MoveOn.org, one of the sponsors of the new film “Out-Foxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on
Journalism,” cites the nearly identical language used by Fox News Channel and the
Bush/Cheney campaign in the cable network’s attempt to discredit sponsors of a critical
documentary that questions Fox’s claim to be “fair and balanced” in its news reporting.

“If you put their statements side by side, the conclusion is inescapable: The Republicans
write copy for the Fox News Channel. In short, Fox channels the Bush/Cheney
campaign’s message. Roger Ailes, Fox News Channel’s CEO and Chairman, was a longtime
Republican Party operative, and apparently he still is,” said Wes Boyd, President of
MoveOn.org.

“The premise of the film is that Fox is a Republican Party mouthpiece. Fox’s response to
this criticism is taken right from the Bush campaign’s manager,” added Boyd.

They Saw It Coming

DISPLAYING ABSTRACT - Op-Ed article by Mark Fischetti says most agonizing part of what is happening in New Orleans in wake of Hurricane Katrina is that it might have been avoided; notes article he wrote for Scientific American in 2001 describing very situation unfolding there today; says large-scale engineering plan called Coast 2050, developed in 1998 by scientists, Army engineers, metropolitan planners and Louisiana officials, might have helped save city, but it went unrealized because of objections from some local politicians and special interests, as well as some scientists and engineers; says when New Orleans is rebuilt, it can be protected by engineering solutions that work with nature, not against it; describes how natural protections can be restored

To read this archive article, upgrade to TimesSelect or purchase as a single article.

A Promising Plan

Back in 1965, when the Army Corps was trying to figure out how to protect the city against a big storm, the initial plan was to build flood-surge gates at the eastern edge of Lake Pontchartrain, to keep storm surge out of the lake. It seemed simpler that way. Otherwise, the entire levee along the southern edge of the lake would have to be made higher, and the canal walls would have to be raised.

The floodgates would have blocked water at two deep channels, called Chef Menteur and the Rigolets. If a storm came, the gates could be lowered to block the two passes. The project was known as the "barrier plan;" some say it might have saved large sections of the city.

Environmentalists had concerns about the plan, though. They worried the gates would make it easier for developers to drain wetlands and build houses. And they worried it would reduce the flow of water into the lake.

"It was going to destroy the lake. It was going to make it a stagnant body of water," says Luke Fontana, executive attorney for Save Our Wetlands Inc. Fontana had spent years fishing the area by those channels, and even wrote a song opposing the plan. But more importantly, he filed a lawsuit.

Legal Roadblock

In 1977 a judge ruled in favor of Fontana and other critics, saying the Army Corps had not done enough to evaluate the impact the floodgate plan would have on the environment. Elvin Heiberg, who once ran the New Orleans district of the Army Corps, says that while the barriers would have had some effect on flow in and out of the lake, it would have been pretty minor. The gates would only be closed when a storm was coming.

But in 1985, a full 20 years after the barrier plan had been proposed, the Corps officially gave up. Heiberg by then had gotten a few promotions and was head of the entire Corps of Engineers.

"I think that's probably the biggest mistake I made, quitting instead of fighting," Heiberg says. "I think Katrina proved that."

There is some debate about whether the barrier plan would have neighborhoods flooded by the canals. Two scientists think it would have helped.

Mith: (Re: WND) Not outright lies so much as information with key facts often left out (tho there have definitely been some instances when games were played with facts as well). Its a propaganda outlet that caters to readers who want to read stories that are biased toward their particular slant.

B: Even if you could prove that, how would that distinguish them from every other news outlet on the left?

Mith: Pick any political article from today's NYT. I haven't read a single Times item today but I'll flat out guarantee you that they offer far more (and more balanced) representation of the opposing side than WND contributers do for the news stories they write.

B: And you think a couple articles cover the MSM collective butt? Do you honestly expect anyone to believe that they allowed that issue it's rightful place in the debate about what went wrong?

Mith: I don't know - and neither do you.

I'm not going to let you off the hook that easily. You called WND indistinguishable from (what you refer to as) MSM with regard to representation of opposition points and called me oblivious for disagreeing with you.

I asked you show just one example from yesterday's or today's liberal mainstream news to show me just how "outrageous" that I am.

B: OMG... WND is somehow the badguy even tho they are the ones who won't let the MSM bury these stories and for the most part they are only quoting the rare newspaper articles where the truth briefly slips out from under the self-censorship of the left MSM.

Mith: your old evasion tricks from when you know you are beat.... you're not fooling anyone. ... For days now I've asked you to find just one news article from a liberal mainstream media source that is as completely biased.

B: Guess I missed that question. You didn't think for example, the NYT... blah blah blah.

Mith: Have it your way then... Challenge reissued. ... find me that article from any source in today's (Sunday, Monday, I don't care) liberal mainstream media that is as unrepresentative of the opposition as what I have recently seen from WND.

B: When did I ever claim the WND was neutral?