Propaganda on MSNBC is the exception, propaganda on Fox News is the rule.
According to all recognized demographic research on cable news networks - MSNBC has the most educated audience (therefore, the audience will see through any glaring displays of propaganda) and CNN is second in education of its audience. FoxNews is #1 in propaganda based on YouTube results at 9:25p on 9/1/08.*
*After reading Simon Conway's blog "MSNBC clearly no longer news" - a logical, concise article, but contrary to what I believe and to what research proves, I researched cable network propaganda videos listed on YouTube. The following table shows the results:
YouTube Search Phrase- # of Results
fox news propaganda- 688
cnn propaganda - 490
msnbc propaganda- 194
Simply put, Fox News shows 3.5 times more propaganda than MSNBC.
Furthermore, there is some level of propaganda on every network in news and entertainment. If you listen to only Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or Bill O'Reilly, anything but Fox News will seem like left wing propaganda.
What are your thoughts?
Best regards,
Jay
Jay Allen
MovieVoice
jay@movievoice.net
Jay,
My thoughts are, you are off here. You Tube? Who do you think puts the videos on there?
I agree. To argue that fox news is not propaganda is overlooking all basic facts. It is intentionally linked to the right as a propaganda outlet. If you are a fan of the Simpsons you can see many many episodes that mock Fox news and Fox in general for this behavior. This isnt a matter of debate or some left wing conspiracy it is just the facts.
John, people who watch the "news" post "news" videos on You Tube. I quoted youtube because its accessible by everyone and a place where we can all go to watch 600+ examples of Fox News propaganda.
ok heres a quick search using the phrase how is fox news propanda.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=how+is+fox+news+propaganda&aq=f&oq=
I wouldnt call the sites necessarily legitimate news sources but you can unravel the facts in a matter of seconds.
http://www.outfoxed.org/
Even Ted Turner is saying its true...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4211395.stm
Trying to deny it doesnt even seem possible.
Anyone questioning whether Fox news is a propoganda machine or unbiased news should familiarize themselves with the Fox News President's (Roger Ailes) resume before he held that position... then judge for yourself.
Jay, you're a brave man....putting an entry up like this one, complete with your name and photo. The majority of opinions I have posted in comments on these blogs in the past few weeks persuade me that most are so far right oriented that they don't even understand that they are extreme in their politically influenced religious views, or....are the religiously influenced political views. For most, I doubt if matters much. The fisrt step was to forget where we have come from. We live in the Reagan nation now, the shiny city on a hill, but this is who we are and wher we've come from. Most don't know or seem interested.
Monthly Review May 2002 Robert W. McChesney and Ben Scott
...Radical criticism of the press was an integral component of the many large social movements of the Progressive Era, which sought to resist the effects of accelerating capitalist development. It was a time of striking similarity to the present, mirroring in particular the corruption of democracy by political and economic elites whose control over the media strangles public awareness, debate, and activism. However, unlike today, radical criticism of capitalist journalism was a dominant theme on the left during the Progressive Era, particularly in the socialist, anarchist, and progressive press....
.... “(T)he thesis of this book,” he wrote, is “that American Journalism is a class institution serving the rich and spurning the poor.”*If The Jungle was notorious for its aggressive assaults on capitalist industry, The Brass Check pulled even fewer punches. The title itself is a reference to the chit issued to patrons of urban brothels at the time. Sinclair drew an analogy between journalists and prostitutes, beholden to the agenda, ideology, and policies of the monied elites that owned and controlled the press. It was an integral part of his broader critique of the corruption of U.S. politics and the appalling nature of capitalism: “Politics, Journalism, and Big Business work hand in hand for the hoodwinking of the public and the plundering of labor” (p. 153)......
... In the text of the book itself, he called it “the most important and most dangerous book I have ever written”(p. 429).
Yet while The Jungle remains a staple of American literature, The Brass Check has been all but forgotten. This is the case despite its groundbreaking critique of the structural basis of U.S. journalism, arguably the first such systematic critique ever made. Anticipating much of the best in more recent structural media criticism, Sinclair explained the class bias built into journalism in a four-part systemic model emphasizing the importance of owners, advertisers, public relations, and the web of economic interests tied into the media system, and invested in its control of public opinion. Integrating the critique of the press into the larger history of Progressive Era activism, Sinclair pointed to the centrality of the media in all of the problems of social injustice which attended the rise of modern capitalism.
Yet, those historians who bother to mention The Brass Check dismiss it as ephemeral, explaining that the problems it depicts have been solved.
Gore Vidal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"[t]here is only one party in the United States, the Property Party...and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt—until recently... and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/He...rop_Model.html
Manufacturing Consent
A Propaganda Model
The mass media serve as a system for communicating messages and symbols to the general populace. It is their function to amuse, entertain, and inform, and to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society. In a world of concentrated wealth and major conflicts of class interest, to fulfill this role requires systematic propaganda......
Upton Sinclair - Wikiquote
The Brass Check (1919)
* Journalism is one of the devices whereby industrial autocracy keeps its control over political democracy; it is the day-by-day, between-elections propaganda, whereby the minds of the people are kept in a state of acquiescence, so that when the crisis of an election comes, they go to the polls and cast their ballots for either one of the two candidates of their exploiters.
* The methods by which the "Empire of Business" maintains its control over journalism are four: First, ownership of the papers; second, ownership of the owners; third, advertising subsidies; and fourth, direct bribery. By these methods there exists in America a control of news and of current comment more absolute than any monopoly in any other industry.
http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2008/feb/27/cover/
The Rise and Fall of the Copley Press
By Matt Potter | Published Wednesday, Feb. 27, 2008
http://backissues.cjrarchives.org/ye...5/sinclair.asp
...RIGHT BACK WHERE WE STARTED FROM
by Curt Gentry
Gentry is a former journalist and the author of thirteen books, including The Last Days of the Late, Great State of California and J. Edgar Hoover: The Man and the Secrets.
