Fox is the most trusted name in news
- Thread starter MASTERBAKER
- Start date
Re: Fox News' Judge Napolitano explains why we are now LESS free [3 PARTS]
Hard to believe I'm nodding my head to an italian guy from Jersey who's also a faux news commentator, but there it is.
Hard to believe I'm nodding my head to an italian guy from Jersey who's also a faux news commentator, but there it is.
Re: Fox News' Judge Napolitano explains why we are now LESS free [3 PARTS]
Great post !!! I keep telling y'all don't go by party affiliation, as it's just bullshit !!! He's spitting fire
Great post !!! I keep telling y'all don't go by party affiliation, as it's just bullshit !!! He's spitting fire
Re: Fox News' Judge Napolitano explains why we are now LESS free [3 PARTS]
Damn That Shit Was Tight...i Have To Agree With Him...might Even Check Out That Book..
Damn That Shit Was Tight...i Have To Agree With Him...might Even Check Out That Book..
sean your a filthy bastard!
Sean Hannity pushing the bizarre myth that earlier this week President Obama called the U.S. "a Muslim nation."
As you can see in the video, President Obama’s actual remarks bear no resemblance whatsoever to Hannity’s false claim.
Re: Fox News: Sean Hannity’s Looniest Attack Ever
I'm still waiting for FOXnews to merge with The Onion.
I'm still waiting for FOXnews to merge with The Onion.
Re: Fox News: Sean Hannity’s Looniest Attack Ever
So true. Sean Hannity is an idiot. How large is his audience, anyway?
So true. Sean Hannity is an idiot. How large is his audience, anyway?
Re: Fox News: Sean Hannity’s Looniest Attack Ever
source: Air America
Stop Repeating and Retelling What Rush Says! (Audio)
By Lionel
Listen: Lionel Asks Progressive Bloggers: Stop Covering Rush And Sean And Their Ilk
<embed id="listen-mp3-player" class="audio" src="http://airamerica.com/mediaplayer.swf" width="300" height="15" wmode="transparent" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" flashvars="enablejs=true&width=300&height=15&autostart=false&file=http://airamerica.com/ondemand/play/104560.mp3" style="display: block;" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/go/getflashplayer" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" />
I have a simple question for non-conservative Tweetsters, Tweetrices, bloggers, bloggettes and the like: Why do you track, note and reiterate every idiotic statement uttered and belched by Rush, Sean or Beck? Seriously. Why? Have you nothing better to say? Have you no spokespeople or pundits that you'd like to highlight? Why mention these folks in that most Americans don't listen to them and have never heard of them? Seriously. Why?
Their followers care not of what you say or write. You merely alert the folks of your camp who haven't heard of these guys to tune them in and check them out. It seems to be an obsession of yours. Everywhere, Rush is mentioned. More than ever. And what's odd, he isn't mentioned on Faux News that much. Why?
Because you do their work.
Now, if you must mention these guys, at least try to make the connection that he's/they're the voice of the Republican Party. They're anti-Sotomayor and anti-Latina. Fine, I dig. But the aforementioned commentators have an obsession with Rush, Sean and Beck. Is your goal to expose their falsities? To whom? Those reading you already know this. Your ideological enemies couldn't care less of what you write. So why?
So I repeat: Why do you track his and their thoughts more than your own? In fact, what are your own thoughts?
I attribute it to the fact that most of the aforementioned non-conservative commentators and pundits are such tyros, so inexperienced, so consumed with anger over being ignored for years, that they don't know what to do. Rush attacks liberals and only his constituency nods in obeisant affirmation. Why attack Rush and give him publicity? Attack the Republicans.
It's simple.
Unless you just plain hate Rush and the wannabes, lock onto how the Republicans are anti-Latina, anti-Big Tent, exclusive, bigoted, name it. Invite folks into the Democratic camp. Remind them of what they say in the big picture. If you have to mention Rush, note that he's the de factor spokesperson of the GOP and that Steele is dead. They've no intellectually-consistent moorings, no anchor, no ideology save hate, exclusion and bigotry.
And as much as Olbermann is goading Sean anent the waterboarding challenge, why hasn't Sean responded? Let's see. Because he's won. Sean suckered KO and KO bit. Keith had on that ChiTown Cowman guy (desperately seeking an identity), who was waterboarded for a picosecond and screamed like a little girl that it was torture, and gave Sean a commercial. It seems that Sean had pledged to be waterboarded himself for charity. KO took that bait as well and taunts Sean nightly to be a man and pay up or hit the boards. Sean got him again. His fans couldn't care less that Sean welshed on a bet, for charity, no less, and is impuissant. O'Reilly wouldn't deign to mention Keith. No one would of that camp. I know they're number one compared to Keith . . . wait, do you think that's why? Hmmm?
Look, I'm no Rush fan. I haven't heard an entire show of his, Sean's or Beck's ever. And I mean ever. I used to work with him and he was a nice guy. So is Sean and Beck for that matter. They're masters of the work, the shtick. They sucker the self-righteous and comically-media-unsophisticated in. But listen carefully . . .
Don't play into their shtick!
Jesus, all you whatevers, grow a pair and think on your own. What do you think? What do you believe? I detest Rush's angle, but it's shtick. Shmaltz. It's an act. In wrestling parlance, it's a work. An angle. Don't you see? Can't you see? (What that woman's been doing to me.)
The Dems have an über-majority. Sotomayor will be confirmed and appointed Associate Justice. Nothing, repeat, nothing can stop that from happening, especially Rush and his wannabes. So, in peroration, don't merely repeat and recite what he said and they say.
Carville et Begala: Geniuses.
