FOX NEWS INSIDER: “Stuff Is Just Made Up”
February 10, 2011 7:20 am ET by Eric Boehlert
Asked what most viewers and observers of Fox News would be surprised to learn about the controversial cable channel, a former insider from the world of Rupert Murdoch was quick with a response: “I don’t think people would believe it’s as concocted as it is; that stuff is just made up.”
Indeed, a former Fox News employee who recently agreed to talk with Media Matters confirmed what critics have been saying for years about Murdoch’s cable channel. Namely, that Fox News is run as a purely partisan operation, virtually every news story is actively spun by the staff, its primary goal is to prop up Republicans and knock down Democrats, and that staffers at Fox News routinely operate without the slightest regard for fairness or fact checking.
“It is their M.O. to undermine the administration and to undermine Democrats,” says the source. “They’re a propaganda outfit but they call themselves news.”
And that’s the word from inside Fox News.
Note the story here isn’t that Fox News leans right. Everyone knows the channel pushes a conservative-friendly version of the news. Everyone who’s been paying attention has known that since the channel’s inception more than a decade ago. The real story, and the real danger posed by the cable outlet, is that over time Fox News stopped simply leaning to the right and instead became an open and active political player, sort of one-part character assassin and one-part propagandist, depending on which party was in power. And that the operation thrives on fabrications and falsehoods.
“They say one thing and do another. They insist on maintaining this charade, this façade, that they’re balanced or that they’re not right-wing extreme propagandist,” says the source. But it’s all a well-orchestrated lie, according this former insider. It’s a lie that permeates the entire Fox News culture and one that staffers and producers have to learn quickly in order to survive professionally.
“You have to work there for a while to understand the nods and the winks,” says the source. “And God help you if you don’t because sooner or later you’re going to get burned.”
The source explains:
“Like any news channel there’s lot of room for non-news content. The content that wasn’t ‘news,’ they didn’t care what we did with as long as it was amusing or quirky or entertaining; as along as it brought in eyeballs. But anything—anything--that was a news story you had to understand what the spin should be on it. If it was a big enough story it was explained to you in the morning [editorial] meeting. If it wasn’t explained, it was up to you to know the conservative take on it. There’s a conservative take on every story no matter what it is. So you either get told what it is or you better intuitively know what it is.”
What if Fox News staffers aren’t instinctively conservative or don’t have an intuitive feeling for what the spin on a story should be? “My internal compass was to think like an intolerant meathead,” the source explains. “You could never error on the side of not being intolerant enough.”
The source recalls how Fox News changed over time:
“When I first got there back in the day, and I don’t know how they indoctrinate people now, but back in the day when they were “training” you, as it were, they would say, ‘Here’s how we’re different.’ They’d say if there is an execution of a condemned man at midnight and there are all the live truck outside the prison and all the lives shots. CNN would go, ‘Yes, tonight John Jackson, 25 of Mississippi, is going to die by lethal injection for the murder of two girls.’ MSNBC would say the same thing.
“We would come out and say, ‘Tonight, John Jackson who kidnapped an innocent two year old, raped her, sawed her head off and threw it in the school yard, is going to get the punishment that a jury of his peers thought he should get.’ And they say that’s the way we do it here. And you’re going , alright, it’s a bit of an extreme example but it’s something to think about. It’s not unreasonable.
"When you first get in they tell you we’re a bit of a counterpart to the screaming left wing lib media. So automatically you have to buy into the idea that the other media is howling left-wing. Don’t even start arguing that or you won’t even last your first day.
“For the first few years it was let’s take the conservative take on things. And then after a few years it evolved into, well it’s not just the conservative take on things, we’re going to take the Republican take on things which is not necessarily in lock step with the conservative point of view.
“And then two, three, five years into that it was, we’re taking the Bush line on things, which was different than the GOP. We were a Stalin-esque mouthpiece. It was just what Bush says goes on our channel. And by that point it was just totally dangerous. Hopefully most people understand how dangerous it is for a media outfit to be a straight, unfiltered mouthpiece for an unchecked president.”
It’s worth noting that Fox News employees, either current or former, rarely speak to the press, even anonymously. And it’s even rarer for Fox News sources to bad mouth Murdoch’s channel. That’s partly because of strict non-disclosure agreements that most exiting employees sign and which forbid them from discussing their former employer. But it also stems from a pervasive us-vs.-them attitude that permeates Fox News. It’s a siege mentality that network boss Roger Ailes encourages, and one that colors the coverage his team produces.
“It was a kick ass mentality too,” says the former Fox News insider. “It was relentless and it never went away. If one controversy faded, goddamn it they would find another one. They were in search of these points of friction real or imagined. And most of them were imagined or fabricated. You always have to seem to be under siege. You always have to seem like your values are under attack. The brain trust just knew instinctively which stories to do, like the War on Christmas.”
According to the insider, Ailes is obsessed with presenting a unified Fox News front to the outside world; an obsession that may explain Ailes’ refusal to publically criticize or even critique his own team regardless of how outlandish their on-air behavior. “There may be internal squabbles. But what [Ailes] continually preaches is never piss outside the tent,” says the source. “When he gets really crazy is when stuff leaks out the door. He goes mental on that. He can’t stand that. He says in a dynamic enterprise like a network newsroom there’s going to be in fighting and ego, but he says keep it in the house.”
It’s clear that Fox News has become a misleading, partisan outlet. But here’s what the source stresses: Fox News is designed to mislead its viewers and designed to engage in a purely political enterprise.
In 2010, all sorts of evidence tumbled out to confirm that fact, like the recently leaked emails from inside Fox News, in which a top editor instructed his newsroom staffers (not just the opinion show hosts) to slant the news when reporting on key stories such as climate change and health care reform.
Meanwhile, Media Matters revealed that during the 2009-2010 election cycle, dozens of Fox News personalities endorsed, raised money, or campaigned for Republican candidates or organizations in more than 600 instances. And in terms of free TV airtime that Fox News handed over to GOP hopefuls, Media Matters calculated the channel essentially donated $55 million worth of airtime to Republican presidential hopefuls last year who also collect Fox News paychecks.
And of course, that’s when Murdoch wasn’t writing $1 million checks in the hopes of electing more Republican politicians.
So, Fox News as a legitimate news outlet? The source laughs at the suggestion, and thinks much of the public, along with the Beltway press corps, has been duped by Murdoch’s marketing campaign over the years. “People assume you need a license to call yourself a news channel. You don’t. So because they call themselves Fox News, people probably give them a pass on a lot of things,” says the source.
The source continues: “I don’t think people understand that it’s an organization that’s built and functions by intimidation and bullying, and its goal is to prop up and support Republicans and the GOP and to knock down Democrats. People tend think that stuff that’s on TV is real, especially under the guise of news. You’d think that people would wise up, but they don’t.”
As for the press, the former Fox News employee gives reporters and pundits low grades for refusing, over the years, to call out Fox News for being the propaganda outlet that it so clearly is. The source suggests there are a variety of reasons for the newsroom timidity.
“They don’t have enough staff or enough balls or don’t have enough money or don’t have enough interest to spend the time it takes to expose Fox News. Or it’s not worth the trouble. If you take on Fox, they’ll kick you in the ass,” says the source. “I’m sure most [journalists] know that. It’s not worth being Swift Boated for your effort,” a reference to how Fox News traditionally attacks journalists who write, or are perceived to have written, anything negative things about the channel.
The former insider admits to being perplexed in late 2009 when the Obama White House called out Murdoch’s operation as not being a legitimate new source, only to have major Beltway media players rush to the aid of Fox News and admonish the White House for daring to criticize the cable channel.
“That blew me away,” says the source, who stresses the White House’s critique of Fox News “happens to be true.”


















BTW, you don't find it bizarre the way MagCynic fabricated a story about talking to a "source"? Creepy...
The republicans have done a good job though. They just took everything we have huge documented evidence of, the criminality in the rightwing. And then you removed all references usually.
I keep expecting to find in one of their books: "And the demrepublican partyocratic party has always looked out for minorities."
Heheh.
To address the topic at hand, I also am skeptical whenever anonymous sources are involved. With this particular piece, however, if you were to remove all references to quotations from the source and present it as a regular article, I would still say the points made are valid. The comments presented in this article are in sync with what we have already seen in this arena.
nope
We should study things scientifically and then make decisions on that. Unfortunately, Fox starts out with their decision and invent facts to fit.
On the other hand Michael Moore must rigorously fact check. Why? Because even the smallest, most trifling error on his part, will first of all be trumpeted full blast, by not just FOX, but by all of the oh-so-liberal Main Stream Media, and secondly: the story will literally NEVER. EVER. DIE.
Which is not to say Moore doesn't promote a point of view, or that he doesn't "spin" (actually the two pretty much the same thing), but there's a world of difference between trying marshall evidence in such a way as to present a convincing argument, versus simply pulling "facts" out of one's own b*tt.
To take it even one step further, if you're a liberal figure the "mainstream liberal media" decides to hold a grudge against, they will actively seek to destroy you by the most outlandish of methods.
Remember when Al Gore said he "invented the internet". I don't because he never actually said that.
Remember when Howard Dean destroyed his political career by saying something so ridiculous it had to be repeated constantly by the media for days on end? Or did the "liberal media" do everything in it's collective power to elevate a tired, post primary yell that sounded odd likely due to a throat tired and scratchy from speech giving into something we needed to ridicule endlessly in a way that no other imperfect sound had ever been singled out and mercilessly ridiculed before or since?
Could you imagine how quickly the "liberal media" would mercilessly and thoroughly destroy someone like Sarah Palin if she weren't a tool of the corporate wealth apparatus?
Same with his encounter with Charlton Heston: He didn't have to spin: he simply showed Heston for what he was.
Same goes for the film -- given him by a Republican -- of Bush*t speaking to those he called his "base," "the haves, and the have-mores". That's actually Bush*t actually saying those things; it isn't spin.
Those instances are not "spin" -- they are FACTS which FOX's dupes HATE. And why do they hate those facts? Because they are not concerned with whether what they believe is true; only that it makes them lie against facts they hate, when the facts are embarrassing to the right-wing, such as those concerning Dick Clark, Heston, and Bush*t.
And, of course, they hate those who expose those facts, such as Michael Moore. In fact, FOX teaches them so thoroughly to hate such as Michael Moore that they REFUSE to watch Michael Moore in order to determine FOR THEMSELVES whether FOX is TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT MOORE. That makes them spineless moral cowards who can't handle the truth.
Sorry, I respectfully disagree. Moore biases facts to support his argument. He's not nearly as bad as Beck simply because Moore is not evil. Moore actually cares about people whereas Beck only cares about ideology.
That's the difference between Moore and beck, facts and lies.
