Fox News: In Defense of Indefensible Media

I've heard reports recently that Fox News - Rupert Murdoch's right-wing media channel - has been refused broadcast rights in Canada because of Canada's Radio Law, which states a broadcaster may not "broadcast....any false or misleading news."

Ironically, I'm not entirely sure whether this account isn't in itself false or misleading - it seems to stem from a single piece written by Pace University Professor Robert F. Kennedy Jnr. that isn't holding up to independent scrutiny.

Nevertheless, it raises a really interesting question about the media in America.

Now, I'm no fan of Fox News. I think all news outlets tend to be biased, but Fox News is deliberately so - and engages in journalistic practices ranging from the outright dishonest to the mind-numbingly stupid.

But I am a fan of the 1st Amendment - and dislike any attempts to finagle with the freedom of the press.

One such attempt was the so-called Fairness Doctrine, introduced by the FCC in 1949 to 'balance' different political positions on the radio (and subsequent broadcast mediums.) It should have been called the 'unFairness Doctine', though, because it basically amounted to a tiny group of regulators having the power to dictate the scope and form political discussion could take - an absolute violation of the 1st Amendment.

Ronald Reagan wisely scrapped the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 and that led to the explosion of conservative talk radio - which has since then unequivocally ruled the airwaves. So much so, that many liberals argue that the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated to balance the right-wing opinion out.

But they're wrong.

Because while it's true that talk radio is dominated by the right wing, let us not forget that Hollywood, the television industry, the majority of newspapers, magazines and the bulk of TV news outlets are undeniably (and sometimes proudly) left-leaning.

Complaining about the balance of talk radio is taking the same short-sighted view of the media as the critics of the SIRIUS and XM Satellite Radio merger - it ignores the fact that radio is not the only form of broadcast media people get exposed to these days (which wasn't the case when the Fairness Doctrine was written.)

Given that people get their political opinion from papers, podcasts, online videos and the TV - all in addition to radio - you'd have to admit that balance and fairness already exists. In fact, if there is a bias, amidst the conglomeration of all those other forms of broadcast media, it's almost certainly to the left.

Which is why I think there's an important place for news sources like Fox News - not just in America, but in Canada too. If people are demanding a different form of news media - one that is more aligned to their political opinion - is seems fundamentally undemocratic to deny them that; especially under some self-righteous claim of 'fairness.'

That being said, I would welcome a law like the one Kennedy referenced - which makes it illegal to broadcast 'false and misleading information.' Because if I have one criticism of Fox News (and I actually have plenty) it's that they've been caught lying their pants off time and time again.

Just recently, for example, I was watching the protests in Wisconsin unfold and saw an interesting news clip of a Wisconsin 'union thug' pushing an 'honest, working American' to the ground.

In the background of that clip, however, were palm trees - which resolutely fail to grow in Wisconsin; especially in February!

It was later revealed that the clip used in the Wisconsin news report was taken from a protest in California six months earlier. That's the kind of false and misleading 'reporting' Fox News should be rightly vilified for.

But if America was to adopt a law similar to Canada's - which forbid broadcasting 'false or misleading' information - would Fox News be the only broadcaster to fall foul of it?

What do you think?

Palin Smackdown

Nobody's going to deny that there's bias in the media - just flick on Fox News and you'll see daily disinformation on a scale Joseph Goebbels would have been proud of.

But when it comes to Sarah Palin... Enough is enough.

I'll admit, I'm on the fence when it comes to Sarah. I like her plucky spirit and determination. I'm not so keen on her religious fervour or questionable opinions on the environment.

(To illustrate my conflict; as keen on hunting as I am, the 'ariel shooting' Palin advocates seems a little unfair. I mean, tracking down a wolf or moose with a high powered rifle makes hunting one sided enough. Targeting them from low-flying airplanes is just thoroughly unsporting!)

But whatever my reservations about Ms. Palin, I have noticed a landslide of negativity being sent her way by the press and media.

It's true that the media tends to have a liberal bias (with the exception of the Fox Propaganda Network.) But I can't remember it ever being quite so blatant before.

Sarah Palin is a nice enough lady. She's got a lovely family and a successful career - one she achieved all on her own, without any of the 'positive discrimination' feminists are screaming for. Sure, she's not perfect. But she's not bad, as far as it goes.

Yet the media is merciless in their attacks against her. Just this morning, I saw her being dismissed as 'a bucket of fluff.' People are openly questioning her political ability, her commitment to her family and even her dress sense.

Come on, guys. It's not only not very nice. It's also dumb. The more the liberal left attack Sarah Palin, the more they galvanise the moderates and the right wing to back up 'that nice little Alaskan lady.'

Not to mention, some of the attacks are just damn stupid.

Seriously, why would the Democrats make such a thing about Palin's perceived 'inexperience' when she's at least as experienced as their own Presidential candidate. I'm sorry, but that's just playing into the right wing's hands.

Whichever way you look at it, McCain pulled an ace from his sleeve when he selected Sarah Palin to stand for the vice presidency. The only way the Democrats are going to trump this clever move is by shelving the attacks against her - completely.

They need to play nice - to recognize Sarah Palin's refreshing perspective, her family values and her political ambitions. They need to pat her on the head, tell everybody what a good job lil' Sarah is doing and dismiss her as a political unimportance. Only then they can concentrate on the main target - McCain.

If they play nice, they won't seen to be mean spirited bullies. It'll pull the carpet out from the Republican's campaign and put them back on a level footing.

But I don't think the liberals are capable of that level of political sophistication. They're just going to team up on this friendly, family woman and bombard her with the sort of mean-spirited maliciousness they wailed about the Republicans aiming towards Hillary.

The scary thing? This election was the Democrats to lose - and a damn fine job they're doing of exactly that.

Osama Bin Laden

I am trying to avoid getting political in my blog, since there are many people, equally as unqualified as me, who think that their opinion is more worth listening to. I ought to give them space to rant. I don't know anything either. Opinions are like noses - we all have them.

However, who can ignore Osama Bin Laden's sixth anniversary present to America? A video in which he suggests the only solution to the war in Iraq is that America embrace Islam.

An entire nation convert. And not just to 'Islam.' To an approved TYPE of Islam. After all, the only thing the Shi'a hate more than Americans are the Sunni.

Osama Bin Laden (if it really is him and not some stooge in a fake beard and a wig) is a dick.

He's been given so much ammunition. A quagmire in Iraq. A nation split between support for it's cowboy president and unmitigated hatred. If ever there was a time for Osama Bin Laden, the most hated man in America (closely followed by George Bush, if you follow certain news channels) to make a statement that the American people would listen to, this was it.

And what happens?

The bastard makes a clearly impossible demand that firmly reestablishes al-Qaida's commitment to chaos. He has no aims apart from continuing the Jihad against America. As far as Osama Bin Laden is concerned, there can be no peace while a sovereign American nation continues to exist.

His demands are deliberately unobtainable. He doesn't want to win. He only wants to fight and kill and lead thousands of martyred sheep to their doom.

It's a pretty depressing thought, but also a sobering one. America can't find a diplomatic solution to this crisis no matter what it does, short of ceasing to exist.

Many Americans consider themselves divided. In actual fact, they're more united than ever. Whether liberal or Conservative - red or blue - they're all equally despised in the eyes of al-Qiada.

Nothing any of us can do will ever 'win over' the enemy. Whether we stay in Iraq or flee, the war against democracy and freedom will continue.

The jihad is here. It's now. And it's not going away in a hurry no matter who you vote for, which radio station you listen to or what political pundit you support.