You see, James and Paul did some polling. Ee yi ee yi oh. And on that poll it appeared that the anti-Rush sentiment was inordinate. So what these two sons of the South did was make the juxtaposition that the evilly-perceived Rush with the GOP, not conservatives but the GOP. Poor Mikey Steele, he tried to pull in the moderate Republicans (oxymoron?) that he needed by distancing the party from El Gordo. Bad move, the Rush minions took offense, rejected Steele, raised Rush's ratings even more and wreaked political havoc on the GOP.
Great. The GOP's on its heels and the heels are scattering. So what do the so-called anti-GOP, antipodal conservatives do, they merely repeat what Rush said and says. If you do, at least charge them for ad time.
Try this, just see what happens: pledge to mention not a word about these guys for six weeks. Just do it. It'll drive 'em crazy(-ier).
So, listen to Uncle Lionel, and don't take this the wrong way . . . but enough with Rush, already!
Let us prey.
source: Air America
Stop Repeating and Retelling What Rush Says! (Audio)
By Lionel
Listen: Lionel Asks Progressive Bloggers: Stop Covering Rush And Sean And Their Ilk
<embed id="listen-mp3-player" class="audio" src="http://airamerica.com/mediaplayer.swf" width="300" height="15" wmode="transparent" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" flashvars="enablejs=true&width=300&height=15&autostart=false&file=http://airamerica.com/ondemand/play/104560.mp3" style="display: block;" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/go/getflashplayer" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" />
I have a simple question for non-conservative Tweetsters, Tweetrices, bloggers, bloggettes and the like: Why do you track, note and reiterate every idiotic statement uttered and belched by Rush, Sean or Beck? Seriously. Why? Have you nothing better to say? Have you no spokespeople or pundits that you'd like to highlight? Why mention these folks in that most Americans don't listen to them and have never heard of them? Seriously. Why?
Their followers care not of what you say or write. You merely alert the folks of your camp who haven't heard of these guys to tune them in and check them out. It seems to be an obsession of yours. Everywhere, Rush is mentioned. More than ever. And what's odd, he isn't mentioned on Faux News that much. Why?
Because you do their work.
Now, if you must mention these guys, at least try to make the connection that he's/they're the voice of the Republican Party. They're anti-Sotomayor and anti-Latina. Fine, I dig. But the aforementioned commentators have an obsession with Rush, Sean and Beck. Is your goal to expose their falsities? To whom? Those reading you already know this. Your ideological enemies couldn't care less of what you write. So why?
So I repeat: Why do you track his and their thoughts more than your own? In fact, what are your own thoughts?
I attribute it to the fact that most of the aforementioned non-conservative commentators and pundits are such tyros, so inexperienced, so consumed with anger over being ignored for years, that they don't know what to do. Rush attacks liberals and only his constituency nods in obeisant affirmation. Why attack Rush and give him publicity? Attack the Republicans.
It's simple.
Unless you just plain hate Rush and the wannabes, lock onto how the Republicans are anti-Latina, anti-Big Tent, exclusive, bigoted, name it. Invite folks into the Democratic camp. Remind them of what they say in the big picture. If you have to mention Rush, note that he's the de factor spokesperson of the GOP and that Steele is dead. They've no intellectually-consistent moorings, no anchor, no ideology save hate, exclusion and bigotry.
And as much as Olbermann is goading Sean anent the waterboarding challenge, why hasn't Sean responded? Let's see. Because he's won. Sean suckered KO and KO bit. Keith had on that ChiTown Cowman guy (desperately seeking an identity), who was waterboarded for a picosecond and screamed like a little girl that it was torture, and gave Sean a commercial. It seems that Sean had pledged to be waterboarded himself for charity. KO took that bait as well and taunts Sean nightly to be a man and pay up or hit the boards. Sean got him again. His fans couldn't care less that Sean welshed on a bet, for charity, no less, and is impuissant. O'Reilly wouldn't deign to mention Keith. No one would of that camp. I know they're number one compared to Keith . . . wait, do you think that's why? Hmmm?
Look, I'm no Rush fan. I haven't heard an entire show of his, Sean's or Beck's ever. And I mean ever. I used to work with him and he was a nice guy. So is Sean and Beck for that matter. They're masters of the work, the shtick. They sucker the self-righteous and comically-media-unsophisticated in. But listen carefully . . .
Don't play into their shtick!
Jesus, all you whatevers, grow a pair and think on your own. What do you think? What do you believe? I detest Rush's angle, but it's shtick. Shmaltz. It's an act. In wrestling parlance, it's a work. An angle. Don't you see? Can't you see? (What that woman's been doing to me.)
The Dems have an über-majority. Sotomayor will be confirmed and appointed Associate Justice. Nothing, repeat, nothing can stop that from happening, especially Rush and his wannabes. So, in peroration, don't merely repeat and recite what he said and they say.
Carville et Begala: Geniuses.
You see, James and Paul did some polling. Ee yi ee yi oh. And on that poll it appeared that the anti-Rush sentiment was inordinate. So what these two sons of the South did was make the juxtaposition that the evilly-perceived Rush with the GOP, not conservatives but the GOP. Poor Mikey Steele, he tried to pull in the moderate Republicans (oxymoron?) that he needed by distancing the party from El Gordo. Bad move, the Rush minions took offense, rejected Steele, raised Rush's ratings even more and wreaked political havoc on the GOP.
Great. The GOP's on its heels and the heels are scattering. So what do the so-called anti-GOP, antipodal conservatives do, they merely repeat what Rush said and says. If you do, at least charge them for ad time.
Try this, just see what happens: pledge to mention not a word about these guys for six weeks. Just do it. It'll drive 'em crazy(-ier).
So, listen to Uncle Lionel, and don't take this the wrong way . . . but enough with Rush, already!
