Paul Krugman: The Murdoch Factor

Paul Krugman wonders why anyone would think it is O.K. for Rupert Murdoch to gain control of the Wall Street Journal:

The Murdoch Factor, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: In October 2003, the nonpartisan Program on International Policy Attitudes published a study titled “Misperceptions, the media and the Iraq war.” It found that 60 percent of Americans believed at least one of the following: clear evidence had been found of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda; W.M.D. had been found in Iraq; world public opinion favored the U.S. going to war with Iraq.

The prevalence of these misperceptions, however, depended crucially on where people got their news. Only 23 percent of those who got their information mainly from PBS or NPR believed any of these untrue things, but the number was 80 percent among those relying primarily on Fox News. In particular, two-thirds of Fox devotees believed that the U.S. had “found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the Al Qaeda terrorist organization.”

So, does anyone think it’s O.K. if Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, which owns Fox News, buys The Wall Street Journal? ...

Mr. Murdoch ... is an opportunist who exploits a rule-free media environment — one created, in part, by conservative political power — by slanting news coverage to favor whoever he thinks will serve his business interests.

In the United States, that strategy has mainly meant blatant bias in favor of the Bush administration and the Republican Party — but last year Mr. Murdoch covered his bases by hosting a fund-raiser for Hillary Clinton’s Senate re-election campaign. ...

Now, Mr. Murdoch’s people rarely make flatly false claims. Instead, they usually convey misinformation through innuendo. During the early months of the Iraq occupation, for example, Fox gave breathless coverage to each report of possible W.M.D.’s, with little or no coverage of the subsequent discovery that it was a false alarm. No wonder, then, that many Fox viewers got the impression that W.M.D.’s had been found.

When all else fails, Mr. Murdoch’s news organizations simply stop covering inconvenient subjects. ...[T]he Project for Excellence in Journalism found that in the first quarter of 2007 daytime programs on Fox News devoted only 6 percent of their time to the Iraq war, compared with 18 percent at MSNBC and 20 percent at CNN. ...

Defenders of Mr. Murdoch... say that we should judge him not by Fox News but by his stewardship of the venerable Times of London, which he acquired in 1981. Indeed, the political bias of The Times is much less blatant than that of Fox News. But a number of former Times employees have said that there was pressure to slant coverage...

In any case, do we want to see one of America’s two serious national newspapers in the hands of a man who has done so much to mislead so many? ...

There doesn’t seem to be any legal obstacle to the News Corporation’s bid for The Journal: F.C.C. rules on media ownership are mainly designed to prevent monopoly in local markets, not to safeguard precious national informational assets. Still, public pressure could help avert a Murdoch takeover. Maybe Congress should hold hearings.

If Mr. Murdoch does acquire The Journal, it will be a dark day for America’s news media — and American democracy. If there were any justice in the world, Mr. Murdoch, who did more than anyone in the news business to mislead this country into an unjustified, disastrous war, would be a discredited outcast. Instead, he’s expanding his empire.

_________________________
Previous (6/15) column: Paul Krugman: America Comes Up Short
Next (7/2) column: Paul Krugman: Just Say AAA

Comments

[Tapen Sinha]

I have no idea why Paul Krugman thinks
that the Wall Street Journal provides
unbiased opinion of things BEFORE Mr
Murdoch comes in.

Tapen

[Mark_P]

Ignoring the editorial page (which probably won't change), why doesn't someone calculate the Social Value of the WSJ news division. Reliable information about business and economics makes investing less risky and markets more efficient, right? What's the real cost of a Murdoch take-over if we can't trust the front page of the Journal?

[anne]

http://www.juancole.com/2007/06/save-small-political-magazines-i-just.html

June 28, 2007

Save Small Political Magazines
By David Corn

' Postal regulators have accepted a scheme designed in part by lobbyists for the Time Warner media conglomerate. In short, mailing costs for mega-magazines like Time Warner's own Time, People and Sports Illustrated will go up only slightly or decrease. But smaller publications like The Nation will be hit by an enormous rate increase of half a million dollars a year.

