My opinion of Fox News is that they're a biased news organization that lionizes the right while demeaning the left, as it meanwhile calls itself "fair and balanced" and says it's way of journalism is what fair and balanced news looks like. Personally, I could care less if they were biased. I just don't like the fact they tell people they're something they are not. It's one thing to deny something you're not, but it's a bigger pet peeve for me for somebody to tell people they're something that they're not. In short, I'm not looking at Fox News as a liberal who doesn't like or want to hear what the right wing thinks about today's issues. I look at it as business that con's people into buying something that they mislead as it supposed to be sold as.
While I do agree that the majority of today's media is liberal biased, they're not that far left in terms of idealology. They're more or less, left of center. If the majority of liberal biased media sources were rated on a 1 to 10 scale of liberalism, they'd be a solid 2, or perhaps a 3. Even more solid liberal media biased news sources, like the New York Times and MSNBC would be like a solid 7, or maybe a 6. Rarely is any of them ever an 8 or above. Meanwhile, if Fox News were rated on a 1 to 10 scale of how far right they are, they'd be a solid 7 or perhaps an 8. They were a solid 8, or perhaps a 9 when they still had Glenn Beck on their payroll, but they've gotten slightly better since they canceled his show. But it's still not enough. For pete's sake, MSNBC since it was taken over my Comcast has toned down they're left wing bias a little, but Fox News hasn't lowered it's bias that much at all.
Also, to be honest, I don't really blame Rupert Murdoch for how Fox News has turned out. I blame the guy he put in charge of the network, Roger Ailes. A former George HW Bush Administration chief advisor and had a long history of working for the Republician party. Who'd if you read any of his recent interviews, you'd think he was as far right as Glenn Beck, if not worse. I read in a Rolling Stone article about Fox that Rupert pretty much doesn't have much say anymore on how Fox runs itself. The reason why he won't fire Ailes is because he's afraid of what would happen to Fox News if he was gone. Many Fox News personalities have said if Ailes went, they'd go too. Including Bill O'Reilly. Murdoch esentially fearing a loss of many of their personalities on the network, and thus, their ratings going through the toliet in it's aftermath. Like, worse than when NBC lost "Friends." It's that badly. Rupert is basically a businessman who desires to conquer the World Media as a kind of personal achievement that one guy can do. Like a "Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great" of the world news business, if one could say. If Fox News goes down, his dream of conquering the news business in America, thus all of World media, all before he retires from his position as Chairman of the Board as News Corp and hand it over to his son James, would all end up in smoke. And I predict that his retirement from his position is coming closer and closer. Maybe even before 2013 hits. Least maybe 2015. To put in short, Ailes is to blame for how Fox News does it's business. Rupert is to blame for not having the backbone to tell Ailes to tone it down at Fox or fire him.
