digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall now online!
Check out the latest Digg Townhall, where Kevin and Jay answered the top questions from the Digg Community!

See the original image at time.com —

Time Magazine: Can Fox News Survive After The Bush Era Ends?

time.com — Lets Hope Not ...

show profanity settings
expand all
  • nahsrocketeer75, on 03/30/2008, -13/+172Much as the thought may be appealing, I doubt Fox is going away any time soon.
    • badenglishihave, on 03/30/2008, -2/+12Agreed... I don't think that putting a democrat in the White House means that everybody in the US will turn democrat and thereby abandon conservative news outlets such as Fox.
      • willskillz, on 03/30/2008, -9/+5you forgot the
        /s
        • swimmer88, on 03/30/2008, -11/+4excuse me....um...fox news is the only fair and balanced news
          • Killwize, on 03/30/2008, -1/+8LOLz
          • nospinhere, on 03/31/2008, -5/+2Actually to the liberal media Fox News would seem way off to the right, but they are actually more in the middle then anyone else.
        • DavidBGie, on 03/30/2008, -7/+3Fox appeals to true Americans, that's why you phony libtards can't stand them. Fox has guest AND hosts that are liberal and conservative. And unlike CNN who go out and find the most retarded conservatives they can, Fox brings on the best of both sides. Watch it and learn for once libtards! The old corporate liberal media is DEAD! The sad old liberal hippies are starting to loose! Wake up! The Web is here now and the truth is coming out. STOP BEING A LIBTARD! The brain-washers no longer control what we read!
          • badenglishihave, on 03/30/2008, -2/+3haha funny part is I'm a conservative. I just can't stand how rude the conservative hosts are on Fox. Not all conservatives worship Fox...
      • JoeVet, on 03/30/2008, -9/+10See, some people can be fooled all of the time. This idiot still believes Foxnews is a legitimate news outlet. I'll bet he even believes that we went into Iraq to liberate the people and that Saddam has buried WMD's in the desert. Some people deserve to be taken advantage.
        • willskillz, on 03/30/2008, -5/+6i bet he also wears his flag pin everyday.
      • TimDigg, on 03/30/2008, -1/+6Actually Fox news makes more money when an "enemy" is running the show...

        kinda like Limbaugh made more money when Clinton was pres than Bush
      • rebrad, on 03/30/2008, -1/+5What is surprising is that Time magazine still exist. They have lived long past their relevance or sustainability.
    • OriginalLucid1, on 03/30/2008, -24/+19Why is it appealing to silence an opposing view? The only reason to hold such a view is that your side of the argument can't withstand the scrutiny. Thats the real reason liberals hate "faux news". It exposes them and there shallow ideology.
      • phunlee, on 03/30/2008, -6/+20There are 'opposing views' and then there is 'Fox News Views'. Which seem to not be based on fact or complete thoughts or reason. I'm not saying my side is perfect.
      • JoeVet, on 03/30/2008, -8/+14Opposing views are good but flat out lying is not legitimate debate tactics. You had better make sure you goose step along with Fox "news" or they will label you a democrat like they do anyone who disagrees with their message of hate. The lies and distortions presented by Fox appeal to those who want to justify thier own opinion. It is not meant for anyone who just want the truth.
      • theOster, on 03/30/2008, -5/+12it's not so much "an opposing view" as entertainment being sold as journalism. the sad part is that a huge percentage of the population is convinced that the fox news channel *is* journalism and as a result they come away with a very biased version of the "news" (Rupert Murdoch's version).
      • nationalist, on 03/30/2008, -6/+2don't worry i dugg you up!
      • pdrap, on 03/30/2008, -3/+4If you have one person telling the truth and one person telling lies, then it's not a good thing to consider the two and come to a conclusion somewhere in the middle.

        Fox is a bunch of liars. It cannot be pointed out often enough.
      • tyywebb, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1"their"
    • delrin500, on 03/30/2008, -5/+10All we need is someone with enough balls to breakup these huge media companies.. it just makes sense to say that no one company or person should have that much influence on everything we see, hear, and read. We have had years of examples to what happens when someone abuses that influence.
      • n0gnuz, on 03/30/2008, -6/+4Yeah, but Time itself is part of one of the huge media empires, and, unlike Fox, it represents the views of a tiny, elite minority. Every Fox-basher needs to stop hiding from the reason that FNC took off: That the majority of Americans want more balance than they're getting from the Judeo-liberal national-level media, which still fondly remembers Stalin and Mao as 'progressives' and genuflects before Castro.

        FNC itself has been compromised by neocon minority elitism, but what goads the liberals is that it's still more appealing to the majority of Americans than the constant litany of corporate minoritarianism and soft-core socialism that NYT, CT, WP, ABC, NBC, and CBS have been subjecting us to for decades.
        • Killwize, on 03/30/2008, -2/+1Ya? THAT'S total *****! "the media is liberal." That is the biggest untruth there is! It makes since thou, If they are going to be so bias, they better make it out like they are just being "fair."
    • LukasSmith, on 03/30/2008, -3/+6A democratic president will be a Godsend for Fox. They can do what Jon Stewart does everyday. Which reminds me with Bush gone I guess Stewart will be out of a job. Bye bye Stewart.
      • scott88008, on 03/30/2008, -2/+9I'm sure Stewart will have no problem satirizing politicians of any party.
      • LukasSmith, on 03/30/2008, -0/+2Actually he will probably have problems. His popularity in Clinton years was pretty slim. Though he takes himself and his show less then seriously or so he says his political bias shows through in every way. Thus is a democrat president is elected he wont have much of an audience.
    • Modizzle, on 03/30/2008, -0/+1Well, if Rush can, I don't see why Fox can't.
    • whodat51773, on 03/30/2008, -4/+2With almost EVERY other news agency and periodical LOSING market share why would anyone believe FOX News (who continues to GAIN market share) would begin to decline....Truth sells.
      • trickyt, on 03/30/2008, -1/+3Don't you mean sexy women and sensationalist exaggerations, especially spun to match the viewers' values sell?
        • whodat51773, on 03/30/2008, -2/+1Actually, it is press outlets like Time that need to understand that what will likely make Fox viewers mad in 2009 is exactly why they first turned to this station years ago: the obvious liberal bias at press outlets like Time.

          Duh!
          Noel Sheppard
          newsbusters.org
      • Killwize, on 03/30/2008, -1/+1If there it's one thing I have learned from the Media (all news media, red and blue) is that Truth is the best ratings killer ever. If you want to make it a hit you beater make it juicy! Oh and spinning the news so that it makes people angry is the Golden Ticket to great Ratings. People want drama not the truth. The truth is boring.