For The Nation, $500,000 a year is a lot of money. Believe me, I know. I’ve been working at the magazine for over 20 years. The pay ain’t great. But there are few media outlets that allow their writers and reporters the freedom to go beyond the headlines and take on the powers that be—to ask inconvenient questions and pursue uncomfortable truths.

But starting July 15, 2007, The Nation will face this whopping postal rate hike. Not to be melodramatic, but this rate increase is a threat to democratic discourse. Why should magazines that can afford high-powered lobbyists receive preferential treatment? This rise in mailing costs will make it harder for the magazine to deliver the investigative reporting and independent-minded journalism upon which you depend. (Take my word; I see the editors and publishing people in our New York office freaking out about this postal rate hike and discussing possible cutbacks.)

The magazine is fighting this corporate-driven, unfair and anti-democratic increase as best it can. It has joined forces with conservative publications in an attempt to beat back the rigged rate structure. (Imagine Katrina vanden Heuvel and Rich Lowry, the editor of National Review, working together!) But even if we “win”—which, I’m told, is a long shot—The Nation will still face hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional postage. '

You can help here. *
By Juan Cole

This is the print-world equivalent of the Corporations' plan to destroy net neutrality. It is probably a stalking horse. If they get rid of the little magazines, they will then get rid of us, and theirs will be the only voices that can be heard.

* https://ssl.thenation.com/associates/support_postal.mhtml?o=p2

[TigerPaw]

In a country where all that seems to matter is money - is it a surprise these things happen?

Spin the clock back 2000 odd years and I bet Rome in the later imperial period looked pretty much the same. The government and the organs that work alongside it (such as the press) are being sold to the highest bidder in much the same way the Praetorian Guard once sold the imperial throne.

The end results will likely be the same too.

[anne]

"The prevalence of these misperceptions, however, depended crucially on where people got their news. Only 23 percent of those who got their information mainly from PBS or NPR believed any of these untrue things, but the number was 80 percent among those relying primarily on Fox News."

Interestingly, I found the reporting on Iraq on PBS and NPR sadly slanted as well though nowhere remotely as slanted as Fox News.

[reason]

Anne,
maybe your example means that people who watch PBS and NPR are more critical to start with.

But yes, it is time for Democrats to take up the Theodore Roosevelt theme of trust busting. It doesn't even seem to be a topic of conversation these days. Didn't anybody play monopoly when they were younger? Doesn't anybody understand what increasing returns to scale mean?

Note to self - use Preview always!

[Hamilton]

It's just the free market. Let Murdoch take over any company he can. Fox News is a 'niche' news organization and is obviously a minority in the media world.

You can always start new newspapers.

[reason]

How about a free market in scientific truth? The right ot decide the truth goes to the highest bidder!

Information is a public good. We need to rediscover that.

[Meh]

I actually am quite looking forward to Murdoch taking over the WSJ, his takeover of The Times (London) led to the formation of The Indpendent, which through some ups and downs has been a useful addition to the UK newspaper industry.

Of course the other thing is that we will see a huge push by Murdoch to undercut the FT and try and drive it out of business. I'll be sad to see the pink paper go, but it is inevitable. At least maybe it'll force the upper class to think about media consolidation for a change.

[anne]

Reason:

"But yes, it is time for Democrats to take up the Theodore Roosevelt theme of trust busting. It doesn't even seem to be a topic of conversation these days."

Interestingly, the Supreme Court severely weakened anti-trust legislation just yesterday while strengthening corporate influence through the session.

[Tim Worstall]

"Paul Krugman wonders why anyone would think it is O.K. for Rupert Murdoch to gain control of the Wall Street Journal?"

Perhaps the correct answer is that a voluntary transaction concerning private property is none of his damn business?

[reason]

TW...
yes that is the standard property rights fundamentalist answer. But there are other considerations.

