About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

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.” 

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
      • Author by IRONY 101 (February 10, 2011 7:50 am ET)
        129 16
        You have quite an imagination...perhaps you and Glenn Beck could wrangle a package deal to get some psychiatric help. Or, maybe you'd prefer a faith healer to pray over you...
        Report Abuse
        • Author by jake5 (February 10, 2011 9:05 am ET)
          19 111
          So instead of defending MagCynic post with any logical response IRONY 101 goes back to the old standby schtick GLEN BECK IS PSYCHOTIC!!
          Report Abuse
          • Author by IRONY 101 (February 10, 2011 9:12 am ET)
            87 9
            Are you saying that Glenn Beck is not psychotic...or just that his possible psychosis is not relevant here?

            BTW, you don't find it bizarre the way MagCynic fabricated a story about talking to a "source"? Creepy...
            Report Abuse
            • Author by jake5 (February 10, 2011 9:24 am ET)
              8 57
              Yeah, CREEPY!?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by IRONY 101 (February 10, 2011 9:26 am ET)
                33 4
                Whatever...
                Report Abuse
                • Author by kamrom (February 11, 2011 12:15 pm ET)
                  5  
                  Hahaha. Isnt it great that THE FIRST TWO LINES of conservative dialogue, including the first comment (How lame do these guys have to be to sit there clicking refresh on media matters all day? Its really pretty sad.) And they have the gall to accuse us of this stuff.

                  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.
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by NoTrueScotsman (February 10, 2011 9:47 am ET)
                71 8
                Jake5, posts like this are the reason I have trouble taking you seriously. There's nothing clever, humorous, informative, or otherwise beneficial that can be gained from the post.

                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.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by progressivevoicedaily (February 10, 2011 9:57 am ET)
                  64 8
                  The person will come out eventually. More will follow as well. Mag and every other clueless moron watches and believes everything that comes out of FoxPAC. They obviously don't watch MSNBC, especially during the day. It's just another corporate news network 75% of the time. And I challenge any of the challenged folk on the right to fact check an entire Rachel Maddow Show. They'll find out that, yes MSNBC slants right at night, but facts have a LIBERAL BIAS.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by progressivevoicedaily (February 10, 2011 9:59 am ET)
                    41 3
                    *slants left at night, right all day.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by riverdog (February 10, 2011 4:26 pm ET)
                    1 44
                    but facts have a LIBERAL BIAS.

                    nope
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by progressivevoicedaily (February 10, 2011 5:18 pm ET)
                      18  
                      Wow, such a thoughtful response.
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by jiminva (February 10, 2011 5:46 pm ET)
                      16 3
                      Facts do not have a liberal or conservative bias. Facts are facts. It's just people like Michael Moore and Glenn Beck who bias the facts to push their agenda.

                      We should study things scientifically and then make decisions on that. Unfortunately, Fox starts out with their decision and invent facts to fit.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by xavier_ninnis (February 10, 2011 9:20 pm ET)
                        39  
                        Nope, false equivalence. Beck spouts untruths the livelong day, which is only reported with any regularity only by the Liberal "blogosphere" and occasionally, in only the most egregious instances by the Main Stream Media, and in those cases briefly, with at most a single follow-up piece.

                        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.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by CoolSlaw (February 11, 2011 5:36 am ET)
                          25  
                          Pretty much summed it up brilliantly, xavier._ninnis.

                          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?
                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by joellynm (February 11, 2011 6:14 pm ET)
                          9  
                          Thanks, Xavier, for pointing this out. Absolutely there is no equivalence between Beck and Moore....but that's what the wing-nuts keep trying to make us believe. No matter how often they lie, or how insane, over-the-top, outrageous they are, regardless of what media they spout from, they try to equate progressives in the same ilk in order to make it seem like they are justified in their rantings. There is just no comparison.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by jnagarya (February 11, 2011 9:07 pm ET)
                            6  
                            Does Michael Moore "spin"? Recall his "Bowling for Columbine"? Recall his effort to speak to Dick Clark about the ready availability of guns and ammunition at Wall-Mart? What did Dick Clark do in "response"? All you need do is watch the film clip and you see it for yourself. The fact is that he DIDN'T spin that encounter.

                            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.
                            Report Abuse
                        • Author by jiminva (February 12, 2011 4:29 pm ET)
                          2 1
                          Sorry it took so long to reply Xavier. Still getting used to MMFA.

                          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.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by cripto9t709 (February 13, 2011 7:13 am ET)
                            2  
                            A fact is still a fact whether it is biased or not. The same goes for a lie.

                            That's the difference between Moore and beck, facts and lies.
                            Report Abuse
                  • Author by jamesjaragon (February 10, 2011 7:46 pm ET)
                    1 12
                    I am a Faux News hater, but you have to admit that MSNBC has unfortunately taken the other side of the same methodology. Not to the same extent, but its still early.

                    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.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Agrajag (February 11, 2011 1:11 pm ET)
                         
                      Let's be clear about one thing here. I despise Fox News and all it stands for but the people behind it were absolutely brilliant in their understanding of a market that wasn't being served and they served it. It's making them all a fortune.

                      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.
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by sociocrat (February 11, 2011 1:39 pm ET)
                      10 2
                      "...but you have to admit that MSNBC has unfortunately taken the other side of the same methodology."
                      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.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by TerenceClearwaterRevival (February 11, 2011 8:21 pm ET)
                        5  
                        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.
                        Report Abuse
                    • Author by Ezoran (February 11, 2011 4:44 pm ET)
                      3  
                      Joe Scarborough and Uncle Pat are democrat/left-wingers?


                      seriously?
                      Report Abuse
                  • Author by kamrom (February 11, 2011 12:29 pm ET)
                    16 1
                    You are correct sir. its a great little world of self contained lies. They claim to do research, but of course, any reasearch NOT on a rightwing site is obviously wrong cause they say it is. They claim to hold beck accountable...But he's factually lied. Like, 1+1=Apple level lies.

                    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.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by stimpy (February 11, 2011 8:12 pm ET)
                      5  
                      Thank you so much. So well said!
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by yellowdog15 (February 12, 2011 12:51 am ET)
                      1  
                      Another egregious example came today when only FOX and the Israeli press found the successful uprising in Egypt a horrible, sinister action of the "combined forces of Islamist extremists, socialists, communists and (wait for it) community organizers". And how, pray tell, would FOX describe the Tea Party if not community organizers? Fortunately, that empire appears to be crumbling. Beck reportedly has lost a third of his base. O'Reilly claimed an potential audience of 100M but only got 40M or so when he so rudely interrupted the President 72 times. They have no shame, just tons of money. Corporate sponsors have left Beck in droves because of his racist, anti-semitic, deranged ramblings. "Some call me crazy" he said today. Indeed we do, Glenn--LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS of us.
                      Report Abuse
                • Author by wookie (February 10, 2011 10:11 am ET)
                  36 1
                  There were on the record sources saying much the same in Outfoxed in 2004 so none of this is hard to believe.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by conservagal (February 10, 2011 12:53 pm ET)
                    2 15
                    It's about as easy to believe as the paid Kossacks who write the so-called hate mail on Daily Kos.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Scribe57 (February 12, 2011 3:41 am ET)
                      6  
                      Sorry, but I've had too many conversations with too many people who sound exactly like the hate mail writers on Kos to accept your "paid Kossacks" theory.

                      You guys always want to minimize how nutty your nuts really are.
                      Report Abuse
                • Author by jake5 (February 10, 2011 11:21 am ET)
                  2 52
                  remove all references to quotations from the source




                  If you do that, you don't have a story silly scotsman.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by NoTrueScotsman (February 10, 2011 11:46 am ET)
                    54 1
                    You would be left with a story about how Fox News makes up sensationalized stories in order to increase ratings without delivering substance. You don't need an insider to figure that out.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by CoolSlaw (February 10, 2011 3:59 pm ET)
                    31  
                    So jake5, as I am reading your posts, I can summarize your position in regard to the story and the other posters commenting on it as:

                    "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.
                    Report Abuse
                • Author by foghornleghorn (February 10, 2011 12:22 pm ET)
                  45 3
                  I also am skeptical whenever anonymous sources are involved.

                  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.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by sociocrat (February 10, 2011 1:39 pm ET)
                    47 3
                    faux viewers stil believe Obama is a Muslim and was born in Kenya. faux viewers are ignorant buffoons.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by thinkplease (February 10, 2011 2:11 pm ET)
                      2 17
                      gross over-generalization. you undermine your message by lacing it with trite slander.
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by hopalong (February 12, 2011 7:09 pm ET)
                      4  
                      Rachel Maddow had a news clip of Frank Luntz asking a group of people if President Obama was a Muslum.

                      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.
                      Report Abuse
                  • Author by smart.alek (February 10, 2011 2:41 pm ET)
                    16  
                    foghornleghorn sez: "Fox IS misinformation, mags."

                    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.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by CenterRight (February 10, 2011 3:42 pm ET)
                    3 51
                    Its not Fox on one side and MSNBC on the other side. It's Fox on one side and MSNBC, NY Times, Wash Post, ABC News, NBC News, etc on the other side. Fox provides balance to all the misinformation.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by PatrickJ08 (February 10, 2011 3:50 pm ET)
                      33  
                      fox provides the misinformation, parrot.
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by CoolSlaw (February 10, 2011 4:02 pm ET)
                      48 3
                      CenterRight is correct, after you get the bland, conservative leaning corporate drivel from Wash Post, NY Times, ABC, NBC, etc....you can turn on FOX to get the unhinged, extreme, racist right wing view.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by jiminva (February 10, 2011 5:47 pm ET)
                        9 8
                        Exactly! Best post I've seen all day.
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by CenterRight (February 11, 2011 3:25 am ET)
                          12
                        The WaPo and NY Times are conservative leaning? Ha ha, next you'll say Media Matters is a centrentist organization.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by CoolSlaw (February 11, 2011 5:47 am ET)
                          15  
                          CenterRight,

                          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.

                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by NoTrueScotsman (February 11, 2011 9:07 am ET)
                            11  
                            Waaaait a minute...you mean that all you libs don't meet in cabalistic basements on a regular basis and determine how to steal my guns and religious texts while passing a hat around to fund the coercion of pregnant women to get abortions while simultaneously plotting against my individual rights through overtaxation designed to redistribute my wealth? Everything I know is a lie...
                            Report Abuse
                          • Author by CenterRight (February 11, 2011 7:49 pm ET)
                            1  
                            "In today's hyper partisan climate, a typical conservative would say it's liberal"

                            True, I agree with many "liberal" positions including common sense gun control.
                            Report Abuse
                        • Author by punkin (February 11, 2011 7:29 am ET)
                          3 5
                          NYT has been having a bit of an identiy crisis lately and is moving to the middle from it's previos left leaning position. WaPo is incredibly right wing.
                          you would know these facts if you bothered reading either publication
                          Report Abuse
                    • Author by GPFandango (February 10, 2011 5:43 pm ET)
                      36  
                      It's Fox on one side and facts on the other.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Kirsty (February 11, 2011 7:14 am ET)
                        10  
                        :-)
                        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.
                        Report Abuse
                    • Author by Discretionaryincome (February 10, 2011 6:09 pm ET)
                         
                      Now - that is funny!
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by Chameo (February 10, 2011 7:21 pm ET)
                      22  
                      That's like saying the National Enquirer provides balance to the Times, the Boston Globe, the Washington Post and the BBC.
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by jamesjaragon (February 10, 2011 7:50 pm ET)
                      2  
                      It's ALL either misinformation or partial information. The internet is the only equalizer, but of course most pursue the facts packaged in their idealogical wrappings anyways.

                      So hopefully well intentioned people arm themselves with information and exchange ideas with other like-minded people.

                      Rarely does that happen in 'comment' threads.
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by JackInEC (February 10, 2011 8:28 pm ET)
                      15  
                      Its not Fox on one side and MSNBC on the other side. It's Fox on one side and MSNBC, NY Times, Wash Post, ABC News, NBC News, etc on the other side. Fox provides balance to all the misinformation.


                      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.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by langs139059 (February 11, 2011 12:27 am ET)
                        12  
                        In Fox World they never told their viewers Bush destroyed the economy.

                        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.
                        Report Abuse
                    • Author by n'est-ce pas (February 10, 2011 8:44 pm ET)
                      14 1
                      Ah tommy/rightON/CenterRight, that's called a false equivalency. And you're called a sockpuppet.

                      Too funny!
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by mikehuck1976 (February 10, 2011 10:27 pm ET)
                      15  
                      You mean Fox on one side and all rational, reasonable human beings on the other? Is that your point? I agree.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by CenterRight (February 11, 2011 3:22 am ET)
                          15
                        It's same as saying people on the far-left [Bush is a liar, Fox is full of misinformation] and people on the far-right [Obama is a muslim, MSNBC is full of misinformation] balance each other out.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by congero6189599 (February 11, 2011 3:45 am ET)
                          14  
                          That is some twist of logic you got there. Bush lied is fact. No WMD,no ties to Al-Queda(at least before the invasion) and no connection to 9/11. These were the reasons given for thr invasion and they were lies.

                          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
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by CoolSlaw (February 11, 2011 5:50 am ET)
                            6  
                            It's difficult to explain these concepts to people who are conditioned to see everything as two mirror opposite absolutes. Especially when those people are convinced of their "side" of the mirrored absolute position on mostly blind faith.
                            Report Abuse
                          • Author by CenterRight (February 11, 2011 7:55 pm ET)
                              9
                            Far Left - Bush lied

                            Far Right - Obama lied

                            Moderates - I disagree with the president's position
                            Report Abuse
                        • Author by Haggadhaggs (February 11, 2011 10:44 am ET)
                          7  
                          MSNBC gives a voice to oppose Fox. If you put on CNN, you rarely hear anybody challenging Fox or conservative media but you do hear Fox challenging the "Liberal media." MSNBC was a reaction to Fox. If there were no Fox, there probably would be no night lineup on MSNBC.