        I remember watching this one news story where they were doing a show on this boy that hooked up with this girl using MySpace to communicate. The two had sex, And her parents where saying that he 'raped' her. The whole show was about how bad he was and how it was MySpace's fault, it totally spun it like he was a dangerous "sexual predator." (I'm talking about high schoolers here.) Well at the very last second before the commercial, they casually said that the courts found that the girl had actually come on to him and that the sex was totally consensual and that she was lying about the whole situation.

        My point is that people don't watch the news to get the "whole truth and nothing but the truth." They watch it because it angers them and they have to oppose it.
        • whodat51773, on 03/30/2008, -0/+1Actually you were just exposed to a dose of "today's news", a vivid example what has driven viewers TO foxnews
    • thatsmyaibo, on 03/30/2008, -1/+3Fox shouldn't go anywhere. No matter how much I or anyone else disagree with their "news", they have a right to broadcast. What happens to the White House this November won't change the viewership. Bush has a horrible approval rating but they are still on the air. Why would that change when he's gone?
    • studdenfadden, on 03/30/2008, -0/+2Fox isn't going to disappear with McCain or Obama in the Whitehouse, for the same reason that the NY Times didn't disappear with Bush in it.
    • skaldicpoet9, on 03/30/2008, -0/+1The thing that I find strange is the fact that many of the people who would watch a news network like Fox News are people that wouldn't agree with the values of the actual Fox television that is aired on their channels. There are programs that many conservatives are constantly outraged by being aired everyday on Fox. How is it that they can just ignore the hypocrisy of Fox?
  • jontalisman, on 03/30/2008, -12/+95Of course Fox will survive! They will thrive, digging up the dirt on whichever Democrat wins the White House in November.
    • gullydwarf, on 03/30/2008, -11/+2lol, come on now. It's going to be Hillary.


      McCain troll reporting in!
      • AndrewDB, on 03/30/2008, -3/+2At least your honest, and blockable.
        • smacksaw, on 03/30/2008, -1/+3By blocking someone over that, you're only cheating yourself.
    • exomni, on 03/30/2008, -6/+3I'm not sure what you mean... if you're implying McCain is a Democrat as well as Obama, while you'd be sort-of accurate, Fox news would be all over McCain's balls, no matter what his policies, so I'd digg your comment down.

      If you're implying that Clinton could win the nomination, let alone the presidency, then I think you're pretty unaware and I'm digging you down.

      Though I agree with the first half of your sentence.
    • malman4, on 03/30/2008, -0/+4You really think Fox will turn in to another MSNBC?
    • flashingcurser, on 03/30/2008, -0/+1I would think that a democrat in the white house would be a windfall for fox. Rupert Murdoch seems to think so:
      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12762092/
    • benbondu, on 03/30/2008, -0/+9The real question is if The Daily Show can survive without the Bush administration's endless source of material.
    • Rotzooi, on 03/30/2008, -2/+2No, the realer question is, can Stephen Colbert('s character) survive?
    • junkwheel, on 03/30/2008, -1/+1The end of the bush era will hit them hard, but they will rebound with an all female team of uber sexy news anchors and reporters, ratings go through the roof. Steve Doocy will dress like a female but eventually get found out by Fox's clued up viewers.
  • runner108, on 03/30/2008, -17/+112"Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious." ~1984
    • Parisjune, on 03/30/2008, -2/+2"Atlas Shrugged" woke me from my narco-American sleep.
    • sarixe, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1exactly... you can't be conscious while you're rebelling either, because then you're blinded as to how the other side thinks. though it is a very necessary experience, it's not ultimate by any means.
  • runner108, on 03/30/2008, -10/+67"And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'" ~1984
    • RGWX, on 03/30/2008, -22/+13Awwww...your senior class has 1984 for a reading assignment, doesn't it?
    • rdas7, on 03/30/2008, -2/+17"The true history of my administration will be written 50 years from now, and you and I will not be around to see it." - W.

      So, just a guess, the 'true history' will be: "USA: 1, Terror: 0" tie breaker goal scored by George W. Bush, President of Freedom™
      • Masticity, on 03/30/2008, -2/+8With an assist from Dick "The White Devil" Cheney
      • userperson, on 03/30/2008, -1/+4If it's written anything like it is now -- Yes, sadly that's exactly how it will go.
      • sarixe, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1i'll be around to see it... and i'm not going to like it whether it tells the truth or not.
    • jezsik, on 03/30/2008, -3/+10That book should be mandatory reading before voting.
      • userperson, on 03/30/2008, -0/+7I love the contradiction.
      • sarixe, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1no, people have to come upon a book like that by themselves. as experienced in my english class, you can ***** ruin this book by cramming it down students' throats. luckily i read it beforehand...
    • hoovcluck, on 03/30/2008, -1/+5double plus good quote!
  • littlebylittle, on 03/30/2008, -21/+5Ah, No. Although it will probably "transform" into a whole new beast to keep it's profit margin. It will become more moderate or die.
    • exomni, on 03/30/2008, -6/+5Not sure why you're being dugg down. McCain is left, so Fox news is obviously going to go more "moderate" so they can continue to suck the republican's balls.
      • OriginalLucid1, on 03/30/2008, -3/+5He is being dugg down because like you, he is wrong. Fox rules cable news ratings now, why would they change?
        • ElWizardo, on 03/30/2008, -3/+5They rule only in select markets and time slots... gotta read the fine print on the polls.
      • jezsik, on 03/30/2008, -5/+3You think the big business supporting, religious fundamentalist pandering, war-mongering candidate is on the "left"? How far out to the right do you have to be to believe THAT?
    • MoofTheStoof, on 03/30/2008, -2/+2They won't change. And there are deep enough pockets supporting them that they'll stay on the air spinning and misinforming well after they lose profitability. Making money for the network has always been secondary. Attaining and holding power for their masters has always been their primary purpose. The problem is their masters are such dismal failures that even Fox News' manic spinning won't help them hold power.
  • mochaman, on 03/30/2008, -24/+13Nothing would please more than to see then vanish into thin air.
    • Jawoodyablowme, on 03/30/2008, -4/+3When I had TV, I loved their business reports - Cavuto, I think was his name and they had my hero Jim Rogers (Investment Biker). Jim would on occasion spank Cavuto and other commentators.
      • oxymoron69, on 03/30/2008, -2/+8Jim Rogers the investment biker spanks a guy named Cavuto live on fox news?
        What the *****..... Fox has gay S&M on the business report?
        ewwwwww
        • MoofTheStoof, on 03/30/2008, -4/+2Actually, it probably would secretly appeal to many of their viewers. Not that there's anything wrong with S&M (gay or straight) as long as it's between consenting adults...