I also think that the saddest part of MSNBC was the move away from antiwar stances by Rachel Maddow. It was good for about 3 months, but then she began a full time angle of defending the current administration which has continued many of the same policies that the previous administration created.
MSNBC--staring this in the face along with the troubles at CNN--decided to provide a service to the other 50% of the nation out there with another point of view. Doesn't surprise me one bit.
The problem for MSNBC is that they're going to find out that there's something very different about the mindset of lefties versus righties. Righties, very much, are easily stirred up by the mantra of Fox's message of hate and fear. Those who have are always afraid someone's out to get it from them and those who don't have are always hating those they feel are holding them back. Lefties, meanwhile, have their own issues so simply mirroring Fox isn't going to get them there. It's the same reason Progressive radio doesn't get the same traction as Conservative radio.
No, that is not the case. MSNBC has a left slant in the evening. The difference is quite stark though, they dont lie, distort or misinform. There was a recent study that showed that faux viewers are 39% more likely to be misinformed than MSNBC viewers. I challenge you to show me where MSNBC has lied or distorted.
I asked this question on a conservative website a few months ago. A guy went back a year and a half to something Contessa Brewer said, it was a good example, but all I have to do is go back a week to find lies on Fox (usually less than a week.)
And this push O'Reilly has been doing to justify Fox News as "legitimate" just calls attention to itself. They know they're a joke, they just hope the fools stay on board the ship.
seriously?
But we cant really blame them can we? I mean they have shown no ability to even be consistent in their own heartfelt beliefs. Any group that proclaims itself "pro-Life" and then completely abandons people after birth, starts wars and murders people wrongly convicted of crimes, and call these things good, is clearly the work of some malevolent force.
I dont get it, you know. They seem to be unable to admit any fault ever. They seem unable to understand that they destroy the economy. Reagan, destroyed the economy. Bush Sr, destroyed the economy...Bill clinton raised the economy, Bush Jr destroyed it, and Obama is bringing it back up.
They take credit for what we did with the deficit, Including the current rightwing congress claiming it was responsible after less than a week of elections. They claim any time it went up (alawys under a democrat) that it was The guy before's surplus. And when Bush Jr took over? Well clearly the debt is Clinton's fault, even though he left office with a surplus.
Of course around 2006-2007 it started to be Obama's fault the economy crashed in the first place, according to their messed up and horrifying worldview. The mental gymnastics required to never take responsibility for yourself and always blame the other is rather astounding.
I wonder if Bush ever apologized for letting 9/11 happen. I dont think he did. And if that had been Al Gore in office? Imagine how insane they woulda gone.
That they wont even come out in the open and SAY WHAT THEY WANT, is the most pathetic of all. Drive-by downranking? Cowards. Posts full of unsubstantiated lies? Cowards. Ignoring the article all together to argue a point that was already resolved with said article? Yep, cowards all around.
Thats why they hate gays being in the military. They spent the last 50 years calling us all sorts of names and saying we couldnt defend the country...they said this while dodging the draft and using poiltical connections to get out of service.
As the LGBT community is ACTIVELY oppressed, they keep going out to fight for our country. Most of these rightwing figure heads are such pathetic, evil jerks that they would never join the military, but are happy to send it out to invade soverign countries for made up reasons.
The rightwing on the other hand, imagines persecution (They can go to church, join the military, get married. I cant hug my boyfriend in public. Lying, hateful monsters...)where there is none, and tries to trivialize our own.
You see this whenever someone screams about "hurrr hate crimes laws are stupid. Its just a crime!" of course its not just a crime, as it was designed to intimidate an entire community.
The rightwing HATES hate-crime laws, because hate-crimes are their bread and butter. From cross burning to defaming homes, to obnoxious billboards about some fake person and a mass of zygote cells. I find these very confusing. (whose companies never put our atheist ones up. But thats just my liberally biased economic map im sure.)
Oh well. Republicans: have fun being a little monster, who will never find love or acceptance by someone whos not equally as bitter and hateful. Im sure you'll find a way to blame us for that too.
Oh and let us know when your god can stand up for himself. Its really kinda sad to watch you have to defend an omnivorous entity.
You guys always want to minimize how nutty your nuts really are.
If you do that, you don't have a story silly scotsman.
"NUH UH!"
Your position of simply being contrary has been noted. If you would like to add some commentary, opinion or facts to elaborate on your clear position of "NUH UH!" in regards to the content of the piece, please feel free to do so.
magcynic is also using the tried-and-true troll tactic of "Look - MSNBC does it too!!" when in reality it doesn't.
Fox IS misinformation, mags. Fox viewers still believe Saddam was behind 9/11 and the WMDs were found.
At least 10 or 12 raised their hands.
The reasons why were then compared to many FAUX reporters and the explanations were almost the same as what FAUX had brainwashed the people to believe.
I humbly and respectfully disagree.
Fox is DISinformation, which is much worse.
"Misinformation" just means inaccurate, possibly by honest mistake, or as a result of having been misinformed oneself.
"DISinformation" denotes deliberate deception; media manipulation with malice aforethought, and malign intent.
And though this is not news, it always confers credibility when more data points -- especially those from the inside -- can be attested.
Just because someone or some media outlet doesn't always stay in rigid lock step with every unhinged right wing fantasy that the think tanks and talk radio can concoct, does not by default make them liberal.
I suspect like most conservatives, you have allowed yourself to fall comfortably into the logic trap of dichotomous absolute thinking.
If for example, someone believes guns should be legal, but licensed and regulated, is that a liberal position? In today's hyper partisan climate, a typical conservative would say it's liberal, when the truth is, it's a pretty mainstream and common sense position that attempts to balance constitutional rights with the need to provide public safety.
Remember that just because you hold a certain belief, does not mean that everyone else holds the mirror opposite belief. I think if you stop and look at what the "typical liberal" believes in, it's wildly different from the caricature created by right wing media.
True, I agree with many "liberal" positions including common sense gun control.
you would know these facts if you bothered reading either publication
GPFandango you are spot on. Couldn't have put it better. And this is the distinction that counts.
To me this is the most important thing. A person might have a conservative or a liberal attitude and these two people therefore might look at facts from different perspectives, have partly different questions, partly different concerns, things might carry a different weight for them - but for me that's all okay and interesting as long as it is based on _facts_.
Facts. I love them.
Oh, and by the way, when Colbert said "Reality has a liberal bias" I think he wanted to point out that the GOP/Bush government actions were not based on facts and if you took actual facts into account they wouldn't support their positions/actions. Therefore they had to make stuff up to support said positions, reality being unfair and not giving them any ground to stand on.
So hopefully well intentioned people arm themselves with information and exchange ideas with other like-minded people.
Rarely does that happen in 'comment' threads.
True if one side is fiction and the other fact.
True if one side is propaganda and the other is journalism.
True if one side is self-serving and the other is responsible.
True if one side preys upon the fears of individuals and the other believes knowledge conquers fear.
In the Fox world, everything is Us versus Them. It's more complicated in the real world and there are rarely--if ever--the clearcut sides Fox tries to portray.
They told them it was all Obama's fault.
That's why I laugh out loud when I hear republicans say Obama is going to bankrupt the country.
They have no idea Bush already did that.
Too funny!
http://crooksandliars.com/jason-sigger/rumsfelds-wmd-evidence#comments
Faux lies and misinformation are all well documented.
On the other hand Obama is a muslim and MSNBC is full of misinformation are all lies.
So on the one hand you have one side that operates from truth and the other from lies and propaganda.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/why-they-hate-him-luntz-focus-group-repeat#comments
Far Right - Obama lied
Moderates - I disagree with the president's position
The one thing that I never see made, that can clearly be made with Fox as far as the Christian Coalition and the interests of private industry, is the direct correlation between the Liberal media and money. I understand that nothing gets done without the approval of private industry, but EVERYTHING said on Fox benefits those with money.
True
I didn't say nor belive they're equivalent, I was just giving examples of extreme comments from both parties.
I do feel sorry for you.
thats your argument?
You are an idoit.
Thumbs'd up for irony.
What got me the most is that Fox News doesn't even have a News license according to the insider). Hell I can believe that. Fox News has a slant or ulterior motive behind EVERY liberal, conservative "story" involving politics.
You can't associate that kind of reporting to a legitimate News agency.
Fox News' diabolical plan is to put white people back into full control of EVERYTHING.
That's why they commandeered the Republican Party.
Fox News is perpetrating a fraud.
never anything he supported or opposed. any factual information i would state (and be able to factually PROVE to be true) would just be 'lies'.
their talking points, never had any factual base.
it all came back to skin colour. i say this, because these are my friends, and i've known them all for years.
now is that what it is for the rest of the country? are we seeing folks rally behind the "get a rope" chant?
it sure seemed that way at most every palin VP rally/stop she had...
sometimes you have to call a spade a spade, even if by 'spade' you mean 'racist'.
But don't take my word for it...do your own research. ;>)
The people at the most recent Fox News editorial meeting.
Hell, if Obamam has to prove he's a citizen, a christian, a capitalist then Beck should have to prove he's sane.
Please...the truth has NO agenda!
The fact that they had to lie about the information provided didn't seem to bother anyone. Why did none of the other news channels make such an issue of it? Because there was no there there! Only in Fox's mind so that they could toss the red meat to their faithful.
To me, it's as clear as the nose on my face - the agenda.
Check those of the AP, adapted by Reuters, NYTimes, BBC...
http://www.ap.org/newsvalues/index.html
Or her.
Just sayin'...
...but seeing as how that clearly hasn't happened yet, your comment makes no sense.
In fact, the reality is that a party has been hijacked by the 'fascist right' and this website is dedicated to debunking them.
Please feel free to show one instance that Fox News has not put a spin on reporting the "News".
In the meantime...
Fox News never reported one speck of truth about the New Black Panthers
Read the report for yourself
Fox reported nothing but lies about Acorn
The world needs ditch diggers uall, don't be distressed about your lack of intelligence.
Because the 'liberal media' is a myth. Pretty simple, eh?
I mean this "source" could be trying to pwn MMFA. I wish this person could have come out and provided proof (emails, memos, etc).
For a long time, my question has been, who developed the message and told the other one to parrot it? Does Fox create the buzzwords and tell Gingrich, Morris, etc. what to say? Or does a RNC operative (Rove, Luntz?) tell Fox, this is what we want you to say?
For a long time, my question has been, who developed the message and told the other one to parrot it? Does Fox create the buzzwords and tell Gingrich, Morris, etc. what to say? Or does a RNC operative (Rove, Luntz?) tell Fox, this is what we want you to say?
Why would IRONY want to "defend" Magpies post??
Magpie is a Glenn Beck wanna be and a Faux News defender.
BTW Magpies "sarcasm" was quite lame, he needs to try harder.
What jakie here appears to be attempting to say is something like:
"instead of debunking or refuting MagCynic's post..."
or, perhaps, something along the lines of:
"instead of defending MSNBC from MagCynic's post..."