Let us prey.
Sean Hannity has repeatedly smeared progressives and Democrats by cropping their comments in ways that misrepresented them. Most recently, he cropped President Obama's answer to a question about the Cold War to falsely suggest he wasn't acknowledging the achievements of past presidents in freeing Eastern Europe.
Re: Fox News: Sean Hannity Again Crops Obama's Comments Abroad In Order To Smear Him
This is ok, because they are a cable station.
This is ok, because they are a cable station.
Re: Fox News: Sean Hannity Again Crops Obama's Comments Abroad In Order To Smear Him
The next time I read about terrorist events on the homefront, I hope they include the destruction of that beacon of falsehoods. Blow em' sky high, superman high...
>>>I been away for a lil' while, be back soon...
The next time I read about terrorist events on the homefront, I hope they include the destruction of that beacon of falsehoods. Blow em' sky high, superman high...
>>>I been away for a lil' while, be back soon...
Re: Fox News: Sean Hannity Again Crops Obama's Comments Abroad In Order To Smear Him
Just think, some people use this as their ONLY news source.
Just think, some people use this as their ONLY news source.
Re: Fox News: Sean Hannity Again Crops Obama's Comments Abroad In Order To Smear Him
actinanass won't dare enter this thread!!!
actinanass won't dare enter this thread!!!
CNN's Rick Sanchez Calls FOX News Liars For Their Ad Saying CNN Did Not Cover The Washington DC Tea Party.
Re: CNN's Rick Sanchez Destroys Fox News
ohh shit
ohh shit
Re: CNN's Rick Sanchez Destroys Fox News
Damn Rick put a foot in fox ass....THEY LIE!!!!
Damn Rick put a foot in fox ass....THEY LIE!!!!
<font face="arial black" size="5" color="#d90000">
As Fox News Goes Up, The GOP Goes Down</font>
<font face="helvetica, verdana" size="3" color="#000000">
September 10, 2009
http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=1359
Last month I published an article on how Fox News Is Killing The Republican Party. It explored in detail how the embrace of lunatics and their demented ravings, along with a misunderstanding of the television marketplace, was literally dragging the Republican Party down to some of its lowest historical depths:
<blockquote><font color="#000093">
“The more the population at large associates Republican ideology with the agenda of Fox News, and the fringe operators residing there, the more the party will be perceived as out of touch, or even out of their minds.”
</color></blockquote>
<img src="http://www.newscorpse.com/Pix/Charts/fox-vs-gop.jpg">
<font color="#000000">
Now Gawker has affirmed my analysis with a chart showing the divergent prospects of Fox News and the Republican Party. I took the liberty of modifying their chart to spotlight the period following last November’s election (amongst other things, like the demise of the GOP logo).
It couldn’t be much clearer. The post-election fate of Fox News is diametrically opposed to that of the GOP. The disparity has increased sinced November and shows no signs of letting up. Gawker sums it up nicely saying…</color>
<blockquote><font color="#000093">
“Fox News’ viewership is up 45% over the last year, and it’s easy to see why: The ascendancy of a charismatic black Democrat has driven frightened, paranoid, enraged, nativist zealots into the ideological embrace of an outlet that habitually reconfirms everything they already believe. Watching Glenn Beck’s spell-binding sermons on Barack Obama’s racism is comforting to people who believe that their way of life—namely, one in which fatherly white Christians protect us from danger both internal and external—is under attack. So they do it more frequently. Tuning into Hannity et.al. becomes a life-affirming political act.”
</color></blockquote>
<font color="#000000">Nuff said</color>
</font>
<hr noshade color="#FF0000" size="10"></hr>
As Fox News Goes Up, The GOP Goes Down</font>
<font face="helvetica, verdana" size="3" color="#000000">
September 10, 2009
http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=1359
Last month I published an article on how Fox News Is Killing The Republican Party. It explored in detail how the embrace of lunatics and their demented ravings, along with a misunderstanding of the television marketplace, was literally dragging the Republican Party down to some of its lowest historical depths:
<blockquote><font color="#000093">
“The more the population at large associates Republican ideology with the agenda of Fox News, and the fringe operators residing there, the more the party will be perceived as out of touch, or even out of their minds.”
</color></blockquote>
<img src="http://www.newscorpse.com/Pix/Charts/fox-vs-gop.jpg">
<font color="#000000">
Now Gawker has affirmed my analysis with a chart showing the divergent prospects of Fox News and the Republican Party. I took the liberty of modifying their chart to spotlight the period following last November’s election (amongst other things, like the demise of the GOP logo).
It couldn’t be much clearer. The post-election fate of Fox News is diametrically opposed to that of the GOP. The disparity has increased sinced November and shows no signs of letting up. Gawker sums it up nicely saying…</color>
<blockquote><font color="#000093">
“Fox News’ viewership is up 45% over the last year, and it’s easy to see why: The ascendancy of a charismatic black Democrat has driven frightened, paranoid, enraged, nativist zealots into the ideological embrace of an outlet that habitually reconfirms everything they already believe. Watching Glenn Beck’s spell-binding sermons on Barack Obama’s racism is comforting to people who believe that their way of life—namely, one in which fatherly white Christians protect us from danger both internal and external—is under attack. So they do it more frequently. Tuning into Hannity et.al. becomes a life-affirming political act.”
</color></blockquote>
<font color="#000000">Nuff said</color>
</font>
<hr noshade color="#FF0000" size="10"></hr>
<font face="arial black" size="5" color="#d90000">
As Fox News Goes Up, The GOP Goes Down</font>
<font face="helvetica, verdana" size="3" color="#000000">
September 10, 2009
http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=1359
Last month I published an article on how Fox News Is Killing The Republican Party. It explored in detail how the embrace of lunatics and their demented ravings, along with a misunderstanding of the television marketplace, was literally dragging the Republican Party down to some of its lowest historical depths:
<blockquote><font color="#000093">
“The more the population at large associates Republican ideology with the agenda of Fox News, and the fringe operators residing there, the more the party will be perceived as out of touch, or even out of their minds.”