          and they use a safe-word.
      • JoeVet, on 03/30/2008, -2/+2We all know why you love Cavuto and it has nothing to do with news...... http://mediamatters.org/items/200512190010
    • userperson, on 03/30/2008, -0/+3If you say so.
      Cancel the super-model orgy.
    • Scorpy2643, on 03/30/2008, -2/+0Down with dissenting opinions to my own!
      (liberals rule)
  • metapop, on 03/30/2008, -29/+65as long as there are americans who enjoy being spoon-fed misinformation and celebrity fluff non-news, fox will exist.
    • username7D8, on 03/30/2008, -10/+17your right because CNN does'nt do that!
      • banmaster, on 03/30/2008, -9/+8Doesn't do it half as much as Fox.
        • username7D8, on 03/30/2008, -1/+8media in general is just really messed up! sometimes i can't turn the tv off, other times it makes me sick to watch the news.
          • ElWizardo, on 03/30/2008, -0/+4Bring on Cavuto's Parade of *****... yep... that's news.
          • InfamousAtheist, on 03/30/2008, -2/+2"I won't turn the tv off"
            Fixed
        • InfamousAtheist, on 03/30/2008, -3/+7I refuse to watch Faux News (except for clips I see on the web) so I can't compare the two fairly, but CNN spreads PLENTY of misinformation, bias, and celebrity trash news.

          ALL of the MSM outlets are sensationalists. I watch MSNBC more than any other but they're pretty ***** terrible too. A few of their people appear to be genuinely concerned about balance in the news, but overall they're a very biased network.
        • userperson, on 03/30/2008, -1/+5They all do, FOX just slants its bias right instead of left. Since people are used to watching stuff out of Hollywood & New York everyone chokes on this as being counter to everything else they've watch. Keep a skeptical eye on the others, their manipulation are just as bad, just not as 'in your face', more subtle.
          • mcquitty, on 03/30/2008, -1/+2Bias is not only in the direct model, but also how stories are headlined and the selection (or lack thereof) of specific stories to report on.
          • userperson, on 03/30/2008, -0/+1@mcquitty
            when I wrote bias, I meant bias in what is reported and/or how it's reported.
      • userperson, on 03/30/2008, -0/+6... or NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, HNN, etc etc.
    • bdbr, on 03/30/2008, -1/+13You just described all the mainstream news organizations.
    • hoovcluck, on 03/30/2008, -2/+10That is the main stream media as a whole. Fox news is just the most annoying.
  • cw1242, on 03/30/2008, -10/+67"coming up next, Do bees think?"....."Scientists say no."
    • camilos007, on 03/30/2008, -2/+22Its sad when we aren't sure if the quote comes from a Fox News anchorman or Kent Brockman.
      • Spottswood, on 03/30/2008, -1/+7Thats the whole point of Kent Brockman. The Simpsons are always taking jabs at fox
        • deutscher09, on 03/30/2008, -0/+6that would actually be a quote from family guy, tom tucker speaking.
          good try though.
          • Spottswood, on 03/30/2008, -4/+2I was responding to camilos007's comment, not cw1242's. But thanks for being a smartass anyway. I didnt know that it was a family guy quote
  • mayan, on 03/30/2008, -28/+63As long as there are dumb people that can't think for themselves, there will be Fox News.
    • camilos007, on 03/30/2008, -9/+18U.S. Bible belt?
    • lolmax, on 03/30/2008, -1/+1this is one those comments where as I clicked the digg up button someone simultaneously clicked digg down. Theres a fox news fan in our midst
  • copaceticZ, on 03/30/2008, -29/+16Well after the republicans push Obama into being the Democratic Presidential Candidate McCain will win and they will have at least 4 more good years.
    • Acewrap, on 03/30/2008, -2/+14Keep dreaming.
    • username7D8, on 03/30/2008, -8/+1i like how you think! ;-)
    • ExRe, on 03/30/2008, -4/+14If McCain got it, the country wouldn't last 4 years.
      • flip2trip, on 03/30/2008, -15/+3If Obama gets it we won't last ONE.
        • boombye, on 03/30/2008, -1/+2Ha you support that guy who made an ass out of himself in Illinois and insulted everyone here and said we'd all be going to hell because we're all sinners or something like that.
        • MoofTheStoof, on 03/30/2008, -0/+2I'll take that bet.
    • willskillz, on 03/30/2008, -2/+1i see what you did there.
    • Wakuko, on 03/30/2008, -2/+0And an undisputed reelection
      then a constitutional change to allow continuous reelections
      and republicans forever
      frightening no?
    • bdbr, on 03/30/2008, -0/+6If by "more good years" you mean 4 more years of war and debt, I'll pass.
  • MichaelCo, on 03/30/2008, -24/+17From an outsiders point of view (Aussie) we're all shaking our heads in disbelief how Americans are fed BS every day.
    Please check this video out (it'll NEVER be on FOX) - http://WarOnDemocracy.net
    • Dr0x, on 03/30/2008, -5/+8To be honest to say you "are shaking your heads at Americans in disbelief," shows that you don't really understand the situation. Our government straight up lied to us and covered up the information we would have needed to accurately assess what was going on. I don't see how the American people are at fault on this one when the truth never fully came out until it was to late to turn back, and in that sense Americans are shaking their heads at our government for screwing up and allowing men like Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney to hold so much power.
      • exomni, on 03/30/2008, -5/+8Have we impeached Cheney and Bush yet? No? Does ANYONE, even a SINGLE PERSON, still watch Fox news? Yes. Many, many, many people do.

        Even a single person watching Fox news, or unaware that we were criminally brought into this war, or against impeaching Bush and Cheney, would be enough to shake your head in disbelief at. We have a whole ***** country of ignorant scum.