Upton Sinclair's surprise victory in the California Democratic primary of 1934 frightened the California business establishment -- and the California press lords -- as did nothing before or after.
....., his EPIC (End Poverty in California) plan drew a huge grass-roots following. Sinclair advocated having idle factories turned into cooperatives and manned by the unemployed; public ownership of utilities; special taxes on large land holdings; and -- the clincher that brought Standard Oil of California, banks, insurance companies, realtors, and the major movie studios into the fray -- a state income tax on corporations.
The campaign that followed has been described by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., as "the first all-out public relations blitzkrieg in American politics." Realizing that too much depended on the outcome of the election to entrust it to the state's feeble Republican party, business and industry leaders banded together and hired outside help....
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~MA01/Whi.../sinclair.html
THE MOVIES AND POLITICAL PROPAGANDA
from The Movies On Trial
Upton Sinclair
........That I know what I am talking about was proved when I happened to write on a subject that did not involve the profit system. Several concerns were bidding for "The Wet Parade" before the book was out. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer paid twenty thousand dollars for it, and they spent half a million and made an excellent picture, following my story closely.....
Way too funny! SHOW ME! Don't be running YouTube (of all things!!) searches, but SHOW ME as I showed you.
Here's just one example of propaganda from Fox News: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-eyuFBrWHs.
I guess I'm confused. You are showing me a collection of clips which include interviews with White House spokespeople; our Ambassador to the United Nations and others. They are making different cases such as "there's no stopping Iran's nuclear program" which is 100% true. This is not even close to what I showed you. MSNBC used a "BREAKING NEWS" graphic to make a snide comment. Speaking as someone who was a working journalist for the best part of 25 years I can assure you that what they did was NOT news. Oh and finally, the piece you used simply says there was no link between Saddam and Al Quieda. No evidence, just a statement. It amazes me that you tube appears to be your source for everything.
Oh, there's another accurate source for poll results, YouTube.
Merriam-Webster defines propaganda as "the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person."
Simon, your youtube video from MSNBC and my youtube video from Fox News are both examples of propaganda.
If you don't believe youtube, then try these exact search phrases on Google:
"msnbc propaganda" 373 results
"cnn propaganda" 3,940 results
"fox news propaganda" 25,200 results
Or if you prefer a peer reviewed journal...
Furthermore, the O'Reilly Factor is the flagship program at Fox News. Journalism Studies, Vol. 8, No 2, 2007 published the article "VILLAINS, VICTIMS AND THE VIRTUOUS IN BILL O'REILLY'S ‘‘NO-SPIN ZONE'' - Revisiting world war propaganda techniques" by Mike Conway, Maria Elizabeth Grabe, and Kevin Grieves. The following is the Abstract from this article:
This study updates methods of communication analysis popular in the period between the world wars in an effort to analyze news commentator Bill O'Reilly's ‘‘Talking Points Memo'' editorials. The results show that O'Reilly is a heavier and less nuanced user of the seven devices developed by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis in the late 1930s than the notorious radio commentator of that time, Father Charles Coughlin. O'Reilly also employs other propaganda techniques, identified by Lasswell, Berelson and Janowitz. This includes ample use of fear appeals and the construction of the battle between good and evil. The most evil villains in O'Reilly's world are illegal aliens, terrorists, and foreigners because they are apparently a physical and moral threat to the United States. Slightly less evil - but unambiguously bad - are groups (media, organizations, politicians) who share a political leaning to the left. On the other side, the virtuous flank emerged as an all-American crew made up of the military, criminal justice system, Bush administration, and ordinary US citizens.
Jay - once again you are confused. O'Reilly IS opinion. It does not claim to be news. It is his commentary on the news. MSNBC claims to be news and in that setting they produced opinion. I showed you the graphic that MSNBC put up under breaking news. I found that piece of video on YouTube. Period.
Here's a specific instance where Fox News identifies disgraced Republican Mark Foley as a Democrat - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9mNmZ9JpG8
And here's more general propaganda from Fox News - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYA9ufivbDw
Simon, you want "evidence"? Everyone but the most diehard Bush sycophants and others in deep, deep, denial, know what MSNBC and other "mainstream" news outlet are saying, when they report that there was NO LINK!