</color></blockquote>
<img src="http://www.newscorpse.com/Pix/Charts/fox-vs-gop.jpg">
<font color="#000000">
Now Gawker has affirmed my analysis with a chart showing the divergent prospects of Fox News and the Republican Party. I took the liberty of modifying their chart to spotlight the period following last November’s election (amongst other things, like the demise of the GOP logo).
It couldn’t be much clearer. The post-election fate of Fox News is diametrically opposed to that of the GOP. The disparity has increased sinced November and shows no signs of letting up. Gawker sums it up nicely saying…</color>
<blockquote><font color="#000093">
“Fox News’ viewership is up 45% over the last year, and it’s easy to see why: The ascendancy of a charismatic black Democrat has driven frightened, paranoid, enraged, nativist zealots into the ideological embrace of an outlet that habitually reconfirms everything they already believe. Watching Glenn Beck’s spell-binding sermons on Barack Obama’s racism is comforting to people who believe that their way of life—namely, one in which fatherly white Christians protect us from danger both internal and external—is under attack. So they do it more frequently. Tuning into Hannity et.al. becomes a life-affirming political act.”
</color></blockquote>
<font color="#000000">Nuff said</color>
</font>
<hr noshade color="#FF0000" size="10"></hr>
DAMN!!!
The Reason FOX and MSNBC can be Biased
Apparently they won the right in court.
But, now that I know, I'll make sure and inform everyone else whenever they get upset about the news they're getting on TV.
Apparently they won the right in court.
So, there you have it. This makes me laugh and cry at the same time.
But, now that I know, I'll make sure and inform everyone else whenever they get upset about the news they're getting on TV.
Re: The Reason FOX and MSNBC can be Biased
I didn't see anything about MSNBC. Faux is definitely bias! Don't imply equivalency.
I didn't see anything about MSNBC. Faux is definitely bias! Don't imply equivalency.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/i7ZpcPQP3yg&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/i7ZpcPQP3yg&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Re: The Reason FOX and MSNBC can be Biased
All news agencies are the same. Media is the third rail of govt. Their job is keeping the public quiet. Saying one media outlet is different than the next is like saying BGOL members are different. Can't be true because we share a interest if one is different we all are. The system is about class, one being superior to the others, so anything coming from a class other than the one you belong to is probably suspect.
All news agencies are the same. Media is the third rail of govt. Their job is keeping the public quiet. Saying one media outlet is different than the next is like saying BGOL members are different. Can't be true because we share a interest if one is different we all are. The system is about class, one being superior to the others, so anything coming from a class other than the one you belong to is probably suspect.
Why Fox News isn't News
Re: The Reason FOX and MSNBC can be Biased
I disagree. Most news agencies report what has happened (Except Fox) especially when they have a video present...
The problem is the opinion attached to that news which is usually tacked on at the end. Most reasonably intelligent people (about 50% of Americans) are able to separate the two while the other half can't think for themselves.
YEP 50% of Americans are just plain backwoods dumb and I'm not just talking about fox news viewers...I can't speak for the rest of the world.
I can honestly say that 70% of BGOL members are immature and 20% just plain dumb which is higher than Americans as a whole...but then again we are an international crowd.
I disagree. Most news agencies report what has happened (Except Fox) especially when they have a video present...
The problem is the opinion attached to that news which is usually tacked on at the end. Most reasonably intelligent people (about 50% of Americans) are able to separate the two while the other half can't think for themselves.
YEP 50% of Americans are just plain backwoods dumb and I'm not just talking about fox news viewers...I can't speak for the rest of the world.
I can honestly say that 70% of BGOL members are immature and 20% just plain dumb which is higher than Americans as a whole...but then again we are an international crowd.
Re: The Reason FOX and MSNBC can be Biased
They are all the same the only difference is degree. Maybe Fox does attach opinion to the news but that just means they take news to a different level could say they are extremist. They are all govt tools. They cloud issues, edit news, its just their viewship supports the format. If cnn found a way to steal those viewers they would do it in a heartbeat.
The same applies to BGOL members we share a interest but some are more enthused than others but if a war started between BGOL and another website we would unite.
They are all the same the only difference is degree. Maybe Fox does attach opinion to the news but that just means they take news to a different level could say they are extremist. They are all govt tools. They cloud issues, edit news, its just their viewship supports the format. If cnn found a way to steal those viewers they would do it in a heartbeat.
The same applies to BGOL members we share a interest but some are more enthused than others but if a war started between BGOL and another website we would unite.
Re: The Reason FOX and MSNBC can be Biased
Media is the arm of corporations, not government. We have been led down many wrong paths in order to accept greed and wrongfull behavior. For example, If corporations allowed us to really see the purpose behind imprisoning so many inmates in private institutions and how many times wrongfully accused get convicted, then reform would be demanded.
Media is the arm of corporations, not government. We have been led down many wrong paths in order to accept greed and wrongfull behavior. For example, If corporations allowed us to really see the purpose behind imprisoning so many inmates in private institutions and how many times wrongfully accused get convicted, then reform would be demanded.
Re: The Reason FOX and MSNBC can be Biased
[not at all meaning to sound or be condescending] -- but, if YOU know that such is the case, then you, by objective evidence, can demonstrate this particular corporate evil, to the rest of us. No?
