crazy as a Fox...news, that is.
what qualifies "news" outlets as legitimate? and who decides?
Up front & center:: I've got serious problems with Fox News. I always have. The fact that my employer keeps our TV's at work tuned to them 24X7 is only part of it.
I just don't understand how a news outlet, that has Geraldo Rivera as a political analyst, and features stories on babies with two faces, streams live coverage of Paris Hilton's prison release and analyzes the legitimacy of lawsuits by whether the plaintiffs are "hot" as a news outlet. I'm sorry - I just can't. But please tell me I'm not the only one.
My problem is that outlets such as Fox have created a slippery slope, spiraling downward to the lowest common denominator, and providing us with stories that appeal to our basest instincts. Fear, gossip, rumor, drama, sex, etc...etc...ad nauseum. And they're dragging "legitimate" outlets down with them....
This would be fine, were it not for their exhaustive coverage of real news topics, such as politics, the elections, major trials, etc. Political Bias aside (although it's REALLY HARD TO SWEEP THAT ASIDE) I have a really hard time stomaching their reporters cover legitimate stories, such as the Elliott Spitzer story, the Ferraro-Clinton fiasco and the Obama-Wright drama. Hell, IMHO, their "reporters" are less reporters, and more "television personalities", no more fit to report on the news or opine on current events than you or I. So is ratings the goal, the ultimate name of the game, and the watching/listening public gets to be bombarded with sensationalized BS for the sake of profits? Yes, in Fox's case, it seems so.
Their reasoning? We report....you decide.
GTFOHWTBS.
"Baby Girl Born With Two Faces Worshipped as Reincarnated God." <<< I've decided...that shyt is real National Enquirer-ish.