2004 Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq:
XII. IRAQ’S LINKS TO TERRORISM A. Intelligence Products Concerning Iraq’s Links to Terrorism (U) The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) produced five primary finished intelligence products on Iraq’s links to terrorism: 0 a September 2001 paper; 0 an October 2001 paper; Iraq and al-Qaida: Interpreting a Murky Relationship, June 2002; 0 Iraqi Supportfor Terrorism, September 2002 and Iraqi Supportfor Terrorism, January 2003. B. September and October 2001 Papers
(U) Shortly after the September 11,2001 terrorist attacks, the Director of Central Intelligence’s (DCI) Counterterrorism Center (CTC) and the CIA Near East and South Asia office (NESA)37collaborated on a paper on Iraqi links to the September 1lth attacks. This was the CIA’S first attempt to summarize the Iraqi regime’sties to 9/11. The paper was disseminated to President’s Daily Brief (PDB) principals on September 2 1,2001. The Committee was not informed about the existence of this paper until June 2004. According to the CIA, the paper took a “Q&A” approach to the issue of Iraq’s possible links to the September 1lth attacks. (U) Soon afterward, the NESA drafted a paper that broadened the scope of the issue by looking at Iraq’s overall ties to terrorism. The Committee requested a copy of this October 2001 document, but representatives of the DCI declined to provide it, stating: . . .we are declining to provide a copy of the paper. It was drafted in response to a request from a Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) recipient, and the final paper was 37 TheNear East and South Asia (NESA) is the CIA Directorate of Intelligence (DI) office responsible for analyzing events in the Near East, including Iraq. Page -304 -
disseminated only to the PDB readership. Accordingly, it is not available for further di~sernination.~~ C. Iraq and al-Qaidu: Interpreting a Murky Relationship, June 2002
(U) Following the publication of the October 2001 paper, the CTC began drafting another paper that would eventually become Iraq and al-Qaidu: Interpreting a Murky Relationship. The paper was drafted based on widely expressed interest on the part of several senior policy makers, according to CIA. Throughout the drafting process (October 2001 to June 2002), the two offices took different approaches to assessing Iraq’s links to terrorism as a result of their different missions and perspectives. According to the CIA’SOmbudsman for Politicization, the CTC was aggressive in drawing connections to try to produce informationthat could be used to support counterterrorism operations,while the NESA took a traditional analytic approach, confirming intelligence with multiple sources and making assessments only based on strongly supported reporting. Analysts worked on several drafts over the eight month drafting period, but CTC management found them unsatisfactory and ultimately produced a draft without NESA’s coordination. (U) The Deputy Director for Intelligence (DDI) directed that Iraq and ul-Qaida: Interpreting u Murky ReZutionshiy be published on June 21,2002, although it did not reflect the NESA’s views. CTC’s explanation of its approach to this study and the analysts’ differing views were contained in the paper’s Scope Note, which stated: (U) This intelligence assessment responds to senior policymaker interest in a comprehensive assessment of Iraqi regime links to al-Qa’ida. Our approach is purposehlly aggressive in seeking to draw connections, on the assumptionthat any indication of a relationship between these two hostile elements could carry great dangers to the United States. ’*The President’s Daily Brief (PDB) has not been provided to Congress inthe past by the executive branch. Committee staff notes, however, that the National Commission on Terrorist Acts Upon the United States (known as the 9-1 1 Commission) reached an agreement with the White House for access to the PDB and other intelligence items. The declination to provide the October 2001 CIA paper is an expansion of the historic practice to include other documents beyond the PDB. The CIA has provided the Committee items included in the PDB as long as they were also published separately as fmished intelligence or in other finished products. -305 -
Page 306
(U) We reviewed intelligence reporting over the past decade to determine whether Iraq had a relationship with aI-Qa’ida and, if so, the dimensions of the relationship. -1 Our knowledge of Iraqi links to al-Qa’ida still contains many critical gaps (U) Some analysts concur with the assessment that intelligence reporting provides “no conclusive evidence of cooperation on specific terrorist operations,”but believe that the available signs support a conclusionthat Iraq has had sporadic, wary contacts with al-Qaida since the mid-1990s, rather than a relationship with al-Qaida that has developed over time. These analysts would contend that mistrust and conflicting ideologies and goals probably tempered these contacts and severely limited the opportunities for cooperation. These analysts do not rule out that Baghdad sought and obtained a nonaggression agreement or made limited offers of cooperation,training, or even safehaven (ultimately uncorroborated or withdrawn) in an effort to manipulate, penetrate, or otherwise keep tabs on al-Qaida or selected operatives. (U) The NESA believed that this edited Scope Note did not adequately capture the differences between the two offices over the weighing and interpretationof the supporting intelligence reports. (U) The CIA Ombudsman for Politicization received a confidential complaint four days after the paper was published, on June 25,2002, claiming the CTC paper was misleading, in that it did not make clear that it was an uncoordinated product that did not reflect the NESA’s views and assessments. The CIA created the position of Ombudsman for Politicization in 1992 to respond to alleged issues of politicization and analytic distortion. According to the Ombudsman’s Charter, the position serves as an “independent, informal, and confidential counselor for those who have complaints about politicization, biased reporting, or the lack of objective analysis.” The Ombudsman reports directly to the DCI. The complaint and subsequent inquiry is discussed later in this report under Pressure on Intelligence Community Analysts. (U) The Committee Staff interviewed the Deputy Director for Intelligence on the production of this paper, and asked specifically why the analysts’ approach was purposefully aggressive. She explained that:
Page 307
What happened with the “murky paper” was I was asking the people who were writing it to lean far forward and do a speculative piece. If you were going to stretch to the maximum the evidence you had, what could you come up with?.....
D. Alternate Analysis in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defensefor Policy
...... <h3>(U) One of these consultants stated that he was told that the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and the Secretary of Defense were dissatisfied with the intelligence products they were receiving from the Intelligence Community on terrorism and linkages between terrorist groups worldwide.</h3> This individual also stated that he and a colleague had gone to the CTC and to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) to review what work they were doing on link analysis and relationshipsbetween terrorist groups and state sponsors. They found that the analysis was not being done, and stated that they believed their requests for assistance were being ignored....
.....(U) On July 22,2002, the DIA detailee sent an e-mail to a Deputy Under Secretary for Policy recounting a meeting that day with a senior advisor to the Under Secretary. The e-mail reported that the senior advisor had said that the Deputy Secretary had told an assistant that he wanted him “. . . to prepare an intel briefing on Iraq and links to al-Qaida for the SecDef and that he was not to tell anyone about it.” The e-mail also referred to “the Iraqi intelligence cell in OUSD(P).” The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy later explained to the Committee that the term “intelligence cell” referred to the PCTEG and other OSD staffers and their study of intelligence reports.
(U) Incorporating the DIA detailee’s work and the analysis done by the two naval reserve officers assigned to the PCTEG, a special assistant from the Office of the Deputy Secretary of Defense created a set of briefing slides in the summer of 2002 that outlined the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) views of the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida and criticized the Intelligence Community (IC) for its approach to the issue.
