Slate reported The usually disciplined foot soldiers at Fox News have long maintained that their news organization is not biased in favor of conservatism. This charade is so important to Fox News that the company has actually sought to trademark the phrase "fair and balanced" (which is a bit like Richard Nixon trademarking the phrase "not a crook"). No fair-minded person actually believes that Fox News is unbiased, so pretending that it is calls for steely corporate resolve. On occasion, this vigilance pays off. Last year, for example, the Wall Street Journal actually ran a correction after its news pages described Fox News, accurately, as "a network sympathetic to the Bush cause and popular with Republicans."
Slate says this as if being sympathetic to the President's cause is bad, and that they are surprised that Republicans would rather watch Fox New, even though some of its newscasters are liberal, than watch ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, or PBS, or listen to NPR, that are all antagonistic to the President and his cause, and who are all extremely liberal.Getting one of this country's most prestigious newspapers to state that up is down and black is white is no small public-relations victory, and if we can't admire Fox News' candor, we can at least marvel at its ability to remain on message. Or rather, we could admire it, before Scott Norvell went and shot his big mouth off. Norvell is London bureau chief for Fox News, and on May 20 he let the mask slip in, of all places, the Wall Street Journal. So far, the damage has been contained, because Norvell's comments—in an op-ed he wrote decrying left-wing bias at the BBC—appeared only in the Journal's European edition. But Chatterbox's agents are everywhere. Here is what Norvell fessed up to in the May 20 Wall Street Journal Europe:
Even we at Fox News manage to get some lefties on the air occasionally, and often let them finish their sentences before we club them to death and feed the scraps to Karl Rove and Bill O'Reilly. And those who hate us can take solace in the fact that they aren't subsidizing Bill's bombast; we payers of the BBC license fee don't enjoy that peace of mind.
I see the British have the same problem with the BBC as we have with PBS and NPR - extreme liberals subsidized by government money, regardless of who is in charge of the governemnt.Fox News is, after all, a private channel and our presenters are quite open about where they stand on particular stories. That's our appeal. People watch us because they know what they are getting. The Beeb's institutionalized leftism would be easier to tolerate if the corporation was a little more honest about it.Norvell never says the word "conservative" in describing "where [Fox's anchorpeople] stand on particular stories," or what Fox's viewers "know … they are getting."
They are getting Fair and Balanced. Oreilly is a libertarian, and attacks the president as often as he backs him. Hannity is certainly Conservative, but Colmes is certainly Liberal, as is Greta. Sheppard Smith is gay. Etc. Etc. Etc.But in context, Norvell clearly is using the example of Fox News to argue that political bias is acceptable when it isn't subsidized by the public (as his op-ed's target, the leftish BBC, is), and when the bias is acknowledged. Norvell's little joke about clubbing lefties to death should satisfy even the most literal-minded that the bias Norvell describes is a conservative one. (Lord only knows where Norvell acquired the erroneous belief that Fox News is "honest" about its conservative slant; perhaps he's so used to Fox's protestations of objectivity being ignored that he literally forgot that they continue to be uttered.)
I don't think it's too much of an exaggeration to compare Norvell's op-ed to the Vatican's belated admission, after 359 years, that Galileo had it right when he said the earth revolved around the sun. Now how about a prime time seppuku by Fox News chief Roger Ailes? Failing that, maybe ABC News could lend Barbara Walters or Diane Sawyer for Ailes' weepy confession. Hey, there, funny face, where's the broken-winged sparrow underneath that tough-guy exterior? Fox News has little to lose in terms of credibility—sensible viewers discounted Fox News for conservative bias years ago—and everything to gain in terms of heightened visibility. Say it with me, Roger: "Eppur si muove!" Doesn't that feel good?
Brian Stelter blogged While it is nice to hear a top Fox News exec make such an admission, the notion that Fox News is open about its bias is crap. Their two biggest slogans are "Fair and Balanced," and "We Report--You Decide." I suppose even when being honest it is necessary for conservatives to spout off at least one flatist statement (you know, for balance).
I suppose you prefer the "Unfair and Left Leaning" and "We Report -- You Better Believe Us" approach of the left wing ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS, and NPR
Andrew Sullivan blogged He's right on both counts. The problem with the BBC's leftism is that it's publicly financed and Beebers are in denial about it. Neither problem afflicts Fox, to their credit. They're not in denial, as Norvell proves; they simply fib about it. Why not acknowledge the bias and revel in it? That's what we do here at as.com.
Fox is not saying; they really do show both sides. But liberals hate it when the Conservative side is given any exposure.
Spring Into HTML and CSS
Some are books that I have received from 
I am a member of the 
I may soon begin reviewing books from Stacy L. Harp with 
NYT reported Maxwell Smart's "cone of silence" is finally a reality. Two people in an office here were having a tête-à-tête, but it was impossible for a listener standing nearby to understand what they were saying. The conversation sounded like a waterfall of voices, both tantalizingly familiar and yet incomprehensible. The cone of silence, called Babble, is actually a device composed of a sound processor and several speakers that multiply and scramble voices that come within its range. About the size of a clock radio, the first model is designed for a person using a phone, but other models will work in open office space. The voice scrambling technology used in Babble was developed by Applied Minds, a research and consulting firm founded by Danny Hillis, a distinguished computer architect, and Bran Ferren, an industrial designer and Hollywood special effects wizard. Babble, which is intended to function as a substitute for walls and acoustic tiling, is an example of a new class of product that uses computing technology to shape sound. Already on the market are headphones that can cancel extraneous noises and stereo systems that can direct sound to a particular location. The system will be introduced in June by Sonare Technologies, a new subsidiary of Herman Miller, the maker of the Aeron chair, as part of an effort to move beyond office furniture. The company plans to sell the device for less than $400 through consumer electronics and office supply stores.
