Why all the Hate? Fox News and the Main Stream Media.

I find it strange that so many on the left seem obsessed with Fox News.  The hatred toward Fox News and Fox News viewers seems disproportionate to Fox News' actual public influence.  This causes me to wonder why is there so much political and media pressure to marginalize Fox News?  Doesn't anyone believe in freedom of speech anymore?  Who cares if Fox is right or wrong?  Who cares if they are a right-wing propaganda tool?  Doesn't the right-wing have a right to free speech?  Why all the hate?

I don't have an answer to this, but I'd like to suggest that in the larger of scheme of things Fox News is a relatively small voice in the world of media.  Let's consider the most recent Nielsen ratings as a basis for thinking about the influence of the national media.  Fox News daytime viewers amounted to about 2.56 million, while it's peak show, Bill O'Reilly, garnered about 4.72 million viewers.  The next highest Fox News show, Glenn Beck, attracted about half that number, with 2.36 million daily fans.  Keep in mind that both Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck are political commentary shows, not news reporting programs.

Compare these Fox News numbers to the mainstream broadcast news numbers.  NBC Nightly News had about 7.55 million viewers in the same time period.  ABC World News tonight and CBS Evening News both attracted 6.64 and 5.09 million viewers respectively.  If one adds MSNBC (890,000), CNN (540,000), Headline News (480,000), and CNBC (90,000), the total combined viewership for all the dominant media outlets equaled about 21.28 million viewers compared to Fox News' paltry 4.72 million for its peak show, again, which is a news and political commentary show, not a straight news program.  If we consider this, and compare Bill O'Reilly to a program like 60 Minutes, which garners an average of 13 million viewers, we can see that Fox News still doesn't have near the influence of mainstream media sources.  

Now compare these numbers to, let's say, American Idol  or the last Super Bowl.  American Idol's average audience on Tuesday nights reached nearly 23 million viewers.  Super Bowl XLIV, which occurred on February 7, 2010, attracted a staggering 98.7 million viewers, which is more than 20 times the number of viewers than Bill O'Reilly.  In fact, every single one of the top 25 non-news television programs, whether broadcast or cable, trounced Fox News viewership, ranging from over 10 million to nearly 20 million viewers on average. 

So, why all the obsession on the left and in the mainstream media with Fox News?  Clearly, Fox News has some influence upon public opinion, but they don't reach nearly the number that other news agencies do.  Why try to marginalize, perhaps even silence, Fox News?  Don't politically right-leaning people deserve to have their view of the world represented in the media?  Okay, many in the political center and left believe that Fox News is presenting an incorrect and unfair view of the world and political activities.  But that's because the left and the right disagree over the facts.  They don't trust one another, and take sometimes opposite views on the same subjects.  But does that mean that Fox News should be silenced?  Because Fox News has a political position, or more accurately a different political position, does that mean Fox News doesn't have a right to free speech? 

I'm not trying to suggest that one should give Fox News time or consideration.  I'm simply wondering why there is so much animosity toward a relatively small voice in the larger scheme of public opinion.  Yes, they are influential in some circles, especially among Republicans.  However, could it be that Fox News is attracting more and more politically independent viewers?  Could this be the main reason why so many on the left and even in the mainstream media are attacking Fox News more often?  Could this concentrated, perhaps even coordinated, effort to marginalize Fox News in the sphere of public opinion really be about political power? 

For all the feigned outrage against the "right wing" bias of Fox News, perhaps what's really going on is fear that conservative views might gain a larger share of public opinion.  Perhaps it is not that Fox News is not "fair and balanced," but that the views promoted by Fox News undercut the political and social influence of the left and the left-of-center.  On the other hand, perhaps it is little more than concern over market share!  Who knows?  No one tracks this kind of stuff.  But for me, when it comes to claims from the left that Fox News is a political tool of the right wing, the complaint sounds more like that famous sarcastic line in Casablanca:  "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!"        

