New York Magazine exposes Fox News

The Elephant in the Green Room's seconday-source quotes form the shaky skeleton of a narrative of Fox news that could easily describe the newsworthiness of the actual article itself.  Oft-quoted "GOPer who knows Ailes well" ties together paragraphs full of juicy story lacking factual meat.  

This article actually enforces my previously wavering belief that people are scared of the GOP and scared of Fox News.  I really can't figure out the point of the article at all.  I mean, why write it?  Why publish it?  Why now?  It talks about the 2012 election and media puppetry (ironically omitting the media's crush on Obama), so perhaps that's it.  Does anyone doubt that Fox will go easier on Republicans (compared to their coverage on other networks)?  If a pro-Candidate X source can be discredited, that's good for Obama.  Yay, New York Magazine!


For the Left, Fox is the monster in the closet -- you know it's not there, but you sleep with a nite lite anyways.  People create the argument "Fox lies therefore it sucks" without providing substantial evidence of the primary and foundational claim.  The best they can get are usually clips taken out of context or mistakes that are clarified later on the program.  


New York Mag's spin on an old song is to expose the man behind the curtain at Fox news.  Hannity is jealous of Beck's ratings!  Therefore... uh, I dunno.  They don't really get that far.  Also, for the naive reader who does not have knowledge of how TV network politics work, a comparison to another network would have been nice; however, I suspect that Fox is not that different from other networks.  Comparing it would have devalued the underlying message (that Fox is Bad).


I swear, the more news I digest (and I do get my news from a myriad of sources), the more I hate Fox-haters.  Fox is what it is.  That's more than most news sources can say.  "Fair and Balanced"?  I dunno.  Compared to MSNBC, yes.  Compared to snoozefest CNN, probably not.  Then again, what's fair?  What's balanced?  Anyways, if it's such a horrible network, if Fox really does lie, then why not just debunk all of its stories?  Media Matters has tried to do that, but their 90 members haven't been able to find enough ammo to put Fox out of business (or even put a dent in Fox's ratings).


Conspiracy theorist time.  (I'm the theorist, not Beck.)

click to enlarge

I think this pic from the NY mag article looks photoshopped (above).  Compare it to his TIME cover photo (below).  The photoshopped pic is in black and white, which makes small alterations easier.  The shading on most of his face looks unnatural.  The dark circles under his eyes make him look tense and angry.  Where did the wrinkles around his eyes and lower forehead go?  His cheeks look bloated, but they've drawn in shading to create a pointed chin.  (All villains have pointy chins, don'tcha know.)  The scowl is the worst.  As I stare at the scowl in that picture, it certainly appears edited, if not entirely photoshopped on to replace his real mouth.

click to enlarge

Anyways, dear ghost readers, feel free to comment about the actual article.  I was going to summarize it and point out the main points and fallacies, but reading it once was enough for now.  I don't care if comments have a political point-of-view, but please have a point.  
hint: "Faux News sux" does not have a point.