QueEx
[not at all meaning to sound or be condescending] -- but, if YOU know that such is the case, then you, by objective evidence, can demonstrate this particular corporate evil, to the rest of us. No?
QueEx
Re: The Reason FOX and MSNBC can be Biased
In these days, sadly, they are one and the same. Within the next 20 years most gov't agencies will be privatized anyway.
In these days, sadly, they are one and the same. Within the next 20 years most gov't agencies will be privatized anyway.
Re: Why Fox News isn't News
<div><iframe height="339" width="425" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/33455924#33455924" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 425px;">Visit msnbc.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com">Breaking News</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">World News</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">News about the Economy</a></p></div>
<hr noshade color="#0000FF" size="10"></hr>
Just Don't Call It 'Journalism'
Fox Is Not a News Organization;
It Is a Propaganda Outlet, &
An Extremist One at That.
By Eric Alterman
It's a sad symbol of the state of contemporary American journalism that the White House communications office is doing more to maintain the honor of the profession than are many journalists. But that's just what's happening in the contretemps over Fox News. Interim White House communications director Anita Dunn has explained to the press that the White House plans to treat Fox "the way we would treat an opponent.... As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don't need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave."
But many in Washington prefer to pretend. Howard Kurtz, whose talent for clueless conventional thinking is exceeded only by his ability to juggle his myriad conflicts of interest, thinks Obama's reaction to Fox is no different from JFK's complaints about the Herald Tribune, LBJ's unhappiness with the New York Times and various (and endless) Republican attacks on the media, so he finds it "no surprise that the Obama White House isn't happy with its coverage and is battling back." Baltimore Sun critic David Zurawik professes to hear "echoes of Nixon-Agnew" in the Obama White House and then accuses the administration of failing to "respect press freedom." The Times's David Carr concludes, "So far, the only winner in this latest dispute seems to be Fox News. Ratings are up 20 percent this year, and the network basked for a week in the antagonism of a sitting president."
What all these critics fail to address is that the administration's argument is right on the merits. Fox's pretense of being an actual news network is hardly more convincing than, say, Milton Berle in a bra and garters posing as a woman. By refusing to acknowledge Fox's open and avowed partisanship, its MSM defenders are not only flacking for Ailes & Co.; they're diminishing the work of honest journalists who try to play fair. Ask yourself:
§ Would a genuine news network reproduce a Republican press release, replete with typos?
§ Would a genuine news network run, over a five-day period, twenty-two excerpts from healthcare forums in which every single speaker was opposed?
§ Would a genuine news network allow a producer to cheerlead, off camera, anti-Obama protesters?
§ Would a genuine news network take out full-page ads to complain of insufficient coverage of antigovernment protest marches it had promoted?
§ Would a genuine news network run the following headlines, trumpeting each story as a "Fox Nation Victory"?
-- Senate Removes 'End of Life' Provision
-- Congress Delays Health Care Rationing Bill
-- Anti-Tea Party Reporter Dumped by CNN
-- Obama's Drive for Climate Change Bill Delayed
-- Obama's 'Green Czar' Resigns
(Note: I have not had to quote the lunatic ravings of Messrs. Beck, Hannity or O'Reilly to make my case.)
Fox is not a news organization; it is a propaganda outlet, and an extremist one at that. Is it any wonder that according to survey after survey, Fox News viewers are among the worst informed Americans when it comes to politics, despite their obsessive interest? A recent study by Democracy Corps finds that this audience believes "Obama is deliberately and ruthlessly advancing a 'secret agenda' to bankrupt our country and dramatically expand government control over all aspects of our daily lives," with the ultimate goal of "the destruction of the United States as it was conceived by our founders and developed over the past 200 years."
There is something to be said for collecting all the crazies in one place. As conservative pundit Reihan Salam argued on behalf of the nuttiness of Glenn Beck, his value lies in the fact that "he's a kind of national therapist for some of America's craziest people, few of whom are willing to go in for professional help." And so it's nice that ABC's John Stossel has migrated to his natural home at Fox and Lou Dobbs is said to be in talks to take his racist rants over there as well.
But the danger increases when the rest of the media allow this particularly swine-ish flu to infect their news operations, and this is the White House's legitimate concern. Why was George Stephanopoulos taking up valuable time in his interview with the President of the United States badgering him about ACORN? ("George, this is not the biggest issue facing the country. It's not something I'm paying a lot of attention to," was Obama's entirely appropriate response.) And why did Stephanopoulos persistently pester the president, in the same interview, about whether a transformational reform of our dysfunctional healthcare system--which is on its way to eating up 20 percent of the entire GDP--could be reduced to the Republican-friendly sound bite "a tax increase"? (Is it surprising that the interview made its way into an RNC attack ad the very next week?) Is the fear of Fox making its way through ABC's corporate bloodstream? Recently David Axelrod appeared on Stephanopoulos's program and schooled him on the stakes involved: "It's really not news--it's pushing a point of view. And...other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way."
I suppose we can be grateful that Obama has not been asked lately about his flag pin; but it's a sad day when our big media pooh-bahs need instruction on the values and responsibilities of their own profession by political operatives. No one's asking to censor Fox, but a little shame and scorn ought to go a long way. This, thankfully, is one of the concurrent crises facing the profession that journalists can fix all by themselves, and perhaps restore a bit of their self-respect in the process.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091109/alterman
<hr noshade color="#FF0000" size="10"></hr>
<div><iframe height="339" width="425" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/33455924#33455924" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 425px;">Visit msnbc.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com">Breaking News</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">World News</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">News about the Economy</a></p></div>
<hr noshade color="#0000FF" size="10"></hr>
Just Don't Call It 'Journalism'
Fox Is Not a News Organization;
It Is a Propaganda Outlet, &
An Extremist One at That.