(U) The briefing slides contained a “Summary of Known Iraq -al-Qaida Contacts, 1990-2002,” including an item “2001: Prague IIS Chief al-hi meets with Mohammed Atta in April.” Another slide was entitled “FundamentalProblems with How Intelligence Community is Assessing Information.” It faulted the IC for requiring “juridical evidence” for its findings. It also criticized the IC for “consistent underestimation”of efforts by Iraq and al-Qaida to hide their relationship and for an “assumption that secularists and Islamists will not cooperate.” A “findings” slide summed up the Iraq -al-Qaida relationship as “More than a decade of numerous contacts,” “Multiple areas of cooperation,” “Shared interest and pursuit of WMD,” and “One indication of Iraq coordination with al-Qaida specificallyrelated to 9/ 11.”
(U) One of the naval reservists from the PCTEG and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) detailee to the Policy Support Staff presented the briefing, which was developed by the special assistant from the Office of the Deputy Secretary of Defense, to the Secretary of Defense in early August 2002.
(U) After the briefing, the Deputy Secretary sent a note to the briefers, the Under Secretary and the Under Secretary’s Special Advisor, which included: That was an excellent briefing. The Secretary was very impressed. He asked us to think about some possible next steps to see if we can illuminate the differences between us and CIA. The goal is not to produce a consensus product, but rather to scrub one another’s arguments. Page -309 -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...502263_pf.html
Hussein's Prewar Ties To Al-Qaeda Discounted
Pentagon Report Says Contacts Were Limited
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 6, 2007; A01
Captured Iraqi documents and intelligence interrogations of Saddam Hussein and two former aides "all confirmed" that Hussein's regime was not directly cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a declassified Defense Department report released yesterday.
The declassified version of the report, by acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble, also contains new details about the intelligence community's prewar consensus that the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda figures had only limited contacts, and about its judgments that reports of deeper links were based on dubious or unconfirmed information. The report had been released in summary form in February.
The report's release came on the same day that Vice President Cheney, appearing on Rush Limbaugh's radio program, repeated his allegation that al-Qaeda was operating inside Iraq "before we ever launched" the war, under the direction of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist killed last June.
"This is al-Qaeda operating in Iraq," Cheney told Limbaugh's listeners about Zarqawi, who he said had "led the charge for Iraq." Cheney cited the alleged history to illustrate his argument that withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq would "play right into the hands of al-Qaeda."
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), who requested the report's declassification, said in a written statement that the complete text demonstrates more fully why the inspector general concluded that a key Pentagon office -- run by then-Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith -- had inappropriately written intelligence assessments before the March 2003 invasion alleging connections between al-Qaeda and Iraq that the U.S. intelligence consensus disputed.
The report, in a passage previously marked secret, said Feith's office had asserted in a briefing given to Cheney's chief of staff in September 2002 that the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda was "mature" and "symbiotic," marked by shared interests and evidenced by cooperation across 10 categories, including training, financing and logistics.
Instead, the report said, the CIA had concluded in June 2002 that there were few substantiated contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and Iraqi officials and had said that it lacked evidence of a long-term relationship like the ones Iraq had forged with other terrorist groups.
"Overall, the reporting provides no conclusive signs of cooperation on specific terrorist operations," that CIA report said, adding that discussions on the issue were "necessarily speculative."
The CIA had separately concluded that reports of Iraqi training on weapons of mass destruction were "episodic, sketchy, or not corroborated in other channels," the inspector general's report said. It quoted an August 2002 CIA report describing the relationship as more closely resembling "two organizations trying to feel out or exploit each other" rather than cooperating operationally.
The CIA was not alone, the defense report emphasized. The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) had concluded that year that "available reporting is not firm enough to demonstrate an ongoing relationship" between the Iraqi regime and al-Qaeda, it said.
But the contrary conclusions reached by Feith's office -- and leaked to the conservative Weekly Standard magazine before the war -- were publicly praised by Cheney as the best source of information on the topic, a circumstance the Pentagon report cites in documenting the impact of what it described as "inappropriate" work......
Colin Powell on Iraq, Race, and Hurricane Relief
Former Secretary of State Speaks Out on Being Loyal -- and Being Wrong
....When Walters pressed Powell about that support, given the "mess" that the invasion has yielded, Powell said, "Who knew what the whole mess was going to be like?"
While he said he is glad that Saddam's regime was toppled, Powell acknowledged that he has seen no evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 terrorist attack. "I have never seen a connection. ... I can't think otherwise because I'd never seen evidence to suggest there was one," he told Walters. ....
Senate Intelligence report finds no Saddam-al-Qaeda
Updated 9/9/2006 4:37 AM ET
WASHINGTON (AP) — Saddam Hussein rejected overtures from al-Qaeda and believed Islamic extremists were a threat to his regime, a reverse portrait of an Iraq allied with Osama bin Laden painted by the Bush White House, a Senate panel has found.
The administration's version was based in part on intelligence that White House officials knew was flawed, according to Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee, citing newly declassified documents released by the panel.
The report, released Friday, discloses for the first time an October 2005 CIA assessment that prior to the war Saddam's government "did not have a relationship, harbor or turn a blind eye toward" al-Qaeda operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi or his associates.
http://intelligence.senate.gov/phase...y.pdf#page=112
As recently as an Aug. 21 news conference, President Bush said people should "imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein" with the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction and "who had relations with Zarqawi."
Democrats singled out CIA Director George Tenet, saying that during a private meeting in July Tenet told the panel that the White House pressured him and that he agreed to back up the administration's case for war despite his own agents' doubts about the intelligence it was based on.
"Tenet admitted to the Intelligence Committee that the policymakers wanted him to 'say something about not being inconsistent with what the president had said,'" Intelligence Committee member Carl Levin, D-Mich., told reporters Friday.
Tenet also told the committee that complying had been "the wrong thing to do," according to Levin.
"Well, it was much more than that," Levin said. "It was a shocking abdication of a CIA director's duty not to act as a shill for any administration or its policy."....