        I shake my head in disbelief at my country. I can only hope that will change in 2009.
        • NoStoppingUs, on 03/30/2008, -4/+2lol. you people are such tools.
        • LukasSmith, on 03/30/2008, -5/+2Have you democrats come up with 1 shred of real evidence? 1 piece of evidence that might possibly survive in a courtroom. Short answer. No. so stfu. thanks. Ignorant people believe in God. Ignorant people also believe in facts without proof.
    • cvindustries, on 03/30/2008, -2/+12Outsider? It's the Aussies' fault, Murdoch is one of your cronies.
      • banmaster, on 03/30/2008, -0/+3Not since he had to change becaue of your foreign media ownership laws.
      • userperson, on 03/30/2008, -0/+2Yes, all Australians are part of the conspiracy. Just as all Americans support Bush and want war. *headwall*
        You are not your govt' you are not your country's aristocrats . Don't blame laymen for the deeds of murders and thieves.
    • exomni, on 03/30/2008, -1/+1*cough* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governments'_pre-war_ ...

      *cough cough* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_contributi ...
      • banmaster, on 03/30/2008, -3/+3Er, so? Its not that we aussies were ever in any doubt about the real reason for the war, unlike you americans.
        The difference is though, that we begged our politicians NOT to go to war, you guys begged your politicians TO GO to war.
        • exomni, on 03/30/2008, -0/+2*rolls eyes*

          Guess where the largest protest against the war was held back in 2003? New York.

          You fail.
      • sstidman, on 03/30/2008, -2/+2I don't remember anyone begging or even asking to go to war. But folks generally agreed at the time that it was necessary.

        What I remember is Saddam shooting missiles at American & British planes repeatedly. It's weird to me how everyone seems to have forgotten that at the time the constant aggression from Saddam was what set the mood for going to war. There has been this recent reinvention that suggests that the war was about terrorism, but that was really more the icing on top of the cake as far as the argument for going to war goes. The real motivator was the constant stream of attacks.
        • solid12345, on 03/30/2008, -1/+2This is the crap I never get. People act like this war with Iraq was "out of nowhere" yet you couldn't go a day in the news since the end of the first Gulf War without Iraq being mentioned whether it is them shooting at our planes in the no-fly zone, playing hide-and-seek with the inspectors, sending checks to suicide bombers in Palestine, the stunts Saddam was pulling were endless.
        • exomni, on 03/30/2008, -0/+1I remember us continually bombing Iraq for years before we ever invaded in 2003.
    • sstidman, on 03/30/2008, -2/+10Americans are fed all different perspectives on issues. You can find liberal news outlets, conservative news outlets and everything in between. You have to be intelligent and figure out the truth for yourself. Outside the US, folks are generally fed a single point of view. I've always found that more disturbing. Do people really believe they are being fed "the truth" and that there is no such thing as "perspective" on an issue?

      Not to defend Fox, although they obviously have a conservative perspective, at least they bring folks with various perspectives on the show to debate the issues. I always wonder why folks have no problem with the other end of the spectrum, like Democracy Now radio, which NEVER brings opposing perspectives. I would imagine the folks who are fans of Democracy Now actually believe they are getting "the truth", but in reality they are only getting a piece of the truth.
      • flip2trip, on 03/30/2008, -2/+6Thank you, dugg up.
      • userperson, on 03/30/2008, -1/+3I don't love FOX news, but I find it funny people want to destroy it, and then talk about 'free speech' in the next breathe.
        I think they bring a point of view which is usually neglected or ignored entirely. Sometimes it even should be.
        I think the fact they represent both sides of issues is a bit of a dubious claim though. They do, but they usually bring some conservative big shot to debate some way left-ist dirty hippie, usually: It's kinda like cheap theater. It's actually quite funny.
        I know they're not going away though, nor would I want them to.
      • dartmanx, on 03/30/2008, -0/+1Actually, you don't really see too much in between.
    • LukasSmith, on 03/30/2008, -2/+2Says the guy from the country that elected Howard. You have nothing to say buddy. Back to skinning Kangaroos.
    • dddavid, on 03/30/2008, -1/+2So you are holding Chavez out as an example of democracy??? WTF?
    • Micropolis, on 03/30/2008, -0/+1Good comment. When I went to look at the video I expected to see something I didn't know because the poster said our news is censored and we will never see it in this country. What I got was a video chopped together from news programs broadcast in America?? Funny stuff!
  • Rustymetal, on 03/30/2008, -6/+8this just reminds me of the sellouts on diggnation!
    • willskillz, on 03/30/2008, -3/+3you're refering to how all the diggers used to love Ron Paul and now they love Obama?
    • UtopiaInTheSky, on 03/30/2008, -0/+1Diggnation is a weekly podcast. I think you meant "the sellout members of the Diggnation" since it can be argued that hardcore Diggers form a "Diggnation". But that still sounds weird, because it seems as if you're referencing the podcast.
    • HOTM, on 03/30/2008, -0/+1No, go watch this weeks episode.....the first few minutes....it's a joke from the episode.
  • vikdog28, on 03/30/2008, -5/+0I don't think Fox's "professionalism" will change a bit. They're still going to throw insults at Democrats, but once the get into power. Right now, Bush is almost a lame duck and there is no definite Democratic candidate or President to focus all of their attention. Although, I do agree they would be walking the line with McCain, because I can't imagine someone like Hanity not passing some comment about him if he makes the office. Either way, Fox will just be shifting focus, from defending the President to attacking the new one.
  • execute85, on 03/30/2008, -11/+16Fox News started in the 90s (1996 I think). And it was popular because it complained about the democrats. It also changed the face of news as it balanced out CNN (which used to be a little left leaning).

    I think Fox News, Limbaugh and all those wackos will thrive under a democratic president. They'll just complain all day and people like watching/listening to people complain.
    • banmaster, on 03/30/2008, -3/+9*****! The whole 'ballance' thing was a complete fabrication. If you were a plutocrat like Murdoch, then I guess everything would be seen as 'left leaning'.
    • OriginalLucid1, on 03/30/2008, -4/+6"It also changed the face of news as it balanced out CNN (which used to be a little left leaning)."
      As opposed to now, as it leans just to the left of McGovern?
    • DaDrake, on 03/30/2008, -4/+6Fox news is a business. As a business they understood that a certain type of news wasn't being represented fairly in the media. Therefore, they hired many right-leaning (and some left-leaning) commentaries. The problem with the "fox news is bias" comments is its always about Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly (Two COMMENTARIES). As far as reporting the news, I can't say fox news is bias at all.
      • InfamousAtheist, on 03/30/2008, -2/+1You must not watch if you don't think their "news" (not just their editorialist scum) is biased.
  • Rotzooi, on 03/30/2008, -13/+5Fox News will suck the teet of power, be it Democrat or Republican.
    • Memitim, on 03/30/2008, -2/+1Nah, I don't think that they will need to. In the divisively partisan environment of the United States, they can continue to frame any issue with their us vs. them approach and maintain a massive viewership regardless of whether the script has the White House as being part of their team or as part of the enemy. They may even benefit by playing off the underdog angle again as they did when that network first started. Their viewers don't care about being rabid supporters of the half of the oligarchy currently in office, they only care aboout opposing their perceived enemy.

