Two weeks ago the Vanguard for the first time instituted a registration system. The system has not resulted in a noticeable decline in comments and it has also not resulted in a drop in traffic to the site. However, it has also not resulted in a clear improvement in tone.
As such, the Vanguard is now taking the second step in what we hope will be an atmosphere that is more friendly and has less personal attacks.
Here is what we hope to crackdown on:
1. Personal attacks
2. Name calling
3. Comments that in general do not contribute to friendly discourse
In summary, no ad hominems, no “outing,” be civil, and try to stay on topic.
The purpose of this change is not to censor ideas or stifle legitimate differences of opinion. In fact, just the opposite, the purpose is to make it easier to have discussions and for people with differing viewpoints to feel more comfortable coming forward to state their view. The climate of the comment section was making it such that many people with an interest have avoided the comments and this is the opposite of our longstanding goals.
Finally there is a tendency for people to complain about removed posts. If you have a complaint about the removal of a post, the proper avenue to pursue that is to send an email to the moderators, not to post the complaint in the comment section. Those will also removed in an effort to facilitate discussion and keep it on-topic.
In the coming months we will have a greater ability to steer off-topic conversations off the comment section of an article and onto a more free-flowing message board system.
I appreciate your readership and ask for your cooperation and patience as we try to make this site an even better experience for its readers.
—David M. Greenwald
[i]However, it has also not resulted in a clear improvement in tone.[/i]
I thought it was an improvement! Maybe you want more improvement though.
[i]However, it has also not resulted in a clear improvement in tone.[/i]
I thought it was an improvement! Maybe you want more improvement though.
don’s a good choice for moderator. not sure it’s necessary, but if it is he’s the guy to do it. should be interesting to see the result of the experiment.
I agree with Greg K. It seems like there’s improvement to me. Not perfect, but better. I also agree with the choice of Don.
I still hear a lot of complaints that the tone on here detracts from the site and causes some people not to want to participate. I think we can have an open dialogue that addresses the tough issues while at the same time having a tone that respects diversity of viewpoints. We’ll see how this works and go from there.
Perhaps you can occasionally flag when comments have been removed and why. It would help violators to know when and how they crossed the line and give confidence to the rest of the community that the comments are being monitored.
Moderation? Will it be fair or just a way to steer the debate in the direction the overseers want it to go?
There is no intention of steering the debate, that is why I asked Don Shor to help since he is one of the more moderate members of the Vanguard community.
David: Great choice with Don. Think he’ll keep us in line, either by a tap on the butt from a redwood switch or a dose of hard labor feeding & watering plants at the Barn. (Really admire your ongoing efforts to improve & moderate the Vanguard.)
[i]I still hear a lot of complaints that the tone on here detracts from the site and causes some people not to want to participate.[/i]
You should recognize that there are always three parts to negative politics. The first part is an unnecessary negative tone. The second part is sanctimony: unnecessary complaints about other people’s tone. The third part is genuine reasons to be angry.
Lately you’ve done a lot about the first part. You’ve made people register and you’ve appointed Don as moderator. That’s wise, but you should recognize the other two parts. Sometimes the complaint itself is the problem; sometimes people are sanctimonious or hypocritical and their complaints can’t or shouldn’t be addressed. And sometimes your original post, or entirely civil comments, provokes people for serious reasons. You should only expect people to be so polite in response to a threat to their interests, no matter how politely you or a commenter bring it up.
Two other remarks:
In practice, there already is a moderator; David has been moderating by default. If there is to be a moderator, you can’t do any better than an independent and reliable one like Don. I agree, it’s a good choice.
And, as an example of what not to do, it strikes me that Fox News is notoriously guilty of all three sides of negative politics: They’re rude, they’re materially unfair, and they make up for the other two with sanctimony. I do not at all agree with those progressives who want to fight fire with fire.
I thought there were already other moderators besides David and Don.
Fox News is sanctimonious?
[img]http://secondpagemedia.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/oreilly-and-coulter.jpg[/img]
A couple days after the Measure P vote was over the tone here has been a lot better. Don is a good choice, I have found him to be even-handed. If I recall correctly Don is a board member of the Vanguard but does not seem to hesitate to state a different view from David when they disagree. In the past, some of the frequent posters here were the worst offenders and were apparently immune from censor.
– Will, or does, Don have access to the email list of the subscribers?
