Don't confuse Rush or Hannity with reporting. Nor should you confuse Keith Olberman with reporting either. They are all advocates. They have a position and use some portion of some facts to back it up. You may like or dislike their positions, but none of them are acting with journalistic even handedness.
Of course, neither is Larry - who is also pushing an agenda. I am okay with all of them doing that. I am more concerned about folks who can't tell the difference between the two.
For those who think this is a new phenomenon, you should probably brush up on your early political history in both the UK and the US.
Fox news is the only real reporting on TV these days !
Beck,Hannity and O'Reilly present insightful and accurate reporting - unlike some types of media that BS all the time. Beck in particaulr has highlighted the stealth corruption and "LIES" going on in the Obamanation.
The left wing of this country specifically the liberal democrats are destroying the American values of its citizens and ruining the country.
Private and free enterprise is the only sustainable way to increase the GDP of the USA - of you do not beleive in that then get the heck out of this country. lets face it Light Reading would not be around without private enterprise.
So before you start attacking Fox take a closer look at your own reporting.
The irony of the pig analogy of course is that the average boar has enough intelligence not to infest his diet with the shit Murdoch sells as brain food.
Left/Right is a false dichotomy in today's politics. Sure, there are a few minor/superficial differences but at the end of the day both parties answer to the bankers and big corporations. At the end of the day, both parties will sell us out, start wars, and bring us further and further away from the vision of our founding fathers.
I just wanted to comment at the so-called "conservatives" here - neoconservatives - who whine about "communist" Obama:
"Communist" Obama has just delivered billions upon billions of additional dollars to the big banks and industry - and I say additional because this was something that Bush himself started. The "conservatives" complain that this is somehow an example of "communism" but then fail to answer the charge that Bush started the bailouts and then somehow consider the transfer of money from the government to industry is a form of communism (isn't it the other way around?).
With that said, let us have a brief look at what passes for conservatism today: the neoconservative movement. The neoconservative movement, which is a real movement is exactly what the godfather of it himself, Irving Kirstol, called it.
The origins of neoconservatism are from a wave of European and Soviet immigrants who were sympathizers to the communist Leon Trotsky (a man that Irving Kristol professed adoration to). After settling in America for a while and soaking up the political and intellectual landscape, they felt the best way to spread communism was to transform those ideas and infiltrate the right with a set of "neoconservative" principles. I will not detail those here, but anyone with any sense of history can contrast traditional American conservatism with the faux conservatism of the neocon/beck/limbaugh crowd.
In short, any neocon who wishes to bandy about the "communist" or "bolshevik" label at Obama needs to look himself in the mirror and find out the intellectual origins of his own political beliefs.
Liberal Monkey! , innocence are for kids