The shape and import of our bi-polar economy with its rising inequalities requires some effort to sort through. But coming up with "Sweeping Expanisons of Social Programs" took no effort at all.

 A better headline would read "rising rates of poverty, stagnate wages, loss of health insurance, growing economic insecurity force people to look to government programs for assistance."

Or " Thank God there are liberal public assistance programs to help citizens deal with rising tide of economic insecurity."

Wow. I don't read USA Today but I did read this article and it is indeed awful. "Can you believe those welfare queens with their food stamps but they still have $4,000 cars? Can't they take the bus like other poor people?" Someone shoot me now please.

Geeze. So much for the Pulitzer prize winning ministry of truth that is the LA Times. What’s especially irritating is even the shoddiest of editors should have read the article and said:

“Hey! You buried the most important piece of contextual information, and it completly changes the meaning … What gives?”

~There is nothing principled about irrational idealism, reckless actions, or losing.

With the media being notoriously liberal, it should not be a big deal when ONE story has a right-leaning innuendo.  This is similar to the left's hatred of Fox News Channel.  Every network and cable news network other than Fox leans left, yet the left bashes Fox at every turn.  Is it wrong for there to be ANY channels that lean to the right?  In the eyes of the Democrats, apparently the answer is yes.  So much for freedom of speech, eh?

"The left" doesn't hate Faux because they "lean right". We dislike Faux for distorting reality on a daily basis while claiming to be fair and balanced.

Got the KC Blues in a red state...

I would say Fox is every bit as "fair and balanced" as is CNN.  In fact, if it were not for the enormous ratings disparity in favor of Fox, it could be argued that these two channels are mirrors of each other on either end of the political spectrum. 

KCBlues

If you or anyone could provide even one specific example of how Fox fabricates news to fit the conservative agenda, I would absolutely LOVE to see it.  My educational background is in communication and media research and I watch a lot of cable news and find that Fox certainly leans right in terms of its agenda setting practices, but not any more to the right than CNN is to the left.

I should clarify my above remarks because I worded them poorly.  Fox certainly does have a right-leaning bias.  The way it is right-leaning, however, IS NOT because they fabricate stories or report "fabricated" stories.  They are right-leaning due to their agenda setting strategems.  Indeed, it is not even as blatant as reporting on the Bush Administration in positive terms.  Rather, the fact that they spend a far MORE time reporting on the happenings with the president and his policies which transform their broadcast schedule on a daily basis.  If anyone on the left were to watch Fox News for any significant amount of time (which, in all honesty, does not happen often, thus rendering many Democrats views on the network grossly ill-informed and ignorant), they would find that Bush and/or his policies are not praised by any stretch of the imagination.  Even polarizing figures such as Bill O'Reilly and Brit Hume often chastise and criticize the president.  While true that the majority of Fox's anchors are conservative in nature, that network is far more equal in terms of letting both sides of an argument have their say.  Unlike CNN or MSNBC, Fox has made it a habit to have two guests on most issues discussed.  For example, if the UAE ports deal were being discussed, Fox would have one guest in favor of the deal (possibly but not necessarily a member of the Bush Administration or GOP) and one guest against the deal (possibly but not necessarily a Democratic politician or strategist).  In short, even if the anchor is conservative, both sides have their say.

The network, like I say, does certainly lean right.  My point is that many misunderstand WHY it leans right.  It has nothing to do with poor reporting or the distortion of facts.  For that, one would turn to the New York Times.

You would say that.  But brainwashed people always say what their masters tell them to say.

Does lying, ignoring, intentionally misleading, misrepresenting, or just plain getting it wrong constitute "fabricating"?
_______________

Anyway, my personal favorite...

Those who primarily watch Fox news are significantly more likely to have misperceptions, while those who primarily listen to NPR or watch PBS are significantly less likely. Among those who primarily watch Fox, those who pay more attention are more likely to have misperceptions. Only those who mostly get their news from print media have fewer misperceptions as they pay more attention. The level of misperceptions varies according to Americans' political positions. Supporters of President Bush and Republicans are more likely to have misperceptions.