– Will posts be eliminated with or without notification?
– David, do you still comment under a pseudonym? There is one commenter that has a consistent view and style identical to yours.
To answer the questions:
1. Don only has access to the front end of the system, he can remove posts or edit them just as you view them.
2. For the most part they will be eliminated without notification, early on perhaps we can explain why the posts have been eliminated.
3. I do not post under a pseudonym.
I have a different perspective as to what registration has resulted in. What I have noticed is that the discussion is primarily amongst only a few persons, who are becoming increasingly longwinded in their commentary. Many of us, like my myself – who do not want to be identified – no longer comment on the blog. In consequence, I no longer pay serious attention to the comment section. I think this is a most unfortunate development.
It’s hillarious how some of you so-called progressives attack Fox News. Do you actually watch Fox? If you did you’d realize that on most of their shows they present both sides of any story, unlike MSNBC and NBC for example. If you Progressives just want a news corp that praises everything Obama does and don’t want any check and balance on our Gov’t than I can see why you hate Fox. Fall in line all you little sheep, that’s what our present Administration is hoping you’ll do.
“It’s hillarious how some of you so-called progressives attack Fox News.”
But it also makes for entertaining TV on The Daily Show:
[url]http://www.mediaite.com/tv/hannity-tea-party-footage-daily-show/[/url]
[quote]you’d realize that on most of their shows they present both sides of any story, unlike MSNBC and NBC for example.[/quote]Rusty, if you want to read an unfair and unbalanced news source, perhaps you should check out Lexicon Daily ([url]http://lexicondaily.blogspot.com/2009/11/relgious-prejudice-hating-muslims.html[/url]).
[i]Do you actually watch Fox? If you did you’d realize that on most of their shows they present both sides of any story,[/i]
Yeah, they often claim that they present both sides of the story. They don’t usually let people on their shows say that they don’t.
[i]Do you actually watch Fox? If you did you’d realize that on most of their shows they present both sides of any story,[/i]
Yeah, they often claim that they present both sides of the story. They don’t usually let people on their shows say that they don’t.
Thanks for the nice comments, folks.
wdf1: “Perhaps you can occasionally flag when comments have been removed and why.”
I think that would be helpful, and also just a matter of courtesy; I know it’s annoying when your comment is edited or removed. So we’ll try to do that as much as possible. Something like [snip…personal attack] where the text was.
rusty: “Will it be fair or just a way to steer the debate…” I have no desire to steer the debate. The purpose is to avoid flame wars, keep threads more or less on track, keep the tone reasonably civil, and hopefully thereby encourage broader community participation.
Greg: “…sometimes people are sanctimonious or hypocritical and their complaints can’t or shouldn’t be addressed. And sometimes your original post, or entirely civil comments, provokes people for serious reasons. You should only expect people to be so polite in response to a threat to their interests…”
Good points. Passionate discussions are what forums are all about, and unfortunately moderating is subjective. So I’ll try to keep it to a minimum and be even-handed, and I do welcome your feedback. I’ll also watch for open tags and duplicate posts.
No ad hominems, no “outing,” be civil, and try to stay on topic. I’ll leave it to Rich to give us the etymology of ad hominem.
[Fox is]… rude, they’re materially unfair, and they make up for the other two with sanctimony
But it also makes for entertaining TV on The Daily Show
Interesting… I think Jon Stewart is rude, materially unfair, and sanctimonious. A lot of young people get their news from his show.
O Reilly’s show and his opinions are center-right on most things (he initially supported the public option and he has always supported some form of amnesty for illegal immigrants in this country) but he welcomes any and all notable guests with an opposing view point. He is an experienced journalist and a Harvard grad, but his direct style and thick Irish skin make some more sensitive viewers cringe. O’Reilly does tend to talk over his guests… as do a lot of news talk show hosts. Just watch MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann or Chris Mathews do the same.
Sean Hannity is right of center. His show used to have more balance when it was Hannity and Colmes. Alan Colmes is as liberal as Hannity is conservative. Colmes remains a commentator and often pairs with Monica Crowley who is some conservative relative of his. Hannity is a bit fanatical, but again, he has a lot of two-sided debate on his show. Glen Beck… well he is certainly conservative and his show has fewer combative guests. I wouldn’t characterize him as rude or sanctimonious (although Liberals hate him for the things that he believes and says). Certainly he is materially unfair since his opinion is his show and it takes center stage. In this way he is a lot like Rush Limbaugh.