By Eric Alterman
It's a sad symbol of the state of contemporary American journalism that the White House communications office is doing more to maintain the honor of the profession than are many journalists. But that's just what's happening in the contretemps over Fox News. Interim White House communications director Anita Dunn has explained to the press that the White House plans to treat Fox "the way we would treat an opponent.... As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don't need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave."
But many in Washington prefer to pretend. Howard Kurtz, whose talent for clueless conventional thinking is exceeded only by his ability to juggle his myriad conflicts of interest, thinks Obama's reaction to Fox is no different from JFK's complaints about the Herald Tribune, LBJ's unhappiness with the New York Times and various (and endless) Republican attacks on the media, so he finds it "no surprise that the Obama White House isn't happy with its coverage and is battling back." Baltimore Sun critic David Zurawik professes to hear "echoes of Nixon-Agnew" in the Obama White House and then accuses the administration of failing to "respect press freedom." The Times's David Carr concludes, "So far, the only winner in this latest dispute seems to be Fox News. Ratings are up 20 percent this year, and the network basked for a week in the antagonism of a sitting president."
What all these critics fail to address is that the administration's argument is right on the merits. Fox's pretense of being an actual news network is hardly more convincing than, say, Milton Berle in a bra and garters posing as a woman. By refusing to acknowledge Fox's open and avowed partisanship, its MSM defenders are not only flacking for Ailes & Co.; they're diminishing the work of honest journalists who try to play fair. Ask yourself:
§ Would a genuine news network reproduce a Republican press release, replete with typos?
§ Would a genuine news network run, over a five-day period, twenty-two excerpts from healthcare forums in which every single speaker was opposed?
§ Would a genuine news network allow a producer to cheerlead, off camera, anti-Obama protesters?
§ Would a genuine news network take out full-page ads to complain of insufficient coverage of antigovernment protest marches it had promoted?
§ Would a genuine news network run the following headlines, trumpeting each story as a "Fox Nation Victory"?
-- Senate Removes 'End of Life' Provision
-- Congress Delays Health Care Rationing Bill
-- Anti-Tea Party Reporter Dumped by CNN
-- Obama's Drive for Climate Change Bill Delayed
-- Obama's 'Green Czar' Resigns
(Note: I have not had to quote the lunatic ravings of Messrs. Beck, Hannity or O'Reilly to make my case.)
Fox is not a news organization; it is a propaganda outlet, and an extremist one at that. Is it any wonder that according to survey after survey, Fox News viewers are among the worst informed Americans when it comes to politics, despite their obsessive interest? A recent study by Democracy Corps finds that this audience believes "Obama is deliberately and ruthlessly advancing a 'secret agenda' to bankrupt our country and dramatically expand government control over all aspects of our daily lives," with the ultimate goal of "the destruction of the United States as it was conceived by our founders and developed over the past 200 years."
There is something to be said for collecting all the crazies in one place. As conservative pundit Reihan Salam argued on behalf of the nuttiness of Glenn Beck, his value lies in the fact that "he's a kind of national therapist for some of America's craziest people, few of whom are willing to go in for professional help." And so it's nice that ABC's John Stossel has migrated to his natural home at Fox and Lou Dobbs is said to be in talks to take his racist rants over there as well.
But the danger increases when the rest of the media allow this particularly swine-ish flu to infect their news operations, and this is the White House's legitimate concern. Why was George Stephanopoulos taking up valuable time in his interview with the President of the United States badgering him about ACORN? ("George, this is not the biggest issue facing the country. It's not something I'm paying a lot of attention to," was Obama's entirely appropriate response.) And why did Stephanopoulos persistently pester the president, in the same interview, about whether a transformational reform of our dysfunctional healthcare system--which is on its way to eating up 20 percent of the entire GDP--could be reduced to the Republican-friendly sound bite "a tax increase"? (Is it surprising that the interview made its way into an RNC attack ad the very next week?) Is the fear of Fox making its way through ABC's corporate bloodstream? Recently David Axelrod appeared on Stephanopoulos's program and schooled him on the stakes involved: "It's really not news--it's pushing a point of view. And...other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way."
I suppose we can be grateful that Obama has not been asked lately about his flag pin; but it's a sad day when our big media pooh-bahs need instruction on the values and responsibilities of their own profession by political operatives. No one's asking to censor Fox, but a little shame and scorn ought to go a long way. This, thankfully, is one of the concurrent crises facing the profession that journalists can fix all by themselves, and perhaps restore a bit of their self-respect in the process.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091109/alterman
<hr noshade color="#FF0000" size="10"></hr>
<font face="arial black" size="5" color="#d90000">Frank Schaeffer:
A Letter to Rupert Murdoch's "<i>FAUX</i> " NEWS</font>
<font face="tahoma" size="4" color="#0000FF"><b>
The repentant former right wing fundamentalist leader applauds the White House for holding Fox 'News' accountable, charges they 'seem to be trawling for assassins'...</b></font>
<font face="verdana, helvetica" size="3" color="#000000"><b>
by Frank Schaeffer
October 22nd 2009</b>
<Font size="2"><br>[<em><strong>Ed Note</strong>: My audio interview with Frank Schaeffer on Green960's <a href="http://lftlc.com" target="_blank">"Live from the Left Coast"</a> [1] in San Francisco, following the publishing of this article, can <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7482" target="_blank">now be heard here...</a> [2] - Brad</em>]</font>
<br>
President Obama is getting criticism for going after Fox News. I fault the White House too: for not going far enough. The real issue is not Fox's right wing "bias." The real issue is that Fox News seems to be trawling for assassins. Here's the letter White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs should write. Or maybe it should come from the head of the United States Secret Service...<br>
Dear Rupert Murdoch, since you are responsible for what is on Fox News I have a question for you: Do you ever wonder how you'll be remembered by Americans and the world (not to mention your children) if someone takes a shot at President Obama, and when asked why they did it, quotes the misinformation spouted by Fox News as their "reason?"...
