Are conservatives disillusioned with and pissed off at Fox News?
Yes, writes Doug Parris, socially conservative blogger (at The Reagan Wing and an Old School paleoconservative who's always trying to out manipulate the state GOP leadership and sometimes succeeds.
Doug is a crazy conservative. Pragmatism, to him, is a concept most foul-- something lower than say, treason or coprolagnia. Compared to Parrish, Stefan Sharkansky looks like Barbra Streisand (We mean politically, but when Stefan puts on pumps, and a little lipstick, there's a Barbranic physical resemblance as well).
We like Doug Parris, and we think, he likes us. We couldn't say why... it's love for all the wrong reasons. He's a good writer, funny, and a little nasty; he sticks it daily into the eye of the Republican Party. Maybe that's it.
In a recent post, You Watch, Fox Decides, Parris points out that Fox, despite being "the dominant single source of news in America," since its inception in 1996, has actively worked for Rudy Giuliani whom social conservatives despise. (Guiliani is the least viable Republican presidential candidate... if he were nominated, the base would simply not vote, and the fracture in the party would be like the San Andreas fault and just as destructive to the R's for decades to come. Go Rudy!)
Parris:
... during the race to the 2008 Presidential nominations, Fox has begun to act like the old Mainstream Media. They have engaged in demonstrable censorship to sandbag the conservative candidates they knew could become a problem to their apparent homeboy favorite candidate, Rudy Giuliani, and their favorite liberal issue, Comprehensive Amnesty for Illegals. [as the New York Times pointed out: “Mr. Giuliani, as mayor, officiated at [CEO Roger] Ailes’s wedding and intervened on his behalf when Mr. Ailes’s company, Fox News Channel, was blocked from securing a cable station in the city. This year, they were tablemates at the White House correspondents dinner, which Mr. Giuliani attended as a guest of Fox’s parent company, the ‘News Corporation.’” The NYT also noted, earlier this year, that “So far this year… Mr. Giuliani has logged more time on Fox interview programs than any other candidate.”]
We think it's interesting from a media standpoint that this blatantly numbers-driven channel that the right's been so loyal to for so long, should finally be questioned. They've been willing to overlook so much for so long.
British tabloid publisher, Rupert Murdoch simply found a market niche- the one talk radio fills. 
Responding to the right-wing belief that the legacy media is balls-out
liberal, he and the sluttish Roger Ailes set out to create a "fair and
balanced," network that would give conservatives what they wanted to
hear, damn the facts. The channel has been set in stone as the Official Republican Party organ, not to be questioned or held accountable.
No matter that Murdoch donated to Hillary Clinton and now believes that global warming has been exacerbated by humans.
No matter Fox News' penchant for tabloid murders and footage of scantily dressed women. Even Laura Ingraham has taken The O'Reilly Factor and Your World with Neil Cavuto for running softcore porn on the news. Some of Ingraham's listeners wouldn't let their kids watch O'Reilly.
Besides publishing a racy novel,
and his phamous philandering, O'Reilly helped YouPorn, the porn-sharing
site, last year become the No. 1 adult site in the world. After sternly
warning of its dangers, Billo showed viewers the YouPorn home page.
Over a million people logged on to the site.
After complaining about the indecency of the Paris Hilton's sexy Hardee's commercial with its porn-posing and oral sex with a juicy burger on the hood of a car, O'Reilly looped it over and over and over again. The pornographers are grateful that Billo was lookin' out for them, but how long will the prudish GOP base buy that he's looking our for any damn thing but ratings?
Conservative myopia around Fox Noise may be clearing, according to Parris:
The most recent symptom of “Mad Fox Disease,” removing every single candidate from their New Hampshire forum who isn’t favored by the Council on Foreign Relations... will probably be overlooked because most people have felt that the field is too large and want candidates to be eliminated (except their own). But it is by no means the most egregious or obvious example of Fox anti-conservative bias.
Fox News cut out disfavored candidates when reporting the results of the Iowa Straw poll: Tom Tancreado (13.7%) and Ron Paul (9.1%) were dropped; Giuliani (1.3) and Fred Thompson (1.4%) with their also-ran single digit numbers were listed.