Fox News is staffed with a whole lot of talented people, and other than these three shows, you would have a very hard time making you claims. “Special Report” with Bret Baier (used be Brit Hume); “Cavuto on Business” with Neil Cavuto; “Bulls and Bears” with Brenda Buttner; “Fox News Watch” with panelists from the left and right debating news coverage; and “Fox News Sunday” hosted by Chris Wallace… these are just a few examples of several excellent programs. The Fox News model is one where there is a lot of spontaneous back and forth debate instead of some talking head reading a teleprompter and interviewing only agreeable guests. It is a lot like this blog in that respect, and there are a lot of leftist ideologues that would love to find a way to shut it down.
Jeff, nice critique of Fox News and you’re dead on. Most that denounce Fox either never watch it, are sheep who follow the White House propaganda against it or are just lefties who hate the fact that Fox is willing to challenge the Administration.
Rich, if you want to read an unfair and unbalanced news source, perhaps you should check out http://www.dailykos.com or http://www.huffingtonpost.com or maybe
http://www.mediamatters.org
Rusty, thanks for the recommendations. However, I don’t usually care for partisan or (most*) ideological reporting, be it left or right. I rarely watch TV news shows. I know this sounds arrogant, and it probably is arrogant, but my sense is that Fox News and the other cable TV news shows are geared toward people with no more than a 7th grade education. (I think that’s why Glenn Beck is known for emphasizing his points by making stupid faces.) And that’s fine. Those shows are filling a niche and making money doing so. Good for them. It’s not for me.
*I’ll make exceptions if the writing is particularly good. Christopher Hitchens is interesting, whether I agree with him or not. George Will is terribly predicable, but very often his reporting is interesting (even though he does infamously get his facts wrong at times).
“Interesting… I think Jon Stewart is rude, materially unfair, and sanctimonious. A lot of young people get their news from his show.”
Jon Stewart does satirize/parody liberals, but not as frequently conservatives. But being on the Comedy Channel, and clearly doing parody, Jon Stewart (as well as Stephen Colbert) doesn’t convey the same expectation of being taken seriously as do Rush Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Hannity, and Beck.
What you don’t address is the criticism that Fox opinion makers (O’Reilly, Hannity, Beck) whip up an issue so as to draw reaction from the public. That reaction gets reported on the FNC news shows as a newsworthy event, then FNC partisans criticize other news outlets for being biased and inadequate because they didn’t cover the event so readily. The 9/12 Tea Party protest in Washington, D.C. is cited in this regard. I don’t think any other news operation is capable of pulling that off, nationally, the way FNC can. Maybe MSNBC could come close, but they’re not as widely watched.
So Rich, I’m just curious, where does one get his daily news where it is completely unbiased? Does one have to read it off the ticker tape? Please enlighten me, where do you get your daily news? Don’t just say a newspaper or network news, give me specific names.
Jon Stewart does satirize/parody liberals, but not as frequently conservatives. But being on the Comedy Channel, and clearly doing parody, Jon Stewart (as well as Stephen Colbert) doesn’t convey the same expectation of being taken seriously as do Rush Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Hannity, and Beck.
I think you would have to look into his head to validate that statement. Jon Stewart may or may not take himself as seriously as or more seriously than these three or even Rush Limbaugh. They are all entertainers. Quite frankly I think Jon Stewart is a nasty comedic bully. I am curious why some people defend people like Jon Stewart and David Letterman who use their gifts of wit to deliver snark and nasty antagonism, while so vehemently demonizing a host like Bill O’Reilly who practices sincerity and welcomes others taking shots at him.
I’m not a psychologist, but I suspect something to do with some disconnect or dysfunctional interplay between perceptions of intellect and self-confidence. Comedians are chronically insecure and generally very fast-witted. All these right-leaning news show commentators hated by the left display copious self-confidence even though they are not as fast-witted. All of them display above average intelligence and a command of the issues they discuss.