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqMedia_Oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_pr.pdf
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqMedia_Oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqMedia_Oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_quaire.pdf

Gettysburg - You are delusional. Faux is the apologetic media arm of the admin. Thats why Cheney heads over there for an interview after the 'blame the victim' technique doesnt work when the VP shoots someone in the face.  And when Iraq is in full meltdown w/ hundreds dying daily, instead of a Faux headline of "Admin was warned, ignored military planning & generals, admin solely to blame", you get crap like this:

_________

FOX: Iraq Civil War Could Be a Good Thing
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/24/151558/500

_________

Fox News asks: "Civil War in Iraq: Made Up by the Media?"
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/3/1/231233/7537

_________

And when every major news outlet was running reports skewering the India nuke deal as giving away the farm, there was absolutely nothing on the faux website about it. 

GETTSBURG, I need your help.  Since I am a liberal, I prefer to tune into liberal news channels and can find none.  Please tell me what they are and then the criteria, ten or so, that you used to label them liberal.  I noticed that you already mentioned CNN as one, which truly mystifies me.  Perhaps you and I have a different understanding of "liberal."  Hopefully, we'll find out. 

Dave

Although the articles you provide are very interesting, much of the information in them can be easily refuted.  Three of the articles revolve around the Fox program, "Special Report" hosted by the esteemed Brit Hume.  During the last segment of his nightly program, Hume has what is called the "All Star Panel" usually consisting of Fred Barnes, Mort Kondracke, Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, Ceci Connelly, etc.  The important thing to understand about his segment is that it is commentary.  Much like if one were to read the editorial/opinion section of the newspaper, many of the views expressed in this segment reflect the values of the individual.  Is this wrong?  Absolutely not.  Why?  Because it makes no pretensions to be reporting. 

The point I would like to make is that Fox News DOES NOT FABRICATE STORIES.  Do they lean right?  Yes.  Do they spend more time focusing on the Bush Administration than any other network?  Yes.  Do they have a ratings lead of nearly 3 to 1 over their nearest competitor?  Yes.  Let's face it, the left is jealous that they have no competition for Fox News and furthermore have no way of negating or diminishing its ever-increasing popularity.  Did it ever occur to the left that perhaps the reason why people watch Fox News to begin with is because they agree with the theme of the programming?

Phelicity

The criteria I use to determine which news outlets are "liberal" is essentially the same set of criteria used by those who accuse Fox of being "conservative."  I'm not going to be superficial and give you "ten or so" specific pieces of criteria.  The two main academic pieces that I use are Agenda Setting and news Framing.  In terms of academic study, Agenda Setting is defined generally as news networks "not telling the consumer what to think, rather, what to think about."  This is exactly how Fox attracts conservatives and CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. attract liberals.  Fox does not inherently praise the Bush Administration in any of its reporting.  Sure there are praises during the commentary sections of certiain programming, but never during actual reporting.  But by focusing on the Administration throughout the day, Bush supporters can always turn Fox on and get information as to what happened that day at the White House.  And if you or anyone thinks Fox shrinks away from the violent bloodbath in Iraq, please say so clearly because then I will know definitively that you never watch that network and likely have no idea what kind of information is presented on it (aside, of course, from the various articles several people have posted here after doing a thorough internet search).  I call such tactics "cut and paste" blogging--much like Michael Moore's strategy in making his mock-u-mentaries.

As for me, my main source of news is and always has been The Wall Street Journal.  If you like liberal news sources, I would encourage you to read The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and any network newscast.