Either way, it's obvious that what jakie actually wrote:
"instead of defending MagCynic post"
is the direct opposite, in both content and meaning, of what he was trying to communicate.
And, apparently, this is not a unique event, since everyone here clearly just rolls with it.
And why not?
Jakie's obvious confusion is not just a metaphor (though it is), and not just one instance of (though it is), but is, in fact, the very essence of current "conservative" "thought" in this country:
Utterly confused
Totally ignorant
Blatantly counterfactual
Terminally inconsistent
and
Completely counterproductive.
Thank you so much, jakie, for helping to make mm's point so well.
How good of you to take one for the team (as it were).
Other than that, have been on the front end of some big stories and many were delayed to verify the facts! Wish this could be checked--some sounds credible ---some not so much! The adreninl rush is there with every breaking story!
MediaMatters lost more credibility with this story than Fox News ever will.
He's a marketing wizard, not a crazy person.
I wouldn't be surprised if his anecdote is real because MSNBC, like Fox, is an ideologically tinted network. And it probably doesn't have absolute checks on dishonesty.
But here's one objective fact that you can't just wish away by attacking MSNBC: Fox News makes its employees sign non-disclosure agreements. That's a very disturbing policy for a news organization. Does MSNBC have a policy like that? If not, then MagCynic's anecdote isn't really plausible.
Regardless, MagCynic's story doesn't fit with the publicly known facts about MSNBC as closely as the Media Matters story fits with the publicly known facts about Fox News. Just look at the nontroversy about Obama's trip to India a few months ago. An anonymous Mumbai provincial official was quoted in Indian media as claiming that the visitors would spend $200 million a day, without offering any evidence, or even saying exactly who would be spending the money or how. The next thing ya know -- Presto! FNC hosts in nearly every time slot are telling us that Obama is spending $200 million a day in India! Wasting the taxpayers' money! The Defense Department spoke up to call the $200 million number wildly inaccurate, several times the entire daily cost of the US presence in Iraq, as should've been obvious to any FNC employee with a grain of skepticism. But I don't think FNC gave DoD's statements much coverage.
Another example was FNC's claim back in 2008 that Obama had attended an Islamist school as a child in Indonesia. Apparently, someone at FNC read that in a conservative/libertarian policy journal and suddenly all the hosts were parroting it. Anderson Cooper went to Indonesia to check it out and discovered that it's just a plain ol' school where kids learn math and geography. An FNC spokeswoman responded by poopoo-ing Cooper -- something about his "15 minutes of fame."
Next time a Republican politician or prominent conservative activist does something potentially scandalous, count how many MSNBC hosts report it and then tell you how horrible it is. And count how many FNC hosts do that the next time a Democratic politician or liberal activist does something potentially scandalous. And then we'll talk.
In other words, they told the truth.
You consider the tea party as "radical extremists"? Any evidence of that?
Thank you for my second laugh of the day. The first one came from this article.
The old(er) are especially suspect to this influence..
There's that arrogance again. Glad to see that you guys will never learn as far as that goes.
Anyway, which is it? Set in their ways or easily manipulated? You do realize that they are complete opposites of each other, right?
More wishful thinking. I thought that the "liberal" progressives had so many soft spots for the "less educated"? Why the hate now?
That sounds hypocritical to me.
Please tell, what is my "false narrative"?
dough responding to this...
See the part in bold? Makes what was said somewhat different than what you claim. Why do you wingnuts think we can't see what is actually posted?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygkU_uQl7uY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeN0JRFGPD0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Q7XH8lfGMc
I can go on.
Again, teabaggers are too stupid to realize that they are the only dolts to defend their pathetic right-wing cable station.
"Left-wing websites" do exist (though this is not one of them, and if you think it is, that says more about you than it does about mm).
But "left-wing stations"?
Haven't been any of those for decades -- if there ever were.
And, no, showing that some of the reporters lean liberal in some of their social-political preferences (mostly w/r/t women's and GLBTQ rights; when it comes to tax, economic, business, labor, health, foreign, and security policies, they are almost all far-right) is zero -- absolute, Kelvin zero -- evidence that the companies, or their news coverage, are left-leaning...
...for the simple and obvious reason that the reporters don't determine broadcast policy, point-of-view, or slant. They don't even choose which stories to cover, and which to conceal, let alone how. That's the job of the editors, directors, managers, publishers, producers, and owners -- all of whom are now, and have been for many years, far-right corporatists.
That is exactly why Keith Olbermann, like Phil Donahue before him, had his MSNBC show cancelled, despite each of the shows being, at the time of its cancellation, the highest rated show on the network.
So, no: the "liberal media" myth is just that, another of the Big Lies of the right.
And anyone who believes it in the slightest, is a tool, and a fool.
Short and sweet.
Even a conservative shouldn't have trouble understanding the comment.
oh such a sweet little fool.
"left-wing."
so you have a steotype problem. anyone who dissagrees must be a far right loon. perhaps you are so far left that anything else is right-wing.
More deflection.
Right wing media has spent billions to create what has now become a successful airtight echo chamber. There is a cable and radio channel accessible 24/7 in every part of the country spewing non-stop hyper partisan right wing propaganda. In order to maintain an illusion of balance, they have moved so radically far to the right, that to one of the faithful, even hard right wing conservative positions from a few years ago would be labeled "socialist" and "radical leftist" by the new standards.
To someone caught in the right wing media matrix, it seems quite plausible for example, that a "conventional Washington insider" guy like Chris Matthews is a raging "liberal".
Couple that with the constant framing of every story as dichotomous absolutes. This type of rigid thinking explains much of the false equivalences being pushed by right wing media, as well as the inability to see any media outlet or personality as anything besides "one of us" or "one of them". It's a dumbing down of the argument and it has been wildly successful in both promoting fear, and creating simple strawmen.
Most people recognize that while objective reality is colored by individual perception, the very fact that we have language attests to the fact that humans are able to see things in the "same way" - at least enough to communicate. Playing the conservative "reality is whatever someone says it is" game of relativism isn't an option for most reflective people.
When I was in college, "relativism" was an epithet that conservatives used to chastise the left. "Leftist relativism" was a great danger. Fast forward ten years later to the emerging New World of FOX, and suddenly relativism is all the rage on the right. Suddenly, there is no such thing as objective reality, no such thing as a standard, no such thing as an authoritative view of ANYTHING, because to admit that would be to admit that you may be wrong on the one point or the other.
YOur problem, I think, in not appreciating this article is that if MagCynic makes up a story about an anonymous MSNBC employee (an admits that - he isn't trying to hide it) the ver fact that he made up this story is somehow "Proof" to you that the MMfA story is a fake.
That is a major logical leap (actually it is a logical fallacy) - and not one that anybody I know (like, at my work, where everyone at my level of the organization has at least a Master's) would ever make - at least not with a straight face.
Furthermore - most people I know tune into MSNBC at night and KNOW that what they are seeing is left slanted. They don't rush to right wing websites and blogs defending the view that what they watch is somehow "fair" or "balanced". But, somehow, for some odd reason, most FOX watchers (at least the ones who post here) seem to be ASTONISHED, perplexed, irritated, unnerved by the slightest suggestion that what they see on FOX is anything but the full, complete, unvarnished Truth.
I don't know what your story is, but it may just be that you need to get out of the house more often.
Yes I do. It used to be where someone could legitimately use an anonymous source and you wouldn't have a reason to question the source's validity.
Nowadays, though, whenever I see an anonymous source my first instinct is to step back and question the validity of the anonymous statement.
Why are they anonymous? Did they sign a non-disclosure agreement when they were hired? If so, why should I trust what they say after they just broke the promise they signed? If this was an actual former Fox insider, how do I know he wasn't fired and is simply a bitter ex-employee trying to tarnish his former employer's reputation?
I don't know any of this so excuse me for being doubtful. I don't trust sources from Fox News, MSNBC, or Media Matters.
People on the right would have you believe that either FOX has no bias or that it's perceieved bias is not by design. Yea...right.
I don't believe MMFA created an imaginary source. There is absolutely no history of the site doing that sort of thing over the years. There is no history of lying and deception. I'll agree that they've occasionally misperceived statements, but they've never concocted entire fictions.
So, let me ask my question this way. Do you believe that MMFA created an imaginary source on which to base this article?
He's the one who, if someone yelled fire in a crowded theater, and everyone else smelled smoke and saw flames and ran out, would argue with the yeller about whether or not there was a fire.
If an anonymous source gives any media outlet "inside information" about a left-wing "news" outlet, then they are not trust worthy and are lieing...You should know this by now.
I don't trust any anonymous source until their story has been verified. I hope MMFA verified the "information".
I don't see anyone asserting that it's absolutely true. A number of us have said that it has the ring of truth, which it does. However, that's not what's being discussed in this string. MagCynic is asserting that the insider is imaginary and that MMFA is putting forth an entirely deceitful article. He's making that assertion with absolutely nothing to support him. I suspect the reason is that he's basing it entirely on his emotions and what he wants to believe.
Got an example of that? Or is it a reaction you're manufacturing entirely from your imagination because it fits what you want to believe?
Instead of reading all the previous threads I will agree with you that no one is absolutely saying it is true. But the implications are in general that it is true.
So go ahead and play with words to make it sound like no one on this blog are koolaid drinkers.
Drink up ScienceBuff and keep a closed mind :)
FOXLEAKS: How Bill Sammon Slanted Fox's Cairo Speech Coverage ... "Journalist" Bill Sammon Fundraised For Conservatives ... Previously: Fox Caught Scripting Socialism Attack On Obama ... Fox's Obama "Socialism" Smear Comes Straight From The Top ... Sammon Also Ordered Fox's News Staff To Cast Doubt On Climate Science
Do you have an example of a "anonymous" source coming out and giving insider information about a left-wing "news" outlet?
If this is the case then you can't trust Fox News at all. Fox does not verify their stories because they are not news stories but rather political commentary. If you believe that Fox is a news organisation then it is a waste of time to discuss this further with you.
And Gretchen picked up the whole story and ran with it... And the school had put an announcement out that they had NOT banned the colors...
He was stupid enough to use his own name! Sent her his shirtless pic (including his face!?) and claimed to be a divorced lobbyist who is "Fit, fun, and classy"
She Googled him, found out who he was and sent ut to Gawker...
Fox did NOT report it last night. So bad that Juan Williams confronted Hannity about it. Juan, who is center-right, is painted as a Fox Liberal said that if it was a Democrat, they would have been running Fox News Alerts on it all night!
..
On topic: I have no reason to doubt MMfA's source. In the 2 med leaves I've had I amused myself with compare/contrast daily, between Fox and MSNBC/CNN Fox slants EVERYTHING in pro-GOP/anti-Dem or pro-RW/anti-LW.