There's plenty of Republican hell to be paid Fox News by the perfervid Ron Paul buffs. The diminutive screwball was excluded in Fox's New Hampshire forum, even after finishing fifth in Iowa-- well ahead of Fox friend, Rudy Giuliani. ABC included Paul in a debate the same weekend. The contrast didn't look so good to the Paul bots or to other conservatives.
Then Fox political smirker, Carl Cameron peppered Paul with beat-your-wife questions in the debate that Fox was shamed into letting him into.
This may signal a drop in the influence of the hard right on the GOP. Maybe Fox polling discovered their numbers were no longer significant enough to pander to.
We can only hope that's the case, or that Fox may be mainstreaming-up for the upcoming paradigm shift left-ward. (Buddy, can you 'pare a dime?)
I hate to say it, but all media seems to define who's viable and who's not these days. If you weren't already a fan, you'd hardly know John Edwards was running and even less so Kucinich, Biden, Dodd, maybe Richardson...
Oh, we know who they are because they are some of the best and we're smart enough to care. But a lot of people aren't and that is our shame and our loss.
I've heard quite a few criticisms of Matthew's puerile commentary on MSNBC in New Hampshire. What a great day it would be if he were fired. He is such an ignorant jerk. They oughta hire Brokaw, Rather and Kronkite back. Get some integrity back in the game.
Posted by: joanie | January 13, 2008 at 04:36 AM
It is why the mainstream media is so afraid of blogs and tries to downplay their influence..they are a definite threat to the MSM's attempts at king-making.
Posted by: sparky | January 13, 2008 at 10:01 AM
Spot on! The Pajama Jihad!
Blogs can work on both the right and the left as a balancer to what the MSM brings out.
It was blogs that brought the inaccuracies of the Dan Rather report on George Bush to light. This resulted in the firing of his producer Mary Mapes and hastened his departure from an embarrassed CBS Network.
It begs the question as to why Blogs couldn't get similar traction on the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth or the 04 Election results in Ohio.
Chris Matthews is no Tim Russet.
Posted by: PugetSound | January 13, 2008 at 10:57 AM
Tim Rusty is not Tim Russert.
Tractions on the Swifties? Same reason you don't see Palast's evidence. Those of you on the right are blinded to what is obvious if it doesn't suit your politics.
Hasn't that been shown over and over and over?
Posted by: joanie | January 13, 2008 at 04:40 PM
Catching up on threads, I just had a thought...I think andrews is duff. Magnus, who told us of Duff's recent demise, sounds like a name duff would use.
Glad to see you're back, duff. Try to keep it original this time.
Posted by: joanie | January 13, 2008 at 05:00 PM
No, I'm not duf but whatever floats your boat. Told you all before that I was andrew's illegitimate sister. Mom want me to keep track of him and to keep him in line.
Posted by: andrews | January 13, 2008 at 05:07 PM
Very Odd
Posted by: Nevets | January 13, 2008 at 05:08 PM
Deny, deny, deny! We've got your number. Only duff would take someone else's identity and think it was funny.
It is a tacky thing to do and wreaks of duff. Still, glad to have you back, duff.
Posted by: joanie | January 13, 2008 at 05:29 PM
Well, not back exactly but at least okay.
Posted by: joanie | January 13, 2008 at 05:39 PM
I used to read comments from dufman on this blog and he always seemed fond of you, what I could never understand was his obsession with Hillary.
Posted by: andrews | January 13, 2008 at 06:41 PM
Joanie
You sure sound sold on Palast when you haven't even taken the time to have read any of his books.
Have any serious folks taken his 'evidence' and done anything with it? It went nowhere. All the reputable news outlets that went down and independently investigated it found that Bush won Florida. Hell, you would say the same thing to anyone still harping about theGregoire/Rossi election. Right? Be honest.
Word of caution, hucksters make a lot of dough off of people playing into their fears.
Kind of reminds me of those poor benighted souls that look at pictures of the Grassy Knoll and see 'Badgeman' and other assorted assassins.
