FOX has as its motto "Fair and Balanced". But is this motto deserved? Well, let's see.
As an analogy: If one finds a thread and pulls on it and if one is not careful, pretty soon your sweater will disappear. Well, the "thread" for FOX is the immigration issue facing our country.
No, this piece is not on the immigration issue, per se. Rather, it is on how FOX News is in bed with the rest of the giant corporations to promote the concept of "open borders" - independent of what we are led to believe by them.
In many of my offerings on things political I have offered that one should never believe anything one sees, hears, or reads from any news source without doing a thorough research looking for the facts of the matter. I stand by that advice. And, apparently, I am not alone in this.
Here's a quote on the subject:
This article, I feel, needs considerable set-up. The issues discussed are complex and intertwined. So bare with me.
But, here's a hint at the below. FOX is not even close to a "fair & balanced" news source. FOX's "boss" has ties to Saudi Arabia, Hillary Clinton, and anti-Trump initiatives.
As I have noted in prior offerings many of the more liberal news outfits, notably NBC and its affiliates, actually change the facts to make the news they wish to promote. FOX's method is much more covert. They offer their brand of news filtering by obfuscation.
Let's start with President Obama. He vowed to fundamentally transform this Nation. With a large bit of help from Congress he has made good on his promise. This promise, of course, is the application of the 'Robin Hood Syndrome'; that is, take from the rich and give to the poor. Or, as the progressives like to promote: tax the rich.
And, if one watches FOX news, they are all over the president and Congress for this "affront" to the American Way of Life like flies on poop. However, . . .
One of the ways the progressives can make all this happen is to increase the progressive influence on the laws of our land. How best to do that? Increase the number of people who are and will be dependent on the government. And how, one might ask, do they do that? By drastically increasing the number of people who would vote their way. OK. But, how do they do THAT? By allowing unfettered immigration, both illegal and legal. Then, for those here illegally, accelerate their becoming citizens with the right to vote. Simple, yes? (Note: The above is generally referred to as open borders.)
After all, who is going to vote for people who would take your stuff away?
It can't, of course, be the very wealthy, including the major corporations. Right? They are the very ones who would be taxed more. Well, somebody has to pay for the benefits these new citizens are getting; and it couldn't be the poorest among us.
One can, in a general sense, consider this to be wealth transference. Let's look at how, historically, this has worked out.
Two of the largest wealth transferences have been effected by the French Revolution and the Bolshevik (translated = "one of the many") Revolution in Russia. It took over a century for the French people to regain any sense of normalcy and the Russian people aren't there yet.
If such actions would not be in the best interests of the very rich and the major corporations, why would over 450 corporations be behind and heavily support such? And, the list does not even include such as FOX nor Disney who also support "Open Borders".
In an earlier piece I offered that Rupert Murdoch, founder of Fox News Channel, and Bob Iger, CEO of Disney, both co-chair the Partnership For A New American Economy group. This group has as its goal "open borders".
"Open Borders" is embodied in George Soros' grand scheme of "A New World Order". More on him in a bit.
OK. So, many major corporations seem to be for the same thing as the average progressive voter. Why? Is it for different reasons? Absolutely!
An article appeared in a socialist news outlet that may give a glimpse into a reason.
Toward the end of the above article appears this: "At the root, the problem for immigrants is capitalism, a system that exploits the poor to benefit the rich." The article also discusses "a world without borders".
So, the more poor that exist the more "exploitation" can be exerted by the rich seems to be the theme.
Stick with me on this; I'll get directly to FOX in a minute.
Since exploitation of the poor is clearly not a good thing, and major corporations contribute to an "open borders" philosophy which promotes overwhelming a county (e.g., ours) with more poor persons, then one might inquire what is really going on.
Actually, it's pretty simple. It's the use of the compassion the American people have for the less fortunate that allows major corporations and the majority of politicians on both sides of the aisle to "sell" the concept of unfettered immigration - whether it's illegal, legal, refugees, and the like.
Once these people are in this country, the vast majority quickly becomes dependent upon the government. Dependency leads straight to someone else controlling you. You need them - a lot more than they need you.
In the United States effecting such control is more difficult than in, say, Europe where mainly socialist leanings are evidenced. A socialistic culture is accustomed to being in a state of government dominance.
Here, historically personal independence has been cherished. The "powers that be" need to shift this to a more European model. And, as we are all aware from learning history, the method of "divide and conquer" comes could be used. Actually, the original expression was more accurately entitled "divide and rule".
My earlier piece on this more fully describes what I mean.
