Egotism ....a lifelong romance

Thursday, July 22, 2004

'Fox'ily conservative?

[After the option of watching CBS news, arguably the best news channel in the States---I think the Early Show and 60 minutes can attest to that---was snatched out of my hands on moving to boondock Colorado, I have been an ardent devotee of the Fox news channel, much to the perplexity of my friends and fellow-political-buffs].


I decided that as a loyal patron of FNC (read: taking blows from friends for following news on it, accepting their right-wing tilt despite being a diehard social liberal and returning time and again to number 42 after tirelessly flipping channels for half hours straight on weekdays) I needed to come to the defence of the most-watched cable news channel in America after the recent controversy over the premier of Greenwald's "Outfoxed".

OF COURSE the channel has a distinct right wing tilt. But so what? The right wing tilt is attributed more so by Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Brit Hume, all of whom have openly proclaimed that they are conservative americans that respect the traditional views this country is built on. 

I dont see what the problem is with that. A news channel without a flavor would be like an Op-ed column without an opinion. What needs to be objective is the reporting, not the talk shows.

If a fox news reporter reporting the Abu Ghraib prison scandal came out and said that it was not as bad as those inflicted under Saddam's regime, it wouldn't be fair. Because a reporter is expected only to report. 

But if Sean Hannity said he supported Bush's war on terror as opposed to his liberal counterpart, Alan Colmes, I dont see why that is wrong. And in defence of the channel, I think it is a whole lot better to say it openly than proclaim to be an objective channel like CNN whose left wing tilt is more than obvious.

Nor is O'Reilly wrong when he claims that the ACLU sometimes takes matters too far when he has reinforced time and again that he is a conservative church-going american. Because the very idea of a talkshow IS to air your opinions and give your perspective.

If Ann Coulter can get away with Treason and Mike Moore with Farenheit 911, then I am sure Brit Hume can be excused for having more republicans on his show than democrats. After all, you pretty much have the choice of not watching FNC as much as of not buying Stupid White Men.

I might not want to watch Bill rant about his conservative social views but give me a news channel other than FNC that will allow me to watch Jonathan Hoenig give us capitalistic thumbs ups. Or even remotely suggest that Martha Stewart was penalized more than she deserved. What a breath of fresh air that is after seeing left leaning, equal-opportunity advocates denounce her on the basis of her success alone. Being complacent over your success is acceptable, but over someone else's downfall? tsk tsk...

Bottomline: A cable channel is gonna show you what they believe they should. It's up to you to choose what you want to watch.

The only thing I take offence with is the "fair and balanced" slogan for the channel. But, then again, CNN calls itself the "most trusted name in news". What's that all about? Excuse one rhetoric, excuse them all, I say.

And I have one little suggestion for FNC skeptics. Try watching The Co$t of Freedom, Cashin' In and Cavuto on Business---the best financial news there is, is on FNC.

Saturday, July 03, 2004

When the other side is 'green'er...

If you thought Dean's getting ousted from the democratic presidential race because of his "primal scream", or Clinton's infidelity being compared to Watergate or the infamous Florida ballot of 2000 (to borrow Dave Barry's eloquent style, ‘[where the voters] apparently voted for two presidents, or no presidents, or part of a president, or, in some cases, simply drooled on the ballot') were the funniest, most ridiculous things that happened in American politics, you haven't heard of the new-found alliance between the former green party face and --surprise, surprise-- the GOP itself.

Much as 'My enemy's enemy is a friend' works wonders in the uncomplicated life of a layman, it takes the already comical world of politics to new heights of absurdity.

Why would two conservative groups that oppose same sex marriages and abortion rights support the farthest left-wing candidate in the nation?

Kibbe, the president of one of the groups, the Oregon Citizens for a Sound Economy says ----Nader "forces John Kerry to explain where he is on things". Unless I'm grossly misinformed, this surely is the first instance of nominating candidates to explain what OTHER candidates stood for. And if the theory of painting black to make the white look whiter were true, how about a far-right candidate on the spectrum? After all, doesn't Bush support civil-unions and fund stem cell research?

And if I were to go a little further and suggest a candidate, Ann Coulter would fit that role to a tee. You don't get any "righter" than that. I think she comes closest to balancing the scales with Mike Moore on the other side (Not literally, of course).

She should be able to exemplify all the Republican mantras: "Do you actually BELIEVE that Bush is more dangerous than Saddam? Do you actually believe that Scott Peterson is innocent? Do you actually believe that Iraq did not train al Qaeda terrorists?" When will the grand old party learn that you don't run a country on belief? That's religion; but I guess we can’t blame them for not knowing the difference; after all, they oppose gay marriage and abortion and euthanasia because religion tells them to. Apparently, supporting someone that supports all of that doesn't count.

And their excuse for helping Nader: they want to "provide more choice".
Republicans --- those members of the political arena that are always intolerant to the liberal viewpoint, that NEVER let the democrat be heard in a talk show, that scream 'media bias' when the NY Times publishes more stories about Abu Ghraib than Nick Berg, that would move mountains to block distribution of a movie that represents the opposite side, that are ready to attach the label "traitor" the moment you oppose a single act of the president want more choice?

IMHO, they’d be better off allowing people that choice in choosing their life partner or making a decision about their unborn baby.