Ugh...
Listen there are plenty of examples of both sides being very hypocritical, logically inconsistant and spewing propaganda nonsense.
I like Dr No, don't agree with every single thing he advocates but certainly with most of the major issues, but more importantly I like his consistancy. He has had the same message/ideology for as long as anyone can remember, and it hasn't mattered to him whether or not his view is popular or not with the mainstream. In other words, he isn't a sell out.
Fox News do spew some rubbish and the example I gave shows that. On the other hand there are programs on Fox such as the Judge's Freedom Watch which has a pro-libertarian streak and is very favourable towards people like Ron Paul, despite the "mainstream" part of the network not really getting behind Paul. If you want to position yourself as the "conservative" network, pro-market, pro-individual freedom/rights, small government etc. then the most conservative member of the Republican party is Dr Paul and logically you would expect the news channel to get behind him.
They don't, which means the true conservative ideology is not really what Republicans are about these days. Republicans just want their version of big government instead of the democrats version thats all. There are examples of Republican candidates in the Bush era (Incl. Bush if my memory serves) that promote a kind of National Healthcare System, similar to Obama's. So when the mainstream Republicans are so against Obama's healthcare plans, I find it a little hypocritical, even if I am also against any form of socialism, healthcare, you name it.
In other words, there is a lot of talk, not a lot of walk.
I also can show you this example of Ms Rachel Maddow, comparing people who protest against the government to terrorists....Ms "liberal" Maddow lumped together these groups in an attempt to demonstrate how being anti-state is akin to being like the others...
"One can easily guess Robinson's answer to Maddow's largely rhetorical question, but let's rewind just a bit, and note the smearing methodology employed here: the classic amalgam. Grouped together in one intellectual package deal are:
* "antigovernment" activists
* white supremacists out to kill the President,
* antiabortion fanatics out to kill abortionists,
* and crazed anti-Semites out to attack the Holocaust Museum.
One of these things is not like the others, and Maddow — no dummy — knows it. "
So whilst Maddow has on more than one occassion, correctly criticised Obama's foreign policy (Still Pro-war despite the "change" he was supposed to bring), she then goes and criticises people who are anti-state in general. I find that shockingly hypocritical.
So there are plenty of examples of propaganda pushing news groups from both sides, unfortunately people just need to own up to that fact, even if the news station is pushing "their" ideology, they should have the brains and hopefully the courage to say, "Stop, that is wrong."
Unfortunately people don't have the courage to admit that. If you were outspoken against Bush's foreign policy, you should be equally as outspoken against Obama's, perhaps even MORE as he ran as a pro-peace candidate.
...
.
. It's dishonest. Feel free to pop those links as asked