[real person from the real world]

I agree with TigerPaw, these things have always been up for sale to the highest bidder. Besides, Murdoc's business interests fit right inline, with the WSJ and Republican conservatives anyway. Also, how old is the ol' guy? Wait a few years and he's gone, and someone else will take over. By that time who knows, the prevailing trends will have changed, and someone else will be out to buy the Murdoc properties.

[bakho]

The Democratic Party should start a project to purchase newspapers and other media as a counter to the right wing.

[reason]

By the way this "Monopoly" effect is one reason I keep pushing for object oriented simulation as a way to integrate micro and macro. I think the system is potentially unstable, there a positive feedback loops (the most obvious being the income/wealth one). Then you can run simulations that ask questions about what level of taxation, or anti-trust, or monetary restraint is required to stop blocks of wealth and power growing in an unlimited way (like cancer). This is the only way you tackle such issues quantitively. Neither simultaneous equations nor theory will do it for you. I don't think we can answer questions of the sustainability of our financial system any other either. I definitely get the feeling nobody really understands these things well.

[evagrius]

"The Democratic Party should start a project to purchase newspapers and other media as a counter to the right wing."

That was done in Europe. Didn't amount to much.

[Anarcho]

"Perhaps the correct answer is that a voluntary transaction concerning private property is none of his damn business?"

Ever heard about externalities? or economic power?

Simply fact -- voluntary transactions concerning private property can have serious implications for those not directly involved. That should be obvious. I'm surprised that someone has to point that out.

[reason]

Anarcho...
thats right. Bill Gates buys all the rice in the world to solve overpopulation. Voluntary private transaction, nothing wrong with it.

[Rob]

"The Democratic Party should start a project to purchase newspapers and other media as a counter to the right wing."

It is my suspicion that the news media does not inform and set opinions, but rather the audience goes to the news source that tells them what they want to hear in the first place.

[reason]

Rob,
if you think about it that can't be true. Otherwise current affairs knowledge and opinions would never change. (Or rather would never be changed by newspapers).
Yes they may pick a news source that corresponds to their particular world view, but they can still be informed or not. It is the refusal of FOX to objectively cover the news but concerns PK here.

[kharris]

Anne,

O'Connor was a swing voter, except when it came to business issues. She has been replaced with Allito, who is not a swing voter, and so far has been friendly to business in a way even O'Connor would not have dreamed of. He votes in favor of business interests without regard to law, precedent or the Constitution.

Presidents have no respect for the law, the Constitution or our governmental traditions will remake the Court in their own image.

[Holly W.]

IMO, Boston Globe columnist Steve Bailey provided better reasons why the WSJ shouldn't be sold to Murdoch than PK does. Googling Steve Bailey and "Just Say No to Rupert" should work for anyone who wants to read it.

As far as the assertions about viewers/listeners of PBS/NPR versus Fox News, shouldn't the more important question be how well-informed WSJ readers are? Newspaper readers don't seem to have been addressed at all in that poll.

[Bruce Wilder]

Rob: "It is my suspicion that the news media does not inform and set opinions, but rather the audience goes to the news source that tells them what they want to hear in the first place."

If I had a news source to go to, other than TPM Media, I would find this insight more to the point.

Half the country, and therefore half the potential media audience, is left of center. Yet, ALL three cable news networks, ALL three of the traditional network news divisions, and most major metropolitan newspapers lean Right in their political coverage.

The blogs joke about the "no liberals on teevee" rule, which makes many fora for televised discussion of politics into a discussion between the perennially wrong and the perpetually stupid.

Of the major Sunday morning public affairs programs, only ABC's, run by a Democrat, is scrupulously balanced.

The consolidation of the Media has turned the news media, which command the eyeballs of 90+% of Americans into a right-wing propaganda machine. And, it has had serious, even catastrophic consequences, for the politics and policies of the country.

Let's be really clear about this. The vast majority of people do not have time to be obsessed with politics. They depend upon the Media to be the tribunes of the people, to pay close attention, to take the proxy of the People, and make the judgments necessary to keep Power out of the hands of crazy, corrupt and incompetent individuals and political factions.

