I read the local newspaper every morning and then I read the Washington Post and NY Times online. Often the articles are the same.

I keep MSN on in my office during the day --

Then I check out 30 or 40 minutes of Fox in the evening.

Sometimes I think I live in a parallel universe when I compare the various outlets against Fox.

But, I figure I am smart enough to know that each source has a bias and it is my job to ferret out reality.

Do we all have to be so dogmatic about one position against all others. What happened to the individual's ability to think critically and make up their own mind.

This is the weakest of the finalists --

Why any Arab American would be an Obama fan is beyond me. Obama's a hawk. He's escalating the Afghan war, expanding it into Pakistan. We aren't going to get out of Iraq. He is a Zionist who is happy to allow Israel to continue there illegal occupation of Palestine and expansion of settlements in the West Bank.

I also can't understand how Arabs would watch Fox. I think the author overstates the Arab contingent of Fox viewers. Maybe its the same Arabs who were in bed with the Bush Admn who are fans of Fox but I doubt its the average Arab American who would hear open anti muslim/arab bigotry spewed on Fox within minutes of tuning in.

This author is a middle east expert and all the evidence she has is coffee with friends. Please.

I am no more surprised to learn that Arabic-Americans watch Fox news than I was to learn that the chairman of the Republican National Committee is an African-American. I can't imagine why Ms. Khalil should be surprised either.

This editorial verges on the propagation of stereotypes. I do not believe that Ms. Khalil harbored any such intent. To the contrary I believe that she was attempting to dispel stereotypes about Arabic-Americans, but her attempt was, at best, less than successful.

As for her "lesson for the Obama administration", all I can do is wince. What horrible manners! It is entirely appropriate to criticize either the President or any other elected official, and many of the Post's readers do regularly and for excellent reason, but such condescension is inappropriate. How in the world did the editors let that one by?

Not a very valuable piece. Show me the data - not your convenience samples of your parents friends... or your samples of cabbies... this is as bad as fox news - basically, you make up something and then claim it to be fact.

I'm struggling to understand the value of this entry or why it was selected as a top 10 entry. Sure there are all kinds of people who watch all kinds of TV channels and belong to different fringe groups. This includes some African-American Republicans, Republicans on college campuses, physicians who vote Democrats, etc. Surely, no politician or political party should underestimate the strength of these fringe groups. So what is Lydia's point?

Socialism involves having the government or the people control the means of production. The present administration in seeking to have the government take over the health care industry via a public option, and this adminstrations buyout of car companies to the point of obtaining a controlling interest in those companies, as well as many other bailouts establish a new standard of government ownership of large sections of private industry.

As we move from a nation historically lacking any government control over the means of production, to one in which the government assumes a controlling interest, we have had a Socialist drift. If the term is correctly applied, there should be no issue. For your challenge to have meaning, you need to have the actual quote in context, not a paraphrased rehash of what you think he said.

Where I think most of you guys get confused is you fail to make distinction between the Fox nightly news (eg Shepherd Smith) which states the facts as they are, and the opinion shows like Beck and Hannity or the left leaning Colmes. You see Fox separates their opinion from the news broadcast. This contrasts starkly with CNN, ABC, CBS, etc which put their opinion in with the nightly news. If you actually watch the basic news broadcast of Fox, I think you will be surprised at how free of editorial comments it is.

This post has been split into 5 segments and is directed at all the finalists. If you want to find the other 4, check the other comment streams. They are all written by me, MsJS, and will all have approximately the same date/time stamp. This is segment #2.

WaPo has decided the readers alone will decide who survives the next round and who doesn’t. This is a referral technique, designed to get the finalists to encourage as many in their networks as possible to register as WaPo online readers. Some of you may have gotten this far because you represent a desired target audience, I don’t know. Anyway, the upshot is that this round is basically a popularity contest and my advice is spend at least as much time recruiting eyeballs as you spend writing your column. This is no time to be shy. This ends segment #2.

Perhaps if you had done something like actually watch the Fox Nightly News with Shepherd Smith, and point out specifically what rabid things he was saying, this piece might have more bite. But because you parrot without proof that which you were told, there is little to be gained by reading what you wrote.
Posted by: Wiggan | November 2, 2009 11:51 AM
--------------------------------------------------------
I have and in an interview with McConnell he stated "You are against Obama's socialist agenda ...." Socialist is a judgement, not reporting.

The Guardian survey found the most ill informed American TV viewers are those of Fox. I watch Fox to get a good laugh, from the backing as good of our worst president Dubya that eroded our economy, our military and being the moral light of the world, to the inane rantings of Beck/Hannity types, to O'Reilly during a hotel peeping tom discussion telling women on the panel "We all know these animals will get away with it.", to guest like Malkin that said "American factories going overseas is good for America, it creates sales jobs.", and the obvious hypocrisy in their broadcasts. You should not hold Limbaugh to account for what he said, but hold Obama accountable for Ayers, Farrakan, Wright and Jones remarks. You should not go after Palin's family but Michelle Obama is a fair target. In asking Dana Millbank about Fox being ostracized by Obama they were corrected by her when stating as fact Dubya never did the same (MSNBC).