                          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.
                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by mikehuck1976 (February 11, 2011 2:13 pm ET)
                          9  
                          Wow. How far to the right of the actual center do you have to be in order to believe that believing that Bush lied is the equivalent of Obama is a Muslim? Truly bizarre. The strangest part is that the media you consume is so far to the right you actually think you are a moderate. Almost as funny as when you blasted anyone for believing that Bush, Limbaugh, or Beck are racist just before explaining that Kanye West is absolutely a racist. You are adorable.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by CenterRight (February 11, 2011 11:48 pm ET)
                              4
                            "Bush lied is the equivalent of Obama is a Muslim?"

                            I didn't say nor belive they're equivalent, I was just giving examples of extreme comments from both parties.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by mikehuck1976 (February 12, 2011 11:02 am ET)
                              5  
                              You mean like blacks are incapable of forming their own opinions and that is why they vote Democratic? That was your opinion on another thread? Is that extreme enough for you? The cute part, it was just after dismissing someone else for being a racist.
                              Report Abuse
                        • Author by kabniel (February 11, 2011 3:15 pm ET)
                          4  
                          Bush is a LIAR. Bush told indisputable lies about many things including the cost of the prescription drug benifits, Iraq being close to having nukes, the aluminum tubes, so on and so forth. Bush is a liar is as true a statement as you will ever read. Obama is a Muslim is not only a lie it is a demented lie you have to be completely delueded to even begin to take seriously. See THAT is the difference. You PREFER the lies. You dont care what is true
                          Report Abuse
                    • Author by Kirsty (February 11, 2011 7:02 am ET)
                      2  
                      CenterRight
                      I do feel sorry for you.
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by beachglass49 (February 11, 2011 8:27 am ET)
                      3  
                      You have got to be f**king KIDDING me!
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by theegrobe (February 11, 2011 10:36 am ET)
                      9  
                      so Fox will out lie all the other media outlets combined, to provide what you consider balance.

                      thats your argument?
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by cyberstrike (February 11, 2011 10:48 am ET)
                      7  
                      Its not Fox on one side and MSNBC on the other side. It's Fox on one side and MSNBC, NY Times, Wash Post, ABC News, NBC News, etc on the other side. Fox provides balance to all the misinformation.



                      You are an idoit.
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by kabniel (February 11, 2011 3:08 pm ET)
                      2  
                      No it isnt and you are just telling LIES now. The NYTimes is one of the most respected newspapers in the entire world. Nothing you wingnuts can do about that. Fox makes things up. Fox tells lies. The NYTimes often gets things wrong then admits they did. Fox keeps telling the lies brainwashed wingnuts like you WANT to hear.
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by dommanno3075 (February 11, 2011 3:52 pm ET)
                      2  
                      It's Fox on one side and MSNBC, NY Times, Wash Post, ABC News, NBC News, etc on the other side.
                      No, it's Fox and the Washington Times, and the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, and Clear Channel, and Sinclair Broadcasting, and John McLaughlin, and G. Gordon Liddy, and Michael Medved, and George Will, and Ollie North, and Paul Weyrich, and John Stossel, and Ann Coulter, and Laura Ingraham, and Peggy Noonan, and Andrew Sullivan, and David Brooks, and Rush Limbaugh, and Alan Keyes, and Fred Barnes, and Michael Barone, and Richard Berke, and Mona Charen, and Linda Chavez, and Jonah Goldberg, and David Horowitz, and Charles Krauthammer, and Michael Savage, and Mike Gallagher, and Mark Steyn, and Bill Bennett, and Dennis Miller, and Dick Morris on one side.
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by progressive zeppelin 13 (February 12, 2011 11:43 am ET)
                      4  
                      If you believe one network is misleading, that's reasonable. If you believe all but one network is against you, you're insane.
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by bachmaij (February 12, 2011 5:39 pm ET)
                      1 1
                      Fox provides balance to all that TRUTH.
                      Report Abuse
              • Author by manofmystique (February 10, 2011 11:00 am ET)
                31 2
                This insider seems to hit all the points. The funny thing is, you would have to be blind not to notice it.
                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.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Willa (February 10, 2011 6:17 pm ET)
                  32 1
                  From my perspective, and I work with several faithful Fox News supporters, people tune into Fox to validate their own twisted, bigoted and hateful views. They have no interest in hearing another side. They just want confirmation.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by pizzmoe (February 10, 2011 7:45 pm ET)
                  3  
                  There is nothing surprising in this story, unfortunately.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by CPinNJ (February 10, 2011 9:19 pm ET)
                  7  
                  Reality check: there is no "news license." Otherwise, man-of, you're spot on. The amazing thing to me is the code language they perpetuate: "Obama is a Muslim" translates to "He's not one of us," i.e., he's black. In a recent egregious example, an on-air focus group of Iowan caucus-goers last week essentially said as much: "OK, he may be a Christian, but he's a 'different kind' of Christian" - and later, "He's a Black Christian," implying that's different from a "real" Christian. And these weren't the ravings of Beck, O'Reilly or any of the other wingnuts; these were the people who will annoint the Republican front-runner at the start of the next election. So, does False Noise scare the hell out of me? You bet - it's the "news" source for all these "good Christian" Americans. And that's what they derive from it.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Ezoran (February 11, 2011 4:56 pm ET)
                    3  
                    what's sad... everyone i know that opposed Obama - it always came back to his skin colour.

                    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'.
                    Report Abuse
            • Author by uallsuck (February 10, 2011 9:34 am ET)
              3 62
              first, I guess ironic humor doesn't fit well into all your young minds, but what he is saying is that you wouldn't believe anything he wrote regarding left leaning shows anymore than anyone with a brain believes this horsesh#t article who is right leaning. Anyone who takes faith in an anonymous sources diatribe regarding mm's all fox all the time hate fest is an idiot. And so therefore, irony, you have qualified. But calling Glenn Beck a psychotic has me convinced, fox sux, thanks for the help.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by IRONY 101 (February 10, 2011 10:10 am ET)
                57 1
                I believe what I see...anonymous sources are superfluous in this instance. Ray Charles could see that FOX's policy and practice consist of dishonest demonization of anything not ultra right wing...and Ray could also see what a nut bag Glenn Beck is.

                But don't take my word for it...do your own research. ;>)
                Report Abuse
                • Author by cugagcmu805031 (February 10, 2011 6:29 pm ET)
                  13  
                  A very unintelligent response to hearing that your emperor has no clothes! Fox is a sham, a propaganda network, an arm of the GOP, a destroyer of democracy, and is bad for America and Americans. One only has to look at how Fox and Murdoch are under-fire in the UK to realize this. Many conservatives remind me of the way Noah was warning people in the OT that a flood was coming and that they needed to repent and turn to God, but they didn't believe him and perished in the flood.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by cugagcmu805031 (February 10, 2011 6:30 pm ET)
                  8  
                  Sorry, I thought you were responding to MMFA.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by roundhouse (February 11, 2011 10:37 am ET)
                    5  
                    No prob. It was an unintelligent response to an unintelligent troll with an unintelligent screen name.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by juliajayne1 (February 11, 2011 11:24 am ET)
                      1  
                      I'm glad to see you haven't lost your edge, RH. SO refreshing as always!
                      Report Abuse
              • Author by iglou (February 10, 2011 3:12 pm ET)
                19 1
                No the truth hear is you'll believe in whatever talking points best suit your world view. This site is full of instances of conservative misinformation, in particular from Fox News. That evidence supports this insider. Nothing supports MC oh except The Blaze and Redstate, yeah that's a reliable source.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by SeattleJeff (February 10, 2011 5:48 pm ET)
                14  
                Anonymous sources...all the while FNC uses the phrase "some people say" in its slanted news coverage. Who are these people?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by foghornleghorn (February 10, 2011 6:19 pm ET)
                  12  
                  Who are these people?

                  The people at the most recent Fox News editorial meeting.
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by iglou (February 10, 2011 3:09 pm ET)
              28  
              At this point, I think it's more of a matter of people need to prove Glen Beck is NOT psychotic.

              Hell, if Obamam has to prove he's a citizen, a christian, a capitalist then Beck should have to prove he's sane.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by jiminva (February 10, 2011 5:55 pm ET)
                10  
                Totally agree with this statement. I used to think Beck was just a snake oil salesman and I'm reading "Tears of a Clown" by Millbank who thinks it's an act but I'm convinced Beck is insane. He acts insane.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by stacymack3747 (February 10, 2011 10:57 pm ET)
                  1  
                  HOW? Listen to the words....wise up. When ones own words can be used against them...thats all one needs.
                  Please...the truth has NO agenda!
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by Ezoran (February 11, 2011 4:58 pm ET)
                   
                he's already admitted that he's bipolar.

                Report Abuse
            • Author by mikehuck1976 (February 10, 2011 10:26 pm ET)
              4  
              What's creepy is that jake seems to actually believe Mags. Very sad.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by kathy5 (February 10, 2011 11:19 am ET)
            59 1
            Okay, I'll do it for you - HAVE YOU EVER WATCHED FOX? To me it seems they have a planned strategy every day as to just what is broadcase and what is said by each program. Why do I think this? Because it NEVER varies - it is as if they are reading from a script. Take for instance their fight against the New Black Panthers or ACORN - it was clear to me the objective was to paint both these organzations as evil and to dump it at the feet of the liberals.

            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.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Rsw58 (February 10, 2011 11:57 am ET)
              40  
              Good point Kathy. I am very leery of people quoting anonymous sources. However, as you said, Fox has a history of ALWAYS putting the best light on Republicans and their policies while demonizing Democrats and their agenda. I have never heard Fox praise a liberal Democrat. And no matter what Obama does he is always denounced for it. Obama could see some kid drowning in a pond and rush in and rescue him and Fox would denounce Obama for failing to heed a "No Trespassing" sign on the property. On the other hand George W Bush could do no wrong. So yeah, I do believe this anonymous source. The facts back him up.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by thinkplease (February 10, 2011 2:14 pm ET)
                2  
                Anonymous sources are used widely in print, digital, and broadcast news. Whether they all hold to the same principles of journalistic integrity is another manner.

                Check those of the AP, adapted by Reuters, NYTimes, BBC...

                http://www.ap.org/newsvalues/index.html
                Report Abuse
              • Author by smart.alek (February 10, 2011 2:45 pm ET)
                3  
                Rsw58 sez: "The facts back him up."

                Or her.

                Just sayin'...
                Report Abuse
              • Author by stacymack3747 (February 10, 2011 10:58 pm ET)
                  9
                as long as a party has been hijacked by the commie left...yea...I am glad folks are out there to debunk them. I bet you love schultz and matthews...lmao
                Report Abuse
                • Author by dbtexas (February 12, 2011 12:28 pm ET)
                  2  
                  The problem with your comment is I seriously doubt you could apply any coherent definition to the terms: "commie left". And, I do like Ed Schultz. He was once one of you, until he grew up. Matthews - eh, I tire of his interruptions.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by bachmaij (February 12, 2011 10:08 pm ET)
                     
                  If the "commie left" hijacked a political party, I'd hope we'd all go out there to debunk them...

                  ...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.
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by Lizinbklyn (February 10, 2011 11:59 am ET)
              11  
              You go girl . .
              Report Abuse
            • Author by NoTrueScotsman (February 10, 2011 12:00 pm ET)
              12  
              I was just a little concerned about Kathy's name...didn't know if there was a "5" family. Good to see the "5" family does have some thinking memebers :-D Please tell your cousin Jake to make sense.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by uallsuck (February 10, 2011 2:07 pm ET)
                5
              What lies about the Black panthers and Acorn. Why doesn't anybody ever give proof, just blather. And where'd your nose go?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by datruthfarmer (February 11, 2011 6:40 pm ET)
                4  
                Hey usuckall,

                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

                Report Abuse
                • Author by TerenceClearwaterRevival (February 11, 2011 9:00 pm ET)
                  2  
                  You have to excuse "uallsuck", he obviously gets his news from Faux News and actually believes what they spew.

                  The world needs ditch diggers uall, don't be distressed about your lack of intelligence.
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by GPFandango (February 10, 2011 5:53 pm ET)
              17 1
              One day Fox mentions George Soros and the next day everyone's talking Soros. One day Fox talks about the new Black Panther's ( two guys from years ago?) and the next day all you hear is The New Black Panthers. If Fox News and Rush Limbaugh had a power failure for 24 hours, the rest of the right wing pundants and bloggers would have nothing to day.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by stacymack3747 (February 10, 2011 10:59 pm ET)
                  6
                really...why do the other news stations then repeat what fox puts out them? hmmmm....seems today the snow york times vindicated beck on the caliphate and issues with the muzzy bro hood.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by The_Cat (February 12, 2011 2:50 pm ET)
                  3  
                  really...why do the other news stations then repeat what fox puts out them?

                  Because the 'liberal media' is a myth. Pretty simple, eh?
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by jiminva (February 10, 2011 6:00 pm ET)
              3 2
              I think we all need to be leery of anonymous sources like this.

              I mean this "source" could be trying to pwn MMFA. I wish this person could have come out and provided proof (emails, memos, etc).
              Report Abuse
            • Author by JackInEC (February 10, 2011 8:42 pm ET)
              5  
              Great post, Kathy. The consistency of message from Fox, Republican leaders and neo-con talking heads is very impressive. When you hear the same inane arguments for hours on end, it's apparent it's coordinated.

              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?
              Report Abuse
            • Author by JackInEC (February 10, 2011 8:42 pm ET)
              2  
              Great post, Kathy. The consistency of message from Fox, Republican leaders and neo-con talking heads is very impressive. When you hear the same inane arguments for hours on end, it's apparent it's coordinated.

              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?
              Report Abuse
          • Author by bilbo_dies (February 10, 2011 1:37 pm ET)
            16  
            So instead of defending MagCynic post with any logical response IRONY 101 goes back to the old standby schtick GLEN BECK IS PSYCHOTIC!!

            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.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by smart.alek (February 10, 2011 2:32 pm ET)
            3  
            jakie sez: "instead of defending MagCynic post..."

            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).
            Report Abuse
          • Author by oneleft (February 10, 2011 8:31 pm ET)
            2  
            he may or may not be psychotic but he can quote the founding fathers from heart. you've seen him do it. right?
            Report Abuse
          • Author by sociocrat (February 11, 2011 1:32 pm ET)
               
            95 thumbs down, that is some sort of record, congratualtions jake5.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by Ezoran (February 11, 2011 4:40 pm ET)
               
            beck might not be psychotic (or he may be), but it is well documented that he is bipolar. and if beck is to be believed, he doesn't take his meds that often.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by docb (February 10, 2011 2:42 pm ET)
             
          I know of only one event that is equal to the fox channel spin... That was when Brokaw threatened to quit if the Monica Lewinski story was reported in a compassionate way to her or as the truth!