Do you think David Broder is doing a good job as tribune of the People? Tom Friedman? Do you think the New York Times was doing a good job, when it was ginning up the Whitewater "scandal"? Or, when the Media was conducting the campaign of slander that put Bush in the White House instead of Al Gore?

The balance of political power in the American democracy rests with the roughly third of the electorate, which is "independent" in its political allegiance and gravely uninformed about politics. It is those people, at whom the Political Parties aim their 30-second television commercials. It is those people, who are profoundly affected by the thorough-going Media bias, which has come so close to eliminating both liberal opinion and sensible, critical judgement from broadcast news and opinion.

Even though it is completely clear that the Right-wing, through their control of the Media, and, until recently, all three branches of the Federal government, has led the country on a disastrous course, there are no indications that anyone in the Media will ever lose their job for being wrong about George W. Bush or wrong about Iraq.

The Republican Party is offering a collection of Presidential candidates every bit as ignorant and crazy and prone to lying as the leading representatives of the Bush Administration have been.

In one small, but telling bit, tonight, Tavis Smiley, on PBS, will host a discussion with and about 30 representative Democrats, who watched the Democratic candidates debate last night, and whose reactions were monitored and analyzed by an experienced public opinion researcher. The public opinion researcher? Republican Frank Luntz.

[James Killus]

It should be noted, for the benefit of the "private transaction" fundamentalists, that Rupert Murdoch does not actually use his own money when purchasing companies. He uses other people's money which he controls via a complicated set of laws and regulations (banking regs, SEC, "corporate persons," etc.) and he would not have control of that money without some pretty massive stacking of the deck via actions from a number of governments.

Require him to stick top his own money and you would see very different behavior. Remove the legal shields of SEC oversight, limited liability, and banking regulations, and very few people would give him a dime of their own to use to further his power.

[Tim Worstall]

"Simply fact -- voluntary transactions concerning private property can have serious implications for those not directly involved."

Sure they can. But a lot less often than most people assume.

"Bill Gates buys all the rice in the world to solve overpopulation. Voluntary private transaction, nothing wrong with it."

Absolutely. Let him try. Just as Bunker Hunt with silver did he'll go bust.

[worker]

The WSJ takeover is a concern to all its readers (along with NPR it is my staple news source).

But ultimately, it seems unlikely/ counterproductive that Murdoch will take negative actions (such as trying to influence the front page) that would decrease its prestige. If anything, his takeover should expand the Journal's reach and influence to other properties, which may explain the concern on the left.

Bruce Wilder, what are you smoking to say "ALL three cable news networks, ALL three of the traditional network news divisions, and most major metropolitan newspapers lean Right in their political coverage". I would say exactly the opposite and be backed up by the political contributions of such TV journalists which tilt 90% to the left.

[dissent]

People who advocated war, who voted for Bush, bear a share of moral responsibility for the catastrophe in Iraq.

Likewise, people who advocate for policies that hammer the working people of this country so that the wealthy and the corporations can suck this country dry bear a moral responsibility for the consequences. It's called 'pimping the country to your rich friends.' It is worthy of contempt.

I would say: the tens of thousands who die every year because they lack health insurance is blood on your hands.

I would say: the spread of gangs through out this country is the mirror image of your values and your policies. May they come for you one day!

[ECONOMISTA NON GRATA]

I couldn't care less, one way or the other to be perfectly frank.... I quit reading the Journal years ago when they started to quote me and my partners in it.... Talk about a loss of credibility....! I always found a publication that had to explain to it's readers that rates and prices in the bonds move inversly, kinda limp, to say the least...

May they sell to the highest bidder.... It's worthless to me....

Have a nice weekend everyone.... :-)

Econolicious

[robertdfeinman]

I know those who have a political ax to grind won't agree with what I'm about to say, however...