I’ll only comment on the essays that in my opinion are the best and the worst of the bunch. This one is the worst (sorry, Lydia). The essay played right into the Post’s inability to overcome its bias favoring identity politics (see also Zeba Kahn’s “Women of the Web” and Mara Gay’s tribute to “youth” in “Overeducated and Underemployed;” Gay’s “pay more attention to me” theme makes hers the second worst). Khalil’s piece suffers from significant lapses (what a silly opening sentence), it’s completely racist (both in its overall theme and in specific ways: e.g., white Republicans are all “America-first-and-all-else-be-damned” types – what if she had said something stereotyping blacks?), and its main substantive point that Arabs can be conservatives, too (duh) isn’t really supported by her examples that people of her parent’s generation (those that are Arabs) are concerned about how health care reform could affect them.

Well, if the Washington Post is looking for yet another tiresome lefty to tromp along with the ingornant lefty herd on the accepted view of opposition news, you are that person. Yes, you echo the conventional 'wisdom' as well as the rest of the drones out there, so I suppose you could serve as an indistinguisable, interchangeable part in case one of the legions of lefties has to stay at home sick with the flu.

When Obama says 'Fox News Bad', your role as an unquestioning, obediant lefty is to echo that in pieces like this, so you have established yourself as one who will pass on the propaganda of the administration.

Perhaps if you had done something like actually watch the Fox Nightly News with Shepherd Smith, and point out specifically what rabid things he was saying, this piece might have more bite. But because you parrot without proof that which you were told, there is little to be gained by reading what you wrote.

Anectdotal observation of Arab retirees is not statistics, and when you cite that as evidence bolstering your uninformed opionion, it only maddens those who cringe at the journalistic decline of this paper.

I am hoping you lose this competition.

Wow. If the WaPo is looking for yet another partisan, unthinking hack, Ms. Khalil will be a perfect fit.

Lydia Khalil

It's not surprising that the Post picked Lydia as a finalist, though not so much for this

misleading article as for the fact that she works as a Robert Rubin minion at the Council for

Foreign Relations. (http://www.cfr.org/bios/14486/lydia_khalil.html)

I don't fault her for feeling estranged from Obama; there are many young people in this country who

bear the cross (as she does) for those who will take her in because she "doesn't fit the mold". FOX

loves people like her, and, in context, she fits right in.

This pretty, Christian, Arab-American writes well, and from what I have discovered from her

relatively short background, she might be a very hard worker for Rubin, but she is hardly a pundit.

Pardon me, but I define a pundit as someone who writes well, has a niche, and has experience. Lydia

has a niche of sorts, but she is clearly in need of ten more years of experience. I've

already forgotten more about international politics - not to mention local and national politics - than she's learned. I don't say this to be a spoil sport, but because it's true. Based upon an entry in her CV, she has just touched the world of counterterrorism, forinstance. It shows in this vacuous pundit entry. I'm not even sure if she has yet gained US citizenship, although I think if she has not, she is in good company. Alexis de Tocqueville, a French politician and writer was one of the finest judges of American character and politics, but he never wrote his famous book, Democracy in America, to help him curry favor with immigration authorities. I suspect a lot of immigrants like Lydia do this, and even though personally I welcome her, I am suspicious of her intentions.

Unfortunately, there are others in this finalists' group like her. I don't quite understand why the Post has picked a group (from nearly 4000 entries) with such an obvious lack of experience in life.

I liked it! But, here's annother interesting observation -- the same Fox News Watchers demographic (Rush Limbaugh / Glenn Beck admirers) were America's hippie generation / druggie anti-establishment idealists in the '70s! Isn't it ironic? Today, they would NEVER endorse, let alone tolerate the type of behavior they exhibited as anti-war activists in the 1970s! (For pete's sake, Rush Limbaugh has been in drug rehab -- what do you think he was doing in the 1970's? It wasn't tobacco in his pipe!) That said, this author draws an interesting parallel between that American-raised segment of the population and the Arab-American retired professionals. Personally, the only news I've ever seen on in an Arab neighbor or friend's home has been Al Jazeerah so it's refreshing to know that some segment of the demographic is watching the more mainstream U.S. news channels, no matter how right-wing.

Good Morning Lydia:

Your article is pretty well written with only one missing word or incomplete sentence (unlike many of the others.) Having served in the Middle East with the US military, your topic caught my intrest. Yet, I was disappointed by the anecdotal evidence and lack of non biased factual data. I'd like to know more about Fox's reported demographics.

