Thursday, October 12, 2006

Unexpected

I think that we can all agree that Fox News has a conservative bias to it. So I was caught off guard when I read this article, which was linked to from the Fox main page. It is an opinion article about Ann Coulter, and it is an extremly negative one at that. While this does not sway my opinion about Fox's leanings, it was the last thing that I expected to find on it today.

9 comments:

Lauren Bingham said...

Yes, I can definitely agree that Fox has a conservative bias--especially when they post articles on their Web site telling Barbara Streisand to "shut the f--- up!" after she criticized Bush at her own concert and calls the Clinton/Wallace interview a "liberal smackdown". However, they do claim to be the “fair and balanced” news network and do so by using some of the least credible, most middle of the road Democrats they can find as commentators. Of course you know I’m going to bring up Alan Combs, but a lesser known Fox News “Democrat” analyst is Susan Estrich, author of this article.

Here’s my take on Ms. Estrich: she is a very bright and accomplished woman and has done much in the name of women’s rights, but it seems like she has become all too enchanted with being outrageous. Like Michael Moore and Bill O’Reilly, she is trying to make a reputation based on shock value. From what I’ve read (which admittedly isn’t a lot), she seems to contradict herself quit a bit, though is unwaveringly outspoken with whatever opinion or conviction she may have.

So in short, am I surprised to see this up on Fox’s site? No. She is both a Fox News employee and a tool for the Republicans to simultaneously tout their “balance” and discredit the left. This article is nothing more than a ploy for the right to say, “See how crazy those freedom-hating liberals are?”

Cameron said...

Except that the article totally and ruthlessly portrays Ann Coulter as a psycho. Something I actually agree with.

Anonymous said...

"Negitive" ...Very proudly representing the sub-par intelligence of our quintessential BYU-I democrat!!! Thank You Very Much Blake! Thanks for equating Welfare to Spell-check (apparently you are only in favor of the utilization of one, while desperately needing both)!!!

Blake Roberts said...

Mr. Anonymous,

First of all, only cowards and children insult others from behind a cloak of anonymity.

Second, I am a Republican, not a Democrat.

Third, why did you bring up welfare? You mentioned that I am "only in favor of the utilization of one, while desperately needing both." What makes you think that I am either in favor of welfare, or in need of it?

Fourth, did I do something that offended you? My post was not critical of any opinion, person, or party. All that I did was provide a link to an article on a news website.

I admit that I usually won't take the time to spell-check what I write. It's one of my many flaws; I'll try to be more careful in the future.

However, good spelling does not make up for an inane, ignorant comment, as you have clearly demonstrated on your post.

Have a nice day!

Blake Roberts said...

Note: I have corrected the word "negative" in the original post.

Anonymous said...

Blake,

Please do not patronize anyone with this nonsense about you being a Republican. You have turned your back on your political party in favor of furthering the agenda of the democraps.

Blake Roberts said...

Mr. Anonymous,

If you really want to think that I turned my back on my party, well good for you. However, if you ever take the time to ask any of the College Democrats that know me, they will gladly inform you that I am very much a conservative. However, being a conservative does not always mean that you are being a Republican (just as being a liberal does not always mean you are being a Democrat).

I notice that you still haven’t given a reason for your bizarre reference to welfare, I continue to await it.

If you would even take a few minutes to look at my previous posts, the absurdity of your comment would be clear even to you. I have written on the rights of parents from the intrusion of big government, the importance of putting religion before politics, my hope that one day one of the two parties would again embrace conservatism, praise for the new Iraqi government, how the death tax should be repealed, and the importance of an open and honest government (to name a few).

The real Democrats on this blog have been very kind towards me. They have allowed me to express my views (which often go against their own ideology) with neither censorship, nor restrictions beyond what they themselves are held to. They have done this so as to provide a forum in which free thought and expression can exist, and in which bridges of understanding can be built.

The same cannot be said about you. You came here to be insulting, and to tear down the political views of others by making baseless accusations, and by resorting to name calling.

Elder Robert S. Wood said in the last General Conference:

"It is far too easy sometimes to fall into a spirit of mockery and cynicism in dealing with those of contrary views. We demoralize or demean so as to bring others or their ideas in contempt. It is a primary tool of those who occupy the large and spacious building that Father Lehi saw in vision."

I admit that I am not free of guilt in doing this. We should all strive to be better.

I encourage you to actually speak with me, or hear my views on Government and society before you try to pitch me from the Republican wagon. Until that time, I remain firmly seated in the camp of conservatism. That doesn't mean that I won't associate with Democrats, or write for this blog.

And that's the way it is.

Hannah Vinson said...

No, Blake is very much a conservative. He isn't a neo-con psuedo conservative, but a more traditional conservative. We are happy to have Blake write on this blog and attend meetings because he thinks for himself and is intelligent and respectful in debates.

Peter Nguyen said...

Hey guys,

I feel dumb even having to say it, but this forum shouldn't be a place for an overt, and inanely irrational contention.

Politics will boil the blood, that's a given. But, am I being too idealistic to say that we should be trying [on this forum] to understand, persuade, discuss and edify each other?

Anonymous, I disagree with Blake, it doesn't matter if you ever make yourself known. Please, don't visit this blog if your only intention is to stir the pot.