You are correct. Bill Gates prospered by copying from his competitors and progressives need to learn to copy and adapt the propaganda successes of the regressives.

Remember the old saying, "Two can play at this game..."?

INDE: Although your point holds merit, do consider this: EVEN if the Democratic president did do the right things, the fact is that Fox "news" is a center for manufacturing an alternative version of reality. It also owns an efficient delivery system for making sure that millions--seen in a demographic that requires clear targets for its anger (if not confusion)--get their daily dose of this alternative vision. Therefore, were a president to operate on actual behalf of a majority of citizens, rather than a handful of powerful corporation, Fox would still own the apparatus to twist those facts into its own faux version of reality. And millions would be seduced by lies... which IS today's media "norm."

Just as we say certain banks are too big to fail, it's very dangerous to democracy (or its remote vestiges) when media agencies also become too big (to fail).

MIGHTY: Reality check: I hope this article helps you to understand how the "tea party" came into so-called prominence. You PRETEND this is some natural, organically occurring political phenomenon, rather than the direct result of MAJOR infusions of cash along with its TV advertising equivalent. You so often view the surface situation without analyzing the roots that made it what it became.

Great Comment! At least until that last line. People watch FOX by choice. I happen to like Free Speech as do most Americans.

Good comment.

There is no such thing as Al Qaeda. The name, the entire concept was a creation of the CIA. It is the imaginary boogey man that is used to scare the Americans into subservience. Think Emmanual Goldstein.

Good post. The rise of Fox in relation to corporate media of the past is akin to capitalism vs monopoly capitalism: corporate media vs monopoly corporate media.

Herman and Chomsky's seminal book "Manufacturing Consent" exposed the more sophisticated bias, disinformation and omission of the corporate media like that of the New York Times. Fox News (or its parent, News Corporation), as a consequence of the vast consolidation of corporate media since Reagan, has near monopoly power. Only a half a dozen media conglomerates control over 90% of all media (TV, movies, radio, periodicals, books, etc). Fox can afford to dispense with the far more intelligent bias of the NYT and produce outright propaganda with little to no relation to facts. Chomsky was asked why he doesn't focus his media criticism on Fox. He said, "that would be too easy."

I only consume corporate media to the extent that I want to know what the current propaganda is, that is, NOT to find out what's really happening in the world.

Zell: I stand by my position that, had the Democrats been stronger and put up more of a fight against the GOP onslaught, Fox News wouldn't carry nearly as much weight as it does.

I find it hard to believe that Obama or his advisors are clueless. They are sharp politicians and they are doing the job as they promised their backers. Many people think Obama is there to help the people he looks like and the core population of his party. Some of Obama's comments lead me to think he is contemptuous of both groups. He has remarked that responsible people don't have credit card debt, he remarked that he doesn't want dead beats to get out of their mortgages. It appears that Obama and his advisors have the point of view that rich people deserve to be rich, they have done what the have to do. People who are in trouble are in trouble because they didn't read the fine print. This suggests he is not a sell out to the corporate money handlers that put him office, but that he is at heart one with them, an elitist, a got-there-on-his-own Harvard graduate.

The fact that Obama is a Democrat is just convenient. The electorate had a choice between to corporatist candidates the corporate-democrat or the wingnut-militarist- republican. In 2012 we may be given the choice between corporate Obama or Sara Palin and the corporate-Republicans will just split from ear to ear grins watching progressives retch at the choice. Progressives can either back Obama or throw their votes toward a decent, but sure to lose, Green candidate.

Someone said "the power to tax is the power to destroy", the rich take this threat seriously and a real democracy could tax them into ordinariness. Thus keeping democracy out of the hands of the people is very important. That is the serious side, then for some right wingers, beating democrats is just a fun sport, like hunting and wall trophies. Somewhere there must be some gloating about Russ.

The fact that the people on Fox News come off as friendly and pleasant is what makes them all the more dangerous.

JIMMY: I understand some Nazis had nice table manners; and I'm sure most serial killers even brush their teeth!

Wow! The superficiality of your comment blows my mind! It's not a far cry from Jon Stewart painting any who care enough to step out of line (given the direction of this nation under "herd status") as being crazy.

Dr. Lector was a charming dinner conversationalist, too... until he decided to have his guest FOR dinner.

Politeness can, and often does, serve as a veneer for murder, theft, and other sociopathic behaviors.

Fox tells people, (as do its shock jock cousins in right wing radio) that it's OK, the new norm, to HATE outsiders; that it's just another ordinary fact of life to have our nation send drones to murder civilians in other lands. And pay no attention to all the "controversy" about global warming.

If you think the casual demeanor of primetime newscasters trumps WHAT'S going on, you may be in need of a lobotomy.

jimmy2shoes:"Maybe it is because they are so far ahead, but on FOX, they are polite, and when the Democrat leaves they ask them to come back and the Democrat is all smiles and you can tell they had a good time."