Cheney, on the very next day:
For Immediate Release
Office of the Vice President
September 10, 2006
Interview of the Vice President by Tim Russert, NBC News, Meet the Press
NBC Studios
Washington, D.C.
......Q Then why in the lead-up to the war was there the constant linkage between Iraq and al Qaeda?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: That's a different issue. Now, there's a question of whether or not al Qaeda -- whether or not Iraq was involved in 9/11; separate and apart from that is the issue of whether or not there was a historic relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. The basis for that is probably best captured in George Tenet's testimony before the Senate intel committee in open session, where he said specifically that there was a pattern, a relationship that went back at least a decade between Iraq and al Qaeda.
Q But the President said they were working in concert, giving the strong suggestion to the American people that they were involved in September 11th.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: No, they are -- there are two totally different propositions here. And people have consistently tried to confuse them. And it's important, I think -- there's a third proposition, as well, too, and that is Iraq's traditional position as a strong sponsor of terror.
So you've got Iraq and 9/11: no evidence that there's a connection.<b> You've got Iraq and al Qaeda: testimony from the Director of CIA that there was, indeed, a relationship; Zarqawi in Baghdad, et cetera. Then the --
Q The committee said that there was no relationship. In fact, Saddam --
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I haven't seen the report. I haven't had a chance to read it yet --</b>
Q But, Mr. Vice President, the bottom line is --
<b>THE VICE PRESIDENT: -- but the fact is, we know that Zarqawi, running a terrorist camp in Afghanistan prior to 9/11, after we went into 9/11 -- then fled and went to Baghdad and set up operations in Baghdad in the spring of '02, and was there from then basically until the time we launched into Iraq. ........</b>
<h3>...and Cheney wasn't done...a month later, he was "at it", again:</h3>
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...061019-10.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Vice President
October 19, 2006
Satellite Interview of the Vice President by WSBT-TV, South Bend, Indiana
2nd Congressional District -
Representative Chris Chocola
........Q Are you saying that you believe fighting in Iraq has prevented terrorist attacks on American soil? And if so, why, since there has not been a direct connection between al Qaeda and Iraq established?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, the fact of the matter is there are connections. Mr. Zarqawi, who was the lead terrorist in Iraq for three years, fled there after we went into Afghanistan. He was there before we ever went into Iraq. The sectarian violence that we see now, in part, has been stimulated by the fact of al Qaeda attacks intended to try to create conflict between Shia and Sunni......
<h3>...and Cheney STILL wasn't done...six months later, he was "at it", again:</h3>
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070405-3.html
April 5, 2007
....So those are very real problems and to advocate withdrawal from Iraq at this point seems to me simply would play right into the hands of al Qaeda.
Q It may not just be Iraq. Yesterday I read that Ike Skelton, who chairs -- I forget the name of the committee -- in the next defense appropriations bill for fiscal '08 is going to actually remove the phrase "global war on terror," because they don't think it's applicable. They want to refer to conflicts as individual skirmishes. But they're going to try to rid the defense appropriation bill -- and, thus, official government language -- of that term. Does that give you any indication of their motivation or what they think of the current plight in which the country finds itself?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Sure -- well, it's just flawed thinking. I like Ike Skelton; I worked closely with Ike when I was Secretary of Defense. He's Chairman of the Armed Services Committee now. Ike is a good man. He's just dead wrong about this, though. Think about -- just to give you one example, Rush, remember Abu Musab al Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist, al Qaeda affiliate; ran a training camp in Afghanistan for al Qaeda, then migrated -- after we went into Afghanistan and shut him down there, he went to Baghdad, took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq; organized the al Qaeda operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene, and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June. He's the guy who arranged the bombing of the Samarra Mosque that precipitated the sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni. This is al Qaeda operating in Iraq. And as I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq. ..
<h3>...and Cheney STILL wasn't done...two months later, he was "at it", again:</h3>
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20070603.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Vice President
June 3, 2007
Vice President's Remarks at the Wyoming Boys State Conference
The Vice President:....The worst terrorist we had in Iraq was a guy named Abu Musab al Zarqawi, a Jordanian by birth; served time in a Jordanian prison as a terrorist, was let out on amnesty. Then he went to Afghanistan and ran one of those training camps back in the late '90s that trained terrorists. Then when we launched into Afghanistan after 9/11, he was wounded, and fled to Baghdad for medical treatment, and then set up shop in Iraq. So he operated in Jordan, he operated in Afghanistan, then he moved to Iraq....
History of Bush's lies and distortions about al Zarqawi and his relationship with Saddam's government:
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=130169
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=130169&page=1
Bush Calls Off Attack on Poison Gas Lab
Calls Off Operation to Take Out Al Qaeda-Sponsored Poison Gas Lab
By John McWethy
W A S H I N G T O N, Aug. 20 (2002)
President Bush called off a planned covert raid into northern Iraq late last week that was aimed at a small group of al Qaeda operatives who U.S. intelligence officials believed were experimenting with poison gas and deadly toxins, according to administration officials....
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
October 7, 2002
...We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America....
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030206-17.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
February 6, 2003
President Bush: "World Can Rise to This Moment"
.....Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training.
We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner. The network runs a poison and explosive training center in northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad. The head of this network traveled to Baghdad for medical treatment and stayed for months. Nearly two dozen associates joined him there and have been operating in Baghdad for more than eight months.
The same terrorist network operating out of Iraq is responsible for the murder, the recent murder, of an American citizen, an American diplomat, Laurence Foley. The same network has plotted terrorism against France, Spain, Italy, Germany, the Republic of Georgia, and Russia, and was caught producing poisons in London.....
http://web.archive.org/web/200304012...?bid=3&pid=371
Capital Games By David Corn
Powell's One Good Reason To Bomb Iraq--UPDATED
02/06/2003 @ 12:12am
.....But here's the first question that struck me after Powell's presentation:
why hasn't the United States bombed the so-called Zarqawi camp shown in the slide? The administration obviously knows where it is, and Powell spoke of it in the present tense.
http://209.85.207.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=8&gl=us
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, The, Feb 7, 2003 by GREG MILLER
SHOWDOWN ON IRAQ
Why not hit terrorist camp?