          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!
          Report Abuse
        • Author by grandoleflag (February 10, 2011 5:14 pm ET)
            2
          Do you ever look up anything for yourself? Are you out of high school yet?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by HeeNow (February 11, 2011 8:35 am ET)
            5
          When you interview a figment of your own imagination, you end up with an imaginative story about your own slants and biases.

          MediaMatters lost more credibility with this story than Fox News ever will.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by kabniel (February 11, 2011 4:10 pm ET)
            1  
            Only among the brainwashed. You can believe they made this up if you choose. You can believe aliens are eating the shingles on your roof if you choose. Just STATING what you believe as if it were even within the same galaxy as reality much less true wont MAKE it true. Feel free to be as brainwashed as you choose while we laugh at you
            Report Abuse
          • Author by dbtexas (February 12, 2011 12:33 pm ET)
               
            The implication, of course, is that Fox ever had any credibility? Seems interesting that you defend an organization that routinely states: "Some people say...." How does that differ from an anonymous source?
            Report Abuse
        • Author by Glenn Beck Review (February 11, 2011 1:34 pm ET)
             
          Beck is not crazy; he just acts that way. It's called marketing. The more controversial he is, the more his ratings go up. That leads to more followers.

          He's a marketing wizard, not a crazy person.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by punkin (February 12, 2011 7:54 am ET)
               
            interesting..... so has he lost his edge? his viewership is down by about half
            Report Abuse
        • Author by Fighting Insanity (February 12, 2011 1:27 pm ET)
          1  
          I don't know whether MagCynic is serious or if he's just spinning out a story to point out that a story is weaker if it relies on anonymous sources.

          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.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by Tony161956 (February 10, 2011 8:06 am ET)
        31  
        Oh yes, I'm sure that a former "MSNBC insider" spoke to you instead of going to Fox, the WSJ, or ANY other news source to tell their story.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by DrMatt2003 (February 10, 2011 8:09 am ET)
        44 1
        ".....to paint the right as sadistic morons...."

        In other words, they told the truth.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by MagCynic (February 10, 2011 8:21 am ET)
          7 66
          That's what my source told me. I'd release his name but he prefers to remain anonymous. Convenient, isn't it?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by DrMatt2003 (February 10, 2011 8:28 am ET)
            47 2
            The truth is a hard pill to swallow for you radical extremists. It's always amusing that teabaggers are too stupid to realize that they are the only losers to defend Faux at all costs.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by doughpro1604643 (February 10, 2011 9:42 am ET)
              4 46
              radical extremists
              teabaggers

              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.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by NoTrueScotsman (February 10, 2011 9:50 am ET)
                43  
                I concur. The appropriate term is "reactionary extremists".
                Report Abuse
                • Author by foghornleghorn (February 10, 2011 12:29 pm ET)
                  22 2
                  No, the appropriate term is "clueless extremists".
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by usp (February 10, 2011 1:31 pm ET)
                    16  
                    proof? you mean with or without photos of those morons brandishing weapons at their 'gatherings'?
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by outsiderdude (February 10, 2011 3:59 pm ET)
                      8  
                      For the last time, its morans you moran
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by uallsuck (February 10, 2011 2:14 pm ET)
                      1 5
                      So owning a weapon is illegal? Brandishing, by the way, refers to exposing it in an aggressive manner, carrying a gun in a holster would not be brandishing. Oh, sorry, you may learn something today. My bad. And how about our new left wing Anti-teaparty, Common Cause and their members calling for Clarence Thomas to have his toes smashed and be put "back in the fields", along with derogatory remarks about his wife. Yeah, that works for you.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by juliajayne1 (February 11, 2011 11:33 am ET)
                        2  
                        So many strawman arguments, so little time. Pretty meh. You don't seem to even be trying.
                        Report Abuse
                  • Author by thinkplease (February 10, 2011 2:17 pm ET)
                       
                    They are clueless, but I prefer to refer to many of them as set in their ways, believe everything they hear, easily manipulated by scare tactics and not "Fact Tactics"....less educated and yet too lazy to inform themselves on current issues.

                    The old(er) are especially suspect to this influence..
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by doughpro1604643 (February 11, 2011 12:30 pm ET)
                        3
                      They are clueless, but I prefer to refer to many of them as set in their ways, believe everything they hear, easily manipulated by scare tactics and not "Fact Tactics".

                      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?
                      ..less educated and yet too lazy to inform themselves on current issues.

                      More wishful thinking. I thought that the "liberal" progressives had so many soft spots for the "less educated"? Why the hate now?
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by mikehuck1976 (February 11, 2011 2:16 pm ET)
                           
                        Did you just use ignorance as a defense? And even as a victimhood? Really running out of reasons to justify your preconceived false narrative, aren't you doughboy?
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by doughpro1604643 (February 11, 2011 3:48 pm ET)
                            3
                          No, mike, just calling you out on your hypocrisy. When it comes to the left and their love of social programs, and their defense of the our lousy public school education, they profess their love of the "less-educated". "Only the government can save them", they say, and "don't stop the federal funding". Yet many in here insult and spew hatred towards the tea party members because they perceive them to be "less-educated", etc.
                          That sounds hypocritical to me.

                          Please tell, what is my "false narrative"?
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by Old_Benjamin (February 11, 2011 4:05 pm ET)
                            1  
                            Yet many in here insult and spew hatred towards the tea party members because they perceive them to be "less-educated", etc.


                            dough responding to this...

                            less educated and yet too lazy to inform themselves on current issues.


                            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?
                            Report Abuse
                          • Author by mikehuck1976 (February 12, 2011 11:06 am ET)
                               
                            So, you are the less educated and too lazy to inform yourself? And, you are upset with those that are pointing it out? Wow.
                            Report Abuse
                  • Author by progusa (February 10, 2011 3:33 pm ET)
                    10  
                    "willfully ignorant extremists" and proud of it.
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by mustberadicole (February 10, 2011 1:52 pm ET)
                   
                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZoyKKE1lyM

                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.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by dommanno3075 (February 11, 2011 4:01 pm ET)
                   
                You consider the tea party as "radical extremists"? Any evidence of that?
                How about wanting to repeal the First, Fourteenth, Sixteenth, Seventeenth and Twenty-First Amendments.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by ScienceBuff (February 10, 2011 8:40 am ET)
            39  
            Please drop the snark for a moment and answer this question in a straight-forward manner. Do you believe that MMFA is lying about speaking to a Fox News insider and/or about what that insider said?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by DrMatt2003 (February 10, 2011 8:46 am ET)
              43 1
              The Insider could be a complete farce, the facts of the story are still true. Since when has Faux EVER presented the Democrats in a postive light? Since when has Faux EVER carried the water for a Democratic President or helped push the Democratic agenda? Since when has Faux EVER not insulted the Democratic party on a daily basis?

              Again, teabaggers are too stupid to realize that they are the only dolts to defend their pathetic right-wing cable station.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by jake5 (February 10, 2011 9:10 am ET)
                4 45
                If "teabaggers are too stupid to realize that they are the only dolts to defend their pathetic right-wing cable station" then what does that make the people who defend the left-wing stations or websites?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by JimmyCraghorn (February 10, 2011 9:23 am ET)
                  39 4
                  It makes them intelligent.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by jake5 (February 10, 2011 9:31 am ET)
                    2 40
                    JimmyCraghorn, Very logical and well articulated rebuttal.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by mattcable250650 (February 10, 2011 10:30 am ET)
                      29 2
                      Yes, Jimmy's response was "logical and well articulated" because you failed to provide any evidence that we should regard liberal stations as being as bad a Fox has been repeatedly documented to be.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by oneeyedmike (February 10, 2011 11:58 am ET)
                        14 1
                        Which liberal stations?
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by thinkplease (February 10, 2011 2:18 pm ET)
                             
                          What, exactly, is a "liberal" station?
                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by smart.alek (February 10, 2011 3:10 pm ET)
                          1 2
                          Beat me to it, oneeyedmike.
                          "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.
                          Report Abuse
                    • Author by PatrickJ08 (February 10, 2011 3:53 pm ET)
                      9  
                      4 words.
                      Short and sweet.

                      Even a conservative shouldn't have trouble understanding the comment.
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by JackInEC (February 10, 2011 8:45 pm ET)
                      3  
                      Isn't it your bedtime, Jake? Or is mommy letting you stay up for an extra half hour?
                      Report Abuse
                • Author by DrMatt2003 (February 10, 2011 9:35 am ET)
                  31 3
                  There is no such thing as a left-wing station. But, please, go ahead and smear MMFA, HuffPo, or any other website. Big deal. It's the teabag terrorists that take it personally when someone exposes the radicalism at Faux, Drugbaugh, Redstate, etc.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by riverdog (February 10, 2011 12:07 pm ET)
                    1 30
                    There is no such thing as a left-wing station....

                    oh such a sweet little fool.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by congero6189599 (February 10, 2011 12:21 pm ET)
                      17 1
                      Thers is no such thing as a "left-wing" station! Make a note of it dog. Then again when you are so far to the right anything to the left of you is
                      "left-wing."
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by riverdog (February 10, 2011 2:07 pm ET)
                        2 20
                        im a independant moderate that mostly votes dem. it is easy for me to see bias. fox is king in the bias dept. without a doubt but i see some on the left as well. not anything like fox though.

                        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.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by sevenfour (February 10, 2011 3:25 pm ET)
                          1 3
                          well said, riverdog. their are blind followers on all sides of the political spectrum although liberals like to assume that its only the concervatives. you should be critical of everything you hear in the media, not just certain stations. by the way, this is coming from a liberal
                          Report Abuse
                    • Author by mikehuck1976 (February 10, 2011 10:38 pm ET)
                      6  
                      Well, it is hard to argue with those examples you supply riverdog.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by juliajayne1 (February 11, 2011 12:09 pm ET)
                        2  
                        Ha! You are the best clean up hitter we have. ;-) Are you on west coast time, MH?
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by mikehuck1976 (February 11, 2011 2:18 pm ET)
                          1  
                          No, just can't really post unless I am either at work and have some spare time or late at night after the little ones are asleep.
                          Report Abuse
                • Author by Afrobizkit (February 10, 2011 11:36 am ET)
                  1  
                  What left-wing stations? Are you referring to MSNBC and CNN? Do you understand that those stations are not left-wing, that they are actually trying to report the news from a non-biased position? Sure, they might have left-wing hosts for their op-ed shows, but their news is reported from a neutral position, the way it should be.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by foghornleghorn (February 10, 2011 12:30 pm ET)
                  9  
                  then what does that make the people who defend the left-wing stations or websites?

                  More deflection.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by MilitantMNMan (February 10, 2011 1:11 pm ET)
                  9  
                  Which left-wing stations are you talking about?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by CoolSlaw (February 10, 2011 4:16 pm ET)
                    14  
                    You have to understand how the right wing echo chamber works to understand how someone can ask about "the left wing stations". I think most of us do, but here's a quick refresher.

                    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.
                    Report Abuse
                • Author by TheDoktor (February 10, 2011 2:00 pm ET)
                  3 1
                  I think you are missing the difference - and you are not alone in that.

                  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.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by WesternWorld (February 12, 2011 3:08 pm ET)
                     
                  It boils down to telling the truth, which Fox does not.
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by MagCynic (February 10, 2011 8:52 am ET)
              3 52
              "Do you believe that MMFA is lying about speaking to a Fox News insider and/or about what that insider said?"

              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.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by DrMatt2003 (February 10, 2011 8:57 am ET)
                39 1
                You are sure having quite a hissy fit about the information the Insider has provided. Quite telling.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by IRONY 101 (February 10, 2011 8:58 am ET)
                35  
                It's just that everything the anonymous source allegedly said comports with, and would explain, what we see every day on FOX.

                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.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by rms (February 10, 2011 9:03 am ET)
                26  
                Next question: do you believe the content of the Boehlert piece, or do you deny that Fox leans so far left that it will make up or exaggerate ("War on Christmas") stories? In other words, do you believe that Fox's choice of stories and the way they deliver them are, well, "fair and balanced?"
                Report Abuse
              • Author by RKAllen (February 10, 2011 9:09 am ET)
                15  
                Of course, on the other side of the argument, there have been journalists who have gone to prison to protect an anonymous source. You are right to be skeptical, as am I and most of the communiy here, but this would be a pretty big card to play if you are going to use an anonymous source to report on internal practices at a major cable news network.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by ScienceBuff (February 10, 2011 9:18 am ET)
                29  
                That was a pretty rambling set of statements. I couldn't get from it whether you believe that MMFA created a fictional source or if you believe there was a source but simply doubt its credibility.

                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?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by JimmyCraghorn (February 10, 2011 9:26 am ET)
                  16  
                  He believes they created a fictional source who is lying about Fox news.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by mary59 (February 10, 2011 11:10 am ET)
                    13 1
                    I think Mag just has a mission to deflect outrageous behavior by trying to cast doubt.

                    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.
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by jake5 (February 10, 2011 9:19 am ET)
                1 34
                MagCynic, If an anonymous source gives a left-wing media outlet (that has a stated goal of exposing lies of the conservative media) inside information then it must be true.

                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".
                Report Abuse
                • Author by DrMatt2003 (February 10, 2011 9:37 am ET)
                  32 1
                  You teabaggers are really having a hissy fit over this piece. Speaks volumes.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by ScienceBuff (February 10, 2011 10:51 am ET)
                  26  
                  MagCynic, If an anonymous source gives a left-wing media outlet (that has a stated goal of exposing lies of the conservative media) inside information then it must be true. - jake5

                  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.

                  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 - jake5

                  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?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by jake5 (February 10, 2011 11:16 am ET)
                      28
                    "I don't see anyone asserting that it's absolutely true."