Gettysburg, i'm confused if Faux does not always praise Bush ll Why are Democrats often called "crazy liberals" in an effort to negate the importance of their comments. Why when concerns about the ports raised it is called politcal oppurtunism. I find it difficult to find true deenders of Democrats positions. In fact on MSNBC Mathews will often say Bush is well liked, frist comes across well in person etc.. he praised Mehlman for battempting to foil any chance of Hillary running by using barbs to draw her out early, making her old news when the voting really counted. At the same time he states that Democrats are only taking a political position. On CNN last Friday one member of a reporters panel discribed the democrats as ineffectual and without a single message after just ppointing out that the GOP was divided on many issues and falling away from GWBush. I can understand that you like the way the news is presented on FNC, but I fail to see a Democrat cheering squad on other networks

Gettysburg:

I would encourage you to WATCH Fox News sometime before actually opining on it.  Just like I make no arguments about how the science community should proceed with, say, nanotechnology (because I know nothing about it), people should similarly keep quiet about Fox News when they no more watch that channel than they wear a "W" sticker on their bumper.

I certainly have watched it, however, I'm sure I'm not as regular a viewer as you are. Quite frankly I find Fox News boring. Far more often than not, when I've tuned in, the debates I've seen there are between the Right and the Hard Right. Just as often, both arguments presented are wrong, and there's no one there to rebut them.

At any rate, if you don't want Liberals expressing their opinions  Re: Fox News, I suggest you refrain from mentioning them on a Blog heavily populated with Liberals.

You are kidding right?  My friend gets his news almost exclusively from Fox and his views about Iraq, the Bush Administration is almost universally counter factual.  Also Fox has very little news on it.  Lots of commentary and opinion yes, but not much in the way of reporting. Thus Fox is only long editorial page.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

You continue to prove my point.  Cheney's office confirmed the shooting after being called by the Corpus Christi Caller Times, who had received a call by the ranch owner.  Dick's office didnt call anyone.  And they waited 14 hours after the incident occurred. And they said there was zero alcohol, then changed that a bit. Then they blamed the victim, then had to back off on that. Then there were discrepensies in 'eyewitness' accounts.  Then we learn that secret service people turned away Sheriff's office personnel who were to speak w/ VP. Silly stuff like that.
______
Some comments on the India deal incase u didnt see it on faux
______
" 'India has wanted this deal for 30 years,' said Jon Wolfsthal, a former policy adviser for the US Department of Energy under President Clinton who now works at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. 'For them, this is the Holy Grail of international acceptance, and we sold it for pennies on the dollar.
_______
" 'It's not meaningful to talk about 14 of the 22 reactors being placed under safeguards,' said Robert J. Einhorn, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, who served as a top nonproliferation official in the Clinton administration and the early days of the Bush administration. 'What's meaningful is what the Indians can do at the unsafeguarded reactors, which is vastly increase their production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. One has to assume that the administration was so interested in concluding a deal that it was prepared to cave in to the demands of the Indian nuclear establishment.' "
_______
Some nonproliferation experts, however, suggested that the deal could trigger an arms race in South Asia, one of the world's most volatile regions. India and its neighbor Pakistan, also a nuclear power, are longtime rivals.
_______
Peter Wallsten writes in the Los Angeles Times that "it appeared in the hours after the announcement that India had emerged a winner. . . .
_______
Farah Stockman writes in the Boston Globe that "critics of the deal, under negotiation since July, said Bush did not drive a hard enough bargain. They said he failed to win any major restrictions on India's nuclear arsenal, such as a halt to the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons.
_______
Steven R. Weisman writes in the New York Times: " 'This deal not only lets India amass as many nuclear weapons as it wants, it looks like we made no effort to try to curtail them,' said George Perkovich, vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 'This is Santa Claus negotiating. The goal seems to have been to give away as much as possible.' "
_______
James Sterngold writes in the San Francisco Chronicle: "While some officials hailed President Bush's announcement Thursday of a nuclear cooperation deal between the United States and India as a sign of warmer ties, a number of experts and some members of Congress reacted with deep concern, saying the proposal could allow India to expand its nuclear weapons arsenal. . . .