There is a similar filtering with respect to Bush and Obama. Bush was/is self-confident but comparably slow-witted. Obama seems insecure about his ability to lead and make decisions (he either lets public opinion and the legislative branch do the work, or otherwise delays), but he is very quick-witted. The hatred of Bush from the left was always perplexing to me… it was an indication of something deeper than the circumstances warranted. Likewise the copious love directed at Obama is also perplexing and telling to me. Almost one year in office and he has not accomplished much of anything expect putting our nation hopelessly farther in debt. Yet, a liberal friend of mine was all giddy one day because of his command of a financial vocabulary used in her line of work. She said “Bush would never understand these things”. Then a few months later she was laid off from her job and has not worked since. She still loves Obama and hates Bush. Interesting.
[quote]So Rich, I’m just curious, where does one get his daily news where it is completely unbiased?[/quote] There’s no such thing as “completely unbiased.” However, it’s fatuous to equate the subtle, often unintentional biases of a straight news report with one which is either an opinion piece or one designed to please a partisan or ideologically committed audience.
On television, if you watch Jim Lehrer, you can get a straight news report. Lehrer certainly, like all sentient people, has biases, but his intention with his reporting and that of Ray Suarez and Gwen Ifill and the other principal talking heads on Lehrer’s show is not to push a Republican or a Democratic or a Libertarian agenda. The same cannot be said of Britt Hume or Sean Hannity.
Jeff, the left railed against Bush and our national debt incessantly. Where are they now? Obama has tripled the debt in 9 short months and you hardly hear a whimper out of them now. I know, I know, they’ll just say it’s all Bush’s fault.
Rich, I agree with you that The Lehrer Report is about as unbiased as you can get on television. The same can’t be said for Katie Couric, Charles Gibson and Brian Williams. These are all supposed to be news anchors but show left leaning bias every night. It’s funny how your examples are Hannity and Brit Hume who do “opinion” shows, hardly network news.
Read it and weap.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Federal-deficit-sets-October-apf-2373356521.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=
Jeff, the left railed against Bush and our national debt incessantly. Where are they now? Obama has tripled the debt in 9 short months and you hardly hear a whimper out of them now. I know, I know, they’ll just say it’s all Bush’s fault.
Yeah, I keep asking when the statute of limitations expires for blaming the Bush presidency for the country’s problems. Related to that, how do you think a Board of Directors would perceive a new CEO that for his/her first year blaming a lack of progress on the predecessor? Don’t you think the Board would develop a lack of confidence in the new CEOs leadership and ability to execute?
I don’t remember Bush blaming Clinton for 9/11. Later conservative news and radio started blasting Clinton for not taking out Bin Laden when they had the chance, but this was in response to the anger and hatred of Bush being displayed. I remember Bush taking full and immediate responsibility for the situation and making the decisions and then taking full responsibility for the results of his decisions. He was wrong about Iraq, but he demonstrated leadership in his actions, and it may actually one day prove to be the seed of Mid East peace that has so far eluded every other leader. It is interesting that all the war and national security-related decisions that the left used to back their anger of Bush are still in play by the Obama administration… yet there is barely a whimper of anger about Obama. Sometimes bias is identified in what is not said or reported.
This is a perfect example of a thread we would bump into a message board once the feature becomes available.
To answer your question Jeff:
“I keep asking when the statute of limitations expires for blaming the Bush presidency for the country’s problems. “
When he’s no longer to blame and no longer implemented the policies that led to the problem. You would probably have enjoyed my radio show last night with David Swanson
Bush inherited a recession too in which we pulled out of it with many years of good GDP numbers and low unemployment. I don’t remember Bush blaming Clinton.
[i]I think Jon Stewart is rude, materially unfair, and sanctimonious.[/i]
This is now hopelessly off-topic, and I instigated it too. But in defense of this tangent, I don’t know that it is getting in the way of any other conversation in this thread.
Yes, Jon Stewart can be rude. I haven’t heard that he is sanctimonious or materially unfair, although I don’t watch his show. But let’s say that he were all three. What happened to the idea that two wrongs don’t make a right? To David’s credit, at least the Vanguard has accepted that precept on some recent occasions.
[i]a host like Bill O’Reilly who practices sincerity[/i]
I don’t think that falsely claiming to win the Peabody Award counts as sincerity.
[i]Alan Colmes is as liberal as Hannity is conservative.[/i]
No he isn’t. Alan Colmes is as liberal as Bud Lite is flavorful. If this is what they mean by giving both sides of the story, then obviously it’s a setup.