It is well known that the major corporations give large sums of money to political factions. It's called "doing business". Other less generous souls might term such donations as "bribes". But, what is curious is that these corporations give to both political parties - not exactly equally, of course, but close enough. Why? Because both Democrats and Republicans, alike, are in it for the power and control of the American "experience". Further, as I pointed out in another earlier piece, the members of both the House and the Senate, to a large degree, view their elections as "job security" over the long haul. They want to ensure that THEY are the ones sitting on top of the "Control pyramid".
So, is anyone seeking public office going to try and "swim up stream" against powers too "big to fail"? Not a chance.
So, who are these "too big to fail" powers? The big banks and big corporations, that's who. Not the corporations themselves, but those who actually control the corporations. One would think that would be the stockholders, right? Well, yes; but who are the biggest stockholders and political contributors? Take a look.
So, that brings us back to FOX. Hey, folks, FOX is a business. It is not a social construct that is "looking out for the folks, as Bill O'Reilly likes to say.
Let's look at some of the FOX News' obfuscation approaches.
As stated above, FOX's approach is much more subtle than say MSNBC, as an example. FOX's obfuscation has truly come to the forefront during the election cycle for the 2016 presidential race. The primary thrust of FOX's collusion with the politically LEFT seems to be relative to the "open borders"/immigration issue; but, not totally.
FOX News has made and/or allowed to be made statements against Trump out of context. For example FOX, on numerous occasions, has offered that Trump is for Planned Parenthood. When, in fact, what Trump offered, from his first statement of the subject, is that Planned Parenthood has done wonderful things for women but their abuses in providing abortions are hideous; and, therefore, he would favor not funding them with taxpayer dollars.
This rather subtle "misdirect" would lead some conservatives, especially those who don't do proper research, to readily conclude that Trump is not the right candidate. It matters not what one's opinion is on the abortion issue or on one's opinion of Trump. What matters is that a "fair and balanced" reporting is not found in such "out of context" news.
As FOX seems to be mostly targeting the conservative base, its viewership indicates that their aim is successful. Look at the PEW Research's analysis of news sources and their corresponding viewership:
And, FOX seems to sway many conservatives - especially those who don't read but, rather, just watch and listen.
With regard to FOX, George Soros and the "open borders" issue, Ann Coulter had a very enlightening piece on this.
FOX's bias, sometimes very subtle and sometimes not, became more apparent during the 1st Republican debate with the interchange between Trump and Megyn Kelly. Her questions were not inappropriate; it was her demeanor and attitude that displayed the bias.
Why would FOX seem to be so against Trump? After all he apparently espouses all the tenets that FOX would seem to support. The reason: Trump is NOT in line with the "open borders" political crowd. It's almost as simple as that.
This piece partially explains the above 2 paragraphs.
FOX, by many opinions, seems to be "in the tank" for Rubio. But, why? Rubio is dead set to further the "open borders" agenda. That's why! To see some evidence of this and to see why many here in Florida are anything but for Rubio, Click Here.
Other potential reasons that FOX is "in the tank" for Rubio may be found Here and Here and Here.
And now comes the pièce de résistance. Roger Ailes, Chairman and CEO of Fox News and the Fox Television Stations Group, admits that FOX has been "in the tank" for Rubio all along. So much for "Fair & Balanced".
I can only assume that the FOX News moderators for the 11th Republican debate didn't "get the memo" from Roger Ailes. As but one example, Rubio responded on a question about the 2nd Amendment that he was for "the right to bear arms". FOX, unlike their "comebacks" to Trump, failed to press Rubio on his 1999 support for banning guns. FOX News' bias against Trump and toward Rubio is just blatant.
One can easily make the case that FOX is doing everything it legally can to ensure a brokered convention in order to stop Trump's nomination. Toward this end their obvious, favored treatment of Rubio is enhanced by their "soft" treatment of Kasich and others.
FOX's apparent "UN-Fair and UN-Balanced" approach is causing rating issues - not good for business. Especially when it dramatically affects one's business "base".
What's the old saying? OH, YEAH, I remember. "Actions Have Consequences!"
Some source notes:
On FOX's Rupert Murdoch: Click Here and Here and Here.
On the FED
A Canadian's View
"Social Justice Warrior", commonly abbreviated as "SJW", is a pejorative term for a person expressing or promoting socially progressive views, particularly relating to social liberalism, political correctness or feminism.
The Regressive Left is a political epithet used by certain commentators to negatively characterize a section of leftists who tolerate illiberal principles and ideology for the sake of multiculturalism.
Political Correctness - the avoidance, often considered as taken to extremes, of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.
More on Murdoch
Communism vs. Socialism