>>>You don't really know what's going on if you watch TV.
>>
>>I tend to agree with you to a limit. I have seen balanced discussions on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox. A few years ago Fox actually did a better job of allowing both sides to state their opinion. The problem of course was, who reprensented "both sides" and what about the "other sides?" I am curious though how you can base such statements on only internal memos available on the web? Since you never watched much tv news at all - and definitely not much Fox news, there's not much experience to draw from is there?
>
>I managed to sit through several attempts of watching Bill O'Reilly, and I admire the people he invited to his show only to yell at them, to not let them finish a single sentence, and who didn't break his jaw on the spot. I'd gladly sit through a few months of jail time just to have the pleasure. As a spectator, I didn't have the stomach for more than ten minutes at a time. And occasionally I had to wait in the queue at the post office or credit union, where they regularly run Fox, Msnbc, sometimes Cnn. So I was sufficiently exposed to have a general opinion.
>
>I've read the accounts of people who were there on the job, in the studios, and couldn't stand it and left. I've seen the memos from Murdoch (or his HQ, don't remember), I've seen the documentaries, and many times I've read FAIR's weekly vivisection of what the news cover, how do they cover it, and what do they omit and how they skew one thing, repaint the other, and just lie about the most flammable one.
>
>>Shouldn't such a strong opinion at least be based on valid and thorough research? :o)
>
>The sentence about no need to be a hen to know rotten eggs is usually misused to dismiss the expertise and to devalue knowledge, and I'm not taking it lightly. OTOH, the usual attempts, of the kind you provided the sample of, to dismiss just about anybody who isn't "in the know" as unqualified is misused even more frequently. Let's just say I have substantial experience as a target of various flavors of propaganda, and have developed a certain allergy to it. What you get is not even the communist propaganda - that one could be read between the lines. There's no lines anymore, not about anything that matters. Read the "ass on the street" article in the other thread I started today - when was this enormous fraud, this hunt to get anyone they can catch in the jaws of the debt machinery, when was it on the news?
>
>>At least comparing coverage of a story by multiple networks and including many shows on the same and multiple networks?
>
>Why? It's just a story. The news that matter aren't in it. Which of the networks has informed you to any detail about what consequences will be of one of those thousand page laws that are being passed faster than they can be read? The food safety bill now, which may make it completely illegal to buy any food which isn't processed by some million dollar business (because nobody else can do what such law requires, and those who can will have good lawyers anyway), i.e. you may not even be allowed to use fresh milk from your own cow. Where was that? Or were all eyes fixed on the latest runaway bride?

It's funny you mention the food safety bill - just spent a few weeks researching that and whether or not it pertains to home-grown or small farms and supposedly (sneaky stuff going on so no guarantee or level of comfort with that) not. It's meant for resellers (again supposedly). You are correct that the number of laws being passed quietly with no fanfare or prior knowledge is astounding. For a govt that promised visibility it is amazingly cloaked. wouldn't want to broadcast it too loudly though (although I've posted a few here) - the current government is even less friendly about that than the previous one and here, you only get called an extreme rightist (if you disagree with anything) or a racist.