[i]Most that denounce Fox either never watch it[/i]
I haven’t seen Fox News at all since Obama was elected, but yeah, before that I saw what it was. For instance, I saw the business anchor Neil Cavuto claim that he never understood Enron’s business. This was a particularly insincere statement given that Cavuto had already conducted an exclusive interview with Ken Lay, the CEO of Enron. If Cavuto never understood Enron’s business, and he didn’t care to ask, then what’s the point of the interview?
“I haven’t seen Fox News at all since Obama was elected”
Now there’s a Fox expert!
Typical
Yeah, the rest of the media always asks Obama those hard questions.
[i]Now there’s a Fox expert![/i]
Has it changed so much in the past year? If I try it and don’t like it, do I need to keep coming back anyway?
ABC, NBC and CBS never let a guest slide when they try and spin or ignore the question.
On the record budget deficit…
Some economists are talking about a “dead cat recovery”. This is where the cat died on your lap but you are still stroking it being comforted.
Interest rates will rise later this year, and if the economy is not real by that time, we will head to another recession.
When he’s no longer to blame and no longer implemented the policies that led to the problem. You would probably have enjoyed my radio show last night with David Swanson
David, I will pay better attention to your radio schedule, because it sounds like I missed something I would have enjoyed being annoyed about!
In my extensive book collection on the topic of leadership, you would find consistent references to blaming others being indicative of weakness. Every past president has left finger prints on the policies and social structures of this great nation. We can and should understand these things and debate them for future reference, but people that look back and blame others to deliver excuses are not demonstrating the kind of leadership that deserves respect. What leader does that? What President of the most successful and powerful nation in the history of humans does that?
Jeff:
LOL. In case you are interested, here’s my interview with Author David Swanson from last night: archive ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3096:vanguard-radio-november-11-author-david-swanson&catid=45:radio&Itemid=72[/url])
Rich, great article tonight in the Enterprise. I totally agree with everything you wrote. Public workers want to keep the status quo but with unemployment at 10.2% (real number is more like 17%), private sector workers losing pay and benefits and dropping city revenue they need to realise that something has to give. It’s time for our cc to step up and do what they were elected to do and be fiscally responsible.
[quote]they need to realise that something has to give. [/quote] What it appears will give is the lowest paid and least tenured public employees (including cops and fire) will get laid off or will get their hours severely cut back. That means that, despite our very high taxes which the council expects us to renew, the citizens will get much worse service. If you need a police officer for a non-emergency, get in line. If you expect the firefighters to actually do something to prevent fires, forget about it. If you use a public facility which you paid for with your tax dollars, expect the “fees” to use that facility to rise inordinately. If you pay a utility bill every other month, expect it to rise and rise and rise without end. If you are poor and depend on government aid, forget about it. And so on.
I’ve come to realize that the position of the unions (and the members of the council other than Lamar and Sue) is strongly biased in favor of the highest paid public employees. They won’t get fired if we keep overpaying them and promising them retirement benefits that no one in the private sector gets. Their priority is to benefit the few no matter how much this harms everyone else. And nothing proved that more than the vote the other night for increasing the management structure in the fire department. They just flat out lied to say this is not a rip-off to the taxpayers.
We’ll have to wait and see what comes with the new contracts. But I’m not planning on staying quiet if those contracts don’t do any good to solve the problem of paying out more than the city is taking in and then always asking for more money from taxpayers who, as you say, are losing their income all the while.
[i]Yeah, the rest of the media always asks Obama those hard questions.[/i]
This is already part of what is wrong with interviews on Fox News: the philosophy that the point of an interview is either to agree with the interviewee, or nail with him hard questions. It is true that Cavuto slobbered all over Ken Lay in that interview, and it is true that the didn’t look too good as things unfolded later, but that’s not the real problem. “What does Enron do?” is an important question, but it shouldn’t be a hard question for the CEO. Cavuto said a year later that the whole problem with Enron was that he didn’t know what its business was, but when he had the man on his show, one on one, somehow it wasn’t worth asking.
The right standard in an interview isn’t to nail people with hard questions or to kiss up to them with easy questions, it’s to ask important questions so that you can learn from the answers. There isn’t a whole lot to learn from the Fox interviews that I have seen, whether the questions are hard or easy. It is true that there isn’t a whole lot learn from most TV news shows on any of the channels, but somehow Fox has been worse because it has turned mud into a mudfight.