Compare it with what happened to that empty suit Dan Rather when he presented manufactured evidence. It didn't take long for it to fall apart.
In regards to being labeled as a right wing type, many of my friends would beg to differ. I am a follower of Scoop Jackson.
Posted by: PugetSound | January 13, 2008 at 07:26 PM
Andrews
Any relation to the 'Andrew' that runs the blog for the Northwest Progressive Institute?
From the Postman linked story:
"...Mari went to Victor’s Coffee in Redmond recently to talk with 20-year-old Andrew Villeneuve who was eager to explain how he’s going change politics in the Northwest. Read it after the jump.
Villeneuve sits near the window, wearing a baggy grey sweater. A black moustache clings to his upper lip. Speaking with the zeal of a revival preacher, he’s a true believer in the power of the “netroots.” It’s clear that he simply enjoys talking, mostly about his blog. His waves his hands excitedly, punching the air to punctuate his many points.
“It started out as a little idea,” he says, with obvious pride, “and it got bigger and bigger and bigger.”
The “it” is the impressively named Northwest Progressive Institute. It’s essentially a liberal blog and online “think tank” for young Democrats, or progressives, as Villeneuve prefers to call them. Launched in August 2003, when he was 17 years old, the “institute” consists of a blog, an interactive page of links to other, like-minded blogs, and a resource page for activists.
Villeneuve, a student at Bellevue Community College, says he wants to create a practical think tank that focuses on how to turn liberal policy ideas into reality in Olympia.
...
...
“I’m frustrated as hell with the rise of the blogosphere,” says Christian Sinderman, a local Democratic consultant. “Blogs, for me, are this weird nether region … it’s usually stuff that’s not quite good enough to ended up printed somewhere, but it’s not quite nothing enough to end up going into the ether.”
Posted by: PugetSound | January 13, 2008 at 07:38 PM
I should have asked, 'Andrews', Authentic Andrew, or just plain Andrew.
Posted by: PugetSound | January 13, 2008 at 07:50 PM
Puts, would that "Think Tank" look anything like the movie "Think Tank"
Posted by: Nevets | January 13, 2008 at 09:15 PM
yikes.
only the real andrew would know....
Posted by: PugetSound | January 13, 2008 at 09:32 PM
Puts, not sure if you seen it, but if you did and liked Napolean Dynamite, that movie is one you need to see.
Posted by: Nevets | January 13, 2008 at 09:54 PM
Hillary has no chance, the tide is obviously turning towards Obama. Iowa was proof of that. There is strong evidence that the New Hampshire result was a result of the "Bradley effect" and is unlikely to occur in coming caucuses. Hillary is finished. What say you andrews? Wouldn't you agree?
Posted by: AuthenticAndrew | January 13, 2008 at 10:21 PM
You sure sound sold on Palast when you haven't even taken the time to have read any of his books.
Does it matter that I hear it from his mouth rather than his written word? Does that make sense to you?
All the reputable news outlets that went down and independently investigated it found that Bush won Florida.
Like who?
Gregoire/Rossi? Didn't you hear that they hand-counted all the votes? Did they do that in Florida? Surely you remember that little detail . . . don't you?
Hillary is finished.
Only a fool would count any major candidate out at this early date.
Posted by: joanie | January 14, 2008 at 02:13 AM
authentic andrew: my brother, regarding the pendelum swinging over to obama - I totally agree with you; hillary's chances are dwindling. Especially with the latest incident of her or her campaign's alluding to MLK in a less than positive light. They are trying their best to re-spin that but I believe the damage has been done. I tend to like Obama any way and I think he is more qualified than Hillary.
Posted by: andrews | January 14, 2008 at 08:06 AM
"RASMUSSEN: Clinton leads Obama among white voters 41% to 27%...
Obama leads Clinton among African-American voters 66% to 16%..."
doesn't square with latest polls, folks!
Posted by: HillBill | January 14, 2008 at 08:18 AM
My bastard sister who aparently has no name of his own is not infact Duffman. Duffman is apparently gone. My prayers were answered and faith renewed.