Lawmakers question lack of military action
By GREG MILLER Los Angeles Times
Friday, February 7, 2003
Washington -- Secretary of State Colin L. Powell spent a significant part of his presentation to the United Nations this week describing a terrorist camp in northern Iraq where al-Qaida affiliates are said to be training to carry out attacks with explosives and poisons.
"Why have we not taken it out?" Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) asked Powell during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. "Why have we let it sit there if it's such a dangerous plant producing these toxins?"
Powell declined to answer, saying he could not discuss the matter in open session.
"I can assure you that it is a place that has been very much in our minds. And we have been tracing individuals who have gone in there and come out of there," Powell said.
Absent an explanation from the White House, some officials suggested the administration had refrained from striking the compound in part to preserve a key piece of its case against Iraq.
"This is it, this is their compelling evidence for use of force," said one intelligence official, who asked not to be identified.
But neither Powell nor other administration officials answered the question: What is the United States doing about it?....
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20030208.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
February 8, 2003
President's Radio Address
.... Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in acquiring poisons and gases.
We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner. This network runs a poison and explosive training camp in northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad. ....
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030306-8.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 6, 2003
President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference
,,,,THE PRESIDENT: ,...Colin Powell, in an eloquent address to the United Nations, described some of the information we were at liberty of talking about. He mentioned a man named Al Zarqawi, who was in charge of the poison network. He's a man who was wounded in Afghanistan, received aid in Baghdad, ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen, USAID employee, was harbored in Iraq. There is a poison plant in Northeast Iraq. To assume that Saddam Hussein knew none of this was going on is not to really understand the nature of the Iraqi society.....
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040617-3.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
June 17, 2004
... THE PRESIDENT: The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al Qaeda. We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. For example, Iraqi intelligence officers met with bin Laden, the head of al Qaeda, in the Sudan. There's numerous contacts between the two.
I always said that Saddam Hussein was a threat. He was a threat because he had used weapons of mass destruction against his own people. He was a threat because he was a sworn enemy to the United States of America, just like al Qaeda. He was a threat because he had terrorist connections -- not only al Qaeda connections, but other connections to terrorist organizations; Abu Nidal was one. He was a threat because he provided safe-haven for a terrorist like Zarqawi, who is still killing innocent inside of Iraq.
No, he was a threat, and the world is better off and America is more secure without Saddam Hussein in power. ....
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040618-1.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
June 18, 2004
President Bush Salutes Soldiers in Fort Lewis, Washington
Remarks by the President to the Military Personnel
Fort Lewis, Washington
.....And we're beginning to see results of people stepping up to defend themselves. Iraqi police and Civil Defense Corps have captured several wanted terrorists, including Umar Boziani. He was a key lieutenant of this killer named Zarqawi who's ordering the suiciders inside of Iraq. By the way,
''he was the fellow who was in Baghdad at times prior to our arrival. He was operating out of Iraq. He was an Al Qaeda associate.
See, he was there before we came. He's there after we came. And we'll find him.''.....
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040923-8.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
September 23, 2004
President Bush and Prime Minister Allawi Press Conference
...PRESIDENT BUSH: Imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein were still in power. This is a man who harbored terrorists -- Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, Zarqawi.....
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060320-7.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 20, 2006
THE PRESIDENT:..We also did say that Zarqawi, the man who is now wreaking havoc and killing innocent life, was in Iraq. .....but I was very careful never to say that Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks on America....
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060821.html
Press Conference by the President
August 21, 2006.
the President:...... who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would -- who had relations with Zarqawi. ...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060912-2.html
Press Gaggle Spetember 12, 2006
.....Q Well, one more, Tony, just one more. Do you believe -- does the President still believe that Saddam Hussein was connected to Zarqawi or al Qaeda before the invasion?
MR. SNOW: The President has never said that there was a direct, operational relationship between the two, and this is important. Zarqawi was in Iraq.
Q There was a link --
MR. SNOW: Well, and there was a relationship -- there was a relationship in this sense: Zarqawi was in Iraq; al Qaeda members were in Iraq; they were operating, and in some cases, operating freely from Iraq. Zarqawi, for instance, directed the assassination of an American diplomat in Amman, Jordan. But they did they have a corner office at the Mukhabarat? No. Were they getting a line item in Saddam's budget? No. There was no direct operational relationship, but there was a relationship. They were in the country, and I think you understand that the Iraqis knew they were there. That's the relationship.
Q Saddam Hussein knew they were there; that's it for the relationship?
MR. SNOW: That's pretty much it. ....
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060915-2.html
Press Conference by the President September 15, 2006
Watch the video: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/15/bush-zarqawi-iraq/
THE PRESIDENT:....Martha.
Q Mr. President, you have said throughout the war in Iraq and building up to the war in Iraq that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein and Zarqawi and al Qaeda. A Senate Intelligence Committee report a few weeks ago said there was no link, no relationship, and that the CIA knew this and issued a report last fall. And, yet, a month ago you were still saying there was a relationship. Why did you keep saying that? Why do you continue to say that? And do you still believe that?
THE PRESIDENT: The point I was making to Ken Herman's question was that Saddam Hussein was a state sponsor of terror, and that Mr. Zarqawi was in Iraq. He had been wounded in Afghanistan, had come to Iraq for treatment. He had ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen in Jordan. I never said there was an operational relationship. .....