1. There is some evidence that reporters at the major dailies are more socially liberal than the average citizen. However they are not much different from those in their socioeconomic class (well paid professionals with an advanced education).

2. The social viewpoint of the reporters may influence some of what they write, but it is not much in evidence when it comes to reporting on foreign affairs, homeland security or militarism.

3. The major media outlets are all controlled by large industrial firms whose business interests coincide most closely with others in the business sector. This has more influence on the outlook of these outlets then does the personal opinions of a handful of reporters. You will never see a negative story about GE and defense work on NBC, and probably, because of an implicit gentleman's agreement, not on ABC or CBS either.

4. Since the outlets depend upon the goodwill of the government for things like tax breaks and favorable merger rulings they are unwilling to rock the boat.

5. Having said all this, it is still possible for a person who wishes to to find out most of what is going on in the world, it just take some effort. Here are a few places to try:
a) the BBC world service - available on satellite radio and online as well as on TV in some markets
b) the Guardian - also online
c) the small magazines like "The Nation", "The Progressive", "The New Yorker", "Mother Jones", and even "The Atlantic" and "Vanity Fair".
d) other national press sources - ranging from Deutche Welle to Al Jazeera. World Radio plays shows from a variety of such sources (in English) everyday. Most have English web sites as well.
e) Media critics and others who try to set the record straight - examples include "Media Matters for America" and "Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting". There is also the weekly radio show "On the Media" as well as print outlets like "Columbia Journalism Review".

6. We are also beginning to see independent, original, reporting arising online. Two examples are Talking Points Memo and Firedoglake web sites. These sites now send real reporters into the field to gather information and interview sources, just like the good old days of the original muckrakers.

It may be work to find out what is going on, but unlike other parts of the world which have government censorship, it is still possible in the US. If you are uninformed or mislead by government or the media you have to blame yourself for allowing yourself to be manipulated.

[Anonymous]

It's by no means a foregone conclusion that a Murdoch-owned Journal would destroy the FT. Pearson's papers: the Financial Times, the Economist (they call themselves a "newspaper") have a fiercely loyal following in the United States, for the very different perspective they bring.

Re: postal rates. The effect may be to harm small magazines, but the justification is that they must recover costs. This is why junk mail ("standard mail", renamed several years ago to remove the negative connotation from "bulk mail") costs less than first-class mail. A mailer of 500,000 magazines is going to be able to deliver greater automation savings than a mailer of 10,000 magazines. I'm rather surprised we have content-based (magazine and newspaper) postal discounts at all, given how much the Postal Service has been moving towards cost-recovery.

[dissent]

"If you are uninformed or mislead by government or the media you have to blame yourself for allowing yourself to be manipulated."

If our society has media dominated by corporate interests to the extent that we go to war and hundreds of thousands are killed with skewed reporting by said media a big factor in fanning the flames, it is (for heaven's sake!) not the problem of the misinformed individual having no one to blame but himself or herself.

There is a world out there, of consequences, deaths, chaos.
In this world, media consolidation in the USA can have deadly consequences. In this case that world matters, and the poor idjit who can't handle getting news from the web doesn't matter. The consequences for media consolidation are not just personal, they involves masses of people and the destruction of whole countries. Talk about a US centric view!!

The (libertarian) notion that a meaningful understanding of responsibility always devolves back onto the individual is utterly specious and morally foul. This is one just instance.

[robertdfeinman]

Dissent:
1. Postal rates were originally designed to promote the spread of newspapers and magazines. This is why second class exists. The small magazines claim that the postal service is ignoring its mandate (and using a pricing scheme designed by Time magazine). It is an example, once again, of private interests influencing public policy.

In this case more than money is involved, many think the plan has political overtones. Given several of the recent revelations about how this admin operates they may be right.

2. If you don't think that people are at fault for not seeking out objective information than who is? Do you expect private firms with their own objectives to provide neutral information? One of things that all the sources I cited have in common is that they are either non-profit, or close to it. They have little financial risk if they oppose the interests of big business and big government.

