The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info -----------------------
Last updated on June 15th, 2017 at 01:07 pm
Back in January, the New Yorker’s Ken Auletta blamed Fox News for perceptions of bias across all media:
Then you’ve got Fox News, which is admittedly more partisan or perceived as more partisan, and so people then start to say, hey, wait a second, they’re all partisan.
Now the Washington Post’s William Raspberry fears that Fox “threatens to destroy public confidence in all news”:
Why would I consider Fox such a generalized threat? Because I think the plan is not so much to convince the public that its particular view is correct but rather to sell the notion that what FNC presents is just another set of biases, no worse (and for some, a good deal better) than the biases that routinely drive the presentation of the news on ABC, CBS or NBC—and, by extension, the major newspapers …
This is huge. As a friend remarked recently, time was when if you found it in the New York Times, that settled the bar bet and the other guy paid off. But if the Times and The Post or any other mainstream news outlet—including the major networks—come to be seen as the left-of-center counterparts of Fox News Channel, why would anyone accept them as authoritative sources of truth?
Why should anyone accept the Times or the Post or the major networks as authoritative sources of truth? It’s not as if they are—and it’s got nothing to do with Fox.