                    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 :)
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by congero6189599 (February 10, 2011 11:22 am ET)
                      16  
                      Yea just under the tag for this article is this:

                      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
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by uallsuck (February 10, 2011 2:20 pm ET)
                          2
                        did you read it? It's very vague and includes "emails" that can't be verified. This in general is no different than any newsroom's prep talk prior to air time so the talking heads don't contradict each other. Both this and the article you refer to use unverifiable sources, it's all hearsay. That's the problem with these blogs, you all take their b.s. as gospel.
                        Report Abuse
                    • Author by Turkeysocks (February 10, 2011 11:51 am ET)
                      15  
                      You didn't answer his question Jake...

                      Do you have an example of a "anonymous" source coming out and giving insider information about a left-wing "news" outlet?
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by ScienceBuff (February 10, 2011 12:07 pm ET)
                      9  
                      You sure seem to be guzzling yours in large quantities.
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by mikehuck1976 (February 10, 2011 10:42 pm ET)
                      3  
                      Actually, no it is only you and Mag that seem sure of anything. You are sure that it is fictional. That would put the koolaid in your cup. However, I don't expect the level of introspection on your side to be anywhere close to where it would need to be for you to see that.
                      Report Abuse
                • Author by bar2 (February 10, 2011 3:06 pm ET)
                  13  
                  To quote jake5
                  I don't trust any anonymous source until their story has been verified. I hope MMFA verified the "information".

                  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.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Turkeysocks (February 10, 2011 4:20 pm ET)
                    9  
                    Like their "War on Christmas", where they had an "anonymous" mother who was skulking around a school in the middle of a night telling reporters that the school had banned the colors green and red from being used in the school... Slurring the whole time.

                    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...
                    Report Abuse
                • Author by cugagcmu805031 (February 10, 2011 6:41 pm ET)
                  7  
                  When Gawker received the story about Congressman Pitts responding to an ad on craigslist and sending a pic of himself to the woman he had contacted, she remained, and remains, anonymous. Just because she remains anonymous doesn't mean the information she provided was inaccurate. The fact that Pitts resigned yesterday provides validity to her account of his behavior. Therefore, some anonymous sources can be very truthful in the information they provide.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by SteevK (February 10, 2011 9:31 pm ET)
                    3  
                    His name is Christopher Lee (I was hoping it was Sen Lee - an extreme RW TEA Party freshman)

                    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.

                    ..
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by CrashGordon (February 10, 2011 9:25 am ET)
                25  
                Nowadays, though, whenever I see an anonymous source my first instinct is to step back and question the validity of the anonymous statement.


                "Some say" Fox uses a similar technique all the time.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by RustyCannon (February 10, 2011 10:10 am ET)
                22  
                Your problem is with critical thinking. It is a fact that FOX viewers take fiction for granted as truth - such as the president being a Muslim, or that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks. The reason they believe these things is that FOX told them they were true. They were told by Focksnooze to believe these things. It was reported in Focksnooze's news programs and pounded on by their opinion talking heads.

                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.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by smart.alek (February 10, 2011 3:28 pm ET)
                  1  
                  Or not get sued -- probably successfully -- for violating the non-disclosure terms of the FoxNews employment contract, as described in the article.
                  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.
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by LiberalEagle422 (February 10, 2011 12:52 pm ET)
                6  
                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.


                Good call man. We can't trust anybody! THE WHOLE WORLD IS A SCAM AHHHHHH!!
                Report Abuse
              • Author by thinkplease (February 10, 2011 2:20 pm ET)
                1  
                Did you not read the article?

                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.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by smart.alek (February 10, 2011 3:21 pm ET)
                2  
                MagCynic sez: "I don't trust sources from Fox News, MSNBC, or Media Matters."

                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?
                Report Abuse
              • Author by cugagcmu805031 (February 10, 2011 6:36 pm ET)
                4  
                If you would have a very astute and intelligent 5 year old watch Fox and MSNBC for one week, he could see that Fox slants the news to serve the republican POV. He'd probably ask why the network never approves of anything President Obama does. I understand taking the opposite position on some issues, but it's hard for me to believe that the president never does anything that the network can give him props for.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by CoolSlaw (February 11, 2011 6:06 am ET)
                  1  
                  Especially when President Obama does things that conservatives praised the former President for doing, much to the groans and disappointment of his democratic voters.

                  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.
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by mikehuck1976 (February 10, 2011 10:40 pm ET)
                2  
                Nowadays, though, whenever I see an anonymous source my first instinct is to step back and question the validity of the anonymous statement. - Mag

                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?
                Report Abuse
            • Author by curiousindependent (February 10, 2011 9:03 am ET)
              17  
              Do you believe that MMFA is lying about speaking to a Fox News insider
              Well of course he does. FOX long ago brainwashed him to believe that they, and only they, deliver the true scoop. While they were at it, they brainwashed him to believe that anyone who denounces FOX is afraid of the truth.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by RustyCannon (February 10, 2011 10:16 am ET)
                15  
                And that is the cult aspect of FOX. When you are told to only believe one source and all others are lying to you, THAT should be the eyebrow raiser. To submit to that line of thinking puts you right into the ranks of Jim Jones followers or David Koresh followers.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by markbfoot199 (February 10, 2011 11:05 am ET)
              1 25
              If MMFA is willing to name the source, then I would consider the story. Till then, they have no proof besides this no-name individual. Seeing that MMFA has been doing all they can to drag FOX down, NO I do not believe the story.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by mary59 (February 10, 2011 11:10 am ET)
                26 2
                Until you reveal to us your real name, I don't believe that you exist.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by jake5 (February 10, 2011 11:18 am ET)
                  1 25
                  What a mature response mary59. You just rebutted him with intelligent facts and logic. GOOD JOB.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by LiberalEagle422 (February 10, 2011 12:55 pm ET)
                    13 1
                    Why isn't it an appropriate response? Markbfoot obviously has reasons of not putting his real name as his forum tag, as does any anonymous source. So for him to complain that the source is anonymous is pretty hypocritical.
                    Report Abuse
                • Author by thinkplease (February 10, 2011 2:22 pm ET)
                     
                  I am the Christ Jesus, this is the Resurrection, I am coming for you as you have prayed for!!

                  Believe me?
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by congero6189599 (February 10, 2011 11:47 am ET)
                11  
                What about these stories?:

                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

                Report Abuse
                • Author by grmce (February 10, 2011 7:33 pm ET)
                  4  
                  Yep, summin' fishy about Sammon.
                  (someone has to post it every now and then)
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by donwelty (February 10, 2011 1:47 pm ET)
              9  
              Do you believe that MMFA is lying about speaking to a Fox News insider and/or about what that insider said?

              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.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by uallsuck (February 10, 2011 3:30 pm ET)
                  6
                Yes, there are legitimate and illegitimate reasons. That's the question. But most of the sheep here don't ever ask for proof of fox's foibles other than heresay, and you all take it as gospel. But I am glad to hear MSNBC isn't left leaning. I know the fairness of their roundtables on sunday with 5 democrats on Chris Matthews explaining the greatness of our exalted ruler and still blaming everything from jock itch to Egyptian uprisings on George Bush. And Ed Schultz, he's very balanced. Keith, oh never mind,he's gone to Goreville so they can give each other massages in the tub. Oh well, when your young, you still have the opportuniy to eventually, hopefully get it right. Oh, you probably won't see an anonymous source on Fox, because they really don't exist in this realm of the american news cycle. One channel trying to denigrate another with anonymous sources, that's all msnbc all the time. That's not news, it's bullsh#t.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by curiousindependent (February 11, 2011 2:25 pm ET)
                  1  
                  That's right! FOX is the only place to get real news, untainted by truth or liberal context.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by donwelty (February 11, 2011 5:27 pm ET)
                  1  
                  Despite your name calling "sheep," I'll respond.

                  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.




                  Report Abuse
                • Author by The_Cat (February 12, 2011 3:06 pm ET)
                     
                  Oh, you probably won't see an anonymous source on Fox, because they really don't exist in this realm of the american news cycle.

                  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.
                  Report Abuse
          • Author by curiousindependent (February 10, 2011 8:51 am ET)
            19  
            http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201102090050Magmoron, click that link. You don't have to read the story or listen to the clip or even read the comments, unless you want to. Just look at the picture at the top. Read the caption inside it.

            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?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by MagCynic (February 10, 2011 8:53 am ET)
              3 31
              "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.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by DrMatt2003 (February 10, 2011 8:56 am ET)
                17 1
                Faux is a mouth-piece for the GOPigs.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by Ruby (February 10, 2011 9:07 am ET)
                25  
                How many potential Democratic 2012 presidential candidates does MSNBC currently have on the payroll as "analysts"?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by DrMatt2003 (February 10, 2011 9:08 am ET)
                  22  
                  How many former Democratic politicians hosts shows on MSNBC?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by MickD (February 10, 2011 9:33 am ET)
                    24  
                    How many ex-Democratic congressman have three hours a day on FoxNoose?
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by MagCynic (February 10, 2011 9:36 am ET)
                    1 23
                    One? Wasn't Chris Matthews a Democratic politicians? Doesn't he host a show? Who does Fox News have that hosts a show? I think the only one is Mike Huckabee and that's only on Sundays I think. Matthews is on every weekday.

                    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.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by DrMatt2003 (February 10, 2011 9:37 am ET)
                      17 1
                      Chris Matthews a Democratic politicians
                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                      No.

                      Try again.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by MagCynic (February 10, 2011 9:40 am ET)
                        3 25
                        Uh, so I can't prove that Chris Matthews "served on the staffs of four Democratic members of Congress, including Senators Frank Moss and Edmund Muskie"? I won't be able to prove that? I won't be able to prove that he was "a top aide to long-time Speaker of the House of Representatives Tip O'Neill"?

                        Really? Are you really challenging me on this?
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by DrMatt2003 (February 10, 2011 9:43 am ET)
                          22 1
                          Matthews was never a politician. Don't let facts and reality stand in the way of your hissy fit.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by MagCynic (February 10, 2011 9:46 am ET)
                              23
                            What is the definition of "politician"? Find that and you'll see that I'm right in saying that Matthews is a politician. Here, I'll do the work for you.

                            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?
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by DrMatt2003 (February 10, 2011 9:48 am ET)
                              24 1
                              Matthews was NEVER, ever elected to any position. He was never, ever a politician. He was a staffer. Are you pretending to be stupid?
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by MagCynic (February 10, 2011 9:50 am ET)
                                  24
                                You don't have to be elected to be a politician. Find me one definition of politicians that states you have to be elected to be considered one. I'm afraid you are wrong on this one.
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by rumpleteasermom (February 10, 2011 10:26 am ET)
                                  19  
                                  Found one:
                                  "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?



                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by MagCynic (February 10, 2011 10:36 am ET)
                                      21
                                    I'll understand it if you explain the point behind it. MSNBC has Joe Scarborough. He is an elected politician who held a political office. Does that matter to you? What's the point of even asking the question if it doesn't?
                                    Report Abuse
                                    • Author by Leftym0m79 (February 10, 2011 11:59 am ET)
                                      16  
                                      Joe Scarborough was a Republican Representitive from Florida. So yes, MSNBC does employ at least one former elected official just not a Democrat. What was that about being "served"?
                                      Report Abuse
                                    • Author by mikehuck1976 (February 10, 2011 10:53 pm ET)
                                      3  
                                      Yes, MagCynic. That matters because it proves your earlier comparison of MSNBC to Fox News incorrect. Are you arguing with yourself or did you just forget what your original statement was?
                                      Report Abuse
                                • Author by i love you glenn (February 10, 2011 10:35 am ET)
                                  1  
                                  Moreover you just proved your own point wrong. mourning joe ??? isn't he a republican ???? wait i thought they were a left wing mouth piece ?? why would they have a Ring winger hosting the very important ratings slot in the mourning ?? that doesn't make much sense.

                                  Once again sir you have proved you are nothing but a paid blog troll.
                                  Report Abuse
                                • Author by peace4all (February 10, 2011 10:44 am ET)
                                  19 2
                                  god you're an idiot. so by your definition of politician, all of us here who have studied even a little bit about politics could put on a resume that we are politicians.

                                  good to know. i am always looking to expand my career.
                                  Report Abuse
                                • Author by mikehuck1976 (February 10, 2011 10:52 pm ET)
                                  2  
                                  Mag, you posted something very stupid that you should have checked before you posted it. By the definition you post now everyone on these channels would be a politician. Just admit you were incorrect about Mathews and move on. Are you incapable of admitting your mistake? Your flailing just makes everyone cringe.
                                  Report Abuse
                                • Author by CoolSlaw (February 11, 2011 6:15 am ET)
                                  1  
                                  Trying to alter the meanings of words to fit the narrative, doesn't surprise me that a right winger would try that tactic.

                                  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).
                                  Report Abuse
                          • Author by Truth,please (February 10, 2011 12:54 pm ET)
                            8  
                            This is the same way the republicans are trying to redefine the word "rape".
                            Report Abuse
                        • Author by DrMatt2003 (February 10, 2011 9:45 am ET)
                          17 2
                          Let us not forget that herr dubyah came to Faux to hire Tony Snowjob for his mouthpiece....then Snowjob returned to Faux as a teabag "hero".
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by MagCynic (February 10, 2011 9:48 am ET)
                              22
                            And you clearly asked about TV show hosts, not correspondents.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by rumpleteasermom (February 10, 2011 4:18 pm ET)
                              7  
                              And you clearly asked about TV show hosts, not correspondents.


                              You must have missed the first question:
                              "How many potential Democratic 2012 presidential candidates does MSNBC currently have on the payroll as "analysts"? "
                              Report Abuse
                          • Author by onementalgiant (February 10, 2011 6:40 pm ET)
                            2 11
                            "Let us not forget that herr dubyah came to Faux to hire Tony Snowjob for his mouthpiece....then Snowjob returned to Faux as a teabag "hero"."

                            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.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by Old_Benjamin (February 10, 2011 9:07 pm ET)
                              3  
                              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?


                              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.
                              Report Abuse
                            • Author by moongal6 (February 11, 2011 2:08 am ET)
                              2  
                              And you hang out here at MMFA to what.....educate us poor blighted liberals?
                              You find no converts here.
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by onementalgiant (February 11, 2011 11:48 am ET)
                                  3
                                "And you hang out here at MMFA to what.....educate us poor blighted liberals?"

                                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
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by dommanno3075 (February 11, 2011 4:13 pm ET)
                                  1  
                                  Somebody needs to educate you lost souls before it'e too late.
                                  You can't teach what you don't know.
                                  Report Abuse
                            • Author by CoolSlaw (February 11, 2011 6:22 am ET)
                              3  
                              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?