Wasn't there some aphorism about owning your own printing press?

[garhane]

I read this with a deep sense of lost moorings. All the big US media, and ours too for that matter, is totally, irrevocably and shamelessly for sale and most is long since bought. It is as though Krugman was saying we have all these terrible monsters in the press and here is a really nasty one. And?
I think a sale to Murdoch will eliminate a surface blemish on the uniform corruption of the media, the idea that it may be true that ideological looney tunes are in charge of editorial in WSJ but the news pages are staffed by marvelous reporters, the best. I never believed it , mind you, but many have. Well now we will soon be able to say the WSJ is the top business paper and you can't believe a word in it, Murdoch is in charge and his rasping, acid old man's breath is everywhere.
It was always a distraction, this tale of the pure reporter untouched in a sea of sewage. So it is good to see an end to it. I think the estimable Pauj Krugman is experiencing a burst of nostalgia. Happens to the best.

[dissent]

"If you don't think that people are at fault for not seeking out objective information than who is? "

I think this country had a history of considering the public interest in our regulatory regime for media, newspapers, radio, tv, etc. This has fallen by the wayside under the influence of the ideas of 'free market' ideologues and their big business allies. The situation we have - massive consolidation and corporate control - is the result of specific choices.

The question is, how to protect the public interest in objective information? Perhaps you think we shouldn't be interested in maintaining a democratic govt. You may be right (and I may be headed to the E.U.). But if maintaining an American democracy is an important goal, then an informed citizenry is essential. That means returning to a regulatory regime that makes it =>easynormalordinary<= citizens to have access to objective information.

Fox News is manna from heaven for war mongers. Read the headlines about the traumas of Iraq and consider the real consequences for real people that have come because we've allowed our news to turn to trash and war propaganda. It's not only shameful. It's not only a disgusting display of what American values have become. It's a death and destruction corporate machine.

BTW, the fact that "the public interest" as a concept is so counter intuitive to so many is a sign of the moral decline of our country under right wing dominance. Yes, Virgina, there are (or were) American values other than greed.

[robertdfeinman]

Dissent:
I think you misinterpret my position. I too think that the media has gotten too concentrated and is too close to those in power, however this doesn't mean that citizens have to take it.

All I did was point out that there are still avenues open so that one can get other viewpoints. It's not as easy as turning on k-k-k-katie, but it is available.

Other societies have had (have) it much worse. Look at what people had to go through during the days of the USSR to find out what was going on in the world. Look at the steps the Chinese are taking right now to keep information from the people. Notice how hard some of them are fighting to get around these restrictions.

If they can do it at a risk of imprisonment, is it too much to ask our citizens to seek out other sources of news?

[John H. Morrison]

In particular, two-thirds of Fox devotees believed that the U.S. had “found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the Al Qaeda terrorist organization.”

I wonder how many Fox devotees believe that Osama bin Saddam is one and the same person.

[evagrius]

Topic: Miscellaneous items
Date/Time: 6/28/2007 11:01:31 AM
Title: Why WSJ reporters didn't show up for work Thursday
Posted By: Jim Romenesko

Newspaper Guild release

June 28, 2007 11:00 A.M.

A statement from Wall Street Journal reporters:

Wall Street Journal reporters across the country chose not to show up to work this morning.

We did so for two reasons.

First, The Wall Street Journal's long tradition of independence, which has been the hallmark of our news coverage for decades, is threatened today. We, along with hundreds of other Dow Jones employees represented by the Independent Association of Publishers' Employees, want to demonstrate our conviction that the Journal’s editorial integrity depends on an owner committed to journalistic independence.

Second, by our absence from newsrooms around the country, we are reminding Dow Jones management that the quality of its publications depends on a top-quality professional staff. Dow Jones currently is in contract negotiations with its primary union, seeking severe cutbacks in our health benefits and limits on our pay. It is beyond debate that the professionals who create The Wall Street Journal and other Dow Jones publications every day deserve a fair contract that rewards their achievements. At a time when Dow Jones is finding the resources to award golden parachutes to 135 top executives, it should not be seeking to eviscerate employees’ health benefits and impose salary adjustments that amount to a pay cut.

