Sandy GholstonTime magazine author Ramesh Ponnuru has an article trying to make arguments as to why conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh is good for the conservative movement. But, during the course of his argument, I ran into this paragraph that was like a stop sign:
Besides, Limbaugh plays a valuable role within conservatism. His show, like Fox News, is not as high-flown as conservative intellectual journals such as The New Criterion and First Things. But those publications have small circulations. Their influence is long-term and indirect. Conservatism needs mass media, too, to affect day-to-day politics: to jam phone lines; to pull the national conversation rightward. It needs Limbaugh and the many like-minded talkers elsewhere on the airwaves. Doubtless they could do their jobs better, as could the conservative writers who scorn them. But if Limbaugh did not exist, conservatives would have to invent him. And it would be hard to do — as liberals have found when they have tried and failed to come up with their own successful radio shows.
Is this particular passage from the Time Magazine article entitled “Why Rush Limbaugh Is Good for the Republicans” a way of bringing to light the heavy conservative slant of Fox News? The Fox News people will attack Timeas being aligned with CNN and for being a left-wing outfit. It will issue all sorts of attacks against Time while trumpeting itself (in phony fashion) as fair and balanced. Considering the right-wing opinions we see regularly on Fox News from Fox and Friends hosts down to other hosts or regulars such as Laura Ingraham, Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, Megyn Kelly, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, Neil Cavuto, Sean Hannity and Greta Van Susteren … it’s difficult to argue anything but a heavy right-wing bias.
Time:
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1884289,00.html