                              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.
                              Report Abuse
                        • Author by mjlilgui (February 10, 2011 9:50 am ET)
                          19  
                          You can easily prove that. Can you prove he was a politician? What office did he hold?
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by MagCynic (February 10, 2011 9:58 am ET)
                            1 21
                            Wait. Are you asking me if I can prove Chris Matthews was a politician? With Media Matters comment system I can't always tell who someone is replying to.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by dommanno3075 (February 11, 2011 4:14 pm ET)
                                 
                              With Media Matters comment system I can't always tell who someone is replying to.
                              Well, you're not too bright then, are you?
                              Report Abuse
                        • Author by usp (February 10, 2011 2:10 pm ET)
                          6 2
                          ha ha 'tard! that's rich. he's ALMOST a congressman! kind of like when i was 12...in the passenger seat of my mom's car! i was ALMOST a driver. Almost- pretty much the same thing...and and and...

                          god you guys are a waste of time.
                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by cugagcmu805031 (February 10, 2011 7:16 pm ET)
                          5  
                          Matthews does have political connections and so does Laurence O'Donnell, but neither one is fundraising for a democratic candidate, neither has provided free airtime toward promoting democratic events, neither is running for a political office, and neither has shown up to a democratic-sponsored event as a representative of MSNBC. Fox has done each of these. There is a difference, but some conservatives refuse to admit it because doing so seems to somehow mean that they're being dishonest to Fox and faux conservative principles. IMHO, one of the worst things in the world is the rejection of facts because they make one uncomfortable.
                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by stefiz (February 11, 2011 1:30 am ET)
                          1  
                          those were elected offices...Palin...
                          Report Abuse
                    • Author by DrMatt2003 (February 10, 2011 9:41 am ET)
                      24 1
                      And Faux has on their payroll: Palin, Newt, Huckster, Santorum.

                      As usual, you are on the wrong side of yet another issue.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by MagCynic (February 10, 2011 9:48 am ET)
                          23
                        You asked,"How many former Democratic politicians hosts shows on MSNBC? "

                        HOSTED! I answered - correctly - that MSNBC has one former Democratic politician that hosts a show. Palin, News, and Santorum are commentators, not hosts.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by DrMatt2003 (February 10, 2011 9:49 am ET)
                          18  
                          No, you answered incorrectly. Matthews never, ever held any political office. Again, you are wrong....competely.
                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by RustyCannon (February 10, 2011 10:26 am ET)
                          13  
                          Palin, Gnute, and Santorum are PAID staff.
                          Report Abuse
                      • Author by DrMatt2003 (February 10, 2011 9:50 am ET)
                        22  
                        Four 2012 GOPig presidential candidates are on Faux's payroll. Ouch. Reality bites, huh, cupcake?

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by MagCynic (February 10, 2011 9:54 am ET)
                            22
                          Weren't you clearly raising the question of who actually hosts their own show, though? I'm pretty sure you did.

                          Stop confusing show hosts with guests that make a 5 minute appearance.
                          Report Abuse
                    • Author by rumpleteasermom (February 10, 2011 10:20 am ET)
                      18  
                      HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

                      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?
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by MagCynic (February 10, 2011 10:38 am ET)
                          21
                        What the hell are we 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.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by peace4all (February 10, 2011 10:48 am ET)
                          8  
                          actually fox has hosted others. palin had palins america and lets not forget john kascih who had a show for a while as well. so i guess fox had more than one. does your nose grow after every post?
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by MagCynic (February 10, 2011 10:58 am ET)
                            1 19
                            So because I forgot about that one time Sarah Palin hosted a show and John Kascih (who?), that makes me a liar?

                            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.


                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by rumpleteasermom (February 10, 2011 11:10 am ET)
                              10  
                              Um, if you want to be taken seriously, instead of claiming someone is a nobody because you haven't heard of him, you might want to just use the Google - it's not like he hasn;t made national news lately. Well, maybe not on FoxNews. But everyone else has been reporting on the one-sided-ness of his cabinet and before that the fact that he lost the state a HUGE grant for high-speed rail.
                              Report Abuse
                            • Author by peace4all (February 10, 2011 11:41 am ET)
                              5  
                              uh, the "one" guy you never heard of had his own show on fox for a long time and is not the Governor of Ohio. also, you spend a lot of time on this site. i find it hard to believe that you have not seen the posts here about those two and their shows on fox. so, you're either woefully uninformed which hurts your credibility or your a liar. the choice is yours.
                              Report Abuse
                            • Author by highliter (February 10, 2011 12:19 pm ET)
                                16
                              Never heard and could not find any show called Sara Palins America. She had a show called Palins Alaska on TLC not Fox.
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by congero6189599 (February 10, 2011 12:25 pm ET)
                                10  
                                It was on only once on Faux. It was suppopsed to show regular and sucessful folk who pulled themselves up by the bootstraps and are no living the American Dream. It was scheduled to be a continuing series but obvioiusly dropped after the first show by Faux.
                                Report Abuse
                              • Author by congero6189599 (February 10, 2011 12:31 pm ET)
                                11  
                                The show was called Sarah Palins "Real American Stories". You can read about here:

                                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!



                                Report Abuse
                              • Author by peace4all (February 10, 2011 1:00 pm ET)
                                6  
                                true, but she also had a couple of shows on fox called palins america. guess it did not do to well as there were only a couple of episodes.
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by congero6189599 (February 10, 2011 1:09 pm ET)
                                  6  
                                  The show was called Sarah Palins Real America I linked to an article about it above.
                                  Report Abuse
                            • Author by cugagcmu805031 (February 10, 2011 7:23 pm ET)
                              5  
                              You're not fit to polish President Obama's shoes, but you've wasted no time here calling him a liar from time to time. Now that you think you've been labeled a liar, something you've called the president and us more than once, you're outraged and hurt!

                              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.
                              Report Abuse
                        • Author by rumpleteasermom (February 10, 2011 11:02 am ET)
                          19 1
                          HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

                          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.
                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by curiousindependent (February 10, 2011 12:01 pm ET)
                          8  
                          OK then, since the person who asked the original question misspoke, let's refine the question.

                          From:

                          How many former Democratic politicians hosts shows on MSNBC?


                          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.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by curiousindependent (February 11, 2011 2:23 pm ET)
                            1  
                            Does anyone know of a good way to get rid of these <crickets>?
                            Report Abuse
                        • Author by thinkplease (February 10, 2011 2:25 pm ET)
                             
                          The difference is, are these former/wanna be/whatever politicians hosting and reporting the NEWS, or hosting the equivalent of an Op-Ed?

                          Big difference.
                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by thinkplease (February 10, 2011 2:26 pm ET)
                             
                          The difference is, are these former/wanna be/whatever politicians hosting and reporting the NEWS, or hosting the equivalent of an Op-Ed?

                          Big difference.
                          Report Abuse
                    • Author by Turkeysocks (February 10, 2011 12:10 pm ET)
                      6  
                      Wait... The question was how many DEMOCRATIC politicians have a show on MSNBC... The answer is 0.

                      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...
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by JackInEC (February 10, 2011 8:54 pm ET)
                         
                      Wasn't Chris Matthews a Democratic politicians (sic)?


                      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.
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by mikehuck1976 (February 10, 2011 10:51 pm ET)
                      2  
                      One? Wasn't Chris Matthews a Democratic politicians? - Mag

                      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?
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by highlyunlikely (February 10, 2011 11:58 pm ET)
                        1  
                        Of course mag doesn't see it, nor will he see your post until morning if at all. Seems he's around only during school or business hours. Which means he's online during class or paid by some 9-5 organization to - what exactly? Persuade us of his wisdom and logic? I really don't understand why these guys bother, unless they think they drive us crazy. Hardly.
                        Report Abuse
              • Author by curiousindependent (February 10, 2011 9:38 am ET)
                18  
                Mag, there can be NO SUCH THING as a "right-wing news agency". Any NEWS agency should be UNBIASED in their reporting, or should abandon any claim to being news, let alone fair.

                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.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by MagCynic (February 10, 2011 9:41 am ET)
                    23
                  So you disagree that MSNBC doesn't clearly have a left-wing tilt?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by curiousindependent (February 10, 2011 9:54 am ET)
                    16  
                    No, I disagree that any agency that bills itself as news should have any tilt. Where in anything I have ever said did you get the impression that I would defend MSNBC?

                    NEWS IS EITHER UNBIASED OR IT IS PROPAGANDA.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by MagCynic (February 10, 2011 10:01 am ET)
                        23
                      "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.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by RustyCannon (February 10, 2011 10:30 am ET)
                        15  
                        And that's exactly the difference between Faux and MSNBC. Faux delivers fiction and MSNBC sticks to the facts.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by MagCynic (February 10, 2011 10:34 am ET)
                            17
                          So I won't be able to find any examples of anybody on MSNBC getting the facts wrong? Would you like to officially challenge me on that?
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by CrashGordon (February 10, 2011 10:41 am ET)
                            5  
                            So I won't be able to find any examples of anybody on MSNBC getting the facts wrong? Would you like to officially challenge me on that?


                            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.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by MagCynic (February 10, 2011 11:00 am ET)
                                14
                              How quickly you change the terms. Does it matter if it's during the straight news segment or opinion segment when facts are concerned?

                              Media Matters doesn't seem to think so. They routinely list statements of opinion as outright lies.
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by CrashGordon (February 10, 2011 11:17 am ET)
                                8  
                                Actually, I never made any terms to change.

                                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."
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by MagCynic (February 10, 2011 11:51 am ET)
                                    13
                                  What do you think of this article?
                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by congero6189599 (February 10, 2011 12:19 pm ET)
                                    8  
                                    That was the worst hogwash I have seen today. The kicker too me was when they said that 47% pay no Federal taxes at all. Was that suppose to be poof that MSNBC host were lying about tax payments being down?
                                    Report Abuse
                                    • Author by MagCynic (February 10, 2011 12:44 pm ET)
                                        10
                                      The point is that just because TOTAL taxes paid as a percent of GDP went down doesn't mean our individual income taxes have gone down.

                                      They haven't. That's the very point of extending the Bush tax cuts - to keep them the same.
                                      Report Abuse
                                      • Author by dommanno3075 (February 11, 2011 4:21 pm ET)
                                           
                                        The point is that just because TOTAL taxes paid as a percent of GDP went down doesn't mean our individual income taxes have gone down. They haven't. That's the very point of extending the Bush tax cuts - to keep them the same.
                                        You just contradicted yourself, genius. You claim that individual income taxes haven't decreased, then refer to the "Bush tax cuts."
                                        Report Abuse
                                  • Author by CrashGordon (February 10, 2011 12:29 pm ET)
                                    12  
                                    What do you think of this article?


                                    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.
                                    Report Abuse
                                    • Author by foghornleghorn (February 10, 2011 12:40 pm ET)
                                      13 1
                                      USA Today - liberal

                                      AP - liberal

                                      US News - liberal

                                      Can't you come up with ONE non-lefty source?

                                      - magcynic's intern.
                                      Report Abuse
                                    • Author by MagCynic (February 10, 2011 12:43 pm ET)
                                        15
                                      As a share of the nation's economy, yes, we are paying less taxes. Percentages like that, though, do not equate to the people feeling like they are paying less money.

                                      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.
                                      Report Abuse
                                      • Author by foghornleghorn (February 10, 2011 1:00 pm ET)
                                        13  
                                        Logic is weak with this one, Obi-wan.
                                        Report Abuse
                                      • Author by CrashGordon (February 10, 2011 1:21 pm ET)
                                        7  
                                        Let's be clear: total federal tax collections aren't really lower than they were in 1950. Americans are projected to pay $2.567 trillion in 2011 compared to only $39.4 billion in 1950.

                                        Sound lower to you?

                                        Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/02/09/msnbc-sells-false-idea-taxes-are-lowest-60-years#ixzz1Da74APIQ


                                        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.
                                        Report Abuse
                                        • Author by MagCynic (February 10, 2011 3:18 pm ET)
                                            14
                                          But I just showed how even using that metric is flawed.
                                          Report Abuse
                                          • Author by CrashGordon (February 10, 2011 3:34 pm ET)
                                            11  
                                            No you didn't. What you proved was that if dollar values stayed the same and GDP increased, then it would appear that fewer tax dollars were collected. What you didn't account for is that the $1000 you collected in the first sample is not worth the same as the $1000 you collected in the second sample because of inflation over 60 years.

                                            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.
                                            Report Abuse
                                            • Author by MagCynic (February 10, 2011 4:00 pm ET)
                                                11
                                              Fine. Forget the example I gave or Newsbusters gave.

                                              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.
                                              Report Abuse
                                      • Author by congero6189599 (February 10, 2011 1:31 pm ET)
                                        6  
                                        Why the tax bite has eased:

                                        • 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 — credits, lower rates, higher exemptions — 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.
                                        Report Abuse
                                        • Author by MagCynic (February 10, 2011 3:21 pm ET)
                                            14
                                          1. Stimulus tax credits don't equal lowering taxes. Credits have always been a cheap way for a politician to take credit for letting us keep more of our money.

                                          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.
                                          Report Abuse
                                          • Author by cugagcmu805031 (February 10, 2011 7:29 pm ET)
                                            1  
                                            Please identify the amount that is "being absolutely wasted," and please be specific.
                                            Report Abuse
                                          • Author by dommanno3075 (February 11, 2011 4:25 pm ET)
                                               
                                            Credits have always been a cheap way for a politician to take credit for letting us keep more of our money.
                                            It's not your money. By law it's the government's money.

                                            I'm going to end up owing the government an extra $2000 by April 18th.
                                            That news makes me happy.
                                            Report Abuse
                                      • Author by rwgate (February 10, 2011 4:17 pm ET)
                                           
                                        If we are paying less taxes as a share of the nation's economy, how does this not translate into paying less taxes? How does a tax rate of 35.5% not be less than tax rates as high as 90% in my lifetime?