Posted by: AuthenticAndrew | January 14, 2008 at 08:25 AM
Dave Ross is currently discussing the Clinton/Obama controversy over the MLK 'incident'.
Posted by: HillBill | January 14, 2008 at 09:17 AM
"Hillary is finished."
Only a fool would count any major candidate out at this early date.
Didn't I say this to Duffman nearly a year ago when he started with the Hillary victory parade?
I still believe it - with the parts of the DLC machine still intact, Obama on the firing line, and Edwards-as-kingmaker, anything could happen.
Speaking of which - interesting coincidence: Hillary's shrinking poll numbers with Duffman's decreasing posts. Someone doesn't want his stewed crow.
In case Duffman is still snooping around.
3 Reasons I would not vote for Hillary in the primary: The DLC, Iraq authorization, Iran Authorization (ie not learning Iraq auth lesson), further FOI clampdowns.
Posted by: mercifurious | January 14, 2008 at 09:39 AM
Yet, the right will still label her as a "loony liberal" I would also add her campaign contributions from AIPAC. Merci, Pvt.Similac "spilt milk" is still here, just lurking as Side Show Bob.
Posted by: coiler | January 14, 2008 at 09:53 AM
I like Hillary actualy, I think she has a good chance on account of, all things being equal, there are more white woman than black people. Yeah, it's more complicated than that bla bla, there are more white woman than black people.
Posted by: AuthenticAndrew | January 14, 2008 at 10:00 AM
At this point, anyone who still believes that John Edwards has a realistic chance of becoming the Democratic nominee is living in la la land.
Posted by: HillBill | January 14, 2008 at 10:06 AM
HillBill:
I said Edwards-as-kingmaker, not nominee. I suggest some basic reading comprehension. If (when) Edwards drops out, thats 15-20% of the Democratic vote going elsewhere
Wait wait wait. Hold the phones:
* Terrible Reading Comprehension
* Dislike for all things Edwards
* Grabbing poll numbers straight from the top of Drudge-land without any fact-checking
Your busted, HillBill.
Welcome Back, Duffman.
We'll stop writing your Trollbituary now.
Posted by: mercifurious | January 14, 2008 at 12:51 PM
My God you guys are obsesses with Dufman, WHATever - I'll be who ever you want me to be in your little minds, since tagging and labeling seems your MO. My point was that Edwards=no chance! Period! Why w/you assume I was addressing you.
Posted by: HillBill | January 14, 2008 at 01:42 PM
ok :0
Posted by: coiler | January 14, 2008 at 01:54 PM
Uh, hate to break it to you Duffman, but no one else mentioned Edwards besides me - let alone said he should be nominated?
Why w/you assume I was addressing you.
No assumptions here, Duffman - I was the only one mentioning Edwards here (king-maker, not nominee), so you were addressing me.
Ahhhhh, and another piece of Duffy falls into place:
* "Tagging and Labeling" fixation/distraction
Again, welcome back Duffman. No obsession here: We were all just worried that you were out sick (or worse).
Silly us: Assuming you were sick instead of cowardly hiding behind a new name as to avoid defending "HillBill". Heheh
Posted by: mercifurious | January 14, 2008 at 03:51 PM
Huh? Thanks; I think.
Posted by: HillBill | January 14, 2008 at 03:54 PM
D&D, that must hve been big dungeon last night, hope you did good and got some more hit points for your next quest.
And Coiler, whats your character?
Posted by: Nevets | January 14, 2008 at 05:13 PM
Greetings from never-Nevetsland.
You know Nevets, I always saw these "D&D" posts following mine, but never knew what(who) you were referring to (did anyone?).
Thank you google.
So is this a hobby of yours, Nevets?
Posted by: mercifurious | January 15, 2008 at 09:40 AM
ah, that's what it is.
Posted by: coiler and crew | January 15, 2008 at 10:39 AM
Oh you knew what I was talking about. You tried hiding from it before in a previous post. Muahahahahaha. Seeing that you are hiding from it again by using a skedaddle Joanie is famous for tells me you are embarassed about it, so much so that you took your favorite picture off your "MeettheStress" website. What was that characters name again? "Knight of Tears". Oh Oh, I think I hear a fair maiden calling for you to rescue her. Better get your buddies together this weekend and push forward that quest now D&D, hurry now, she might not survive a fortKnight.