      The state of the nation is irrelevant as long as they feel superior to their perceived enemies. Fox News is to the Democratic party what Hilary Clinton is to Barack Obama.
  • malcam, on 03/30/2008, -1/+16Murdoch's papers in the UK can switch allegiance overnight in the run up to an election, and it doesn't affect them...
  • ferous, on 03/30/2008, -6/+67Time magazine IN PARTERNERSHIP WITH CNN predicting the demise of Fox News? This is like Coke coming out with advertisement predicting the demise of Pepsi. I hope Time/ CNN will act like the "elder statesmen" they are and not stoop to this level of combining advertising and journalim or they will lose the credibility that they accuse Fox News of lacking.
    • RGWX, on 03/30/2008, -0/+7That is a GREAT catch!
    • DaDrake, on 03/30/2008, -3/+13CNN constantly attacks fox news with stupid snide remarks. What is ironic is, last year.... CNN ratings went down to their lowest ever while Fox news has more viewers than all 3 major cable networks combine.
      • catachip, on 03/30/2008, -7/+2Yeah, but CNN isn't a *****. The top rated show in America is American Idol. That doesn't make it the best show on television, it means it appeals to the lowest common denominator. Arrested Development was probably the best thing to come out of American television comedy in 20 years, but, it had terrible rating. See my point?
        • flip2trip, on 03/30/2008, -3/+6You liked Arrested Development? Well that shot your credibiltiy. CNN is a sh**hole, you watch it don't you?
      • cnot3, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1Who wouldn't watch FOX news? Hannity and Colmes is the best comedy on TV.
    • InfamousAtheist, on 03/30/2008, -3/+3CNN lost credibility with me when they blindly supported Bush's warmongering prior to the invasion of Iraq.
      I'm no foaming at the mouth, right-wing, "all media is liberal" crybaby either. I studied journalism and actually paid attention in the ethics classes. CNN, FOX, and all the rest seem to have forgotten those bits.
  • yellowsnowcone, on 03/30/2008, -1/+2Maybe Revision 3 should put in a take-over offer ...
  • Hegemon05, on 03/30/2008, -19/+12More liberal media wishful thinking
    • evilpoptart, on 03/30/2008, -5/+4"reality has a well known liberal bias"
      -colbert

      P.S. if you trust fox news your a vegetable.
      • rwac, on 03/30/2008, -1/+3Colbert is telling the truth.

        Colbert's reality has a well known liberal bias.
      • Hegemon05, on 03/30/2008, -2/+3if you don't know the difference between "your" and "you're" you're an idiot.
  • Niteryder, on 03/30/2008, -9/+15Fox like CNN need to die, they are the government propaganda and disinformation and hysteria
    mongers that have helped ruin America!
    • kds405, on 03/30/2008, -1/+4Can you give any specific examples?
    • dartmanx, on 03/30/2008, -2/+2Here, have a towel to wipe up the spittle.
  • txzman, on 03/30/2008, -28/+23That's what I love about Political things posted on Digg. People here have absolutley no clue about how the majority of Americans really think.... By all means, let's elect an anti-American, racist President who makes $1.2 million and gives less than $2,000 to charity, while spewing garbage about hope and change. Sure, right. Flaming can commence.
    • humanerror, on 04/03/2008, -5/+16anti-American?

      Please tell me what you think that means.
    • banmaster, on 03/30/2008, -6/+4Why should anyone who earns over a particular threshold be obliged to donate to charities??
      If I earn money, then its MY decision on how I'm going to spend it. If I make over a certain ammount, the huge taxes I have to pay on that income go towards all the things which charities also have a hand in too.
      • Tuto, on 03/30/2008, -2/+4I think the point was not about somebody being obligated to do something, but about somebody having a lot money and not donating it speaks about this persons character. I think its a valid point when considering the speeches this candidate has given.
      • catachip, on 03/30/2008, -3/+3You're doing exactly what pundits on Fox news do: misrepresenting the facts. Prior to his book deal Obama made about $225,000 per year. After the book was released In 2005 he made $1.2 million and in 2006 about $1 million. He donated about $70,000 to charity each of those years.

        Look, I'll even link to a Fox News source to make you happy: http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/25/obamas-ope ...
      • flip2trip, on 03/30/2008, -3/+2Liberal blather. You see what you said? Your taxes go to government programs and you think you've done your part to help out charities? Typical Liberal thinking, blah, blah, blah.
    • catachip, on 03/30/2008, -3/+22You're doing exactly what pundits on Fox news do: misrepresenting the facts. Prior to his book deal Obama made about $225,000 per year. After the book was released In 2005 he made $1.2 million and in 2006 about $1 million. He donated about $70,000 to charity each of those years.