You have dozens of far right and dangerous and/or crazy seeming commentators working for you but let's just talk about one as an example of the rest. What of Glenn Beck?
<br>Does the name Father Charles Coughlin ring a bell? Do you want to be remembered as the facilitator of today's version of that deranged radio personality and hater who hounded President Roosevelt? What if a Coughlin devotee had assassinated Roosevelt? Instead of just being a nasty footnote to American history, Coughlin would be remembered as another John Wilkes Booth. What if Coughlin had had someone with money and virtually unlimited influence backing him and amplifying his remarks? How would we feel about his backer?
<br>Glenn Beck is a second rate, not terribly bright Coughlin-type demagogue with rather dimwitted followers. And you are the paymaster making his silliness dangerous by giving him a voice that would otherwise be heard only by those who happened to hear him barking at the moon on some lonely street corner.
<br>You've given today's Coughlins --- the haters --- a national platform. And they have taken the lies of the "birthers", "deathers", "Obama-is-the-Antichristers" etc., nationwide. It was a bad day for America when you became a citizen for the sole purpose of purchasing TV stations and invading us with your far right agenda. But you've gone way past politics, even the politics of hate.
You have legitimized actual insanity by widespread repetition of extremist racist and religion-based lies to the sort of people who believe the earth is 6000 years old, that Jesus will come back soon and send everyone not like them to Hell, that Obama is the Antichrist. In other words, you've got the keys to the national asylum, are stirring up the inmates and threatening to unlock the door!
<br>Here's a sample (compiled with the help of <a href="http://MediaMatters.org" target="_blank"><em>Media Matters</em></a> [3] and the online magazine <a href="http://CrooksAndLiars.com" target="_blank"><em>Crooks and Liars</em></a> [4]) of just a small stock of the incendiary rhetoric and bare-faced lies your money pays for.
<br><strong>Fox News host Glenn Beck has:</strong>
<ul>
<li>said President Obama has, "a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture;"</li>
<li>flirted with the idea that FEMA is building detention camps;</li>
<li>suggested that President Obama is purposefully "tanking" the economy to force young people to work for AmeriCorps;</li>
<li>said that Obama is "moving us away from our republic and into a system of fascism;"</li>
<li>stated: "We are a country that is headed towards socialism, totalitarianism, beyond your wildest imagination;"</li>
<li>says Obama "Wants you to work as a bureaucratic slave to government;"</li>
<li>said: "President Obama, why don't you just set us on fire? For the love of Pete, what are you doing? Do you not hear --- do you not hear the cries of people who are saying stop? We would like some sanity in our country for a second! We didn't vote to lose the republic;"</li>
<li>ran several segments, including one on his radio show, promoting the concept of the secession of Texas from the Union;</li>
<li>promotes "one world government" paranoia, including a supposed plot to put us all on a global currency controlled by the New World Order;</li>
<li>warned his audience about Obama's supposed secret plot to grab our guns;</li>
<li>speculated that it is actually liberal "political correctness" that inspires right-wingers to go on murderous killing rampages...</li>
</ul>
Rupert Murdoch; is there a limit? If Beck was shrieking, "Kill the uppity ****** in the White House!" would that be okay too? Would it be any more of an incitement to violence than what Beck is saying now?
<br>You can't claim you're not having a baleful impact. How about this? According to the <em>Boston Globe</em> ("<a href="http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/10/18/secret_service_under_strain_as_leaders_face_more_threats/?page=full" target="_blank">Secret Service Strained</a> [5]" 10/18/09):
The unprecedented number of death threats against President Obama, a rise in racist hate groups, and a new wave of antigovernment fervor threaten to overwhelm the US Secret Service, according to government officials and reports, raising new questions about the 144-year-old agency's overall mission.
Where is this "new wave of antigovernment fervor" coming from? Media barons have started a war or two before but I don't recall one fomenting the climate wherein an assassination attempt becomes virtually inevitable. Far fetched? Who stirred up that nut in Pittsburgh who shot down three police officers because he believed that Obama was going to order cops to take away his guns?
<br>Don't you know that here in America we have a rather large angry far right well-armed subculture thriving on imagined insults and nursing a perpetual grievance against the "other"? Don't you have any qualms about feeding them the red meat of hate, lies and incitement?
<br>However you got to this point, you still have a choice: reign in Fox News, fire Beck, speak out to undo some of the lies you have told through your people about our President, our country and the world, or go down in history as the man who fed the unhinged haters lies until one or more of them boiled over in some desperate act and lashed out.
<br>You are playing Russian roulette with American history. When your name is forever linked to an act of history-derailing domestic terror your billions won't save you from the place in history reserved for a select group of monsters. When your name is linked to our next Oklahoma-type bombing or the killing of one of our elected leaders, nothing else you did in your life will be remembered.