Posted by: Nevets | January 15, 2008 at 04:51 PM
I'm sure this book is in your library D&D. From what I hear, no Dungeon Master like yourself and one who is obsessed with Demons can go without it.
"Describes the characteristics and attributes of a variety of monsters, zombies, Demons, giants, werewolves, animals, and aliens for use in the Dungeons and Dragons game."
Posted by: Nevets | January 15, 2008 at 05:06 PM
Run-on sentence from never Nevets-land:
Seeing that you are hiding from it again by using a skedaddle Joanie is famous for tells me you are embarassed about it, so much so that you took your favorite picture off your "MeettheStress" website.
Beyond your incoherent, 3rd Grade-level grammar skills, what the fuck you are talking about?
Note: It's official Bla'M fam - Welcome back Duffman (AKA HillBill)
Posted by: mercifurious | January 15, 2008 at 05:13 PM
Yah Duffman, I knew it was you when you
1. left one of your little sayings in Spanish, and
2. Made so much of joanie and me watching people's spelling. (How would a newbie know what Joanie and I do for a living?)
3. You slipped up and left a little :) at the end of one of your posts.
I just want to know if you have really dumped Hillary as your candidate?
Stevarino...you are so 2007.
Posted by: sparky | January 15, 2008 at 05:35 PM
Sparky, I see you got the machinegun this year. Smooth move D&D. Bang, Bang, Bang.
Posted by: Nevets | January 15, 2008 at 06:40 PM
"what the fuck you are talking about?"
What are you talking about?
Posted by: Nevets | January 15, 2008 at 06:41 PM
Hey Nevets Mc Veigh Lighten up on the crank, ok?
Posted by: coiler | January 15, 2008 at 06:48 PM
Whats wrong coiler, you afraid you might pop up and see the truth.
Tell your friend to stop swearing and people might respect his thoughts more.
Posted by: Nevets | January 15, 2008 at 07:10 PM
Welcome back, O' Shakespeare of Blatherwatch - mercifurious himself.
Posted by: joanie | January 15, 2008 at 10:39 PM
Love few, Trust none, and do wrong to all... or something like that.
Posted by: mercifurious | January 15, 2008 at 10:46 PM
Ha ha, this is too funny. Hey I'll be Dufman if you want me to. Whatever floats your boat. I think you are in la la land, but whatever.
Posted by: HillBill | January 16, 2008 at 05:31 AM
Okay HillBill, we believe you.
Say, HillBill...
What are your thoughts on:
Hillary Clinton
Drudge Report
Global Warming
Cindy Sheehan
UN Tax
David Kuplian's "Marketing of Evil"
Scott Ritter
Indulge us.
Posted by: mercifurious | January 16, 2008 at 12:50 PM
dont forget spilled milk! :-)
Posted by: sparky | January 16, 2008 at 02:14 PM
or universal health care-not :0
Posted by: joanie | January 16, 2008 at 09:18 PM
Joanie, Sparks, Coiler, etc:
Another piece slides into place - "HillBill" and "Andrews" same IP as Duff and all use the same idiom:
Ha ha, this is too funny. Hey I'll be Dufman if you want me to. Whatever floats your boat. I think you are in la la land, but whatever.
Posted by: HillBill | January 16, 2008 at 05:31 AM
No, I'm not duf but whatever floats your boat. Told you all before that I was andrew's illegitimate sister. Mom want me to keep track of him and to keep him in line.
Posted by: andrews | January 13, 2008 at 05:07 PM
Never thought that the schizophrenic changing of psuedonyms constituted "travelling", but well... whatever floats yer boat!
Posted by: mercifurious | January 18, 2008 at 04:20 PM
me = duffman, oh that's a laugh, confuse me with any one but him. I know duffman and believe I'm NO duffman.
Posted by: andrews | January 18, 2008 at 04:34 PM