Gee whiz..stay up to date. How about recent Fox reports on Muslim fathers killing daughters that become too "westernized?" How about something about American boots on the ground in Muslim countries...ya'know, a lot of them don't come back! CFR expert, eh? So tell me something I don't know. I'm beginning to think that this contest is nothing but an exchange among folk that already know each other anyway. Your piece sucks so tell me Lydia, what qualifies you as an expert in anything besides the obvious?

So lots of Arabs like Fox... and you know because you've met a small handful of them for lunch. Riiiiiight. Could you maybe put forth less effort please? I almost feel like I'm reading something written by someone who was trying.

congrats on being top 10. I like this article because it delivered something different than what I was expected. Something new that I hadn't heard before. A new voice. Everything is not always "white" and "black". A refreshing new perspective.

This article is a sophomoric conflation of demographics with psychographics.

Great article, Lydia! I was only two columns in to the article and already felt the juices rising.

I love Fox News - which you naturally think because I fit your "profile". I also enjoy it because Fox News has the reputation for reporting the news in an unbiased manner and then allowing the viewer to decide; "We Report, You Decide".

Good journalists should be grateful that while other mainstream news organizations (CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and Al Jazeera) ignore certain stories in order to be in the good graces of the Administration, Fox News is unafraid to report all the news - and probably at a significant cost. That, however, is a cost maintaining a free press must pay.

While we might disagree on this, I am grateful for the opportunity to read your article and hope you write many more!

Fox News audience appeal is to the ignorant and those who "feel first and think later"...in other words, its appeal is to the uneducated, the undereducated, those who lack common sense, and those who let their emotions run away with them, rather than listen and apply rational thought. That's why they believe all those fantastic lies.

Two thumbs down.

Most new immigrants to this great country come here for the type of freedom that permeates the Foxnews commentary shows! It is not a surprise that the Foxnews crowd is diversified and smart too!

The White House and left are the fools when it comes to freedom and supporting the U.S. Constitution!

Given the misuse of governmental power by the Arab world, it doesn't surprise me that older Arab-Americans should be suspicious of government solutions. Unfortunately, unbridled capitalism, not government control, is the danger at the moment. Maybe one day the pendulum will swing...if there is a one day.

This was interesting but not as well written as some of the others. When it comes to personal famility observations, I opt for Courtney Martin's one about "pourous lives"

You see, Muslims in the US are simply not Muslims outside the US.

This one is the winner. Not only is it hilarious, it has that ring of truth against conventional wisdom most crave.

Pretty good. I got the sense that the first paragraph was not necessary -- the real point begins in the second paragraph, with the first not really providing any necessary context that didn't make itself clear within the body of the rest. An interesting view of reality vs. expectations.

When you have nutjobs like Van Jones in the WhiteHouse and Obama-connected ACORN offering to help put children into sexual slavery, then there is no criticism that is out of hand.

Add to that the largest budget deficits in history, and Obama has some solid claims on being the worst US president ever. The criticism is only beginning.

Some of the posters on WaPo news sites including here ridicule anyone who does not spout their mindset which is that of a Manhattan ultra liberal who think they know everything yet in reality know very little and the rest they believe is usually all incorrect. Why does Mexico have a very conservative president? Why was California a solid Republican state with 31% Mexican voters until Governor Pete Wilson started attacking Mexicans?
Fox News is the only respite from the media worship of a communist Kenyan born rookie failure as President destroying the dollar.

I see you were a policy adviser to the Coalition Provisional Authority. At the time, what was your relevant experience for that. What impact did your specific inputs have on the CPA's track record. Pardon my skepticism, please, but give us a good look at your results, as they are pertinent to your quest.

This is a completely inadequate "story." Is she talking Christians or Muslims? What is the background of the people she speaks? What are the bases for generalizing to a population at large? OF course, this is typical pundit fare - shallow and lacking necessary information to deal with nuance.

What's so surprising? During the 1960's. supposedly reliable Democratic constituencies responded to the "silent majority" messages of Nixon, Reagan and Agnew and provided the Republicans with their '68 margin of victory. The sociologist Samuel Lubell explained at the time (as Rick Perlstein has noted) that the political interests of these formerly progressive groups had gone "from those of getting to those of keeping." Forgetting where you came from is as American as apple pie.

What a refreshing commentary about an American constituency most of the rest of us know only by stereotype. I hope she makes the cut! we need her voice.

While I don't doubt that Ms. Khalil's Sunday social group are: (a) Arab, (b) over 60 and (c) watchers of Fox News, that hardly constitutes a demographic. Like Ms. Martin, she provides no evidence outside her experience that what she speaks of is a trend. And why the need to single out Fox News viewers anyway? Why don't we hear statistics about News Hour with Jim Lehrer viewers? As a viewer of both, I find this sort of discussion uni-dimensional...we aren't what we watch.