We put the reputation of The Wall Street Journal and the needs of its readers first. That's why we will be back at our desks this afternoon, producing the day's news reports. But we hope this demonstration will remind those entrusted with the future of Dow Jones that our publications' integrity must be protected, and sustained, from top to bottom.

For more information, contact:
E.S. Browning (201) 491-8653
or Steve Yount (609) 220-5951

[suppose.wordpress.com]

robertdfineman gave a list suggestions of sources if you want real news, such as BBC, the Guardian[online], Nation, Progressive, New Yorker, Atlantic, and Vanity Fair.

Is he kidding? These are his suggestions of sources he would want you to read/hear because they are slanted his way, not out of fairness.

A couple of years ago I was in London and listened to BBC and have never heard such virulent Anti-Americanism. If the reverse happened in the US the British Ambassador would be all over our media, State Deparment, members of Congress, and the Presidency itself.

And the monthly publications mentioned are so East of the Hudson left-of-center, out of touch of the real world, the real news is an anathema to them.

[Keith]

Basically, disagreeing with the leftists here constitutes a negative externality which requires government intervention. Get it?

Just disguise your hatred of disagreement and freedom using some ill-defined "externality" to actively use government coercion to silence your opponents, the way the liberals here at Economist's Voice advocate!

[R. Bob Pearson]

Ah, more widsom from the very ferret-like Paul Krugman. Thanks to his column, I now know the real TRUTH about the Iraq war.

1. We were mislead into it. By whom? The world intelligence community? They were more certain of their opinion that Saddam had WMD’s than today’s climate scientists are that humans are responsible for global warming! In 2001-2003 there were no Saddam-WMD deniers.

2. The war was unjustified. 17 United Nations resolutions, 2 sadistic sons waiting in the wings, thousands of gassed Kurds, thousands more raped women and untold numbers of mass graves say otherwise. Were we not there already, you “good people” would be marching in the streets demanding that Bush “do something” about the suffering in Iraq.

3. The war is a disaster. By what measure? Certainly not on the basis of casualties per day spent at war (less than 2.5) or number of terror attacks carried out on U.S. soil since the war began (0). Hell, we lost 29,000 soldiers during the Normandy invasion and 19,000 during the Battle of the Bulge - both mere “battles” in a larger war. By any reasoned, historical measure (I know, not a strong suit among lefties), this “war” would more accurately be described as a prolonged skirmish. And don’t even get me started on the gang wars that play out on the streets of our inner cities every day. I challenge any of you to convince me that since the Iraq war began we have lost more soldiers to Iraq than we have young black males to gang wars, but I don’t hear or see anyone covering that true “disaster.”

So, I’ll continue to get my news from a variety of sources including Fox. They may put their own slant on things, but no more so than Mr. Krugman did in this very column.

R. Bob Pearson

[calmo]

Thanks R.Bob for your slant and Keith for his too...and all those AM radio talk shows, airing the same slant, thank you.
But 'thank you for listening' is notit...there are no ears on these broadcasters...the audience is expected to get the message, eventually.
Period.
Fox does not want to engage you for your opinion, for your adjustments to their "fair and balanced" program. That's why they alone feel the need to be explicit about it.
Of course that is obvious to regular Misty readers: Fox needs to remind its audience that Fox is "fair and balanced"...an audience that needs constant supervision and is stupid enough to be grateful for this supervision.
Luckily that is a small audience compared to NPR. Interesting that President Bush conducted interviews on Fox, but not for NPR, IIRC, not the grownups.

[calmo]

Dang...a little too heavy?
Ok, what bakho said up thread...and why it is crucial to increase spending on NPR (<10% gov funded...compare CBC or just about any other "public" media outfit) and not let us look as bad as Italy.
There you go my little cream puffs.