I read on the internet, that currently there are a spike on the search term for Fox News. I do not know the reason behind it but it may be due to the recent event of Big Earthquake and Tsunami that hit Japan that make a lot of people try to find information on Fox News. But strange thing is that I found that the top result is not refer to the official website of Fox News but to the blog post or other website. Quite strange in my reckoning 
Anyway, below are the posting/article that found related the search Fox News.
Read more along below if you want to know more about Fox News.
—-
As a business major, I’ve always had a problem with the American cable network Fox News. On one hand, it’s a master stroke of marketing in selling to a Middle American demographic; an odd mix of conservative righteousness combined with titillation via the omnipresent “Fox News Babes.” It’s always odd to see gents fully dressed in suits alongside the aforementioned FNBs in ever-shorter skirts (maybe the male anchors should be attired like DJs at strip joints at this rate), sleeveless blouses and tight sweaters. But hey, I guess Roger Ailes doesn’t mess with a formula that works. On the other hand, Fox News is next to worthless in its primary purpose as a news outlet. Although I disagree with Hillary Clinton on most things, one thing we can agree on is that Fox News is a lowest common denominator manifestation of modern America–a sort of endless WWE newscast (Americans have big guns! American women are all leggy conservatives!)
Anyway, I bring this matter up in the wake of Hillary Clinton testifying before Congress. Thankfully, she recognizes the utter feebleness of American television of which she says, in her own words not mine, “we are in an information war and we are losing that war.” While I dislike the war references, she actually makes a good point that al-Jazeera is more like real news instead of Fox News–especially with regard to goings-on in MENA. Something very notable though is the sparseness of broadcasters carrying al-Jazeera in the United States. While some local stations carry it, cable giants alike Comcast do not carry it, unlike one featuring Tea party favourites and all the rest. What is the reason for this omission? It’s an open question, though I will (perhaps surprisingly) discount one that reflects badly on the US government:
(1) The US government actively discourages cable providers from carrying al-Jazeera for ideological reasons. Today, I had the opportunity to meet an honest-to-goodness State Department official prior to Alec Ross speaking about his digital statecraft efforts at the LSE. When I asked whether the US government actively discouraged cable providers from carrying the pan-Arabian channel, he said “no.” While it’s true that the Bush administration did not view al-Jazeera favourably, and perhaps did not apply direct pressure to the likes of Comcast, it may nonetheless be true that government regulators could have made life difficult for those that did carry the channel. I will give the benefit of the doubt here. At best with Hillary Clinton now lauding al-Jazeera, perhaps it’s the Fox News crowd more than the US government that Comcast et al. fear offending during the Obama administration.
(2) Cable service providers are reluctant to pay al-Jazeera’s licensing fees when it’s cheaper to provide their own content. The State Department official then suggested that the real reason is cable providers prefer providing a vehicle for channels they produce since they don’t have to pay for license fees alike those they would have to pay for carrying al-Jazeera. This is a plausible argument. However, it is also possible for cable providers to create a separate, additional package for those who want to watch al-Jazeera and other MENA content and charge viewers accordingly.
(3) By and large, Americans prefer a rose-tinted view of how they are such a positive influence on the world. In its own way, Fox News is a highly advanced manifestation of the white man”s burden. What’s more, there are many parts of the Amerocentric blogosphere where you can get this sort of reasoning on a daily basis, so I needn’t rehash it here. In this manufactured approach, while US has problems, they are inconsequential compared to those of the rest of the world. Strictly speaking, (1), (2) and (3) are not mutually exclusive. However, my own view is that this explanation is best.
While certain (obviously more on the left than Fox News) Huffington Post readers are now clamouring for al-Jazeera to be carried by US cable service providers, I would be very surprised if Middle America will switch over in droves. For the same reason that the more straightforward CNN is literally walloped by Fox News, I doubt whether the Qatari’s erstwhile gift to world media will gain much traction. Fox News redefines mendaciousness by calling its coverage fair and balanced. While you can of course say I am equally slanted, the main difference is I disclose that I am offering my own opinion instead of parading what I say as fair and balanced.
So there you are. To paraphrase Jack Nicholson, the majority of the American public cannot handle the truth. I may be proven wrong, but I simply don’t think anyone will dethrone the news T&A crowd anytime soon. Ironically, another place where a media revolution is long overdue is the United States of America.
—-
On Wednesday, New York Times editor Bill Keller defended his critical comments about Fox News and its viewers in an interview with The Daily Beast’s Howard Kurtz.
Keller has made a series of unusually pointed statements about the network and its owner, Rupert Murdoch in the past months. In late January, he said Murdoch and Fox News had made American political discourse more “strident” and “polarized.” Last week, he called Fox News viewers “among the most cynical people on Planet Earth.”
Keller’s latter comment was picked up by Bill O’Reilly, who blasted the newspaper chief on his Monday show.
As the leader of the Times’ editorial team, Keller might be creating a precarious situation for his media reporters, who are tasked with covering Fox News fairly. Kurtz addressed this potential conflict directly, asking Keller if his statements created an awkward situation for his reporters who cover Fox News.
“The question of whether Times reporters can write fairly about Fox is answered by the fact they do it, over and over,” Keller said. “As far as I can tell, they are professionally indifferent to that fact that Fox maintains a stable of commentators who make a good living bashing the Times.”
He also said that he has been making critical comments about the network for years. “I don’t think anyone at Fox believes they are producing even-handed, impartial coverage,” he said. “…To say otherwise, to pretend to be something else, does strike me as cynical.”
—-
Source
http://ipezone.blogspot.com
http://ww.huffingtonpost.com
Well, I hope above posting is useful for someone who look for Fox News.