      Look, I'll even link to a Fox News source to make you happy: http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/25/obamas-ope ...
    • Rotzooi, on 03/30/2008, -1/+2Dugg up so more people will read your comment. Now check how much your friends Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld have given to charity. EPIC FAIL.
  • freezeout, on 03/30/2008, -9/+55Fox will be in charge of blaming Obama for of all of Bush's *****
    • dartmanx, on 03/30/2008, -0/+1Don't worry, they're equal opportunity. They'll be glad to blame Obama for everyone's *****, not just Bush's.
  • RGWX, on 03/30/2008, -4/+18If this theory held even the slightest bit of water, CNN would have gone belly up during the Clinton era.
  • gkiltz, on 03/30/2008, -9/+3Never say never!
    This race is the Democrat's to lose, and Hillary Clinton is working incredibly hard to do precisely that!
    IT CAN BE DONE!
    • evilpoptart, on 03/30/2008, -0/+1i dont think so man, the numbers against mccain are too great, just look at primary results and new voter registration numbers, theyre off the charts.
  • Chip53, on 03/30/2008, -26/+20Fox news leans right, all the others lean left. What's the problem? Can't you people stand hearing the other side of a story? It seems unless you have a "liberal" viewpoint, then anything anyone else says isn't "correct" enough for you. I will listen to any point of view that I feel is the truth, the same as you. Fox news will be on long after whoever wins the white house in November and long after that. As long as people are willing to tune in, then they will be on the air. Although you liberals would like to "do something about that", you will find that you can't. There is still freedom in this country whether you like it or not.
    • humanerror, on 04/03/2008, -8/+10It has less to do with which way they "lean" and more to do with the techniques they use. It's not information from a republican standpoint, it's deliberate and concentrated misinformation, intended to confuse and distract the public.
      • OriginalLucid1, on 03/30/2008, -8/+8You mean like the Bush National Guard story? Oh wait...
      • flip2trip, on 03/30/2008, -9/+5Does your mom know you're on the computer?
    • evilpoptart, on 03/30/2008, -4/+5i agree they will be on, but it isnt good for the public, i mean, they have anne coulter on as a real guest anf claim fair and balanced? you know that doesnt add up.
    • BTime, on 03/30/2008, -6/+3There's no such thing as a liberal media. There is just media which are controlled by large corporations spoonfeeding either what they want you to hear & think, or any sensationalist propaganda that helps sell papers.
    • InfamousAtheist, on 03/30/2008, -2/+7Your comments smack of a Fox News loyalist - but I agree with your point that the other news networks tend to lean left and Fox is bent to the right.
      However, I'm a critic of all media outlets for their biases, sensationalism, and insufferable gatekeeping. The FTC needs to ban corporate media ownership altogether, but unfortunately money talks, so it will never happen.
    • SheilaNoya, on 03/30/2008, -3/+5"Can't you people stand hearing the other side of a story?"

      There's a huge difference between "the other side of the story" and blatant lies and distortions.
  • Ne007, on 03/30/2008, -3/+11I could just HOPE that everyone shuts off their TVs. I'm sick of being surrounded by misinformed people citing the propaganda mantra.

    Getting most of my news online, I actually get sick when I see TV news. It's easy to see their coercions.
    • rdas7, on 03/30/2008, -1/+2What? The News media is biased?? Next you're going to tell me Britney can't sing!?
      • Ne007, on 03/30/2008, -0/+2My point is to shut off your TV NOT that TV news is bias. TV news is biased in one direction or the other and the obvious solution is to turn it off. All our lives would be alot easier.
    • willskillz, on 03/30/2008, -0/+2I get sick from TV news too. Literally, I feel like vomiting from the anxiety. I wonder if this is becoming some sort of widespread pandemic for which big pharma can formulate a cure?
    • UtopiaInTheSky, on 03/30/2008, -0/+1propamantra?
  • OriginalLucid1, on 03/30/2008, -17/+20Yes, God forbid the first amendment actually works! Shut down those pesky dissenting voices! How dare Fox disrupt the DNC storyline. Just another liberal wet dream kiddies, it ain't gonna happen. Fox will only pick up more viewers.
    • KenAer, on 03/30/2008, -5/+2Ah but you forget that America is just a silly nation of stupid, uneducated, fat-bastard, pill-popping sensationalists. We need ultimate government control and dominant federal regulations. Fox News will be the first to go. And AM radio will be shut down as well. But you won't notice once Pfizer releases the new anti-thinking pill. Just lean back and let Change happen my friend.......
      • Caboose866, on 03/30/2008, -0/+3Believing in those stereotypes doesn't really help.
    • tucsonwc, on 03/30/2008, -0/+5Fox will still have the same morons that put Bush and Cheney into office watching. 5 years in to our 100 year occupation of Iraq, with no plan other than lining the pockets of Halliburton, Blackwater et al. Bailouts are for banks not citizens. Suspend your civil liberties in the name of "terrists". So, will we see the threat level raised back up around the time of the DNC convention?
  • psyclonic, on 03/30/2008, -6/+2don't forget the local Fox affiliates - they're just as biased, if not more, especially here in SW Ohio. They're not going away anytime soon although I suspect they get their marching orders/talking points from the same Ministry of Propaganda - Goebbels would be so proud of what Robert and Roger have built.
  • catachip, on 03/30/2008, -10/+11"News on Fox looks like a video game, full of bluster, blondes and blaring graphics".

    Spot on! Before I moved to the States I had heard about Fox News, but never seen it. I could not actually believe that a news channel could look so tacky. The news programs on Fox look like what movies make news channels look like when they make fun of them (see the recent "Manchurian Candidate" remake). You have bizarre graphics swooping in, electronic sounds, explosions (literally), and blaring music. Their 6 PM news literally has hip hop beats and baseline as the stories are read. Not to mention that all of the male actors on the channel (I refuse to call them reporters) look like over-primped, makeup-ridden mannequin douchebags, or that all the female actors look like blonde, skanky-looking Mom's from that kid in 4th grade that ate candy for breakfast each day (i.e., Ann Coulter).

    For American cable news, at least CNN has a thread of class. I prefer Canada's CBC or the UK's BBC, but, at least on CNN you get what is actually a very cool interactive, multi-touch, election wall where they can zoom in on states and districts and do realtime primary stuff. Very, very cool technology - kudos to whoever got the contact to make that for CNN.
    • uncertain, on 03/30/2008, -2/+5Oddly, you begin by underscoring the "video game" aspect of FOX as something to be derided; then end with "kudos" to the video game aspects of CNN's coverage.
      • catachip, on 03/30/2008, -1/+3Yes, but they're completely different applications. I have no problem with using graphics or technology in news, I'd expect it. However, it depends on how superfluous it is. If you've ever seen it, the CNN map is a huge, interactive map of the country and you can go into individual districts to get polling results. The operator of this wall size map uses his hands to select area, can zoom in and out, and even do projections into the future based on win margins. It's very impressive.

        Please don't compare this to fox news, flying eagle swooping in, jets, electronic base music, techno, XBox 360 interface for the news. CNN and other cable news stations are all guilty of it to some degree. CNN just happens to have a lot more tacks. Obviously they are all much, much worse than PBS, CBC, or BBC. Coincidentally, the major world news networks with the most class are also publicly funded. Maybe it's not a coincidence.
        • JoeVet, on 03/30/2008, -1/+2Next you'll be telling us that publicly funded health care beats our medicine for profit scheme. Damn liberals will never see the wisdom of giving all their money to private company CEO's. /s
    • willskillz, on 03/30/2008, -0/+2hmm... oddly enough you forgot to mention the constantly streaming banner w/ other news scrolling on the bottom of the screen.
    • solid12345, on 03/30/2008, -2/+1And you wonder why Fox is popular catachip? If I want dry, hard news I will watch the big 3 networks. If I want to be entertained I will watch Fox.
  • jimmyb3, on 03/30/2008, -18/+11I love Fox News. Suck on that Libs.
    • RavagesOfTime, on 03/30/2008, -1/+6So, you're essentially saying that Fox News is lying and only saying what you want to hear.
      • dartmanx, on 03/30/2008, -1/+1No, he's saying he's picked his poison, as has everyone who has chosen sides in the "battle of the media outlets".
    • catachip, on 03/30/2008, -1/+10If you really wanted to stick it to Liberals, wouldn't you watch CNN or MSNBC instead, and then point out it's inaccuracies? Hmm... I don't really so how you're sticking it to anyone (except yourself) by watching Fox. If anything, you're just admitting that you don't care about the quality of the reporting or sources where you get your news, and thus, are not a credible person to make opinions about world events or politics.