                                        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.
                                        Report Abuse
                                      • Author by Chameo (February 10, 2011 8:01 pm ET)
                                        1  
                                        Seriously, did you actually read the article? Did you actually read the transcripts? Because if you only read the commentary from NB, you probably missed the fact that the commentary uh... lied. Every single one of the MSNBC commentators stated that they were referring to taxes as a percent of the total economy or taxes as a percentage of the GDP.
                                        Report Abuse
                              • Author by thinkplease (February 10, 2011 2:28 pm ET)
                                   
                                Yes.

                                Fact is a Fact. Period.
                                Report Abuse
                      • Author by CrashGordon (February 10, 2011 10:36 am ET)
                        9  
                        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.


                        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.
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by fktlbjp (February 10, 2011 8:27 pm ET)
                           
                        "I can be an anarchist or totalitarian and still deliver straight news as long as I deliver the facts."

                        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...
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by CoolSlaw (February 11, 2011 6:34 am ET)
                        1  
                        The big difference, is that MSNBC has a conservative morning talk and news show, and they have an evening lineup of mostly liberal talk and opinion.

                        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.
                        Report Abuse
                  • Author by mjlilgui (February 10, 2011 9:55 am ET)
                    13  
                    Newswise? No. Do you have any examples of news programs, not opinion programs, that have a left tilt? Specific examples with evidence?
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by MagCynic (February 10, 2011 10:00 am ET)
                        19
                      Well, see. Now you're getting into different territory. The vast majority of programming on either MSNBC or Fox News falls under the political commentary title. There aren't too many hours on either station devoted to straight news like you would see on the networks or local TV stations.

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by rumpleteasermom (February 10, 2011 10:34 am ET)
                        11 1
                        The difference is that MSNBC doesn't bill itself as "balanced".

                        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.
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by CrashGordon (February 10, 2011 10:44 am ET)
                        5  
                        The vast majority of programming on either MSNBC or Fox News falls under the political commentary title.


                        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.
                        Report Abuse
              • Author by RustyCannon (February 10, 2011 10:21 am ET)
                10  
                Completely false equivalence. MSNBC doesn't make stuff up, corrects mistakes on air when they're made, and they don't act as the mouthpiece for the president or any other pol or party. In fact, they criticize everyone when criticism is warranted. They even dedicate 3 hours each morning to a conservative host who disagrees with all the prime time opinion hosts on his own station.

                You can't make those statements about FOX, because the opposite is true of FOX in each case.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by highlyunlikely (February 10, 2011 4:58 pm ET)
                4  
                It may not be "rocket science" but it certainly is a false equivalency. Ah, that was too easy.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by Mr. Katanga (February 10, 2011 8:56 am ET)
            13  
            Ok you disagree with the article...so that makes the article false? You are very aptly named. It must really suck going through life thinking cynical things all the time. Do us a favor, just put your fingers in your ears and yell :"La-La-La-La!!!!! I'm not listening! I'm not listening!!" You act like a third grader when you discount anything that doesn't subscribe to your thinking.
            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.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by jake5 (February 10, 2011 9:27 am ET)
                22
              Somebody is angry!
              Report Abuse
              • Author by highlyunlikely (February 10, 2011 5:02 pm ET)
                6  
                Somebody forgot to add "and silly." Back to his old tricks, since children know no better.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by MagCynic (February 10, 2011 9:37 am ET)
                25
              Why would you trust somebody when they've already broke a previously arranged non-disclosure agreement?

              If this is the case, Media Matter's anonymous source is clearly a liar. Why should we believe a word he/she says?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by curiousindependent (February 10, 2011 9:39 am ET)
                17  
                Wow. How fast does your head spin?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by MagCynic (February 10, 2011 9:48 am ET)
                    25
                  Why would you trust somebody when they've already broke a previously arranged non-disclosure agreement?

                  If this is the case, Media Matter's anonymous source is clearly a liar. Why should we believe a word he/she says?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by curiousindependent (February 10, 2011 9:58 am ET)
                    19  
                    LOL you are too funny. You don't seem to find it odd that FOX forces a non-disclosure agreement on its released employees. I can certainly see where specific sources might be protected with such an agreement, but you seem to believe that the entire FOX and Republican agenda should be protected as well.

                    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?
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by MagCynic (February 10, 2011 10:03 am ET)
                        21
                      "LOL you are too funny. You don't seem to find it odd that FOX forces a non-disclosure agreement on its released employees"

                      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?
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by CrashGordon (February 10, 2011 10:46 am ET)
                        16  
                        Whitle-blowers who expose crime and corruption also frequently sign non-disclosure agreements. Should we stop allowing whistle-blowers to provide testimony against their criminal bosses because they aren't trustworthy?
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by peace4all (February 10, 2011 10:52 am ET)
                        11  
                        thats the question then isn't it? you have no idea if he signed one or not. so to put forth your version of events you assume he signed one. so if i can show he did not will that make him credible to you?
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by MagCynic (February 10, 2011 11:01 am ET)
                            19
                          He would be credible if he actually came forward. The fact that he's hiding for something like this is what sets me off.

                          It's not like he's hiding from the mafia.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by mary59 (February 10, 2011 11:14 am ET)
                            14  
                            What sets you off is that the evidence of Fox being a propaganda arm of the GOP is too real for you.

                            You are also part of that propaganda, and it's a sorry bit part.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by mikehuck1976 (February 10, 2011 11:02 pm ET)
                              1  
                              Yeah, as usual with MagCynic, eventually it just gets sad to watch. It is hard not to feel sorry for him when he gets to this point. Anyone who ever signs a non-disclosure agreement can ever come out and speak? Disgusting, really. Holding the idea that an employee is required to sign a non-disclosure agreement against the employee and not wonder why the company would need one tells us all we need to know about Mag and his actual level of cynicism.
                              Report Abuse
                          • Author by peace4all (February 10, 2011 11:43 am ET)
                            8  
                            well, you're the one who claimed that his signing a non-disclosure agreement made him suspect. even though you have no evidence that he ever signed one.
                            Report Abuse
                          • Author by rwgate (February 10, 2011 4:38 pm ET)
                            2  
                            Mark Feldt (Deep Throat) was a credible source, even though he kept his identity secret for over 35 years.

                            How about the credibility of FOX newspeople (using the term lightly) who claim "some people say" (without attribution) all the time?
                            Report Abuse
                      • Author by curiousindependent (February 10, 2011 3:55 pm ET)
                        6  
                        I know that this would cause your head to explode, but I am going to suggest it anyway.

                        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.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by grmce (February 10, 2011 8:43 pm ET)
                          1  
                          It is arguable that many of these "non-disclosure" agreements are coerced and not for legitimate purpose i.e. work product intellectual property. As such, they are voidable. In the matter of this case there is a clear public interest defence as well.

                          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?
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by curiousindependent (February 10, 2011 11:34 pm ET)
                            1  
                            Where's the much vaunted protection of freedom of speech when you need it?

                            That, along with other Constitutional protections, is only for Republicans.
                            Report Abuse
                  • Author by bintx (February 10, 2011 10:49 am ET)
                    7 1
                    Do you trust Rupert Murdoch? He verified at least one part of the article above at Davos in 2007.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by bintx (February 10, 2011 12:53 pm ET)
                      5  
                      I guess you don't trust Murdoch. He's the one who verified that he used his media outlets to promote Bush agenda.
                      Report Abuse
                  • Author by Turkeysocks (February 10, 2011 12:50 pm ET)
                    6  
                    Perhaps because their conscious has gotten the better of them?

                    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.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by dommanno3075 (February 11, 2011 4:28 pm ET)
                       
                    Why would you trust somebody when they've already broke a previously arranged non-disclosure agreement?
                    What if it's not a legally valid agreement?
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by curiousindependent (February 11, 2011 5:09 pm ET)
                       
                    Why would you trust somebody when they've already broke a previously arranged non-disclosure agreement?
                    You trust an awful lot of people who break oaths and vows. How many Republican politicians and media people have broken marriage vows?

                    You do have evidence that this guy signed an NDA right?
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by DeeaReDee4 (February 10, 2011 10:32 am ET)
                   
                As a practice to hear what might be the truth watching/reading as much about any story from as many sources as possible an individual might get some truth.

                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.

                Report Abuse
              • Author by RustyCannon (February 10, 2011 10:33 am ET)
                5  
                Where in the story does it say that this source signed a non-disclosure agreement? You're making an assumption and damning a person because of your assumption. Typical Focksnooze behavior.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by rwgate (February 10, 2011 4:31 pm ET)
                2  
                What does anonymously breaking a non-disclosure agreement have to do with lying? The agreement is a contract usually signed by a job applicant to protect trade secrets by the hiring company. You can break the agreement and still be telling the truth, especially if you are a formeremployee.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by mikehuck1976 (February 10, 2011 11:00 pm ET)
                1  
                Oh, Mag. It gets hard to even mock you when you get to this point in the argument. You get to flailing so fast and so badly, it is hard not to just start feeling sorry for you. Is that really the best you got? No one that signs a non-disclosure agreement can ever be trusted? Yikes. Very sad the pretzel you will twist yourself into in order to defend your masters.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by jake5 (February 10, 2011 9:08 am ET)
              22
            I wonder if Fox News is setting up the left wing with an "inside source"?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by JimmyCraghorn (February 10, 2011 9:30 am ET)
              20  
              Good point. We'll know that's the case if the source starts talking about underage prostitution rings at Fox News. Its their favorite "sting".
              Report Abuse
              • Author by jake5 (February 10, 2011 9:34 am ET)
                  25
                I hate it when underage prostitution rings are exposed in stings. It is just so wrong to expose those kinds of victimless crimes. :(
                Report Abuse
                • Author by curiousindependent (February 10, 2011 9:40 am ET)
                  13  
                  Hey, look who got un-grounded and is allowed back on the computer!
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by rumpleteasermom (February 10, 2011 10:38 am ET)
                  20 1
                  I hate it when underage prostitution rings are exposed in stings. It is just so wrong to expose those kinds of victimless crimes. :(
                  I hate it when good people are smeared by sleazy pseudo-journalists using highly edited video to pretend the people being smeared support underage prostitution rings. I especially hate it when my government doesn't stop to find out if any of the accusations are true before withdrawing funding. And I REALLY hate that even after the truth came out, some "journalists" still report the lies on a regular basis.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by mattcable250650 (February 10, 2011 10:40 am ET)
                  9  
                  Uh, "underage prostitution" and "victimless crimes" are a contradiction in terms. Ya can't have both. Either the prostitute is of the age of consent or she's a victim.

                  Yeah, yeah, I realize you're trying to be clever and snarky. FAIL!!!
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by ScienceBuff (February 10, 2011 10:58 am ET)
                  15  
                  I hate it when underage prostitution rings are exposed in stings. - jake5

                  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?
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by rwgate (February 10, 2011 4:43 pm ET)
                  1  
                  So you're asserting that Planned Parenthood runs underage prostitution rings? So that's where they get all their money!
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by syrabell (February 10, 2011 5:32 pm ET)
                  4  
                  What a vile statement you just made. There are somethings that cross the line and calling underage prostitution a victimless(sp) crime if even in jest is appalling.

                  As a side could you turn on spell check. I find it very useful so that I can learn the correct spelling of words.
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by RustyCannon (February 10, 2011 10:36 am ET)
              2  
              FOX only does that to major network news anchors.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by mikehuck1976 (February 10, 2011 11:04 pm ET)
              2  
              I wonder if Fox News is setting up the left wing with an "inside source"? - jake

              What? I thought there was no actual source. Now it's a setup? Flailing already.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by iglou (February 10, 2011 3:14 pm ET)
            2  
            It's not that we don't believe your source... we don't believe YOU. You lie! Prove otherwise.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by theegrobe (February 11, 2011 10:59 am ET)
            1 1
            it couldn't be true because no one in there right mind would ever speak out against fox. the same way no north korean would ever speak out against kim jong il
            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.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by kabniel (February 11, 2011 3:19 pm ET)
               
            You are telling lies.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by didi (February 10, 2011 8:21 am ET)
        35  
        MSNBC had a couple of tea party people on last night on Chris Matthews show. One of them sounded like a raving lunatic when he couldn't find a way to admit that Obama was not a Muslim.

        Tea Party types don't need to be "painted" as sadistic morons.... they ARE sadistic morons.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by MagCynic (February 10, 2011 8:53 am ET)
            27
          Yeah. Sure they are. Keep telling yourself that.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by jake5 (February 10, 2011 9:30 am ET)
          1 19
          Those sadistic morons filled the Congress with republicans. Stupid morons got what they wanted :)
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Imbecile (February 10, 2011 9:50 am ET)
            17  
            And now the people who voted for them will get what they deserve.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by i love you glenn (February 10, 2011 10:40 am ET)
               
            yes and they are having the hardist time COUNTING votes. Its wonderful to have these people
            Report Abuse
          • Author by cugagcmu805031 (February 10, 2011 7:40 pm ET)
            1  
            And Boehner is blaming his inability to pass legislation on the democrats! He told Politico that the dems should vote on republican legislation because it is the right thing to do. Funny, he didn't feel the same way toward democratic legislation in 2009 and 2010 that was meant to aid in economic recovery. When Politico asked him why he chose the method of passing the bill that required a 2/3 majority, he didn't respond. Boehner has huge problems in his caucus, and he deserves every problem he has to deal with. He's had problems passing 3 pieces of legislation this week. He was more than willing to lie to the American people to become Speaker. The problem is that he didn't know the type of people he was pandering to.

            Quality should always trump quantity.

            The only question I have for you and Boehner is, where are the jobs?
            Report Abuse
      • Author by davemccarthymusic9410 (February 10, 2011 8:22 am ET)
        24  
        "sadistic morons" or "simplistic Mormons"?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Luhgnut (February 10, 2011 8:46 am ET)
        16  
        You just proved the stories point. That it's cool to just make up crap and promote it as fact. Irony is so ironic at times.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by jake5 (February 10, 2011 9:07 am ET)
          20
        We all know that all the News/Talk stations put their own spin on the news. There is no new "news" in this article.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by MickD (February 10, 2011 9:34 am ET)
          19  
          Yes everybody does it, everybody does it, everybody does it, you're getting sleepy.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by jake5 (February 10, 2011 11:25 am ET)
              17
            Good job MickD. What a childish, I mean, intelligent response.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by grmce (February 10, 2011 8:55 pm ET)
              2  
              jake5,

              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
              Report Abuse
      • Author by stpdlib (February 10, 2011 9:20 am ET)
        1 16
        That's so odd... because a former WH staffer, who wants to remain anonymous OBVIOUSLY, has informed me that MSNBC is not to blame for their political spin, they onlt had to do this because they got their marching orders straight from the White House! Crazy huh?

