"As for the larger Fox News, the right approach would be to not watch. They'll respond if hit in the pocketbook. They are clearly the news with a Republican slant, but much of the time it's not as overtly biased as I think the critics believe."

See, for me, the issue isn't even the alleged repugnican slant of Fox or the alleged Democrapic slant of CNN . . . it is the very definition of what is and isn't "the news." The major companies have such a stranglehold on the very concept of news . . . and to suggest that one's not watching would change anything is akin to suggesting that one person's refusal to eat fast food would put a dimple in the obesity rampant in this country.

Kravitz said something to this effect, down below, in the tornado. Why is it that a single American hiker gone missing somehow takes up hours and hours of coverage, when obscenities like the crisis in Darfur only rate an occasional mention and perhaps a "special" on the weekend?

I'm frustrated with not just the channel itself, but its willing participation in perpetuating this "fast-food" version of news. What good does it do to you or me to know about some unfortunate child who meets a bad end? Why is this national news? Better yet, why is it only news when it is a cute white kid? Or a cute white American/European kid? What about the scores upon scores of non-white kids in Africa being chased from villages and dying, some of them eaten by wild beasts, because they haven't any shelter?

What is the function of what we call "the news"? Is it to educate? To alarm? To sell ads? Better yet, what SHOULD be the function of "the news"? And is any channel performing that function? These are questions I'd like to see addressed.

To my eyes, the American news channels are something akin to pornography. "If it bleeds it leads," indeed. Of course, many overseas channels have taken the Pornewsography to hardcore levels, while Fox and CNN (among others) just flirt with hardcore . . . so far.

When the alleged news is so very titillating, and the masses so very ready for titillation, what but frustration is one to feel?

"I think a lot of religious conservatives felt their viewpoints on issues were not adequately covered (or respected) by the other networks, and they were probably right. Having Fox's voice in the mix is not inherently a bad thing, but I think taking any opinion as "gospel" from only one news source is inherently risky. Go online. Read the Fox story, the Guardian story, the CNN story, and the BBC story. Take the average of all viewpoints, and you're probably close to the truth. Conspiracy theories notwithstanding."

There is wisdom in that. Well said. On the other hand, when the larger society defines "news" as "updates on Lindsay and Britney," what does that do to the quality of discourse in "the news" overall? If all of the news organs are engaged in this willful harvesting of the world's bountiful opportunities for titillation in order to sell ad space, what does this do to the cherished concept of "journalism"?

These are questions I wonder about, and they are the questions that have me thinking that an anti-current-corporate-news "bastille day" might be in order. Is it a pipe dream? Of course it is.

Herring405

(I used to think Fox was the worst of the titillators, until I noticed that all the rest of the channels dove right down to Fox levels, no doubt in order to maintain ratings. How odd that such a titillating channel is revered by so many so-called religious conservatives. Does this reveal a link between religion and titillation?)

"Once you decide to titillate instead of illuminate . . . you create a climate of expectation that requires a higher and higher level of intensity" (Bill Moyers)