Source: RottenTomatoes.com, originally posted by markeyd.
This is an example of how Fox News might have framed the Selma, Alabama civil rights protests. Do you have examples of how conservative or mainstream media is framing the news in an inappropriate way? Or better yet, examples of how you would reframe a debate in a more progressive way? If so, send them to us.
Do you think they would Mention Wallace was a Democrat ?
Good point. I think they would mention it, along with comments like "even Wallace, who is a Democrat, has had enough of this impudent behavior from negroes who are breaking the law and causing trouble."
The GOP embraced Democrat Zell Miller as one of their own at the Republican convention just last year. We also have to remember that back then many southern democrats were very conservative on a lot of issues. I think Fox News might have had a harder time choosing which party to side with back then.
So harping on a news organization is Progressive now, too?
Nothing wrong with harping on news organizations. However, if you think Fox News is "news organization" that deserves protection from criticism, you probably haven't watched them lately (or you've watched it too much, a have begun to "drink the koolaid").
First, I'm pretty sure anyone can research publications from the civil rights era to find many cases of media institutions reporting bias, or basically lying about the protagonists and antagonists of certain incidents. Second, the attack on the Fox News network is a completely different blog. In order to present an unbias case against Fox News, one must find networks that are guilty of the same suggestive reporting and then a network that is the antithesis of the alleged Fox News practices. "He that lives upon hope will die fasting." -Benjamin Franklin
But, it's totally o.k. for the liberal media to bash our President right? At least Fox News stands up for this country.
please, get off the conservative-hating band wagon and read a book.
oh, and what's with the stereotype of republicans hating black people? the GOP was formed in opposition of slavery!
That was true like in the 1860s. Around the late 1900s the two parties, Democrat and Republican, switched ideologies. Republicans were for black rights at that time, but now they are broadcasting how 'racism doesn't exist anymore.' I mean, if the GOP is so against slavery, then why did Trent Lott get off so easy in the Republican party. Do you recall Strom Thurman's party, when he announced that all of our problems would be solved if Strom Thurman had won under the racist segregation party? Both Strom Thurman and Trent Lott are both Republicans. You would think a party 'that was formed in opposition to slavery' would immediately want nothing to do with Trent Lott. But oh no, he is still very much a senator, and has great support from Republicans. Much has changed within the Rebublican party. I would not describe them as sympathetic at all of the black rights movement.