      Suck it Neocon.
    • ianzu, on 03/30/2008, -2/+21That's like saying: "I have bone cancer. Jealous?"
      • flip2trip, on 03/30/2008, -9/+1Dugg down for the stupidest analogy ever!
        • papipablo, on 03/30/2008, -0/+6Dugg down because the analogy was apt.
    • BlacklabelSAR, on 03/30/2008, -2/+5Ignorant and proud. "I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free" gip gip gip. Is that your favorite song, too? Archie Bunkerism at it's finest.
  • DaDrake, on 03/30/2008, -1/+19Fox news ratings keep going up at the expense of CNN and MSNBC. Infact, I would say their business model is superior to other networks (based on profit margins). There is simply no indication of Fox news loosing popularity.
    • catachip, on 03/30/2008, -4/+3Yes, except a News organization is also enshrined as a public institution with respect and trust to be earned. News agencies are supposed to report and seek the truth as their primary objective, not to make massive amounts of profit. Fox news is th pinnacle of the sensationalistic, lowest common denominator of infotainment and opinion posing as news in America. It's pathetic.
      • mschoolov, on 03/30/2008, -1/+3their high profits indicate that nobody gives a damn about real journalism anymore, or that those who do are in the vast minority
      • flashingcurser, on 03/30/2008, -0/+3They are a business like any other. They aren't "supposed to be" anything but profitable. There will always be people that will not seek information outside of their comfort zone. There will always be companies selling them information that is in that comfort zone.
  • altgeeky1, on 03/30/2008, -9/+3Fox's peak was the Monica scandal, but the headline is misleading.. for Fox to go away, American demographics would have to change overnight.

    Do not under-estimate the power of tying in simplistic retail politics with sports. That is Rupert Murdoch's strategy, and it is historically proven to be a winning model (going back at LEAST to king Nero..). The 'Nascar' segment of Fox's audience is definitely hurt by the fiscal nonsense Fox spews, but they stay tuned for the latest 'fear segment', ex-stripper female reporters, or the promise of a good live hanging (just kidding on that last one... they'd never go that low ;-)
  • dleins, on 03/30/2008, -6/+12Fox provides much needed relief to the bias of the other outlets. The ratings speak for themselves. Fox doesn't need to "dig up" negative stories about Democrats, who provide the stories themselves. The commenters here are very out of touch in a quaint way.
    • Jawoodyablowme, on 03/30/2008, -1/+2I got news for you, ALL MEDIA OUTLETS HAVE BIAS. It's just a matter of of getting all sides of the argument you can.
      From what I can see, NPR are one of the most balanced news outlet, and I said news, that I can see.
  • RavagesOfTime, on 03/30/2008, -3/+7What a trolliriffic thread.

    And yes, Fox will thrive. All a Democratic President will provide is for someone to place all of their energy upon. The anger, the hate, the calls for removal...just for being there, will all get started up again. And people will watch it, because the loudest person always wins the debate.
  • flair1, on 03/30/2008, -7/+17To be honest, MSNBC is just as biased to the left as Fox News to the right. Is there truly an unbiased media outlet?
    • catachip, on 03/30/2008, -9/+5Is there really a "liberal" bias. It seems to me that it's really just a conservative bias, then reality. Like right wingers complaining that CNN only covers the bad things in Iraq. As if, hey, why didn't you report on all the trucks in Iraq that DIDN'T blow up today. News like MSNBC and CNN only seems "liberal" because you have such a staunchly, right-wing biased Fox News creating that dichotomy.
      • thehuffer, on 03/30/2008, -1/+5Or you could possibly, just possibly, have a bias that convinces you FOX is "conservative" compared to your "liberal" attitude. Point is you don't seem to consider the fact that most view their perceptions as being "centrist"; the truth is we are all, for the most part, biased based upon our own personal experiences.
      • betona, on 03/30/2008, -1/+4First: I don't watch TV news, so I don't have any skin in this game. I used to work on a major portal site that worked with CNN. During the last election when things got really polarized, I somehow accidentally got cc'd on a string of e-mails by CNN news staffers going on and on about 'what an idiot Bush is" and how they couldn't wait to get rid of the 'shrub'. Pretty professional behavior from 'the most trusted name in news', eh? I guess should've kept 'em, but I didn't; some of the people were friends of mine.
    • BlueSkyfish, on 03/30/2008, -1/+4PBS
    • bdbr, on 03/30/2008, -0/+2Actually there have been studies on the matter - a Google search will turn them up quickly. PBS's News Hour was very balanced. Most news programs were 5-15% left-leaning. Fox News was about 15-25% right-leaning.
    • flashingcurser, on 03/30/2008, -0/+3People forget they are in the business of selling advertisements. If they can increase their ratings with a bias they will do that. That is why it is important to view more than one news source for any given story.
    • AmICoolNow, on 03/30/2008, -0/+1Yeah, Digg, duh.
      /sarcasm
  • pidge, on 03/30/2008, -1/+12If a Democrat won the presidency, I expect Fox news ratings to increase. Much like Keith Olbermann ratings has increased the more and more Bush has remained in office. If a Democrat wins the presidency, I expect Keith Olbermann's ratings to gradually go down.
  • uncertain, on 03/30/2008, -9/+11Sounds like TIME is whistling through the graveyard. I don't think CNN is going to challenge FOX with the likes of that moron Olberman. He spends his program howling a O'Reilly. That's like free advertising for FOX. MSNBC just fired the only non-liberal they had, Tucker Carlson. FOX certainly isn't conservative; it's just not as blatantly in the tank for Liberalism as the rest of the media is. Just look at how they ignored a real Conservative, Ron Paul, like all the other media. And no one need worry about a Conservative winning the presidency; there isn't one running in either party.
    • gravityboard, on 03/30/2008, -2/+2Fox ignored Ron Paul because he was a conservative? I thought it was because he never had a prayer...
    • Cyberen, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1liberalism? I think based on their coverage of the most "liberal" presidential candidates, it shows they're in the same right-wing cesspool of greed as the rest of the media.
  • Nekura20x6, on 03/30/2008, -10/+2Their ratings are tanking. Even with the lower ratings of the other news networks, they still end up dead last.
    If they weren't the propaganda arm of the Republican Party, they wouldn't be able to survive at all.
  • ralph12c41, on 03/30/2008, -1/+25Wishful thinking by Time CNN.
    • k28921, on 03/30/2008, -0/+1I used to work at TIME, there isn't any cooperation between CNN and TIME
  • tulizx, on 03/30/2008, -2/+6Most of the US media stations suck anyways, too much censorship.
    When I watch news on CNN all I see is the same topic during the whole day.
    Just change to the spanish news station, no bias reports, they don't give you their opinions, they just give you the story. Got to love it.
    • camilos007, on 03/30/2008, -1/+1I recommend the BBC or CBC news for real professional journalism. Spanish news? I think most Spanish speakers prefer "Occurio Asi!"
      • nastronomical, on 03/30/2008, -3/+3ahh yes the typical "I watch the BBC liberal" grow up fool. The BBC today is riding on the tail of the BBC of pass. Even the brits think its a utter joke!
        • catachip, on 03/30/2008, -0/+3Do they really? I'm not giving you a pass on that. BBC is the most respected news agency in the world. Period.
        • camilos007, on 03/30/2008, -1/+1Nastronomical's previous comments (taken from his profile) :
          "dream on lib scum"
          "Liberal propagnada is killing America"
          "3..2..1 cowardly liberals go on your usual rant about war"

