I suggest you read the National Labor Relations Act, and once you understand its provisions and understand how it is administered and enforced, you come back and we'll talk some more.

Or is it that you simply believe the National Labor Relations Act itself is unnecessary? That employers would welcome collective bargaining in the absence of a mandate that they do so after a majority of their employees indicate through a secret ballot election that they wish to negotiate wages, hours, benefits and other terms and conditions of their employment?

Perhaps you should read some history too before we talk again. Your "libertarian" attitude was a major historical factor in assuring the eventual passage of the laws you so hate. You have only yourselves to blame, so deal with it.

As some one who watches Keith and Chris regularly and used to watch Brit I can say with conviction that if Britt Hume's interviews with Bush are an example of his jounalistic skills he should thank God for Fox News. Just one example: Hume asked the President what newspapers he read and Bush said he did not have time to read the papers that he got all the news he needed to know from his staff including Condi Rice. Instead of asking a tough follow-up question Britt skated smoothly by and popped another marshmallow at Bush.

As pointed out Mathews is star struck by the President, in fact harking back to the early days of Bush's Presidency when he walked down the aisle of Air Force One and playfully mussed the hair of the reporters and gave them nicknames, Chris was permanently bedazzled. Keith is one of those "what you see is what you get", far and away the least ambiguous of the lot.

Ok we agree. In one breath most of you scream that the media is a bunch of pussies laying down and in the next you start marching to the windmill with your pitchforks and torches to slay the monster who is the mirror image of your guy.

Ok, it's your monster. I'm sure everyone's snarky paper throwing antics will change the world. See it's just TV. Anyone who stakes their egos on this crap needs to revisit the life decisions they've taken that lead them thus.

... the diminishing utility of this conversation, the improbability that anybody is interested, and the fact that this whole libertarian discussion is really a sideline, I posted my longish response to the posts directed my way at: http://il-miglior-fabbro.blogspot.com/

Brit Hume is a journalist? Maybe in Putin's Russia. Or at Fox "News." Hume is an agent for the propaganda that comes out of the Rove's and Cheney's WH and the RNC.

Olbermann has the nerve to question the powers that be. The fact that his show has high ratings demonstrates that people appreciate well thought out criticism of the government's policies. In a democracy, debates and dissenting opinions are healthy. In the sick totalitarian world of the WH, most of the MSM and the propagandists like Fox, of course, debates and dissenting opinions equate treason. Maybe we should ship all these people to Russia....

As a far right (up against the stop) conservative, I read all the examples of Left Wing MSM bias tossed up on the blogs - and I'm sure they're all true. Currently the Right Wing is criticizing the way Chris Mathews handled the Republican candidate debate. This criticism is all sort of valid after you digest the analysis, but I still think he did an okay job. Even Olberman delivered reasonable commentary. With the daily news, I find all three networks about the same on a day to day basis. Except Olberman. He is so continuously and overtly liberal, he is nothing but a distraction. It's like you're not getting any information, slanted or no.

But you can turn it off, and you are not paying for it.

Not so with NPR, and with PBS.

Bill Moyers is more of a partisan than Brit Hume is.

Tavis Smiley is a mouthpiece for the Congressional Black Caucus.

Terry Gross doesn't know how to ask any hard questions of anyone on the left.

Garrison Keillor writes for Salon!

NPR's "Senior News Analysts" are Democrats Juan Williams (D-VA), Daniel Schorr (D-NY) and Cokie Roberts (D-LA).

NPR has left-leaning shows on the media (Brooke Gladstone and Bob Garfield), on the environment (Living on Earth), on race and society (News and Notes, Tavis Smiley), and the arts (Fresh Air). There isn't a single conservative program host or show on NPR.

The fact that Fox has Brit Hume asking questions that no other network anchor asks, and has ratings with O'Reilly that blow away Olbermann, and is making all of you so crazy with rage, tells me that they are onto something very important.

I say to Fox, keep it up. And I say to public broadcasting, your days as a left-wing ivory tower are numbered.

Brit Hume is the sort of "journalist" that America's founding fathers warned you about. Sadly he is also the sort of "journalist" that America now deserves.

Brit Hume is the sort of "journalist" that America's founding fathers warned you about. Sadly he is also the sort of "journalist" that America now deserves.

Back on October 1, 2006, I sent Mr. Bauder an email in response to another attack on Keith Olbermann:

In your article about Fox's slumping viewership, it was fascinating to note that though you characterized both Keith Olbermann and news viewers as increasingly partisan, you never applied this label to Fox News or to Roger Ailes, both of whom epitomize partisanship. I can't speak for every news viewer, but I find Fox's partisanship sickening (perhaps the decline in their viewerwhip means that I'm not alone). The nation's interests are never served when people are told what the ruling establishment wants them to hear, and Fox News has been a propaganda branch for this administration in all but name. As for Mr. Olbermann, he is far fairer and far more balanced than anyone at Fox.

Regrettably, I don't have Bauder's original article, but I do have his response to my email:

Well, I referred to Mr. Ailes in the article as a ``former Republican operative'' and discussed Fox's effort to provide another voice. All in the eyes and ears of the beholder, I guess...

So you see, Fox is heroically providing another voice, but Olbermann is partisan. And this is long before Mr. Olbermann participated in any presidential debate.