Letters to the Editor

Letters posted here are associated with the following article:
The network isn't just covering the election -- it's an issue within it.
The letters thread is now closed.
  • The sins of the father

    In responding to your question, wouldn't it be useful (and relevant) to know something about Murdoch's daughter? Does she have a political track record of her own? Is she to be presumed to be acting as a surrogate for her father, or should we evaluate her fundraiser on its (and her) own merits?

  • My vote

    I will vote for the candidate who promises in the first 100 days to ban FOX's use of the word "news" for it's propaganda.

  • Your vote

    Yes, the best candidate for president would be one that asserts the office's power over the media and bans the use of certain words.

    Nice call.

    Oh wait, it's not April 1 anymore.

  • FOX is NOT News

    Considering the racists attacks on Obama from FOX by Hannity, O'Reily and Rush, I'm surprised. Too bad the daughter cannot influence FOX to get some real journalism instead of right-wing propagandists pretending to present fair and balanced, news.

    It's obvious that FOX news people have never looked up the phrase..'Objectivity".

    ONe thing woudl help if the next president asked Congress to reinstate the FCC "fair and accuracy" clause in their regulations, and limit the number of air waves that can be bought by one woner in an area.

    If course many others are bailing on Hillary. Obama is coming to Northern CA this week and having some BIG fund raiser's at the houses of the traditional Clinton supporters. He's preparing for the general.

  • you misunderstand me 'Ironocrat'

    I'm not talking about a president, like the criminal one we have now who controls the media and bans words like 'due process', 'habeas corpus', 'constitutional rights' and such. I'm talking about a president who will not allow the public airwaves to be used for the private enhancement of right wing extremists. At least not whilst misleading the public as to the nature of their product.... which is anything but 'news'.

  • @ benbart

    ONe thing woudl help if the next president asked Congress to reinstate the FCC "fair and accuracy" clause in their regulations, and limit the number of air waves that can be bought by one woner in an area.

    I think you're referring to what was known as the "Fairness Doctrine", which never guaranteed accuracy. It only made sure that individuals or groups who disagreed with opinions stated on a station, and were considered to be "responsible", had a chance at getting some time on-air to rebut them.

  • Smart like a FOX

    Fox knows that the Republicans' power is waning and they'll soon be covering a Democratic administration. They can't be counting on the VP as a frequent guest and special treatment from the president any more.

    So, they're just sucking up. Changing with the times. Going with the flow. Trying to make sure they have some contact with news sources in the future.

    Good luck. I hope they disappear.

  • Fox will love the next 4-8 years

    They live for a Democratic administration in the white house. What better circumstances can the "conservatives" get to eventually dumb down the public back to Reagan erro.. I mean era. Fox! The voice of malice and loathing. Sure it'll be sour grapes for half a year but then, the evil will gestate again right before America's eyes and Murdoch and his team of liars will stupefy the public back into the graceful, hateful goose-stepping we’ve witnessed for the last 8 years before you can say Hillary Clinton. Alex, you look strung out, take a vacation.

  • Actually, heyjude...

    I think it'll be the opposite.

    FOX: "Tonight...as the scandal-plagued Obama Administration enters it's third month, shocking new revelations about Reverend Wright and Tony Rezko..."

    And it'll all be BS, of course, but then again, this network was born during Whitewater and came of age on Monicagate

    (eww, sorry, I swear that was unintentional)

  • 'normanx'

    I don't think I misunderstood you.

    You're saying you'd prefer the president had the power to decide what is news and what is not, and I'm saying that's a stupid idea. If that requires further explanation, I don't know what to tell you.

    Fox News is just as much news as CNN or MSNBC. Unfortunately, this speaks more to the value of 95% of "news" programming in general than anything else.

    Finally, you can trust that if Rupert Murdoch thought he could make a buck off a hard-left cable news channel, Fox would trade Bill O'Reilly for Rachel Maddow in a heartbeat.

  • After . . .

    . . . Jeremiah Wright, James Meek and Tony Rezko, how bad can this Murdoch girl be? Are you judging her by who her father is. Do you even know her name, Alex?

    This is more no-news from Alex Koppleman. Obama is the New York Post endorsee while Hillary is the New York Times endorsee, that show speak loads, not a fund raiser hosted by a private citizen despite how evil her father might be.

    I used to loathe Fox News, but Keith Olberman is making me rethink my approach to Fox.

  • SobeOne

    Would you care to explain your comment about Olbermann? I don't watch cable news for the most part, so I'd be interested to hear what you mean.

  • I think people need to understand the extent of the Murdoch's political cynicism

    Murdoch started as a somewhat populist tabloid newspaper publisher in Australia -- actually a little liberal and even leftwing by US standards. He then expanded to UK newspapers and was initially a little anti-monarchist even. He became rabidly right wing as the British Labour party self destructed and backed Margerate Thatcher to the hilt, and then John Major in his first election. When the writing was on the wall for the tories in 1996, he flipped, and then his main tabloid, The Sun after the 1997 election reminded Labour what he had done with the headline "It was the Sun wot won it." Similarly in China he was pro-civil rights until Sky needed satelite rights, then changed his tune to pro-China Communist Party.

    The Murdochs are cynical opportunists -- they suck up to the party in power shamelessly and without limit. What all of this means is that Murdoch has decided that the Republicans are over -- in January he thought the nouvel regime would be Clinton, now he thinks Obama. I just hope Hillary and Obama both remember, you cannot trust the little whore, and probably the rest of the family.

    Meanwhile, cue panic at Fox.