Jimmy - the reason everyone is 'all smiles' is that the Dimocrats are scripted to play the role of 'abused spouse' and take a good 'Bitch Slappin' for the cameras at the hands of their intelectual superiors. Both parties are very well paid for the pathetic charade for public consumption and are laughing all the way to the bank. Only YOU appear to take it seriously!

Here is a description of Ted Bundy...one of the most horrendous serial killers of recent memory:
"Ted Bundy proved that even the devil can be attractive. Bundy was one of the most infamous serial killers in American history. He was handsome, charming and cultured, all traits playing a role in his ability to rape and murder numerous young women. He even engaged in necrophilia."

Question: How is this much different from the average 'blow-dried hairdo' on FOX?

Don't they all have that 'vacant eyed' faux handsome/beautiful charm just like Bundy? ...while they are subconsciously dreaming of sodomizing your corpse?

Many will revile your message, jimmytwoshoes, but you are right. The biggest complaint people have about the news is that is depressing, and Fox has learned that lesson well. People want to be informed, but after a long frustrating day, prefer it with mindcandy and assurance. I'm not saying that Fox is a real newssource, or that don't despise their message. Just saying. Don't shoot.

I read this post as a non-partisan analysis of how Fox captures viewers with Chesire-cat friendliness, not support for the network as other posters see it. Well, maybe it's both. Anyway, the tactic of creating a more friendly atmosphere is worthy of study by MSNBC. And yet, I wonder: Bill O'Reilly delivers very unfriendly rants on Fox and is often quite rude to his guests, yet his popularity grows. And, aside, why does friendliness not apply to Rush Limbaugh, whose vicious, relentles attacks on Democrats and all progressive-minded people also win over millions of radio listeners?

PROG 101: Excellent comment. So true...

' the left screams like stuck pigs'

I hear echoes of a character in 'Deliverance.'

HORACE: You are evidently a product of Fox News to consider anything in the way of Obama policy as "left wing."

Most who contribute to the Commondreams forum are all TOO aware of the FACT that current domestic and foreign policies have departed far too insubstantially from those enacted by Bush, the Lesser.

Only a FOOL (and unfortunately, the nation owns no shortage of those) would believe that:

1. Allotting half the budget to the MIC (make-war state)
2. Keeping advocates for a single payer health care delivery system OUT of the discussion, while retaining insurance company insiders as key players... to arrive at a complete give-away to big insurance.
3. Bailing out the banks/Wall St while providing potentially insolvent homeowners with no help
4. Allowing BP to run operations when it broke countless safety violations and managed to render much of The Gulf Of Mexico a dead zone
5. Done nothing to change the M.O. at off shore prison camps
6. Let Bush & Cheney off the hook for the CRIME of launching a war of aggression on evidence that was FIXED (i.e. falsified).

... are indicative of LEFT policies or politics! PULEASE.....

There are many other areas of congruence between the alleged "left" wing prez and his right wing predecessor.

Only in a land habituated to sports and team affiliations could the truth prove so blinding that only few apparently recognize it. That truth is: BOTH parties serve the same masters. The labels exist as pure theater (or sports-style spectacle) to make the sheep think there really are important, significant differences between the 2 party facade. BOTH serve empire. (Alan MacDonald is absolutely right). Wake up!

BTW: Your right wing shilling is about as obvious as a naked fat guy in a crowd.

Horace, come on now! Obama is not a Leftist, and neither is his agenda. First of all, Obama's Healthcare "Reform" Bill is not a liberal bill at all, but a 20 year old GOP-written bill designed to bail out the insurance companies, and has no cost controls to it. People who're forced to buy "Obamacare" as it's being called, will continue to pay exorbitant premiums, deductibles, and prescription prices, as well as exorbitant co-pays. The healthcare "reform" bill that was just passed and enacted will not improve on the quality of healthcare, either. By taking single payer and abortion rights off the table, the Obama Administration rendered girls and womens' reproductive rights even more vulnerable to attack. Moreover, many people who already purchased their own healthcare will be forced to ratchet down what they've already got in the way of healthcare insurance, and the idea that people must buy health insurance or risk a fine, jail, or both, is ludicrous on the face of it.

That bill should be done away with, Obama and the Democrats in Congress should go back to the drawing board, really put their heads together and construct and implement a genuine healthcare reform bill that entails Single Payer with Universal Healthcare/medicare for all Americans. Instead, they have taken the easy way out and passed a warmed-over, 20 year-old GOP-written healthcare "reform" bill that, in addition to the above problems, will not offer protection until 2014 for people with pre-existing conditions of some sort or other. That, along with the throwing of abortion rights under the bus to get this toxic "healthcare reform bill" passed, is equally, if not more disgraceful.

Actually, he was too preoccupied with jamming anything that remotely resembled his campaign promise of health care into law. Personally, I would have been much happier seeing him stand up for his "leftist" agenda (if you call NOT excluding people from the "best health care system in the world" leftist) and going down swinging.

Only time will tell if some health care bill is better than none. Too bad it won't be under way soon enough for people to see if all the Fox news hype is true or not. As the saying goes, "Don't start crying before you're hurt."