I look at it a little differently. I don't believe anyone who is given any significant air time in our MSM can be taken at face value. The media systemically limits the parameters of debate. The parameters are a little different on Fox because they're targeting a particular audience. I think Fox knows who its audience is and tailors what it broadcasts to appeal to that demographic. I'm betting they take plenty of polls and surveys and tune their content to match. And I don't think it's as simple at telling one segment of their audience everything they want to hear --I think ratings also depend on some manufactured controversy.johnson0317 wrote:Yeah, it is depressing that he has some views that I disagree with, but we have to be willing to support the first ammendment as much as the second. He has 20 million plus viewers, but I bet many of them absolutely disagree with him on that issue, plus some others. I find (and fire away!) that most conservatives can think well for themselves, unlike some other groups who need the latest soundbites to establish their position.VMI77 wrote: With conservatives like Bill O'Reilly, who supports gun confiscation "in emergencies" --such as the post Katrina gun confiscation-- you don't need as many liberals.
Think about this, however, and it is just my way of looking at things...if every commentator on Fox walked the straight right line, if they did not deviate from it all, then I would think the network unworthy of being on the air. It would mean one of several things. It could mean that they force their commentators to toe the line. It might mean that they have no intention of putting a balance in place. If the network was not imposing restrictions, it would mean that the people they hired are unable to think for themselves and have adopted right-wing politics en masse. I would rather have some balance there. I am, personally, smart enough to seperate the wheat from the chaff. I can think for myself and know when to disagree. At least on Fox, it is much less often than on MSNBC, or CNN. I can not even watch those networks for the amusement value anymore. FoxNews uses the "Fair and Balanced" line. If they did not provide some balance, some Alan Colmes, some Sheps, then they would simply be selling a lie. Besides, know your enemy and hold them closer than you hold your friends.
For every O'Reilly who has an ignorant stance on gun control, there are Glenn Becks who talk about packing heat when they went to the movies. Balance. O'Reilly entertains and informs, he does not legislate. I think his ability, despite his audience, to affect gun legislation is minimal.
RJ
No one in the MSM can say whatever they want to, including the commentators on Fox. Their allowed parameters of discussion are a little different than those on say, MSNBC, but if they stray too far off message, they're going to get reined in or fired. Fox exists to make money. Commentators like O'Reilly are there to make money. They know what they can and can't say on the job just like I know what I can and can't say on my job. My job allows me a lot of latitude to act on principle and say what I want but I know there are still things I can't say.
Bottom line, I don't take these guys as being men of principle --I don't think men of principle work for the MSM-- and I don't think we know where they really stand on much of anything.