          Ted Nugent would be proud of you. I on the other hand, think you're a ***** idiot moron. But that's just my humble opinion. You're a dinosaur.
    • Psychotika, on 03/30/2008, -2/+2Digging this. US media is rather silly, one sided, especially on fox news. You'll see the same story on the Spanish channel and you'll get all sides of it not just one, and not just the same story running all day long.

      Side note: Spanish Anchorwomen.
      • Masticity, on 03/30/2008, -0/+4yes, much more enjoyable to watch... I dont speak spanish, but I do understand sexy.
    • Syraxis, on 03/30/2008, -0/+1That's why I watch the Real news network: http://therealnews.com/web/index.php
  • Look4Truth, on 03/30/2008, -1/+4The real question is will the entire MSM still be in business with people waking up to their scam every day.
  • camilos007, on 03/30/2008, -11/+7Unless the U.S Bible belt suddenly disappears, Fox News Is going nowhere.
    • willskillz, on 03/30/2008, -4/+2I don't get it. What does religion have to do with Fox News?
    • JoeVet, on 03/30/2008, -2/+3If they only ad a brain!
    • solid12345, on 03/30/2008, -1/+3This is coming from California who elected an Austrian body builder and one-liner actor for governor...
  • rdas7, on 03/30/2008, -7/+5I thought we all agreed that on digg, it's known as Fox "News", not Fox News.
  • brion182, on 03/30/2008, -1/+10Fox news prime time news programming still has about double the viewership then its competitors like MSNBC and CNN. For example O'Reilly goes directly Olbermann and has almost 2 million more viewers in the same time slot according to the last ratings I saw(2 weeks ago). Olbermann barely draws over a million viewers on any given night. Fox definitely has an appeal for people who want a conservative voice against the other cable news networks and the big three networks who most definitely lean left and some of their top journalist have Democrat ties e.g.: George Stephanopoulos worked on Bill Clinton's campaign and then was a senior adviser in the Clinton administration, Chis Matthews was a top aid for Tip O'Neil I could go on and on. That being said this leaves a large audience underrepresented and will remain that way no matter who gets elected president. Fox News will be OK. (although I've been watching Anderson Cooper lately)
  • tonto69, on 03/30/2008, -7/+2FOX spelled backwards is XOF
    • mschoolov, on 03/30/2008, -0/+1tonto69 spelled backwards is 96otnot
  • sundownjoe, on 03/30/2008, -3/+2They used to say Limbaugh would dry up after Clinton left office and there was nobody for him to defile on a daily basis. Oh well
    • Anachronus, on 03/30/2008, -0/+0And before that they said he would dry up when Clinton came into office. Never trust what "they" say.


  • Psychotika, on 03/30/2008, -7/+2Not sure how Fox news will survive, well, the do have one choice. Report the news! I suppose they'll just have to fire their creative writing staff.
  • GrizzWolf, on 03/30/2008, -9/+5"Can Fox news survive after the Bush era ends?" What a totally idiotic thing to say.
    Further proof that pinheads with I.Q.s UNDER 50 can actually find their way to a keyboard and publicly demonstrate how truly mentally challenged they are. Even IF... IF... if some out-of-touch with reality mook with an insipidly optimistic outlook on life FANTASIZED such a RIDICULOUS thing in their lollipop and rainbow riddled brain stem... you NEVER say such STUPID things out loud... Let alone in PRINT for the entire world to read... Jeesh-US-cripe... I believe Einstein said it best: "Better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."
    • ianzu, on 03/30/2008, -3/+1Agreed. Well said. Obviously of course Fox News can't survive. What a stupid thing to say. Thank you, citizen. You are a god among mortals.
      • flip2trip, on 03/30/2008, -1/+2Dugg down for TRYING to be funny, but ya just missed.
  • diablo75, on 03/30/2008, -7/+6Fox isn't going anywhere and neither will its stupid fan base. Unless they decide to change their established propaganda format and stop acting as a proxy for vested corporate interests. And we know that's never going to happen. What will happen is fewer people will fall for their guise.
    • flip2trip, on 03/30/2008, -4/+4CNN isn't going anywhere and neither will its stupid fan base. Unless they decide to change their established propaganda format and stop acting as a proxy for communist interests. And we know that's never going to happen. What will happen is fewer people will fall for their guise.

      Now see how much of a moron you sound like?
    • sb66, on 03/30/2008, -1/+4I'm no FOX fan but CNN has vested corporate interests as well. Witness Lou Dobbs calling universal health care as "socialist as Chavez." Hey we wouldn't want to get in the way of corporations profiting off the sick!
  • LarryLacuna, on 03/30/2008, -0/+2"the" -1984
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 124 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.