What's there to doubt? We have the Moody memos, the Sammon emails, the Luntz papers, and reams of video - documented by MMfA, NewsHounds, Greenwald, and other sites around the 'net.
..
"Some say" Fox uses a similar technique all the time.
So while "anonymous" sources always raise my eyebrows too, when the story they tell dovetails with the facts that are empirically proven, then the anonymous source become highly credible.
As far as why the source needs to be anonymous. Maybe he wants to continue to work in media.
Or spied on, stalked, and/or harassed by people in the employ of, associated with, or just supportive of, FoxNews and the "conservative movement."
Or swiftboated.
Or assaulted or murdered by a lunatic whose targets all just happen to be perceived as liberal / Democratic.
Good call man. We can't trust anybody! THE WHOLE WORLD IS A SCAM AHHHHHH!!
YES they sign non-disclosures. Stringent ones, I read.
Hence keeping anonymous.
Heard of Deep Throat?
Sometimes, one must act to inform for the greater good.
Then it should be very easy for you to point us to other comments you've posted on this site, or on other sites (dated prior to today, of course), demonstrating the same skepticism about an anonymously-sourced report on FoxNews that was damaging to some Democratic or liberal enterprise.
There should be many from which you can select.
So I'll make it super-easy for you:
Show us one.
We'll be waiting -- but since there must be so many, it shouldn't take longer than a few minutes, right?
I was listening to some liberal talk earlier this week and I heard some of the hosts praising the Tea Party member of congress who stuck to their libertarian guns and voted to repeal some of the Patriot act measures.
I also heard some praise for prominent republican figures like one of the Bush Daughters, Megan McCain, and even Sarah Palin throwing a little bit of support behind the idea of civil rights for gays.
You will never hear Fox News or right wing talk praise a liberal or democrat for doing anything, even if they go against their party to support a more conservative position.
But, you still absolutely believe everything Beck spoonfeeds you through his chalkboard even though you never seem able to explain any of it.
I don't know any of this so excuse me for being doubtful. I don't trust sources from Fox News, - Mag
That is an absolute lie and we all know it. Do we really need to post any of the hundreds of times you have defended Beck and his nonsense that even you can never actually explain?
Believe me?
FOXLEAKS: How Bill Sammon Slanted Fox's Cairo Speech Coverage ... "Journalist" Bill Sammon Fundraised For Conservatives ... Previously: Fox Caught Scripting Socialism Attack On Obama ... Fox's Obama "Socialism" Smear Comes Straight From The Top ... Sammon Also Ordered Fox's News Staff To Cast Doubt On Climate Science
(someone has to post it every now and then)
Let's compare:
Fox has promoted incorrect information and unsubstantiated opinions, name calling, and conspiracy. Sometimes, it reports facts and substantiated opinions by Shepherd Smith, but I don't think I can name anyone else. Fox often reports incorrect information that is easily verified. All of the misinformation on global warming and "climategate" is an example.
MMFA has opinions that are based on facts (sometimes listed), reports right wing indiscretions based on actual videos (unedited), and rarely shows a lead in line for a video that is not supported by the video. Some of the lead-ins are questionable because the writers of the videos sometimes make mistakes.
There are legitimate reasons for having anonymous sources, just like the feds have a witness protection program--the source if revealed could suffer. Because the information revealed is not out-of-line with what we know is Fox's MO, I am inclined to believe what MMFA says because it its integrity. There is, of course, a possibility of untruth because of the anonymity of the speaker, but is is outweighed by integrity.
If Fox brings out an anonymous source (and I don't recall ever seeing one), Fox's reputation for integrity is so low and its reputation for misinformation is so high, I would be very skeptical of the information presented.
Most people see the "foibles" that you mention, always placed in context of videos or written discussion substantiated with statements that most reasonable people would consider unimpeachable facts. You cynically (in my opinion) talk about "fairness" on MSNBC. Fairness is not the issue so your discussion is irrelevant--reasonable discussion substantiated by facts is the issue--what Chris Mathews does frequently. You say that Chris Mathews and others are "explaining the greatness of our exalted ruler." I would have to ask to which exalted ruler you refer. Since you are apparently not a regular MMFA poster, you could be referring to Palin, Bush, or even Glenn Beck. So I find what you say vague and ambiguous.
You talk about blaming many things on Bush. The discussion that I wrote about centered on Fox and the legitimacy of a witness who wants to be protected, not on blame.
I disagree with you when you say that Ed Schultz is "very balanced." I think he leans a bit to the left--not to the degree that Fox people lean to the right, but that's my opinion.
What does Olbermann got to do with anything?
I don't know that MSNBC is trying to "denigrate" Fox. MSNBC has broadcast some of the things that Fox people have said and so has MMFA. The objective is to discredit Fox for its biased, untruthful reporting. You don't have to go far on MMFA or on MSNBC to show that those opinions are backed up by facts, so I won't even attempt to back up this assertion with a list of references.
As a result of the things that I have explained here, I find evidence here to assert that what you say is mostly irrelevant, disrespectful, emotionally charged, incorrect, and not based on fact--much like Fox.
uallsuck, you should be aware that every time a talking head on Fox Propaganda says 'some say' or 'some people say', that is an anonymous source. In other words, they use them every single day.
Explain to me what they mean by "
As FOX News gets stronger, the far left gets weaker".
Note that they do not claim that extremists get weaker. They only claim to have a detrimental effect on one extreme.
Why would a legitimate news outlet have any effect at all on ONE part of the political spectrum?
Because they are a right-wing news agency in the same way that MSNBC is a left-wing news agency. It's not rocket science.
In fact, Joe Scarborough is a Republican politician that hosts his own show every weekday. That's two former politicians hosting shows on that network.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No.
Try again.
Really? Are you really challenging me on this?
Politician - a person experienced in the art or science of government, a person engaged in party politics as a profession
Does this not mean Chris Matthews is a politician? Does being a top aide to the Speaker of the House not mean you are engaged in party politics as a profession?
How does it feel to be proven so 100% wrong? You just got served. Do kids still say that these days? Served?
"One who holds or seeks a political office."
But it's immaterial. If you'd like we can shift our wording for you so you are very clear on what we mean - "How many former Democratic political office holders host shows on MSNBC?"
Do you understand the question better now?
Once again sir you have proved you are nothing but a paid blog troll.
good to know. i am always looking to expand my career.
Being a staffer for an office holder is nowhere near the same as being a former elected representative. We know it, you know it, and even if we were going to accept that enormous stretch, I think the point is that the "liberal" MSNBC employs a three hour morning show hosted by a conservative former republican congressman, where at Fox news they already purged their ONE liberal (Alan Colmes) from a show mostly dominated by a conservative anyway(Sean Hannity).
You must have missed the first question:
"How many potential Democratic 2012 presidential candidates does MSNBC currently have on the payroll as "analysts"? "
Another classy comment from the Left. You folks sure show compassion for your fellow man. Tony Snow left FOX News to be President Bush's Press Secretary and died of cancer before the Tea Party even existed.
BTW, anyone who sincerely believes MMFA has more integrity then FOX News is several bricks short of a full load. Think about it. MMFA is a little bitsy web site with limited resources and funds vs. FOX with unlimited resources and budget. Which organization is more apt to be correct more often? Which organization has more to lose by being wrong?
2BTW, MMFA's integrity was better before they decided to spend so much time on FOX News. Now it's almost all FOX all the time. It's considered a joke outside of these Message Boards. Nobody of significance actually takes MMFA seriously.
Interesting variation on the popularity meme... "Look how many viewers they have" is now - MM4A is "little bitsy website" vs "unlimited resources" at FOX. So clearly one will be more accurate than the other?
The stoopid is getting thick around here.
You find no converts here.
Of course. Why else?
Somebody needs to educate you lost souls before it'e too late. It's a thankless job but somebody has to do this.
You're welcome,
Humbly Yours, OMG
Ah yes, and the New Kids on the Block, Britney Spears, and Pussycat Dolls have sold more albums and have a bigger media promotion machine then most jazz ensembles and classical orchestras, so CLEARLY that PROVES they are better musicians.
Give me a break! More people watch "Survivor" then watch "Nova", so I guess that must mean it has more stimulating and educational content?
That argument is incredibly weak.
god you guys are a waste of time.
As usual, you are on the wrong side of yet another issue.
HOSTED! I answered - correctly - that MSNBC has one former Democratic politician that hosts a show. Palin, News, and Santorum are commentators, not hosts.
Stop confusing show hosts with guests that make a 5 minute appearance.
Did you really just try to support your case that MSNBC is LEFT-leaning by citing the fact that they have a REPUBLICAN on staff and on air daily?
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Did you lose track of where the conversation started? - what we are talking about?
Originally someone asked me to name the number of Democratic politicians who hosted shows on MSNBC. I named one: Chris Matthews.
Everybody else then started changed the meaning of politician to someone who is elected to hold an office.
When it all comes down to it, though, what does it matter?
MSNBC has Chris Matthews and Joe Scarborough as TV hosts. Fox News has one host in Mike Huckabee.
See, this is a problem we have in the modern political climate. There's always a way to paint anybody as a liar if the only qualification is that someone forgot about some minor occurrence.
I'm not a liar. It's rude of you to call me one for simply forgetting about one time that Palin hosted one show and some guy I've never even heard of.
Sarah Palin Fox News Show Gets Mixed Reviews
The Sarah Palin-hosted "Real American Stories" debuted on Fox News last night, and the reviews are less than glowing.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001655-503544.html
Highlight it!
Don't dish it, if you can't take it.
I never called you a liar. I think you only made a mistake, but none of us here ever get the same level of respect and consideration from you.
Sorry, let me wipe the laughtears and then I'll explain.
Okay, you were asked:
How many former Democratic politicians hosts shows on MSNBC?
And you responded by pointing out an equal number of Dems and GOPers on MSNBC's staff to make your point. And you STILL don;t understand that not only did you answer the question incorrectly, you actually helped support those who are saying MSNBC is NOT as biased as FoxNews is. Afterall, FoxNews does NOT give any left-leaning former politician 3 hours of prime morning air.
But thanks for the belly laugh.
From:
to:
How many former Democratic elected officials work for MSNBC?
Now, let us trade one for one.
I give you Newt Gingrich as a former elected Republican workng for FOX. Now you give me a former elected Democrat working for MSNBC.
Big difference.
Big difference.
Chris Matthews was not an office holder, he worked on the staff of an office holder. He was pretty much a gofer. A staffer doesn't do any political work, in majority of cases they read bills, run messages/errands, get food/drinks, etc. etc.. They do not actively participate in any political practices.
But, a number of staffers for politicians do have aspirations to become a political office holder. And so they use the time they work as a chance to observe a politician in action up close.
As for Joe... he's a former Republican politician. I think that should show you that MSNBC is more open to hiring those who have a different view point then Fox News. Because I don't recall Fox News ever hiring a former Democratic politician to host a show...