Jay, Thank you for a thought provoking post that is so different from many of the posts I see that feed into the non thinking manner of character attacks and the concentration on non issues that network's like Fox Noise often portrays. Did you see the news recently that FN had altered the pictures of some people thay were quoting to make them look physically bad? This is the worst form of yellow journalism and is in the gutter with The National Inquirer which unfortunately appeals to many people who find it easier to not think but just engage in knee jerk reactions...
I don't ever comment on may of the posts I am referring to because frankly, it makes my head hurt to try and think down on that level!
Thanks again!
Give me the days of "Huntley and Brinkley." Those were the days when news programs reported the news and did not attempt to interpret it. They left that up to the viewer. We have long been in the era of "Tabloid" news programs and that has generated more interest. Of course, negative news sells... and they are competing for ratings... aren't they. Ok, I'm dating myself... but I want to hear the story and evaluate it on my own. I don't want a commentator telling me what I should think and what the news tells me... even if their interpretation isn't even close to what happened.... "spin doctors" will do that... and the news programs have involved into that. I guess they don't give the public credit for having a brain!
BSNBC
Enjoyed reading this post and the run of comments. I'm glad someone brought it back to the forefront. It was posted before I joined the political groups.
Hello Jay:
I like the novel apprroach to supporting your thesis - truly. Assuming that what you say is true, I have a question: so what? If you think Fox news is biased, don't watch it. If I think MSNBC is biased (I do), I don't watch it. Fox News is a publicly held company, and, as such, reports to it's shareholders. The shareholders in the company invested to obtain a profit. The ratings would indicate that Fox News has higher ratings, and, as a result, derives advertising revenues. I don't know this to be true, but I suspect more than MSNBC.
One can provide statistics, polls, and all kinds of information to support a contention that a person may have. However, being a fan of free markets, I choose to proceed based on what the market supports. The market, based on ratings, seems to like Fox News better than MSNBC. MSNBC, if they want to improve their ratings, might change their business operations to a format the market (read viewers) likes more. In the mean time, I'm sure MSNBC appreciates your viewership.
I happen to Like Fox News! And Talk about Propaganda in the Media, Most of the Newspapers and all other networks, are very Left opinionated and or Owned, I won't even advertise or purchase any of our Newspapers, becuase they never post a neutral article.
"Propaganda on MSNBC is the exception, propaganda on Fox News is the rule.
According to all recognized demographic research on cable news networks - MSNBC has the most educated audience (therefore, the audience will see through any glaring displays of propaganda) and CNN is second in education of its audience."
The logic behind the argument that the most educated audience will be best able to see through propaganda, assumes that that "education" wasn't in any way blinding those "educated" to propaganda.
Judging from studies I've seen, that's an extremely tenuous presupposition. (A quick search just now brought up two such studies - showing a significant liberal bias in higher education - which were reported on here and here.) It presupposes that either a) those educated in the increasingly liberal environment are not influenced by that liberal bias and/or b) one's point of view does not affect one's perspective.
Just this morning I was reading an excerpt from an interview of Professor J. Budziszewski [Boojee-SHEF-skee] of the University of Texas. Here is part of it:
Budziszewski: [A professor in a public policy class said,] "All of you students are too intelligent to be pro-life, right?" The implied threat was plain: "If any of you are pro-life, I'll grade you down." Guess whether anyone spoke up....
Q: What's the right way ... to talk back to such professors?
Budziszewski: A rule one is "Speak up." Even the most bigoted professors often change their tune when challenged. Other rules are "[Be] logical," "Be respectful," "Keep it brief," "Limit yourself to a single point," and, "Remember that you don't have to 'win.'" It's not difficult to ask, "Sir, I understand the insult, but what is the argument?" Nor does it require genius to say this to a professor blathering about "intolerance": "If we had to tolerate everything, wouldn't we even have to tolerate intolerance? Don't we have to use standards to describe what is tolerable and what isn't? What are yours?"
Your post reminded me of that. I understand the implied insult in saying that Fox News has the least-educated viewers. But, as Simon has pushed back at you, I too question where's the documentation to back up the claims that a) educated viewers' opinions are the best bar to judge propaganda against and b) that one station's newscasts are more propaganda than another's.
My guess is that those on the Left have by and large had their left-leanings "educated into them" in the ivory towers, and, using their newfound "knowledge" and skills, expound to the world (via YouTube, and other resources on the WWW) all about their brilliance and expertise - including their claims that such-and-such is propaganda, biased, extreme, etc., etc. And those on the Right have by and large had their right-leanings "educated into them" either at home (growing up) or through experience (working in or running businesses.)
One more thought...
It seems, from your post, that you may believe that most (if not all) propaganda will be labeled, either directly or with tags. I doubt even most completely illiterate people would fall for that.
The point is: News should be news, not opinion.
Fox News, to the best of my knowledge, differentiates the two fairly clearly. And they generally keep that distinction true.
Other News stations, while they also have opinion shows, don't hold as high standards of keeping their news separate from opinion.
Those who look at news from a Left position see Fox News' balanced reporting as being to the Right of where they are, and therefore declare Fox News to be Right-biased. (They also seem to frequently confuse Right-biased opinion shows (like Savage, Rush, Hannity, and O'Reilly) with news.)
Those who look at news from a Right position see most other News stations as being to the Left of where they are, and therefore declare those stations to be Left-biased. A few of them, like Simon, have the integrity to hold out in their declarations until there is demonstrable bias in an actual news report. But it seems that frequently, those on the Right also confuse Left-biased opinion shows (like Olbermann, Matthews, Lehrer, and Stewart) with news as well.)
Even Ted Turner is saying its true...
LOL!
Well ...I took 3 semesters of statistics in my college years and if "YouTube" research data compilations is what it has all come down to, well....we are all in big trouble. ;)
Trey, you took one more semester than me. However, the point was not to impress readers with a lengthy post containing formulas only a statistician could understand. Anyone that can read this blog can also access YouTube. Most people, not attending or teaching college, will not have the same level of access to peer reviewed journals on bias in the media as they do to YouTube.