        Oh, and he said that Obama was from Kenya too... True stuff!
        Report Abuse
      • Author by cst (February 10, 2011 9:40 am ET)
        17  
        Let's say that you're telling the truth, Mag. HOW DOES THAT REFUTE A SINGLE THING SAID IN THE ARTICLE?
        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..."
        Report Abuse
      • Author by dalek (February 10, 2011 9:53 am ET)
        17  
        I dont see MSNBC organising "grass roots" movements spewing nebulous fear mongering while masterbating at teh thought of having an air-head hockey mom as the next preisdent.

        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".
        Report Abuse
        • Author by johnsta (February 10, 2011 10:25 am ET)
          10  
          Keith is just not telling you the truth of the upcoming doom and gloom, so of course he doesn't tell you to buy Gold. What you gonna do when the darkness arrives and you have no gold dalek???

          /sarcasm
          Report Abuse
      • Author by Mrs. Polly (February 10, 2011 10:02 am ET)
        16  
        So your source is unaware that MSNBC mornings are dominated by conservative Joe Scarborough, evidently. And that Dylan Rattigan, Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O' Donnell all call out the Obama administration, every night, sometimes utilizing Fox's favorite faux-lefty sourpuss Jane Hamsher, who once threatened to primary Bernie Sanders, and never, ever, attacks right-wingers.

        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.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Kid Funkadelic (February 10, 2011 10:27 am ET)
        11 2
        People should call Fox exactly what it is:

        THE AL-QAEDA RECRUITMENT CENTER !
        Report Abuse
      • Author by peea1 (February 10, 2011 10:38 am ET)
        8  
        We are talking about FOX here, only about FOX, FOX again FOX!!! The problem is FOX. MMFA is calling out FOX, not MSNBC or any other channel. People are not complaining about MSNBC. It's FOX. Again, FOX. Get over your pitiful self, Mag. Your love for Beck and FOX is well known. You are stale. Please go away. Soon. Now.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mattcable250650 (February 10, 2011 10:44 am ET)
          9  
          Please present EVIDENCE that MSNBC is just a worthy of condemnation as Fox News is.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by wwjbd (February 10, 2011 11:22 am ET)
              19
            multiple cases of broadcaster lying. About the dumbest things too.

            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."


            Report Abuse
            • Author by congero6189599 (February 10, 2011 11:56 am ET)
              11  
              So your proof of equivalency to Faux just making stuff up and being the propaganda machine or mouthpiece of the Republican party is that KO didn't say he saw the video about Palin and a turkey? Maddow doctored a video of Paul? She misrepresented him when he said he felt that the federal government had no right to tell businesses to integrate? She most certainly didn't. Do you know what happened to KO when is donations were revealed? He was suspended. The other example was Joe Scarborough a Republican who was also suspended. Yet who has been suspended at Faux. Sharon Angle bragged that she could go on Faux and use it like an ATM. Hannity,Beck use Faux to to raise money for Republicans and to promote and foister the tea-party. Michelle Bachmmann raises money for her campaign and issues she is involved in on Faux. Their is no equivalency.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by jarossiter (February 10, 2011 12:19 pm ET)
              12  
              "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."

              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.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by thinkplease (February 10, 2011 2:35 pm ET)
                 
              Oh no - turkey lying!

              Rhetoric is not LIES ...

              Report Abuse
            • Author by mikehuck1976 (February 11, 2011 2:27 pm ET)
              1  
              Do you know how insane you have to be in order to read your post wwspd and be proud of it?

              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.
              Report Abuse
      • Author by Fox News - Nothing But Truth (February 10, 2011 11:39 am ET)
          11
        BLASPHEMY!!!!!
        Report Abuse
      • Author by UncleLew (February 10, 2011 11:41 am ET)
        8  
        Wow! You're using lies to defend lies. Well done, Maggie.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by coxeddie2642 (February 10, 2011 12:03 pm ET)
        1  
        There are several problems with your argument. No one would argue that MSNBC does not spin political stories. They freely admit that most of their 'personalities' are liberal. With the notable exception of Joe Scarborough. (Does Fox have any lefty who is as prominent as Joe Scarborough?) But that is far different from the claim that Fox makes things up. And there is evidence to support the claim that Fox makes things up. They are caught, over and over and over again, promoting stories that have no basis in fact. And they almost never correct the story or apologize. The 'personalities' on MSNBC, on the other hand, make a point of correcting anything they say that is found to be untrue. Another point is something that you apparently failed to notice in the story if you even bothered to read it. Fox has "strict non-disclosure agreements that most exiting employees sign and which forbid them from discussing their former employer". So much for your suggestion that the 'source' is not credible.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (February 10, 2011 12:09 pm ET)
        8 1
        You have the luxury of making your source up because you are an anonymous forum commenter with absolutely nothing to lose and no reputation to uphold.

        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.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by DaKaizer13 (February 10, 2011 12:24 pm ET)
        1  
        The only Presidential resignation in US History was a direct result of the actions taken by unnamed source.

        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.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by conservagal (February 10, 2011 12:47 pm ET)
          7
        This whole article reeks of being made up by MMFA. Until the "anonymous" source is named, it is unbelievable. When will the left stop saying FOX lies just because they don't agree with their opinion? A lie is when you purposely put forth that which you know to be untrue. A lie is not when you put forth an opinion that someone else disagrees. It's so tiresome.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by The_Cat (February 12, 2011 3:22 pm ET)
             
          So, got a question for you, conservagal. If someone says the Civil War was not about slavery, are they stating an opinion, or are they lying?
          Report Abuse
      • Author by sociocrat (February 10, 2011 1:32 pm ET)
        4  
        MagCynic,
        You are a liar! Have you ever heard of anonymous sources?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by sociocrat (February 10, 2011 1:37 pm ET)
        5  
        MagCynic,
        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.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by jeverfritz (February 10, 2011 2:07 pm ET)
        2  
        So, this "insider" was only telling the truth about the "right being sadistic morons." Good to know, MSNBC is correct. And the tea-party deserves being mocked - their silly, lampooning antics are amusingly childish. And they're so cute, when they get angry.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Martha (February 10, 2011 2:22 pm ET)
        4  
        MagCynic, how old are you, 5?

        You may as well say, "I know you are but what am I", just LIKE a 5 year old.........pathetic.......truly pathetic.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by delihound (February 10, 2011 2:22 pm ET)
        2  
        This is what is wrong with Fox and what they do to their conservative viewers

        http://www.thecrossculturalist.com/2011/02/more-iowan-republicans-believe-obama-is.html

        I mean, WHAT CAN DO YOU DO WITH PEOPLE THIS MISINFORMED?!
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Snowbank (February 10, 2011 2:51 pm ET)
        2  
        Was your source, perhaps, the Easter Bunny?

        Or the ghost of Richard Nixon?

        On your bike.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Avicenna (February 10, 2011 3:56 pm ET)
        5  
        Yeah, yeah, Mag"Cynic."

        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.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by overmars jr. (February 10, 2011 4:56 pm ET)
        2  
        Difference: you are lying.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by phatcracker2006 (February 10, 2011 7:48 pm ET)
        2  
        But the right ARE sadistic morons!!!
        Report Abuse
      • Author by MrDutch89 (February 10, 2011 11:32 pm ET)
          1
        Oh yeah i heard that also! MSNBC's "insider" told me that Sarah Palin used a weapon on her TLC program, and shot an animal!!!! Shot an innocent animal!! And probably ate it later!! OMG She must be of the devil. The insider also told me that Sarah Palins point of view is quite demonic, that she believes in going back to the founding fathers principles of self governing!! Can you believe that!! =]
        Report Abuse
      • Author by trisailing (February 11, 2011 7:17 am ET)
        2  
        Magcynic, Some people at MSNBC have played the FOX game in reverse. It does not work for them because the audiences that want sensationalized hype are already taken and those remaining would rather get news and make their decisions. BTW MSNBC is owned by GE (About 80%). GE is the world's top producer of weaponry so I am sure you can imagine how far left they are. As a matter of fact they only appear Left when compared to FOX. ABC is also owned by far right Disney. CNN is owned by a billionaire who's only tie to the left is that he used to be married to Jane Fonda.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by kamrom (February 11, 2011 12:12 pm ET)
        2  
        How about next time you want honest discource, dont start off with an attack thats not sourced. People might think you arent actually trying to converse, but instead are just throwing out insults. Because clearly, starting with an attack is how you show people you're up for reasonable debate.

        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.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by treefingers (February 11, 2011 1:09 pm ET)
           
        You're probably right. MSNBC uses the business model FOX created, trying to catch the "liberal" niche like FOX has the "conservative" niche. But FOX is much more influential than MSNBC--FOX viewers seem to think that their channel is fair and balanced, while MSNBC viewers seem to recognize that their channel is preaching to the choir. The difference is significant; FOX viewers think they are getting an honest depiction of reality, while MSNBC viewers realize they are getting a liberal analysis of reality.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Panic Man (February 11, 2011 1:30 pm ET)
        1  
        Buuuuuutt.
        Huuuuuurt.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by christopherbifani (February 11, 2011 2:03 pm ET)
           
        Good point, the above story doesn't name the source or rerpint relevant documents to back the source up. But if you're implying that MSNBC spins left inthe same perverse and pervasive that Fox does, I disagree. My own eyes and ears are my source.
        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.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by kabniel (February 11, 2011 3:03 pm ET)
        1  
        No you didnt. Why are you telling lies?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Joycats (February 11, 2011 3:30 pm ET)
           
        OMG
        Didn't anyone get this?
        MagCynic's post was purely tongue-in-check!!!!
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Ezoran (February 11, 2011 4:39 pm ET)
           
        out of curiousity -- how many folks on the right have been victim to "crazy people with guns", that happen to religiously watch left-wing TV?


        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.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by thumbster (February 11, 2011 7:27 pm ET)
           
        If a disgruntled ex-employee says something bad about their former employer, it MUST be a fact. Fox at least invites people from both sides, the others simply talk the (D) line.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by jnagarya (February 11, 2011 8:54 pm ET)
           
        Ask yourself:

        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.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Dakotahgeo (February 12, 2011 6:46 am ET)
           
        LOLOL... I think you're on the wrong story. Are you in the same desert you wandered in before, for 40 years? Get a GPS.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by average american (February 12, 2011 8:21 am ET)
           
        if you are inteligent and have a desire to seek the truth for yourself, just watch fox then fact check them.

        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
        Report Abuse
      • Author by dhamma (February 12, 2011 9:09 am ET)
           
        They didn't have to be told to slant the news against the Right, they only had to report the facts, and that is what they did. Don't see where the argument is in your post.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by cfulwood (February 12, 2011 10:46 am ET)
           
        Nonsense. Your comment is as much propaganda as the lies of FOX.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by RockyPneumonia (February 12, 2011 1:58 pm ET)
           
        Yes, and if you really had such a source and s/he had really had said such a thing, you'd have a great point.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by eltiare (February 12, 2011 5:16 pm ET)
           
        So many people here don't like the comment simply because it shows how silly the premis is of the anonymous source. They create an entire story based off the rantings of one person and present it as fact.

        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.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by ByStander (February 12, 2011 11:14 pm ET)
           
        I also completely agree with Mr. Averill. I should like to defend MagCynic's greatly "down thumbed" post as misinterpreted, as he is primarily making the same point as Mr. Averill (IMHO). In that anonymous statements does not represent iron clad proof.

        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.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by EdS (February 13, 2011 4:21 am ET)
           
        I am entertained by MagCynic post. It is everything I would expect from a loyal Fox employee. Ignoring the issue at hand, divert attention from what Fox does. "It's just all the liberal media out to get us" Actually it is sad that it actually works for them. "My source told me so also!
        Report Abuse
    • Author by markslp7013 (February 10, 2011 7:46 am ET)
      8  
      Surprise, surprise. NOT!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by blk-in-alabam (February 10, 2011 8:14 am ET)
      8  
      Fox news fears regulatory pay back for their many current violations in a second Obama term.Their mission is to prevent that a any cost.News corp is very dangerous to the safety,and progress of the USA,and its people.I could probably say that in a more clever wat,but the truth is.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by jjtb4v (February 10, 2011 1:41 pm ET)
        6  
        Additionally, 2 Murdoch papers in the UK have been slammed for hacking whic of course is a crime. So lying, smearing, criminal activity - sounds like a regular day at the Murdoch Death Panel!
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Avicenna (February 10, 2011 4:06 pm ET)
          9  
          Murdoch is a criminal enterprise. Becky calls Obama Criminal Inc., but while I am no fan of the Obama Chicago Machine (Daly, etc.), Murdoch/Fox Ent./News is a criminal enterprise, since it allows illegal hacking.

          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.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by cugagcmu805031 (February 10, 2011 7:46 pm ET)
            1  
            Isn't there some scum nut woman governor in the south who cheated on her hubby a few times?

            Nikki Haley, a Palin endorsed candidate.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by TNbluedot (February 10, 2011 8:35 am ET)
      11  
      It is a fact the junk Faux spews is really dangerous. They know they don't have to be honest (re: the judge's opinion in FL), so why should they? What I don't understand is why the legitimate networks don't come together in a united front and expose Faux for what it is once and for all. It's nothing short of criminal that Faux is allowed to control the low-information crowd that tunes in regularly. Murdoch never should have been allowed to gain so much media control - that in itself is crazy! It's also crazy that Scarah Palin is a Faux "political analyst" - as if she has a clue!

      Anyway, thanks, Eric. Good job!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by MickD (February 10, 2011 8:37 am ET)
      15  
      Will this be news? It's to MMFA's credit that they keep at this story, but will it be picked up further from here? Oh, and MagCynic, how sad you are. All evidence is presented here, and you come back with a playground canard.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Imbecile (February 10, 2011 9:52 am ET)
        7  
        Mainstream media only picks up the lies Fox News and its lackeys concoct, they don't expose them.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by grmce (February 11, 2011 3:35 am ET)
          3  
          There's the rub: The inherent laziness of the mainstream media. Couple that with the cowardice that prevents them from calling out Fox and its gaggle of liars for the serial deceivers that they are.