Yes, Chris Matthews worked in Congressional offices for Democrats. But he was not a politician; he was a staffer.
Perhaps you're thinking about his brother, Jim Matthews, who ran for Lt. Governor of Pennsylvania.... as a Republican.
Uh, no. You couldn't google that and find it out before you posted it? Embarrassing. Yes, Scarborough was a Republican, a conservative one. You just blew your own hypothesis out of the water, MagCynic. Do you even see that?
You seem to agree that FOX disseminates partisan propaganda, and yet you attack a former employee who points it out.
Your brainwashing seems to have taken a very good hold.
NEWS IS EITHER UNBIASED OR IT IS PROPAGANDA.
Wrong. I can be an anarchist or totalitarian and still deliver straight news as long as I deliver the facts. It's not necessarily either or, as you put it.
Yes. But please limit it to the news. This site documents cases all the time where it's so-called "news" department is getting is not just getting the facts wrong, but making them up (Steve Doocy, Gretchen Carlson, and Megyn Kelly--these are supposed to be non-biased "news" people and not editorial shows). Don't spout off about Olbermann, Maddow or Matthews (thought with Maddow and Matthews I suspect you'll have trouble there, as well) as these are clearly editorial shows.
Media Matters doesn't seem to think so. They routinely list statements of opinion as outright lies.
And I think it does matter whether it's during the straight news segment. Your argument is that you can be biased and still deliver straight news. I said that there are countless examples of Fox's straight "news" segments lying and getting facts wrong.
When MMFA documents statements of opinion as outright lies, they usually are. And, more importantly, they are usually part of a larger misinformation campaign that spills into Fox's "news" segments.
But, hey, go the easy route. Give me any documented case where MSNBC has gotten it's facts wrong and failed to correct it. Fox does this all the time (as noted here by the number of articles relating to Fox "News."
They haven't. That's the very point of extending the Bush tax cuts - to keep them the same.
I think it's a complete fabrication from a far right source. It's totally at odds with this article and this acrticle and this article.
Your aticle--Newsbusters. My articles, USA Today, AP and US News and World Report.
AP - liberal
US News - liberal
Can't you come up with ONE non-lefty source?
- magcynic's intern.
Lies - Conservative
QED.
For example:
If we paid $1,000 in taxes out of a $10,000 economy then we paid 10% in taxes.
If we paid $1,000 in taxes out of a $11,000 economy then we paid 9% in taxes.
Our "taxes" appear to have gone down but they actually didn't. That's the point Newsbusters was making.
You can pretty much stop reading right here because that's where the flaw is revealed. When making comparisons that are so far apart in time, you have to adjust for inflation--which they didn't do. That's why it's important to compare it to GDP--it gives a constant reference to what the dollar is worth.
The reason tax revenue is measured as a percentage of GDP is because of inflation. Without anchoring the value of the dollar to the time, comparing the numbers shows you nothing. That's basically what they did in your article--saying the actual dollar amount paid in tax revenues was much higher than in the 1950s without adjusting for inflation. It's like saying that I'm super rich because the house I just bought is ten or twenty times more expensive than the average house cost in the 1950s.
The income tax rates weren't ever going to be lowered under Obama. You talk about credits and various other programs all you want, but that's not lowering the actual amount of income taxes collected throughout the year via the income tax tables.
Like I said, tax credits are simply a cheap for politicians to take credit for letting us keep more of our money.
⢠Stimulus law. One-third of last year's $862 billion economic stimulus went for tax cuts. Biggest reduction: The Making Work Pay tax credit reduced income taxes $800 for married couples earning up to $150,000.
⢠Progressive tax rates. Presidents Clinton and Bush pushed through a series of tax changes â credits, lower rates, higher exemptions â that slashed income taxes for poor and middle-class families. A drop in income now can trigger big tax breaks and sharply lower rates, sometimes falling to zero.
⢠Sales tax. Consumers cut spending sharply in this downturn, thereby paying less in sales taxes.
A Gallup Poll last month found that 48% thought taxes were "too high" and 45% thought they were "about right." Those saying taxes are "too high" remain near a 50-year low.
The lower tax burden should last at least through 2010, says Roberton Williams of the Tax Policy Center, a think tank in Washington, D.C. "Virtually all the stimulus tax cuts expire at the end of the year," he says. "So the key decision is whether to extend them into 2011."
This is from one of the sources provided by Crash G.
2. Obama had nothing to do with extending Bush tax cuts other than signing it into law.
3. Obama has nothing to do with this.
From personal experiences, I'm going to end up owing the government an extra $2000 by April 18th. I'm not exactly happy about the government asking for more money considering how much I know is being absolutely wasted.
That news makes me happy.
You're trying to say that we are actually paying less in taxes, but "we don't feel like it". I don't "feel" like I'm still paying the same price for a house now, as I did in 1970. But allowing for inflation, it's pretty close.
Fact is a Fact. Period.
But Fox doesn't deliver straight news. Even their "news" department slants the facts. Leaked e-mails and memos have proven that (like anyone really needed proof). It's been ordered from the top for years. So, yes it is theoretically possible to be biased but deliver straight news, but it is clear that Fox does not (and does not want to) do that.
What.
Just to clarify the issue, I'm going to make a few points:
If I'm French and I deliver the news, that doesn't make the news French. The word "unbiased" means "free from all prejudice and favoritism" (source: www.m-w.com). It does not mean "delivered by an unbiased party." Maybe the guy feels one way, but if he does his job and presents the news without his prejudice showing through, it's still unbiased.
If you give news and you are purposely misrepresenting facts -- whether MSNBC or Fox News or your local channel -- you are delivering propaganda. There is no other way to look at it.
Anyway, I figured Fox News was doing this stuff years ago. They're just not the only ones doing it. I'm waiting for similar stories to come out about MSNBC, CNN, BBC News...
Have you ever watched MSNBC's regular non-personality driven news time? It's pretty much straight news and business.
The real difference, one that conservatives with their inability to see beyond absolute mirror opposites will not allow themselves to see, is how Fox News provides a conservative slant to their entire 24/7 programming schedule, with directives from the top that demand all programs directly insert a narrative based on the goals of the network administration, and are in direct conflict with the concept of unbiased reporting of facts.
Well there are other differences too - as you rightly pointed out above, MSNBC has a host from the right. Does FoxNews have a host who is from the left?
And MSNBC tends to be a little better on telling the truth - and issuing corrections when they do report something wrong.
MSNBC is not actively hiring potential presidential candidates.
MSNBC is not giving air time to left-leaningpoliticians and allowing them to campaign and fund-raise for free on their air.
That's not what Fox says. They claim that there is the editorial commentary part of Fox and the "news" part of Fox. But MMFA is constantly documenting cases where Fox's "news" personalities are wrong, obviously editorializing or just plain lying.
You can't make those statements about FOX, because the opposite is true of FOX in each case.
If what you think would even be tre, Media Matters has just created a smear piece and could easily be sued by Fox...b/c Fox would do it. Media Matters isn't dumb. The light is shinning on these zombie toads...
Good day.
If this is the case, Media Matter's anonymous source is clearly a liar. Why should we believe a word he/she says?
If this is the case, Media Matter's anonymous source is clearly a liar. Why should we believe a word he/she says?
Woodward and Bernstein probably should have ignored their anonymous source too.
Keep up your brainwashing, mag. Hey, I think FOX is on the air right now, aren't your masters angry with you for doing something besides staring at your television?
That's irrelevant. Did this source sign a non-disclosure agreement or not? If he did then he's a liar and cannot be trusted. He he did not then what's the point in being anonymous?
It's not like he's hiding from the mafia.
You are also part of that propaganda, and it's a sorry bit part.
How about the credibility of FOX newspeople (using the term lightly) who claim "some people say" (without attribution) all the time?
Ask yourself why a legitimate news agency would need its employees to sign a non-disclosure agreement about anything but their sources.
Be sure you go outside before you ask yourself that, I would hate for your mom to have to clean the mess out of her carpet.
As to the matter of wishing to remain anonymous, there is the practical matter of avoiding being "deep-pocketed" through an abuse of legal process as well as the risk of other retribution - this is this classic whistleblower situation.
Where's the much vaunted protection of freedom of speech when you need it?
That, along with other Constitutional protections, is only for Republicans.
I don't know about you, but if I worked for a group that told me to lie, or twist the facts to the point where it was no longer a fact but a lie, then after awhile, I wouldn't care about the non-disclosure agreement.
Besides, how many whistle blowers have gone against a non-disclosure agreement to reveal the lies and illegal activities of companies?
That would be the majority of them.
You do have evidence that this guy signed an NDA right?
Faux News really does have an agenda. That is obvious. Saying that other news networks also have a slant to put forward. Taking everything at face value from just one source does not a truth make. Listen/read all and believe half of it.
Yeah, yeah, I realize you're trying to be clever and snarky. FAIL!!!
And just where did this happen? If you're talking about ACORN, there was never a single instance on all of those videos of an ACORN worker discussing sex rings or child prostitution. That is a fact.
If you're talking about Planned Parenthood, they provided the answers that they were legally and ethically required to and reported the events promptly to authorities in all but ONE instance.
So, what are you talking about?
As a side could you turn on spell check. I find it very useful so that I can learn the correct spelling of words.
What? I thought there was no actual source. Now it's a setup? Flailing already.
that anonymous source should show his/her face so beck, limbaugh and doocy can report about him/her. maybe they could show where he/she lives, works, and shops on a map. they could use those survey markers, that surveyors use, to pinpoint those places.
Tea Party types don't need to be "painted" as sadistic morons.... they ARE sadistic morons.
Quality should always trump quantity.
The only question I have for you and Boehner is, where are the jobs?
If you ever have cause to find the meaning of the word "puerile" I suggest that you check back on your posts here.
Fond regards, grmce
Oh, and he said that Obama was from Kenya too... True stuff!
Really, I'm tired of this "the OTHER guy does it" mentality (especially because it's usually straight-up B.S.). It's like Ted Bundy justifying his crimes by saying, "hey, John Wayne Gacy is no angel either..."
I dont see Rachel Maddow organizing a quasi religious, semi political rally as the Lincoln memorial and having the gall to say it commemorates MLK.
I didn't see Keith screaming for you to buy gold, food and prepare for "the final battle".
/sarcasm
As for the Tea Party, there is such a thing as objective stupidity. When you have Tea Partiers proud of their Koch-funded independence, Tea Party congresscritters whining for their government healthcare, Tea Party favs like O' Donnell and Palin who think that there's a Department of Law and don't know the branches of government, Tea Party rank-and-file who want the government to stay out of their Medicare, Tea Partiers accusing holocaust survivor George Soros of being a Nazi, as well as being convinced that he's everywhere, under every bed, there's just no way to make the T.P. look good unless you are a T. P. propaganda outfit like Fox.