<br>Sincerely,
Frank Schaeffer
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7480&print=1
</font>
<hr noshade color="#0000FF" size="10"></hr>
A Letter to Rupert Murdoch's "<i>FAUX</i> " NEWS</font>
<font face="tahoma" size="4" color="#0000FF"><b>
The repentant former right wing fundamentalist leader applauds the White House for holding Fox 'News' accountable, charges they 'seem to be trawling for assassins'...</b></font>
<font face="verdana, helvetica" size="3" color="#000000"><b>
by Frank Schaeffer
October 22nd 2009</b>
<Font size="2"><br>[<em><strong>Ed Note</strong>: My audio interview with Frank Schaeffer on Green960's <a href="http://lftlc.com" target="_blank">"Live from the Left Coast"</a> [1] in San Francisco, following the publishing of this article, can <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7482" target="_blank">now be heard here...</a> [2] - Brad</em>]</font>
<br>
President Obama is getting criticism for going after Fox News. I fault the White House too: for not going far enough. The real issue is not Fox's right wing "bias." The real issue is that Fox News seems to be trawling for assassins. Here's the letter White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs should write. Or maybe it should come from the head of the United States Secret Service...<br>
Dear Rupert Murdoch, since you are responsible for what is on Fox News I have a question for you: Do you ever wonder how you'll be remembered by Americans and the world (not to mention your children) if someone takes a shot at President Obama, and when asked why they did it, quotes the misinformation spouted by Fox News as their "reason?"...
You have dozens of far right and dangerous and/or crazy seeming commentators working for you but let's just talk about one as an example of the rest. What of Glenn Beck?
<br>Does the name Father Charles Coughlin ring a bell? Do you want to be remembered as the facilitator of today's version of that deranged radio personality and hater who hounded President Roosevelt? What if a Coughlin devotee had assassinated Roosevelt? Instead of just being a nasty footnote to American history, Coughlin would be remembered as another John Wilkes Booth. What if Coughlin had had someone with money and virtually unlimited influence backing him and amplifying his remarks? How would we feel about his backer?
<br>Glenn Beck is a second rate, not terribly bright Coughlin-type demagogue with rather dimwitted followers. And you are the paymaster making his silliness dangerous by giving him a voice that would otherwise be heard only by those who happened to hear him barking at the moon on some lonely street corner.
<br>You've given today's Coughlins --- the haters --- a national platform. And they have taken the lies of the "birthers", "deathers", "Obama-is-the-Antichristers" etc., nationwide. It was a bad day for America when you became a citizen for the sole purpose of purchasing TV stations and invading us with your far right agenda. But you've gone way past politics, even the politics of hate.
You have legitimized actual insanity by widespread repetition of extremist racist and religion-based lies to the sort of people who believe the earth is 6000 years old, that Jesus will come back soon and send everyone not like them to Hell, that Obama is the Antichrist. In other words, you've got the keys to the national asylum, are stirring up the inmates and threatening to unlock the door!
<br>Here's a sample (compiled with the help of <a href="http://MediaMatters.org" target="_blank"><em>Media Matters</em></a> [3] and the online magazine <a href="http://CrooksAndLiars.com" target="_blank"><em>Crooks and Liars</em></a> [4]) of just a small stock of the incendiary rhetoric and bare-faced lies your money pays for.
<br><strong>Fox News host Glenn Beck has:</strong>
<ul>
<li>said President Obama has, "a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture;"</li>
<li>flirted with the idea that FEMA is building detention camps;</li>
<li>suggested that President Obama is purposefully "tanking" the economy to force young people to work for AmeriCorps;</li>
<li>said that Obama is "moving us away from our republic and into a system of fascism;"</li>
<li>stated: "We are a country that is headed towards socialism, totalitarianism, beyond your wildest imagination;"</li>
<li>says Obama "Wants you to work as a bureaucratic slave to government;"</li>
<li>said: "President Obama, why don't you just set us on fire? For the love of Pete, what are you doing? Do you not hear --- do you not hear the cries of people who are saying stop? We would like some sanity in our country for a second! We didn't vote to lose the republic;"</li>
<li>ran several segments, including one on his radio show, promoting the concept of the secession of Texas from the Union;</li>
<li>promotes "one world government" paranoia, including a supposed plot to put us all on a global currency controlled by the New World Order;</li>
<li>warned his audience about Obama's supposed secret plot to grab our guns;</li>
<li>speculated that it is actually liberal "political correctness" that inspires right-wingers to go on murderous killing rampages...</li>
</ul>
Rupert Murdoch; is there a limit? If Beck was shrieking, "Kill the uppity ****** in the White House!" would that be okay too? Would it be any more of an incitement to violence than what Beck is saying now?
<br>You can't claim you're not having a baleful impact. How about this? According to the <em>Boston Globe</em> ("<a href="http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/10/18/secret_service_under_strain_as_leaders_face_more_threats/?page=full" target="_blank">Secret Service Strained</a> [5]" 10/18/09):
The unprecedented number of death threats against President Obama, a rise in racist hate groups, and a new wave of antigovernment fervor threaten to overwhelm the US Secret Service, according to government officials and reports, raising new questions about the 144-year-old agency's overall mission.
Where is this "new wave of antigovernment fervor" coming from? Media barons have started a war or two before but I don't recall one fomenting the climate wherein an assassination attempt becomes virtually inevitable. Far fetched? Who stirred up that nut in Pittsburgh who shot down three police officers because he believed that Obama was going to order cops to take away his guns?
<br>Don't you know that here in America we have a rather large angry far right well-armed subculture thriving on imagined insults and nursing a perpetual grievance against the "other"? Don't you have any qualms about feeding them the red meat of hate, lies and incitement?
<br>However you got to this point, you still have a choice: reign in Fox News, fire Beck, speak out to undo some of the lies you have told through your people about our President, our country and the world, or go down in history as the man who fed the unhinged haters lies until one or more of them boiled over in some desperate act and lashed out.
<br>You are playing Russian roulette with American history. When your name is forever linked to an act of history-derailing domestic terror your billions won't save you from the place in history reserved for a select group of monsters. When your name is linked to our next Oklahoma-type bombing or the killing of one of our elected leaders, nothing else you did in your life will be remembered.
<br>Sincerely,
Frank Schaeffer
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7480&print=1
</font>
<hr noshade color="#0000FF" size="10"></hr>