By the way, that is why I don’t like Keith Olbermann either. I’m also not all that enthusiastic about Bill Maher or Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert, or most of what was on Air America. The one standout on partisan TV is Rachel Maddow. Yes, she’s very partisan, but somehow there are things to learn from her show. More power to her.
Comeon Greg, you’re harping about a business show interview on Fox. Rachel Maddow, are you kidding? Now there’s fair and balanced. If you’re happy with the journalist slobbering all over Obama softball interview where nothing of substance ever gets answered then more power to you. As for me I ask for more.
[quote][b]Greg:[/b] The one standout on partisan TV is Rachel Maddow. Yes, [u]she’s very partisan[/u]
[b]Rusty: [/b] Rachel Maddow, are you kidding? Now there’s fair and balanced.[/quote] I don’t like Rachel Maddow’s style at all. However, Rusty, your response to Greg suggests you missed what he said about her.
On radio, I much prefer her ([url]http://www.whyy.org/about/pressroom/images/terry_book.jpg[/url]). On TV, besides Lehrer, I like him ([url]http://weblogs.variety.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/11/01/brianlamb.jpg[/url]). Liberal friends of mine tend to like this guy ([url]http://cenlamar.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/billmoyers.jpg[/url]), but he irritates me with his holier than thou spin on everything. And conservatives I know like him ([url]http://kiddmillennium.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/jesus-thumps-up1.jpg[/url]), but he irritates me with his holier than thou spin on everything.
And conservatives I know like him, but he irritates me with his holier than thou spin on everything.
Ha! …but like Fox News, his show had a lot of conflict.
And conservatives I know like him, but he irritates me with his holier than thou spin on everything.
I know a number of liberals who also like him.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/13/stewart-responds-to-hanni_n_356702.html#postComment
Here is a contracting example of the behavior of Jon Stewart and Sean Hannity. Stewart’s crack staff discover a problem in one of Hannity’s reports. Hannity goes on later to agree with Stewart and he apologizes. Next Stewart trashes Hannity again. Stewart’s fans are all giddy with delight.
And we are to believe that conservative talk radio and conservative cable news are fanning the ideological flames that keep us polarized.
That would be “contrasting” example
You may answer me again about how we have to get inside Stewart’s head to understand his intent, but it’s clear enough to me that he isn’t pretending to be the equivalent of Hannity in his persona or the type of show he does. His primary intent is clear enough to me to be humor and satire. To me the punchline of Stewart’s original piece was to splice in the scenes from Woodstock and 300; Hannity’s flub gave permission for Stewart to have creative fun with it.
Hannity’s intent is persuasion, opinion, and credible commentary, all to be taken seriously. He had to concede that his show messed up to maintain the credibility of his efforts. If he didn’t concede the error, then Jon Stewart would be able to have more impact by continuing the joke, splicing in random bits of footage to the Hannity show, w/ Hannity publicly seeming oblivious to the error.
A more interesting aspect to me is your apparent outrage. Do you think SNL’s parody/satire bits on Democrats are mean spirited and polarizing? Any major public figure is potentially ripe for satire and parody.
[i]He had to concede that his show messed up to maintain the credibility of his efforts.[/i]
I doubt it. I bet he concede it just to have some small thing to concede. I don’t think that he cares about maintaining credibility. Hannity persuades people by entertaining them, not by being credible. In fairness, so does Jon Stewart and that’s not always a good thing either. As I said, the real point is that two wrongs don’t make a right.
I agree that Hannity’s apology was better than nothing, but look at what he didn’t apologize for. For hours, he and Fox promoted and exaggerated some fairly ho-hum protests that are not remotely the real opposition to Obama’s health care plan. No one in Congress cares about protests of this size. They do care about the way that the protests play on TV — but Fox News is directly responsible for that. They care even more about lobbyists, a group which gets much less exposure on Fox News than protesters.
Still, you could call all of that legitimate partisan politics. The problem is the hypocritical claim that Fox News is fair and balanced or that it tells both sides. Where is Fox’s “both sides” in Hannity’s shtick? There was Colmes, but Colmes was a pathetic imitation of another side, and even he quit the show.
Yes, Rachel Maddow is also partisan. But I never said that she’s “fair and balanced” or that she “tells both sides” and she doesn’t say so either. She never had an ugly, unconvincing conservative sidekick to make herself look better. I think that she often is fair, but fairness doesn’t come from telling both sides. Fairness comes from telling important truths, not from affirmative action for viewpoints.