-- David Adcock, Managing Editor

Expansion of Executive Power

Many Americans are concerned by the direction our political leaders are taking our country. This is not merely a recent concern. During the eight years of the Bush administration the growth of federal spending, two wars, and the doubling of the federal debt created dissatisfaction among many of us. Then came President Obama and the aggressive agenda of a Democratic controlled congress. Federal spending exploded and the growth of the budget deficit threatens to bankrupt America. However, while America faces great fiscal problems, another danger has been growing, and its consequences risk tyranny greater than any we have faced since our nation's founding. This danger is the growth of executive power.

By executive power, I mean the power of the executive branch of our federal government. Since the election of President Barak Obama, this expansion seems to have exploded, even though President Bush garnered a great deal of power under the guise of national security. I'm not suggesting that President Obama is any different from our last several presidents, per se. I think this growth of executive power has been occuring for quite some time. Still, I am concerned by the breadth of power that the executive branch has been accumulating since President Obama came to office, especially with the federal takeover of companies like AIG, Citibank, GM and Chrysler, as well as with such recent legislative monstrosities as the "America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009" and the "Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010."

The federal government now owns or controls several of the largest financial institutions in the U.S. (e.g., AIG), as well as the second largest car manufacturer in the world (GM). With the new health reform and financial reform laws, the executive branch effectively controls a large part of the means of production for the U.S. economy. Whether this is good or bad depends on one's point of view. But should we really be comfortable giving the executive branch so much power?

Let's just consider the recent financial reform bill that made its way into law. Indeed, I am surprised that few are paying attention to the dangers in this bill. First, every member of the oversight council (the main financial oversight body established by the new law) is appointed directly by the President of the U.S. Moreover, the head of this council is the Secretary of the Treasury, who is not only appointed by the President, but also serves exclusively at the whim of the President. Essentially, this new law gives the President of the United States direct control over the entire financial sector of the U.S. because the Secretary of the Treasury and most of the members of the new Financial Oversight Council are duty-bound to carry out the policy objectives of the President. Indeed, under this new law, while the Federal Reserve still maintains most of its power, the Treasury gains more direct power over the economic system, without any congressional limitations on making new economic policy. This is way too much power given to the President and the executive branch.

Second, the new financial reform law further erodes the ability of states to maintain jurisdiction over its local and state financial institutions. While local and state banks played no role in the crash of 2008, the federal government has taken this opportunity to expand its jurisdiction over areas traditionally left to the states.

Third, the new law extends federal -- and specifically executive branch -- power and jurisdiction over so-called 'non-bank' financial companies. The bill defines such companies (whether incorporated in the U.S. or outside the U.S.) as: any company that is "substantially engaged in activities in the United States that are financial in nature" (Sec. 102 a, 4). While a 1956 law establishes the basic parameters for what counts as "activities . . . that are financial in nature," both the original 1956 law and the new financial reform law of 2010 give the Treasury and the new oversight council complete authority to add to this list, without restriction. In other words, the new financial oversight council, which is entirely comprised of presidential appointees, has complete authority to determine what does and does not count as "activities that are financial in nature." Congress has no power to override the council's decisions. This potentially gives the President direct control over every business, and perhaps every economic transaction in the U.S.

I doubt that anyone is planning anything sinister with regard to these 'fine print' details. But, why give the President so much power in the first place? This is a bad law, and it has potential dangers for our future. What was congress thinking when they passed this thing? How can congress fail to see that they are paving the way for a super-powerful executive branch?

Clearly, there are a number of very good things in the new financial reform bill, just as there were many good things in the health insurance reform bill. But my complaint is not about the beneficial items in these bills. My complaint is that these bills expand executive branch power to such an extent as to be dangerous.

If you haven't read these bills, I encourage you to do so. When you read the 'fine print,' you may become just as concerned as I am.

-- David Adcock, Managing Editor