THE AL-QAEDA RECRUITMENT CENTER !
Especially the Olbermann turkey one. That was great.
You know when he went on the Martha Stewart show and told Martha how he had seen the Palin turkey video, however when he did his show later that day he claim he hadn't seen it yet.
Look it up on youtube or olbermann watch. Seriously. Why lie about that?
Ed stating he wants to rip the heart of the former vp and urinate on hannity. That's some violent rhetoric.
Maddow has been show to alter her facts and doctor her film. Not too mention she likes to create stories about Kentucky candidates before elections with the sole purpose of discrediting their campaign.
http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html
See the part about "it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates."
You know when he went on the Martha Stewart show and told Martha how he had seen the Palin turkey video, however when he did his show later that day he claim he hadn't seen it yet."
Is that the best you've got?
"Ed stating he wants to rip the heart of the former vp and urinate on hannity. That's some violent rhetoric."
First of all, the former vp does not have a heart, and I heard hannity drinks urine every day. "precious bodily fluids" you know.
"Maddow has been show to alter her facts and doctor her film."
I would like to see your evidence of this.
"Not too mention she likes to create stories about Kentucky candidates before elections with the sole purpose of discrediting their campaign."
She used HIS OWN WORDS. She did not make up that story.
Rhetoric is not LIES ...
Olbermann lied about a turkey? Or, better yet, when he saw a turkey? OooooooK.
Ed lied about what again?
Maddow made up the FACT that Paul believes the civil rights legislation is unconstitutional? He still believes that.
MMfA is not an organization of anonymous people. They have chosen to make their names and, in many cases, their images public knowledge. They are staking their personal and professional reputations on everything that they post on this website. You can't even some close to honestly claiming the same.
Good job though. You are following the spin guidelines perfectly.
As we all know the first step is to attack the messanger as having an axe to grind. That their credibility is in question. That they are guilty of the exact thing they are accusing the defenseless Fox News of.
The second step is to wait for the barking orders from the top if and when the source is revealed.
Whoever this person is it is likely that they are quite possibly the worst person on the planet earth. His life will be torn apart. His job qualifications questioned. His job performance skewered. He might as well move to Afghanistan when his former empoloyer is done telling the "truth" about him.
You are a liar! Have you ever heard of anonymous sources?
There is documented evidence of this sources story. There are emails from Bill Sammon on how to slant the news. If this were the first we heard of this, maybe some doubt. The problem is in watching faux news it is obvious that there is validity to these claims. It would be like if a news network were being caught on a regular basis misquoting sources and then we hear a former employee confirming this fact then you would have to say, hmmm, now that makes sense. The only people doubting this story are faux employees and morons like you.
You may as well say, "I know you are but what am I", just LIKE a 5 year old.........pathetic.......truly pathetic.
http://www.thecrossculturalist.com/2011/02/more-iowan-republicans-believe-obama-is.html
I mean, WHAT CAN DO YOU DO WITH PEOPLE THIS MISINFORMED?!
Or the ghost of Richard Nixon?
On your bike.
Of course there is bias, on the left, right, whatever.
As an editor for most of the past 25 years, I have personal convictions that are identified as "conservative," but I never directed my reporters to report a certain way.
That is unethical.
In terms of commentators on TV, like Olbermann, Maddow, etc., if that is who you are referring to, they are opinionated, their shows are clearly opinion shows.
They are not journalists, meaning reporters. The comment on the news; they do not report the news.
Same with Fox commentators.
There is bias on the part of most media, in my opinion. Too few editors can withstand owners or managers who try to manipulate coverage.
However, Fox stands out as a total propaganda machine for the Republicans. If that is not true, then why did its owner make contributions to Republicans?
Why does it so heavily promote Republican and Tea Party candidates?
If you were at all a cynic, you would see the crap you are consuming.
And I am a conservative editor, and if you don't accept what I say, I really don't care. Your attitude sucks, so kiss my butt.
Idiot.
Child.
Crybaby.
What? Dont like when we call you that? Poor baby. You are so laughable, and so disgustingly stupid. But thats fine. Everyone here knows you're a bot. Because no human could be as vile and ugly inside as you are.
May god have mercy, you'll need it. Bearing false witness is a biggie.
Man up for a change, you seem to delight in doing it for us. Hey, hows about you acknoweldge the issue? Oh of course thats right, youre a LIAR who just makes stuff up. You pretend like we HAVENT seen this hundreds of times. Like when they distorted pictures using photoshop. You and your sickening ilk cant even own up to what you yourselves believe in.
I have never, NEVER met such a group of such horrible people. Why cant you just come out and say what you're for? You never do that. Oh right, thats because your leaders havent told you to do anything. Until someone says something yo udont like (regardless of accuracy) you just run around like headless chickens, squaking and bumping and pecking at anything in your path.
That you cant even be a man and admit what you want makes you even more pathetic. We admit it all the time, that we dont like fox news. We show you endless evidence over years and years and YEARS.
And yet you still think "NU UH!" is an appropriate response? Man, you could post at least ONE link. Or everyone might start thinking you're a lying, cheating, hypocritical amoral monster. Considering who you venerate, i'd tone it down if I were you. That theres even lower to sink than where you folks are is most terrifying...
Well, second most. Id say the most terrifying is when the rightwing issues countless death and terror threats if we dont repeal somethng that doesnt exist.
Hey, do you think this time you get a majority you'll end up doing any of those things you want? Six years of republican control and yet abortions are still legal.
Its almost like they were manipulating you, purposely taking on imaginary enemies so they can prop up the abortion nonsense every election to make you come in and vote away your prosperity. Over and over and over again! Without EVER seeing those major issues materialise. You have been completely humiliated by your party.
Idiot.
Huuuuuurt.
Eventually, a groundswell of Fox staffers will spill the beans, but you know what? Just like when pro wrestling finally came clean, none of their loyal viewers will give a flying leap.
Didn't anyone get this?
MagCynic's post was purely tongue-in-check!!!!
cuz um... the number of "crazy people with guns" who religiously watch right-wing TV... and slaughter innocent folks out of fear of the lies spread by said TV, is growing by the month.
Does O'Reilly, as example, propound on economics? Yes, he does.
Is O'Reilly an economist? No, he is not.
So why do you accept his view as valid when actual economists disagree with each other?
Do you know the difference between, on one hand, entertainment, and on the other, news? Entertainment aims primarily to stir the emotions -- does FOX routinely make you ANGRY? By contrast, NEWS reports FACTS WITHOUT the emotionally-loaded terms.
Do you know that not everything is opinion? First, opinion has a chance of being true. A falsehood is not an opinion, because a falsehood is FALSE. Nor is a fact an opinion -- or do you believe that the "opinion" that the world is flat is a legitimate opinion? If so, what do you do about the FACT that the earth is not only NOT FLAT but is IN FACT ROUND?
Thus a LIE is neither a legitimate opinion -- which has a chance of being true -- nor a fact. And certainly cannot be true, because it is a LIE.
Do you believe in truth? If so, then why do you not distinguish between false and true, false and opinion, lie and opinion, lie and fact, lie and truth? Why do you not accept the fact that an expert entertainer -- such as O'Reilly and Beck -- or NOT experts at anything else, such as economics? Such as political science? Such as science?
FOX is lying to you -- and this insider isn't the first to say so. Nor do the memos LEAKED from FOX lie on the point: FOX is a deliberate far-right extreme political propaganda operation intended to teach its viewers to HATE those FOX tells them to hate -- as example, "Liberals" or "libs". Here's a fact of history on that point:
Before Hitler went after the Jews, he targeted and exterminated Communists/Bolsheviks, Socialists -- Winston Churchill was a Socialist -- and --
LIBERALS.
Moreover, the US has long had staunch allies with political systems comprised of monarchy -- which, according to FOX, is "Tyranny" -- democratically elected Parliaments, and SOCIALIST economies. Those allies have such weird names as: Britain, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden.
i watched fox for a couple years, then i became aware. i was often asking myself "is that true?" while watching them.
so it is easy for me to believe the STUFF JUST MADE UP article.
just use the search engine of your choice and crawl the internet. i was suprised with what i found, you also may be amazed at what the truth really is
Not that I feel that Fox News is any less/more biased than most other major news sources. MSNBC is just as biased in the opposite direction. As noted by "the source", they were aiming to be a counterbalance to the liberal media sources (meaning: just as bad, but for conservatives) and if what "the source" says is true, then they've achieved this goal.
Having said that, this article shows many elements that are public record, from Murdoch's generous campaign contributions, the on-air "talent's" fund raising efforts, the hiring of active candidates as FOX contributors, to the leaked email fiasco. As well as those not mentioned here, such as incorporating daily Whitehouse talking points as their own opinion pieces.
One would expect even the tiniest bit of turn-about in a fair and balanced environment. At least on MSNBC the Conservatives get to finish their sentences.
And the smut his entertainment division puts out is repulsive. I am not surprised Sarah "Call Me Christian" Palin accepts the gravy train of checks from Fox News and ignores Fox Entertainment's smut.
Don't get me wrong; I'm not for censorship. I'm for not watching it.
These "Christian" Republicans from Fox are not Christians. They are nationalists. They favor assassinating Julian Assange; that's really Christ-like, isn't it?
They favor blowing up innocents in Pakistan to get a few terrorists, while making many more because of the innocents killed. Real Christ-like, like turning the other cheek, eh?
They talk about family values and then cheat on their husbands and wives.
Isn't there some scum nut woman governor in the south who cheated on her hubby a few times?
And the latest Republiturd who trolled Craigslist, to the toe-tapping "I'm not really gay" Republiturd who couldn't admit he is gay because so many Republiturd's are idiotic homophobics.
Yeah, a real moral, Christian enterprise, eh? That is what it feeds to people like MagCynic. They gin up the Christian Believers in their audience, and that audience sucks down every last drop of that snake oil, all the while calling themselves conservative, when not even knowing the roots of conservatism and that true conservatism is liberalism, meaning allowing all opinions to be aired, and to treat others with whom one disagrees with respect.
End of rant. I'm sick of Fox and these hypocrites. And shame on the other media for being quiet or near quiet, and thank goodness for Media Matters, which really needs to start tracking the KSFO anti-Muslim quack who is on in the mornings: Brian "I hate gays, Muslims, Democrats, liberals, people who believe in climate change" Sussman. I'll help. He's as bad as Beck. The racist rants this morning that he allowed are to be condemned.
Nikki Haley, a Palin endorsed candidate.
Anyway, thanks, Eric. Good job!
Everytime these gutless grubs fail to call out Fox they are contributing to the decline of the U.S. news media in particular and of public discourse in general. The should look to the famous Niemoller quote regarding standing up to Hitler.