It's not surprising that those in (or enamored by) academia are very fond of referencing "peer reviewed journals," yet they rarely (if ever) question the diversity of the "peers" that are doing the "reviewing."
Would you hold a study of Free Republic postings in as high esteem if it was "peer reviewed" by Freepers? How about a "peer review" of Daily Kos, or Move-On, or Huffington postings by "peers" from those places?
Yet, academics look to their "peers" to be absolutely unbiased in their political studies even when they've been shown to hold strong political biases.
And here we're expected to believe that an objective, non-biased result can be obtained by either referencing "peer reviewed journals" from left-leaning academics or else checking the number of items on YouTube that have been tagged or labeled as Propaganda.
None of the known propagandists in history have, to the best of my knowledge, ever sent out their propaganda with tags or labels saying, "This is propaganda!" Why, oh why, should we expect to be able to identify it today with such a simplistic method? It's preposterous!
David, so are you suggesting YouTube serves absolutely no purpose and that "peer reviewed" journals consist of articles written by tree hugging fools? Should we just listen to what Oxy Limbaugh tells us to believe?
Jay - Not at all.
YouTube does indeed serve a purpose, just not the purpose you wish it served. It's not a search engine that can accurately find which network is most-filled with propaganda by looking for the word "propaganda" in the tags and/or labels.
And I never said anything about trees nor hugs nor fools. If you'd really read what I wrote, you would have noticed that I did say that academics are much more biased to the Left, and therefore less likely to see bias in Left-leaning broadcasts and more likely to see bias in unbiased or Right-leaning broadcasts. And they are also indoctrinating their students with Left-leaning ideas, ideals, and principles which serve to perpetuate the blindness caused by the bias.
As you've just demonstrated in your last comment, it's very difficult to be objective when you either read, listen to, or watch "news" that resorts to name-calling as a means of denigrating others and/or other perspectives. (You certainly didn't get the name "Oxy Limbaugh" from a propaganda-free news source. And since you're not the first person to ever use it (it traces at least back to 2005 in the DemocratUnderground), you'd be hard-pressed to claim you "just made it up.")
David, I read what you wrote.
One of your references is studentsforacademicfreedom.org, a website from the Center for the Study of Popular Culture, founded by far right wing conservative David Horowitz. Their research would be as unbiased as a group founded by Michael Moore.
You mentioned Professor J. Budziszewski - he is a good example of a conservative professor. In terms of political views, my college professors were as diversified as people you would meet in airport, grocery store, etc. - some were liberal, some conservative, some independent and some were not interested in politics.
I am not and have not claimed to be an academic, so it seems odd for me to defend academics. Nonetheless, at what point did we as voters begin to look down on educated people? Or when do we start burning books to prevent youngsters from becoming educating and God forbid becoming a liberal?
Regarding Rush Limbaugh - a person does not need to be clever or creative to come up with the name "Oxy Limbaugh". I did not think that "Oxy Limbaugh" was original and I did not present it as such. It is two words that quickly show the hypocrisy of a high profile, formerly well-respected, person who said that for drug offenders - we should lock 'em up and throw away the key.
Jay - This post started with your claim:
Propaganda on MSNBC is the exception, propaganda on Fox News is the rule.
Then you tried to back that up with an argument that I believe is specious.
I'm not sure what the point of your last comment is.
Are you trying to claim that since one of the references I linked to is obviously a conservative site - that has reported on a study by professors from 3 different universities - that by some logic you've determined that all the studies' findings of a strong liberal bias in academia are false?
Are you trying to say that since Prof. B. is conservative, that's somehow proof that there is balanced diversity in higher education?
Academics should be willing (and able) to defend themselves. And when they have bias, they should be willing and able to declare that bias, and recognize that it affects their perspective.
One problem with academics is that they often (not always, just often) fail to recognize their own bias and that of their peers. This results in "peer reviews" that fail the objectivity test that "peer review" is supposed to prevent. Yet the vast majority of voters not only don't "look down on educated people" but they hold "educated people" in very high regard, thinking (falsely) that the education they've gained somehow makes them above bias.
Just as you (rightly) would throw out results of a study that was generated by David Horowitz and "peer reviewed" by the Center for the Study of Popular Culture or some other "far right wing conservative" organization, so too should you be at least suspicious, if not throw out the results of studies that are generated by those on the Left and "peer reviewed" by others on the Left.
Regarding Rush - you're right, it doesn't take too much creativity to come up with derogatory nicknames. But your use of that nickname is an indication of the kinds of sites you tend to frequent. While certainly not even close to definitive, it's reasonable to conclude from your use of that nickname that you spend a LOT more time visiting sites like DemocraticUnderground and other left-leaning sites than sites like FreeRepublic or other right-leaning sites.
Back to the original point: You claimed biased propaganda is the exception on MSNBC and the norm on Fox News.
I maintain that you have yet to demonstrate that in a reasonable manner. There is too much bias inherent in your "sources." (Tags are biased, Academics are biased.)
Simon demonstrated one blatant example of bias in a newscast from MSNBC. You have yet to make your case with any hard facts such as what Simon provided.
To really prove that Fox News is 3.5 times more propaganda than MSNBC, all you'd have to do is record all the newscasts (not the opinion and commentary shows) over a reasonable timeframe from both channels, then identify each and every instance of bias and compare the quantity. Conceptually it's fairly easy. Practically, I don't believe it's been done, and it would take a team (with researchers from both sides of the bias spectrum) to complete.
1) My new favorite shows are Countdown with Olberman (is that the correct spelling?) and Rachel Maddow' Show. And no, they aren't be any means unbiased, but they are ever so entertaining. I think most networks have some shows that are more partisan than others.
2) Even Fox has, lately, called the McCain/Palin camp on a few things.