Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 5/14/2003 9:02:28 AM EDT
Great article, FNC commentator Neil Cavauto blasts New York Times reporter out of the water. [url]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,86795,00.html[/url]
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 9:37:25 AM EDT
Paul Krugman is such a putz. Whenever I read his column I marvel at the partisanship, the leftist bias, and collectivist economic thinking he displays. When I studied economics, his work at MIT was pretty famous and I thought it was weird he'd leave such a notable academic career to work as an opinion columnist for the NY Times. I can't even believe it's the same person. For example, he claims that through regulation changes, the US government can reward broadcast media companies it favors (presumably Fox) and punish ones it dislikes. His solution? Why, publicy fund broadcast media companies, of course! [b]Through its policy decisions — especially, though not only, decisions involving media regulation — the U.S. government can reward media companies that please it, punish those that don't. . . . Yet because the networks aren't government-owned, they aren't subject to the kind of scrutiny faced by the BBC, which must take care not to seem like a tool of the ruling party.[/b] This is just about the craziest, most retarded thing I have ever heard, and it's from the keyboard of an MIT-trained Ph.D in economics. Basically, Krugman is saying that the government has MORE control over media when it DOES NOT fund it, and holds the goddamn BBC(!) up as a model; that the BBC has to make sure it criticizes the government enough to ensure future funding! [%|] Krugman is praising the BBC, simply because it shares his negative opinions towards the Bush administration, the war on Iraq, and reflexive leftist anti-Americanism in general. He doesn't seem to understand that Fox's dominance is due to the marketplace; not because the US government is favorable to it via regulation. People tune into Fox because it is unapologetically pro-American and conservative in its bias, and it's rewarded by the market. The BBC can hold unpopular, Saddam-sympathetic biases BECAUSE it is government-funded. They dont have to worry about advertisers pulling their dollars out of disgust or viewers tuning out because they can't stomach how the BBC accepts all Iraqi propaganda as the gospel truth. They dont report how they do because they're somehow "more honest" or have better integrity, as Krugman of the recently disgraced NY Times suggests. Fucking hypocrite, working at the NY Times and having the gall to lecture Neil Cavuto on journalistic integrity.
Top Top