If they don't make a stand on behalf of responsible reporting, who will there be left to report the demise of a free and open news media and public discourse. For those nervous Nellies who get in a tizz about "slippery slopes" I point to the gangrenous arm of the Media that is FNC and ask "How do you save the body?" Apart applying blowfly maggots if the condition is not too advanced (an appealing proposition) all that is left is amputation.
Remember Scott McClellan?
'Out Foxed' documentary
...and many if not most Fox viewers will believe all of that, keep on viewing, and think that it's fine! That it's propaganda and not news does't matter to them, as long as Fox "News" is there to whisper in their ears what wonderful patriots they are, and deliver the "news" that confirms their worldview.
Ailes and Murdoch are evil, but let's not let the stupid viewers off the hook.
This is probably one of the few times I'll agree with you.
They investigated. Big difference from what you see here.
Also, what about the damage that occurs when an anonymous source is taken seriously, as in the anonymous claim that US soldiers at Guantanamo Bay flushed a Quran down the toilet to unnerve Muslim prisoners?
WHERE ARE THE JOBS, grow up kids, and scoop the walks of the elderly, or open the door to higher education in these states of USA.
That's just the way it is.. c span live, seek and you shall find the FACTS
Sorry, I don't buy much into anonymous sources. They often tend to agree too much with what the writer has been saying.
If anonymous sources couldnt trust that those who they will keep them confidential, then you wouldnt have any news. What do you think would have happened wihtout anonymous sources during the Watergate story?
I don't remember the name of the study or who conducted it, but this is just for anecdotal purposes, so I'm not about to spend an hour searching for something just to make a five-minute comment.
Anyway, they asked various people whether or not they would support an administration lying to the public if the lies were intended to keep national secrets or protect the public from harmful information.
The twist the researchers found were that nearly all people who believed that lying is acceptable by an administration were convinced that Reagan, Oliver North, John Poindexter, and others were being truthful.
I think this goes a long way in helping to understand the mindsets of people like MagCynic who honor authority and ideology above morality and integrity. Of course, these are the very people who are convinced that they are moral and have integrity, and will endlessly defend their positions, no matter how paradoxical or illogical.
To say that FOX is anything less than the media arm of the neo-conservative party is ignorant and laughable...if the person saying actually believes it to be true that is.
anyone who cannot see the difference between Fox and the other cable channels is pretty much beyond hope.
Roger? Is that you?
GOOD.
Hmm, Maybe they outsource posters from India?
What got me the most is that Fox News doesn't even have a News license according to the insider). Hell I can believe that. Fox News has a slant or ulterior motive behind EVERY liberal, conservative "story" involving politics.
You can't associate that kind of reporting to a legitimate News agency.
Fox News want white people to be in control of everything. That's why they commandeered the Republican Party.
Fox News is perpetrating a fraud.
<blockquote>The former insider admits to being perplexed in late 2009 when the Obama White House called out Murdochâs operation as not being a legitimate new source, only to have major Beltway media players rush to the aid of Fox News and admonish the White House for daring to criticize the cable channel.
"That blew me away," says the source, who stresses the White Houseâs critique of Fox News "happens to be true." </blockquote>
While I agree that it's pertinent to look at all articles with hefty skepticism (critical thinking), I've found that it's very easy to tell when and where bias takes liberty. It's often quite subtle - such as the above section that says "when he wasn't writing million dollar checks." Note how the word checks is plural, as if Murdoch has just been dishing them out, when he only ever wrote the one.
Anonymous sources also should encourage scrutiny amongst readers, and nobody should ever take what they read at face value. So the question we should be asking ourselves is this: does what the anonymous source have to say coincide with what we, ourselves, through our own experiences, have come to suspect about Fox News?
For me, that answer is yes. Everything said here more or less "fits" what I've felt about FN since about 2006 when I first became aware of the channel. Nobody here can say for fact whether this article was itself "concocted," but I would be surprised if it were, and very unsurprised were it not.
I unfortunately watch Fox almost nonstop so that I directly know what I am talking about when addressing their fans that see less of it than I do.
Aside from the mental punishment of watching that trainwreck, I hate the fact that I give them even 1 more viewer to add to their ratings.
If any non-partisan group was able to go into Fox and tear it apart investigating its internals I'd bet a years salary that every single thing this source is saying is provable as truth beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Is it Fox News or George Bush's fault?
I still can't figure out the answer.
Anyone who gets their "news" from a cable opinion network, doesn't matter which one it is, is getting very little "news," just opinion.
BTW, you shouldn't conflate political parties with political ideology. They are two different things.
My question was simple however because democrats always have to find a conservative to blame.
I don't see a reason to blame any politician no matter the party. They, like us, are all prisoners of the system, and it is crashing faster than anyone will be able to save it.
You are also making an faulty assumption that people who find Fox's dishonest programming offensive are "democrats." There are many, many, many conservatives . . . real ones . . . who find Fox disgusting.
If your name is supposed to be sarcastic, then you need to bash Fox News in almost every post you make. Otherwise it'll just get in the way.
Here's the difference between, for example, blaming Bush and blaming Clinton. (You won't see this difference on TV. This is privileged information.) Bush actually did the stuff he's being blamed for. Clinton didn't.
But: agreed. George is guilty of what he has been informally charged, and more. Watch out for Rumsfeld's book.
Clinton did (almost) nothing he was accused of. I will say, having had a cousin working in Ken Starr's office that summer of willy-nilly investigation - Starr is guilty of far, far more than Clinton ever was or will be.
Agreed, political party and ideology are two very, very different things. Look at the schizm in the Democratic Party. And the burgeoning gun-fight between "Tea Party" Republicans and the traditional conservative set.
Do you like being my clone?
Attack the messenger, lie about them, distort what they say, ignore the issue and most of all, never admit mistakes made - and when you do apologize in a condescending way.
That is Fox News in a nutshell.
It takes a semi-educated listener - Democrat, Independent, or even (gasp) Republican - to listen to Fox News broadcasts over time to deduce that yes, Fox News' "news" reporting is highly slanted, any punditry is offensively slanted and biased, and frankly, the cable channel's credo "Fair and Balanced" is about as valid and Google's "Do No Harm" - get it?
No "blame" need be assessed....it is obvious from viewing that the facts are as stated by Anonymous. This is not new to me.
And really - Sarah Palin? Glenn Beck? The network has no regard for the intellect of your viewership.
What would really be helpful is if this inside source would be willing to go on record. Even better -- this info needs to gain traction with a couple of the major Beltway players who still give a damn about news, and who still possess a modicum of professional credibility.
I am not saying that Media Matters is lying when they claim this guy came from FNC. I am also not saying that the insider is a liar. In fact, given what I myself have observed happening at Fox News for many years, I think it is quite likely that most of what he said is accurate.
But that's not the point.
The problem I have here is with the process. Since the "insider" is never named, there is no way for us to know that he really was at Fox News, nor what he did. Anyone reading the story and trying to decide if it is legitimate must simply trust Media Matters entirely. There is likewise no way for the people at Fox News to present their side of the story, or confront their accuser. And so, I consider this irresponsible journalism at best, and plain propaganda at worst.
Or, to put it another way, suppose the tables were turned, and Fox News or some right-wing group or talk radio host came out with an "exclusive interview" with an "insider from Media Matters". And that interview just-so-happened to confirm every negative claim ever made about Media Matters. The insider was never named, and there was no proof that he ever existed, so the entire thing could have been made up. But of course the people doing the interview claim that the insider was legit.
How would the folks who run Media Matters feel about that? My guess is: less than thrilled. Would the people ready to accept the "insider" claims in this interview accept them in the alternative scenario? Probably not.
What if the tables are turned? You throw out the no-proof claim by the proven liar. How should we react to this story? We accept the no-proof claim by the proven truth-teller. Which part of this is difficult or contradictory?
Not just you, but nearly the whole mainstream media, fails to include truth or falsehood in any part of their thought process. It's maddening.
And long exposes from unnamed sources coming from your opponents are poor journalism. They are too easily discredited, and it's hypocritical to use techniques that you'd scream blue murder over if they were applied to you.
I complain about this not because I think MM is a bad organization, but because I hold them to a higher standard.
The technique that MMFA is using is that of an accurate, trustworthy organization writing about an anonymous source. They would not scream murder if some other accurate, trustworthy organization did that to them, even if that organization were MMFA's opponents.
In a better world than this one, it wouldn't even be possible for someone neutral to Fox News to write such an expose. Nobody can rationally be neutral to Fox News. Fox News is objectively wrong.
No they're not.
2 + 2 = 4, and always does.
As a retired social studies teacher, I know that when my students would take tests, the answers they provided would be scored as correct or incorrect.
Anyone who says that these terms are only value judgments doesn't understand the difference or is being woefully dishonest.
2+2=4 Correct
2+2=5 Incorrect
MMFA has done extensive research about FOX News, over several years. That an "anonymous" source confirms what they have already researched is within the spirit of journalism. By your definition, you could never trust a whistle-blower because they may have an agenda (what whistle-blower doesn't?) or they might fear retribution.
I would be inclined to accept what the source says as part of an investigation. What did Reagan say? Trust but verify...
Political opinion is not the same as mathematics. Don't confuse opinions with facts, they are not the same.
"MMFA has done extensive research about FOX News, over several years. That an "anonymous" source confirms what they have already researched is within the spirit of journalism."
What you don't understand is that to anyone with a shred of credibility, these sorts of reports come across as self-serving. I've already explained why, if you don't want to agree that's your choice.
"What did Reagan say? Trust but verify..."
That's one of the most oxymorons to ever come out of a president's mouth, and I cringe every time I hear it. If you trust someone, you don't have to verify. If you have to verify, you don't trust them.
We can't verify *anything* here because the source is anonymous. And that's the entire point.
I generally agree with you on the anonymous source point. Even though Media Matters does not purport to be a journalism organization, they should probably try to practice what they preach. However, considering the subject of the article and the cultish environment at Fox, it's pretty difficult to get an insider's view of their organization without using an anonymous source. The fact that they back up this fellow's claims with their own journalism is at least a step up from anything FNC ever does.
You must not be familiar with journalistic tactics. Sources are protected under certain conditions. Check our the AP's terms for source attribution: http://www.ap.org/newsvalues/index.html
Are you surprised at what you read? I was not. Not in the least.
Confidential sources are used in every media outlet - including viable ones - a group in which apparently you do not include Media Matters.
Then why are you here, reading?
Believe what you want to believe. If you need the name, address, and SS# of every source of every bit of information - good luck. World don't work that way...
I'm perfectly familiar with them. But you failed to comprehend what I said: it's one thing for a news organization that strives for impartiality to provide an anonymous insider's report, and quite another for it to be done by a watchdog group. In the latter case it is self-serving, and too easily criticized by the targeted group.
"Are you surprised at what you read? I was not. Not in the least."
I already said that too. I don't think you even read what I posted.
