check the ratings...

Props for the Winston Smith comment, I liked it, it was clever.

Thanks. Nothing like the classics to add a little perspective. I also like to call FNC the Pravda News Network, but the Smith bit sounded better.

You're right on Cal Thomas too - as a former part of the Moral Majority, his opinions are usually no surprise.

As to Cavuto, yes, he normally does that spot. However, I've seen him in other circumstances. Like interviewing Kerry, for example. He asks him a slanted question about his economic plans, and when Kerry tries to answer, he quickly cuts him off and moves on. It was apparent to me because of this that the intent was not to gain information or clarify his position, but to plant that negative opinion in the minds of the viewers.

As for the memos by Moody portraying Bush in a more positive light: For the memos on the Iraq War he simply asks the employees not to focus on casualties and focus more on the bigger picture, what the military is doing to achieve their goals. Every other station focuses on casualties which soon translates to why are we over there if people are dying. Sadly, soldiers die in war. I'd say casualties are a lot lower in this war than in previous wars we fought where we occupied a terriotry for a long period of time.

I have to disagree. We all know that people die in wars. Otherwise, they'd just be intense discussions. "What? They've hit our left flank with an economic jibe? Okay, parachute the 11th Informed Debaters in at dawn to take those bastards down. We'll catch the enemy in a vise between the 11th and the 15th Gripiing Brigade."

Casualties are to be expected, yes. But when the promised goal isn't being achieved, when Rummie claims that we can hold and rebuild with minimal troops and financing, and things just deteriorate because the administration refused to listen to the people who (accurately) warned them of what to expect post-war and what to do to prevent things from going to hell, people have a right to question the lives being lost on this ill-conceived and poorly executed post-war Iraq.

It isn't saying, why are we there if people are dying. The question being asked is, was all this necessary? And as it turns out, the Bushies focused on data that supported their claims while ignoring data that refuted them (have a look at the Downing Street Memos and others sometime) in order to go ahead with the war.

Also, I've gotten off track regarding the memos. It was more than just avoiding body counts.

Re: FNC staff. That is short for Fox News Channel, which these people were. Not sure what you thought it stood for, but just so we're clear.

A lot of the people Greenwald brought on to interview did not ever work for FNC or nowhere close to being previously connected with FNC, so how would they be reputable?

Funny, a lot of us were wondering the same thing about the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, when none of them actually served with Kerry. But I digress.

First off, follow these links:

http://www.outfoxed.org/clips_trailer_qt.php

http://www.outfoxed.org/FeaturedInterviewees.php

It takes you to the main website's trailer, but also lists some of the primary people involved in the interviews. Some are FNC producers and anchors. Others study the media in general, and have spent a good chunk of their lives doing so, so they are reputable sources.

The second link is for featured interviews. One of the major people spoken to is David Brock, former Right-wing mudslinger, worked on the Arkansas Project which was funded by Richard Mellon Scaife. He was basically a part of the machine for a while, so he knows about their tactics. And as I said, a lot of others have good reps as media analysts and so forth.

I'd love to take on the rest of your points, but work is waiting. Will continue later.


http://the-nightfly.blogspot.com/

All I can say to this is that Fox has done all it can to blur the lines between actual news and op/ed commentary. They do this by using op/ed commentators, such as Cavuto and O'Reilly on some of their actual news shows. This only serves to reinforce their op/ed opinion based comments by lending their voices credibility. Although a vast amount of people are smart enough to separate the two, a larger majority of Fox viewership holds these opinion based shows up as actual news.

FNC is no more than the Public Relations department of the Republican Party.

Only 2 sources, FNC & the Bush White House, spelled bin Laden's first name with a U (Usama).

FNC memo reveals a push to refer to American snipers as 'sharpshooters' because 'sniper' carried a negative connotation. This died fast because it was laughable.

Also laughable was FNC's attempt to refer to suicide bombers as 'homicide bombers'.

These last two are clear cut propaganda techniques, plain and simple. History will show them to be the jokes they are. The first shows a relationship between FNC and the Bush White House.

FNC is to the Republican party as the Sinn Fein is to the I.R.A. Nothing more than the P.R. department of the Republican Party.

To deny this is to drink their Kool-Aide.

I am the One, True Brian. All other Brians are false. Kneel before Brian.