There’s dissenting opinions, and there’s batshit crazy ones like “he’s a socialist, fascist, Nazi communist Muslim who was born in Kenya and groomed by a secret liberal cabal to subvert America.”

Fox News not only gives an outlet to both, they actively encourage and promote those opinions. See their promotion of the “tea parties” and Glenn Beck’s campaign to convince everyone that flu shots are a tool to establish government mind control so it’ll be easier for Obama to round up all the conservatives and put them in concentration camps.

If Fox wants to be taken seriously as a news organization, rather than as the propaganda wing of the far right, they’ll stop the crazy talk, and engage Obama and his policies honestly. It’s possible to disagree without demonizing your opponent- and that goes for both sides.

We disagree on the crux of the issue. He isn’t arguing against dissent, as you keep insisting, he’s decrying bullshit defamations and misrepresentations of his policies. If I’m a city councilman, and I say I want to rezone district 5 for an industrial park’s use, dissent is complaining that this will contaminate the middle school down the road, and heavily increase the rate of route 5’s road decline w/ potholes and debris and whatnot. That’s a valid and healthy assertion, theoretically, and qualifies as dissent.

What Fox is doing is more akin to saying that I’m against freedom and family, determined to undermine the american adolescent, since the middle school is down the road, and consequently implying that my admin is in the pocket of the Armenian mob, since they own the paving contract 3 counties over and could conceivably win this district’s. It’s a mediocre analogy, but hopefully you get the point.

The first thing I’d do when faced with a dissenting opinion (and actually DO in my own life) is to take a look in the mirror and ask if my approach or my beliefs might actually be wrong. Wise leaders welcome dissenting opinions and use them constructively.

Me too. You really think B.O. doesn’t? Obama is actually renowned for REQUIRING every opinion in the room to be heard. If he shunned dissent, would he really be spending this much time deliberating on Afghanistan?

but the response shouldn’t be to dismiss every dissenter as having been brainwashed, and that’s basically what is being said.

Come on. That’s bullshit, other than an isolated incident or two. Do you really believe that?

Now, as to your question: if I felt that a news organization WAS willfully doing that, I’d do what Bush did and ignore it. Whether his ideas were right or wrong, he believed that the power of ideas wins over dissent.

You already know we disagree on that point.

Your last point I don’t get. How much would they have to watch before they could decisively determine bias? What are the fair and balanced programs? Of the non-prime time guys: Cavuto, Brit Hume, John Gibson? Not much balance there (and how long before they recruit Lou Dobbs over). Shepard Smith is ok. And have you seen this:

http://www.outfoxed.org/

It clearly has an agenda, but there is also a lot of tangible data there that can’t be pigeoholed into partisan opinion. I would think this might be a good time to follow your own mantra (The first thing I’d do when faced with a dissenting opinion [and actually DO in my own life] is to take a look in the mirror and ask if my approach or my beliefs might actually be wrong).

But this is all a big ol Meh. We’re not going to change anybody’s opinion.

It’s anchors are supposed to be attractive and benign, the implication being that they are trustworthy and have no agenda other than given you a superficial introduction to what’s going on in the world that day.

I’m glad to see you’re getting some use from your ‘Jump to Conclusions’ mat. I don’t see it that way all. I think it’s clearly a show that discusses the headlines of the day from a conservative perspective. I don’t think they’re necessarily trying to advance a political agenda but more of pandering to thier audience.

The history of the press is full of partisanship — back in the olden days, most newspapers were partisan instruments of a party.

People know what Fox News is. The Fox folks figured out that there is a segment of the population that wants to hear politics and the news covered in a certain way, and if they want to hear loonies like Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity prattle on, so be it.