Should I give up? Is this what happens when a commenter is banned? I have to say I've done nothing to warrant being banned, judging by what I see in comment threads here every day.
Or the last time it cast doubt on the Neo-con theories that Reagan could walk on water, turn straw into gold and raise the dead?
It all comes down to true or false.
"Trust but verify".
Don't hate the player, hate the game.
Anyway, i forgot the stations name but they were afraid of getting sued by the large milk company so they had to fire the reporters and the story never got on their station.
IT doesn't always have to be about politics. Almost all news stations are corrupt. This article on fox is already known to us. Its great that people are stepping out and talking about it.
Please.
Of course, in this case, Bill O'Reilly isn't making stuff up. http://mediamatters.org/blog/201008270018
http://www.relfe.com/media_can_legally_lie.html
PROOF which establishes both the source credibility of the 'FUX News insider' and the veracity of statements exposing the FUX News environment:
Ailes keels over in apoplectic seizure when this Media Matters News circulates. ... or other actual 'insiders' truly recognize (in reading this story) themselves in peril, and rise up defensively a FUX News crew MUTINY with sharp objects in hand and vengence in furious mind.
-
Thee more gold than Glenn the Gold Grubber, super-duper, AAA-number-one money quote regarding this Roger Ailes-orchestrated operation:
"...its primary goal is to prop up Republicans and knock down Democrats, and that staffers at Fox News routinely operate without the slightest regard for fairness or fact checking."
High-ten, double fist pump, funky endzone dance, conductor's bow!
1) Reputation of those reporting on it. Regardless of your views on MMFA's commentary and take on their materials, there's zero basis for believing they would stake their entire reputation on a made up story with a made up anonymous source.
2) Evidence of the allegations from other sources. See: News room emails, basically anything MMFA's put up on Fox News. And I'm referencing the actual video clips, ignoring MMFA's commentary on them. There is an endless archive here of things no reputable newsroom as we've known them up to now would let on air.
Just by posting this article, what little ounce of respect I might have had for MMFA is completely gone. Whoever wrote this article should be canned and taught what journalism actually is.
Organiztions have quotas to fill. They will go to any lenght to get them.
I worked in the news media for years and know what I am saying.
But hey, Fox has plenty of zombies defending them (Mag, Traveller, etc), so I guess some people just don't care about truth or honesty in reporting.
Nothing more needs be said to demonstrate their total and utter hypocrisy.
Come on - the idiots at Fox are worth going after, but this article is ridiculous.
1. Factual information is #1 priority.
2. The posters in the comment section require/demand you post factual information or else you will be pointed out for the fool you are.
3. Republican, Democrat, and Independent posters in the comment section are rational and civil.
Over the decades Murdoch journalism has lurched from the magnificent to the appalling. The Fox News Channel enterprise has plunged new depths and failed to reach any meaningful height.
The news media have a long tradition of fairly crude macho types. Former Sydney DAILY TELEGRAPH and current NEW YORK POST editor Col Allen is a prime example. These cynical troglodytes have often lurched into crass populist and nativist territory.
Ailes, however, has gone beyond that into a full bore (pun intended), unashamed propaganda arm - a cross somewhere between the operations of Joseph Goebbels and Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf (aka Comical Ali).
Somehow, in his transition from Australian ratbag newspaper proprietor to U.S. "Citizen Murdoch" media magnate, he has taken on some of the more repellent characteristics of W.R.("You furnish the pictures, I'll furnish the war")Hearst in his attempt to create his own self serving "reality" through the propagation of falsity.
Could you cite your source?
As for uneducated, anyone who thinks Fox Propaganda is a viable news channel is uneducated by definition. As for 'rural' and 'hillbillies', I have found no evidence.
This statement proves the legitimacy of the source.
I've been saying over and over since about 2003 that Fox is the closest thing to communist propaganda that our culture has ever seen. Fox is the Pravda of a dying RW fantasy empire.
It must also always be remembered that for all of it's current "anti-government" rhetoric, Fox was nearly an official and coequal branch of government for all 8 of the W Bush years.
My answer to that is for we, the people to start a class action lawsuit against FOX News on the grounds that inaccuracies in FOX News reporting (including repeating falsehoods easily determined to be wrong) over the years have done extreme harm to the country by contributing to decisions made by the electorate and politicians based on incorrect information. I would seek total damages per each independently proven inaccuracy, error, or misleading statement made by any personality on Fox News, in the past, present, and future. As part of any agreement, I would agree to let the FCC determine in the future what statements are inaccurate and how much to fine the channel. How much should it be? I personally consider this much more important than Janet Jackson's split-second baring of a nipple during the Superbowl, and would fine FOX News accordingly. Eventually, this should apply to all U.S. based news media.
Who's with me?
Boehlert has offered ZERO proof his Fox News source isn't the workings of his or his editor's imagination. At least offer us more than the same line of crap any fiery liberal would spout off about Fox News when they're angry. Are your readers so stupid that they wouldn't think to ask "Is it true?"
@Boehlert: pics or it didn't happen.
Fox airs a clip from the "more time with my family" event. Caption under the clip will say "politician name D-wherever". To quote an old SSGT USAF(ret), my Jr High science teacher - "once is an error, twice is a coincidence, but three times is enemy action".
It will be correct "R-K street" when they repeat it on the prime time show later that day, but for the mid-afternoon live they always deflect.
News organizations are supposed to be run by adults, and this deliberate disregard for the truth, is something they should have got over in middle school.
THE TRUTH HAS NO AGENDA!
What is so bad about Fox News lying?
Anyway, the Government lies. What's so bad about that? Then you told me that they run the country. So, what's wrong with lying?
My name is a joke by the way, made for the initial enjoyment I received from the clones reacting to it. Referencing it is redundant.
You're backing out of this, aren't you?
I'm not referencing your name or Fox...just the government topic. Your name is no biggie.
I saw nothing here that hasn't been obvious for years.
and about the fact checking rachel maddow...did ya see the show where she used a satire website as credible! excellent research staff!
Ah, I see. Ratings equals truth. Got it. So the several polls that show FOX viewers are the most misinformed mean absolutely nothing. Gotcha!
Congratulations to another dumba$$ right winger.
"Several" polls? Let me guess, a "Pew" poll? Oh wait, it was that organization that gets its funding from Soros and other leftist loons that came out with that. Who couldn't predict THAT outcome. Hilarious.
Good work.
Anybody can create a graph, and a graph based on poll results is just as unreliable as the poll itself. The elements of statistics make the accuracy of polls nearly impossible, and unreliable as a major source of information unless all elements of the sample taken are disclosed.
Hope by your post that you aren't one of the ratings queens then, who try to prove that Fox is a good news source by its market share.
Anyway, here are some of the several polls/studies that point to the misinformed:
December, 2010
August, 2009
August, 2008
April, 2007
October, 2003
What does that mean? What is nearly impossible accuracy? What do you mean by "all elements of the sample"?
You didn't read their methodologies, I guess. Please, point out the flaws.
You hear that, Dough?
Facts don't matter to hyper partisan rightists. The fact that Hannity, Beck, and O'Reilly are pathological liars and are unscrupulous means nothing to people like you. They make you (to Reagan it up a bit) "feel good." So blind yourself to the polls, and the even more important visible reality. FOX Viewers are typically still more misinformed than any other news watcher. The media by and large is pretty bad, but FOX takes the cake,
That. Is. All. You. Need. To. Know.
But wait minute this article wasn't about ratings was it .It was about truth and responsibility of the free press to be objective and truthful in their reporting .You can lean what ever way want left right or middle but once you start making up stories and yout no longer new you perversion of the new ......
By playing 'run out the clock' with schoolyard arguments, unsourced and bald-faced assertions of "NUH UH" and "I'm rubber you're glue" the Mind-warped Zombies of Murdochian Rage⢠manage to both validate the effectiveness of the Stalinist propaganda arm of the GOP (if that's not redundant), and imply the the rumors of organized and compensated trolling to shut down discussion on all non-rightie fora may well be true, as well.
While I applaud MediaMatters for their committment to open debate, I have to wonder whether allowing this poisonous obfuscation serves any valuable purpose. If you'll notice, on the rightie sites NO questioning of the party line is allowed. Some committment to "liberty" that is.
Just like a Cuban election.
Keep dreaming. Just here to monitor, analyze, and correct, progressive misinformation.
Why do you consider those in here arguing your point as "trolls"? If everybody is entitled to their opinion, why look negatively upon those with discerning views?
Strictly a matter of opinion. You may think so in here, but out in the real world, it's a totally different story.
News organizations have never been fully capable to escaping those kinds of accusation when supporting any of the past Presidents.
I don't think there is any thing in this post that would greatly sadden a fox news supporter.
The rest of us bother to point that out. Sorry it bores you.
Nice work, honey. You are definitely a Fox watcher and support their position of just making stuff up.
Just look at Egypt today. The voice of the people was heard. Yea freedom.
No. Second question becomes irrelevant. (Although its presumption that all commenters are wasting work time on meaningless piffle is, at base, a hilarious question-begging non-sequitur -- look it up).
But, if it was a relevant question: because the anti-democratic (small 'd') anarchy of Faux Nooz is an important story.
"Incredible"? Only that conservagal would believe that anyone but a regular Fox News viewer would find her "argument" rational, logical, or, sad to say, meaningful.
Welcome to Nazi Germany in 1930s..
The Third Reich Media behaved the same way.
Roger Ailes, Rupert Murdoch & the Koch Brothers are pure
evil.
Very scary.
The fact that you said "we" shows the cult like following FOX News has. Who is "we?" Does Rupert Murdoch cut you a check, too? Seriously, it's sad how viewers like yourself seem to think the FOX folks give a damn about you. They think you're stupid, and you're not proving them wrong. We? Seriously, we? You're a poster child for why FOX viewers are laughed at, despite it's ratings.
TYT Army is too STRONG!
Read it yourselves: http://www.philly2philly.com/politics_community/politics_community_articles/2009/6/29/4854/fox_news_wins_lawsuit_misinform_public
During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akreâs claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so. After the appeal verdict WTVT general manager Bob Linger commented, âItâs vindication for WTVT, and weâre very pleased⦠Itâs the case weâve been making for two years. She never had a legal claim.â
Read it yourselves: http://www.relfe.com/media_can_legally_lie.html
Oh please. This person sounds like all the liberals on this forum. whatever.
We understand the truth hurts.
Guess the truth is something your not used to watching Fox.
In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that it could lie, distort and falsifying the news in the United States.
At least President Obama called them out for exactly what they are! Watching his interview with O'Reilly, one could detect the amusement in the President's demeanor. O'Reilly, again, made a fool of himself and our President seemed "amused." Perhaps, Obama is not afraid of Murdoch, Ailes, etc. They are laughing all the way to the bank. And, the U.S. is overly crowded with stupidity and ignorance!
NoName - - - -
Regression- istic.