It is sad to see so many liberals who like to beat their chest about their "tolerance" resort to utter demonization of those who dare not share their narrow views with crude and ignorant stereotypes.

Pundits like the above writer are no different than the intolerant demonizers on the right. Likewise, their supporters are no different than Rush's most fervent dittohead.

Right wing bad boy Dinesh D'Sousa offered a remarkable thesis a few years ago, roundly ridiculed by both Left and Right, that the way to win the "war on terror" was for American cultural conservatives on the Religious Right to join hands in solidarity with social traditionalists in the Muslim world in order to combat their common foe, which was secular, modernist liberalism.

D'Sousa titled his book "The Enemy At Home," How the Cultural Left was Responsible for 9/11. Since D'Sousa is nothing more than a bought-and-paid-for propagandist of the Right, he couldn't very well blame the 9/11 attacks or on-going anti-American hostility on anything the Bush administration did. He couldn't blame the backlash that led to the attacks on 9/11 on American political and military hegemony in the Middle East -- typified by the Bush administration's unqualified support for Israel or the troops we had stationed in Saudia Arabia after Gulf War I. That would undercut the entire neo-conservative position.

So, instead he invented a fantatic theory that laid the blame for the attacks on an American liberal cultural hegemony that he said traditionalists in the Muslim world found threatening to their religious way of life -- just as Christian fundamentalists find it here in this country.

It was a breathtaking and ridiculous rationalization that tried to connect American foreign policy with "culture war" in this country. Without making that same connection herself, I think that Khalil may be tapping into the same vein of Islamic traditionalism to identify a hidden FOX News demagraphic that D'Sousa used as the basis for his contorted thesis.

First, I find your need to label Fox viewers offensive. (They'd be dead in the Middle East.) Secondly, I find it amusing and annoying when immigrants complain about conditions here. Third, it never ceases to amaze me...how judgmental "Liberals" can be. By the nature of the word liberal you'd expect a "live and let live" philosophy. Conservatives have the same soft hearts as their counterparts, it just that we employ common sense to our belief system.

The most notable and meaningful point the lady makes is the age bracket of her Arab friends who tend to buy this claptrap peddled by O'Reilly and Beck--over 60. I am approaching 69. I quite naturally have many friends in this age bracket. Yet I find it astonishing that these otherwise sensible and intelligent friends of mind seem to lose all grasp on reality when the subject of Obama comes up. And invariably they end up referring to Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh or Fox News, it never seeming to occur to them that these blokes could be just as biased, corrupt, and hyperpartisan as they seem to believe the mainstream media is. I simply shake my head in bafflement at them and walk away.

Interesting cultural viewpoint. Who knew?

fascinating. We have morons in every demographic. I honestly didn't consider that; I thought we'd cornered the market.

FOX NEWS = Frustrated Old Xenophobes NEWS!!!

Ms. Khalil's column demonstrates there are gullible and easily misled members of every demographic group. Listen to all the exciting music in the background! See all the flashy graphics! Hear the heated rhetoric of Fox commentators! People of all religions and ethnic backgrounds contain members who are impressed by shallow and sensational entertainment, which is what Fox news is. No big revelation.

Often the most ardent authoritarians one meets were raised in the Eastern block durign the Cold War. It is funny that conservatives in other places -- Taliban for example, have far more in common with the fox crowd and the pat robertson/jerry fallwell/james dobson crowd than they have differences. Same extremism, different textbook.

This article is informative and interesting, and provides some data to back up what most people already know intuitively -- extremists are exremists everywhere--- but the writing is dry and pretty dull.

You just helped to prove what Pres. Obama already knows, because he's spoken about it numerous times, that human nature is consistent around the world, regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, etc. I doubt that he would be surprised at all.

What, Christiane Amanpour doesn't float their boat?

This isn't surprising to me (though I imagine the author is right and it would be to many people). I recall that in the 2000 election Bush pulled in 70% of the Muslim vote.

It makes sense, as fundamentalists of all stripes basically want to live in the same century - the 15th. They just argue about which ancient book to hit people over the head with, and how hard to persecute women and gay people. But they are kindred in opposing modern western liberalism.

Well sure. Hyper conservative fits the mold regardless of culture. Keep in mind though that not all white people are conservatives. I descend from the white anti-federalists who founded this country. I put our home in Pittston, Maine on the National Register of Historic Places accordingly. These columns will satisfy FOX folks just fine because they play into the new inherent racial bias of media perfectly.

The most common causes of paranoia are use of marijuana or cocaine /amphetamine abuse; and ignorance i.e., lack of education.