          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.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by terrapin53 (February 10, 2011 8:42 am ET)
      14  
      The fact that Fox viewers come to thsi web site speaks volumes to me that they question some of the stuff they hear on Fox. Otherwise, why come to this site?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by galmud (February 10, 2011 8:48 am ET)
      16  
      It's no wonder this source feels the need to be anonymous. If not the entire Fox News machine would turn on him/her like a hungry pack of wolves.

      Remember Scott McClellan?
      http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/29/oreilly-mcclellan-2/
      Report Abuse
    • Author by NextChapter (February 10, 2011 9:16 am ET)
      11  
      Here is a documentary on Fox News. It is called, 'Out Foxed'. In it, former Fox News employers, including former anchor news reporters, speak on camera about how the news is manipulated there.

      'Out Foxed' documentary
      Report Abuse
    • Author by MangyDog (February 10, 2011 9:34 am ET)
      8  
      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.


      ...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.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by doughpro1604643 (February 10, 2011 9:35 am ET)
      1 26
      This article is nothing but propaganda. Hard to find credibility in an anonymous source.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by DAWUSS (February 10, 2011 9:45 am ET)
          15
        "Hard to find credibility in an anonymous source."

        This is probably one of the few times I'll agree with you.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by curiousindependent (February 10, 2011 9:46 am ET)
        25  
        Really? You think maybe Woodward and Bernstein should have passed on that whole Watergate thing, since all they had was an anonymous source?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by foghornleghorn (February 10, 2011 12:46 pm ET)
          9  
          Yep, it's hard to believe an anonymous source when that source simply confirms WHAT EVERYONE HAD ALREADY SUSPECTED.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by doughpro1604643 (February 11, 2011 1:28 pm ET)
            5
          Really? You think maybe Woodward and Bernstein should have passed on that whole Watergate thing, since all they had was an anonymous source?

          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?
          Report Abuse
      • Author by DeeaReDee4 (February 10, 2011 10:38 am ET)
        1  
        Grasping at straws. Wikileaks has encouraged people to come forward with this type of story. Dismissing this story as an out right lie or as propaganda allows me to view Faux News as a propaganda machine. That's by doughpro1604643 logic!
        Report Abuse
      • Author by sociocrat (February 10, 2011 1:50 pm ET)
        9  
        So, I am betting you think Nixon was innocent? He was brought down by an anonymous source. Anonymous sources are the backbone of a free press. All news organizations use them and do not in any way diminish the validity of any story. You are just another ignorant faux viewing buffoon. Anonymous sources are standard and execpted in news gathering organizations. Anonymous sources are a problem in criminal prosecutions, but not in news gathering.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by cugagcmu805031 (February 10, 2011 7:48 pm ET)
        3  
        Like the woman who exposed ex-Congressman Pitts that still remains anonymous? That wasn't propaganda. It was fact, and Pitts resigned because of it.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by debfult85 (February 10, 2011 9:40 am ET)
        13
      CORPORATE NEWS, $$ IS THE TALK OF THE WALL..I have one question to all:

      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
      Report Abuse
    • Author by DAWUSS (February 10, 2011 9:41 am ET)
        12
      Can this "insider" come out and show himself?

      Sorry, I don't buy much into anonymous sources. They often tend to agree too much with what the writer has been saying.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by curiousindependent (February 10, 2011 10:01 am ET)
        13  
        Can this "insider" come out and show himself?
        Do you realize how much money FOX could spend destroying this guy if he did?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by sociocrat (February 10, 2011 1:53 pm ET)
        8  
        "Can this "insider" come out and show himself?"
        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?

        Report Abuse
    • Author by YouTubeJEFF9K (February 10, 2011 9:41 am ET)
      15  
      The effect is massive election fraud.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Imbecile (February 10, 2011 9:48 am ET)
      11  
      There was a study done some years ago (during the Reagan administration at the height of the Iran Contra scandal) that sought to determine the honesty of presidential administrations.

      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.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by GeekHillbilly (February 10, 2011 9:51 am ET)
      8  
      It was obvious to anyone who can think that the greatest majority of stories on Fox news was either made up or badly distorted.No big surprise.What is a surprise that someone finally admitted it.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by rbuck282 (February 10, 2011 9:57 am ET)
      14  
      For me the difference between the left and right is the left typically will point out the faults of those within it ranks, but the right, for the most part, does not. Not a winning formula for the left, but I guess they can look themselves in the mirror at the end of the day....they can't seem to hold seats, but they can sleep at night. The right is a well-oiled machine. They remain on-point and maintain a coherent rhetoric that is parroted from the top, through their media outlets, and down through the ranks. The messages are constant and consistent...just what a drooling, insecure public needs....something easily digestable that affirms their fears and prejudices.

      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.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by terrapin53 (February 10, 2011 1:43 pm ET)
        4  
        rbuck, On Fox when they want an opinion on what is happening in Egypt, they call on Dick, the penguin, Morris. MSNBC calls on some Egyptian American or Egyptian national who is an authority to come on and discuss it. Now Morris is not an authority on anything other than asking for money for his website, yet he seems to the one of the go to guys for just about any expert opinion.

        anyone who cannot see the difference between Fox and the other cable channels is pretty much beyond hope.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by RumpshakerSlim (February 10, 2011 10:12 am ET)
      14 1
      I love how personally the pathetic trolls are taking this. Insulting Fox News is worse than insulting their mothers.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by johnsta (February 10, 2011 10:21 am ET)
      9  
      Hmm, Sounds like MagCynic might be a Fox Insider as well.

      Roger? Is that you?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by johnsta (February 10, 2011 10:26 am ET)
      6  
      Fox News is paying overtime for their staffers to post here today.

      GOOD.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by RustyCannon (February 10, 2011 10:57 am ET)
        7  
        I seriously doubt that FOX pays overtime to anyone. As anti-labor as they are, I imagine the rank and file work for carrots and are motivated by sticks.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by bintx (February 10, 2011 10:31 am ET)
      13 1
      No surprise. Murdoch admitted it at Davos in 2007.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (February 10, 2011 12:55 pm ET)
        8  
        What? Murdoch didn't verify that he used his media outlets to promote Bush's agenda? I mean, this was an actual videotape of Murdoch doing EXACTLY that.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by manofmystique (February 10, 2011 10:56 am ET)
      9  
      This insider seems to hit all the points. The funny thing is, you would have to be blind not to notice it.
      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.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by jonimacaroni1 (February 10, 2011 11:03 am ET)
      11  
      Truer words were never spoken.

      <blockquote>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." </blockquote>

      Report Abuse
    • Author by historygeek001 (February 10, 2011 11:05 am ET)
      6  
      "Stuff is just made up." Well, duh.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Fox News - Nothing But Truth (February 10, 2011 11:18 am ET)
        9
      CounterFoxNews.com you are full of awesomeness!!!!!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by chinagreenelvis (February 10, 2011 11:18 am ET)
      8  
      MagCynic:

      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.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (February 10, 2011 11:22 am ET)
        14  
        I watched Fox every day until 2001-2002 when it a huge shift occurred in its programming. There was very little news being reported any longer. This coincides with Murdoch's statement at Davos that he used his media outlets to help push the Bush agenda. That's when I quit watching any longer.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by johnsta (February 10, 2011 12:09 pm ET)
          7  
          Awesome bintx, good for you.

          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.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by kh510 (February 10, 2011 1:43 pm ET)
        4  
        I believe the reference is to the million dollar checks written to the Republican Governors Association and to the Chamber of Commerce, so yes it is "checks". Otherwise, I agree with and support your statement.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by steeve (February 10, 2011 11:19 am ET)
      7  
      For those of you confused by citing anonymous sources, it's okay if someone with a track record of honesty is doing it. It's not okay if Fox News, any republican, or MagCynic does it.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by johnsta (February 10, 2011 12:12 pm ET)
        4  
        It does not matter at all that this is an anonymous source. Everything he is saying can be backed up with proof.

        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.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by steeve (February 10, 2011 1:01 pm ET)
          3  
          In the general case, an anonymous source might say something completely new. When that happens, it shouldn't be discarded. It should be accepted if reported by a competent, trustworthy journalist.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Fox News - Nothing But Truth (February 10, 2011 11:23 am ET)
      2 28
      Do democrats always need someone to blame?

      Is it Fox News or George Bush's fault?

      I still can't figure out the answer.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (February 10, 2011 11:30 am ET)
        17 2
        I'm a conservative who has no use for political clubs at all. I also have no use for the faux conservative BS spewed on Fox. If you believe that Fox represents conservatism, you're not a conservative, just a groupie.

        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.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Fox News - Nothing But Truth (February 10, 2011 11:38 am ET)
            24
          I do not believe any "news" station. I have realized that none of them can tell the public what is really going on. If they did there would be riots daily.

          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.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by bintx (February 10, 2011 11:42 am ET)
            14 2
            Again, you are conflating a political party with a political ideology. Two different things.

            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.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by rbuck282 (February 10, 2011 12:00 pm ET)
                 
              That might be why the term 'neo-conservative' might be appropriate to describe the driving force behind FOX and most Republicans currently holding office.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by steeve (February 10, 2011 12:03 pm ET)
            14  
            "I do not believe any 'news' station" -- yeah you do. It's right there in your name.

            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.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by thinkplease (February 10, 2011 1:57 pm ET)
                 
              Don't see any relevance in a comment handle...

              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.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by curiousindependent (February 10, 2011 1:20 pm ET)
            8  
            I do not believe any "news" station
            Funny, your screen name says otherwise. In fact, it explicitly says that you unconditionally believe anything and everything that "Fox News - Nothing But Truth" tells you.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by thinkplease (February 10, 2011 1:54 pm ET)
             
          amen (and I mean that colloquially, not religiously - I am (gasp) one of those value-less, amoral atheists - and proud of it (choosing atheism, that is - I am a scientist). I do not get my news from any of the big 3 in cable "news".


          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.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by congero6189599 (February 10, 2011 12:00 pm ET)
        9  
        Fox News-Nothing But Truth. You can speak to him bintx but you will be talking through each other. You write in English he writes and speaks Clone.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by johnsta (February 10, 2011 12:16 pm ET)
        8  
        I am not a democrat, and Bush has blame placed on him that is absolutey valid that you choose to ignore.

        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.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by thinkplease (February 10, 2011 1:50 pm ET)
           
        Mr. Fox News - Nothing But the Truth:

        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.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by beulahmo (February 10, 2011 11:42 am ET)
      1  
      I appreciate Eric Boehlert's work on this, but this really isn't news to anyone who (1) pays attention, and (2) isn't in a willful state of denial.

      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.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by teeman1957 (February 10, 2011 11:59 am ET)
         
      Saying that Fox News will always side with the Republican party and are always with a Conservative view is contradictory. The Republican party has been anything but Convervative for a long time now.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by talkradiosucks.com (February 10, 2011 12:04 pm ET)
      1 15
      Sorry, but I'm not impressed. It's one thing for an organization with a reputation for impartiality to devote a long article to a claimed "insider" who makes a lot of damning allegations. It's quite another when it is done by a group that has devoted itself to opposing the group that the "insider" came from.

      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.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by steeve (February 10, 2011 12:16 pm ET)
        12  
        Media Matters has been correct over and over again for years. Fox News has been incorrect over and over again for years.

        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.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by talkradiosucks.com (February 10, 2011 12:45 pm ET)
            15
          "Correct" and "incorrect" are value judgments. That's not the point I'm trying to make. I already am more inclined to believe MM than FNC, as are most people here. But that doesn't justify poor journalism.

          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.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by foghornleghorn (February 10, 2011 12:51 pm ET)
            11  
            Uh, in case you missed it, MMFA is not a journalism site. It's a media watchdog site. Maybe you need to get off your high horse to see reality on the ground in regards to anonymous sources.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by steeve (February 10, 2011 1:11 pm ET)
            7  
            "I already am more inclined to believe MM than FNC" -- this is not because you have a certain point of view or a certain set of values. This is because you are right and people who disagree are wrong. The statement that MMFA is correct much more often than Fox News is not an opinion or a value judgment. It is objective fact.

            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.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by highlyunlikely (February 10, 2011 5:07 pm ET)
            7  
            "Correct" and "incorrect" are value judgments.


            No they're not.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by cugagcmu805031 (February 10, 2011 7:56 pm ET)
              4  
              Right!

              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.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by rwgate (February 10, 2011 5:33 pm ET)
            1  
            Actually, "correct' and "incorrect" are not value judgments. They are absolutes.

            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...

            Report Abuse
            • Author by talkradiosucks.com (February 11, 2011 3:29 pm ET)
                2
              "Actually, "correct' and "incorrect" are not value judgments. They are absolutes."

              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.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by highlyunlikely (February 11, 2011 5:41 pm ET)
                1  
                ok then, try this: correct opinion vs. incorrect opinion. Nothing oxymoronic about that, huh?
                Report Abuse
          • Author by n'est-ce pas (February 10, 2011 8:49 pm ET)
            4  
            Correct and incorrect are certainly not value judgments. Good and bad or right and wrong are value judgements. Correct and incorrect are synonyms for valid and invalid, true and false.

            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.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by thinkplease (February 10, 2011 2:04 pm ET)
        2  
        Mr/Ms. TalkRadioSucks:

        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...
        Report Abuse
        • Author by talkradiosucks.com (February 11, 2011 3:31 pm ET)
            2
          "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"

          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.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Rainier55 (February 10, 2011 12:12 pm ET)
         
      What vever happened to the words "News only news and nothing but the news" I wish I could resurect honesty. News is begining to sound like the tabloids. Actually I think you might get more facts in the tabloid these days then the news and that is pretty lousy.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by beulahmo (February 10, 2011 12:19 pm ET)
         
      I don't understand this place. I've commented at least a half dozen times over the last few weeks, and STILL my comments are not approved to appear in comment threads.

      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.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by The_Cat (February 12, 2011 3:37 pm ET)
           
        No, beulahmo, you haven't been banned. However, you do need to make a significant number of posts before they go through without being reviewed. It's a question of the number of posts, rather than the time span over which they are posted, if I am not mistaken. I reckoned the number of posts somewhere between two dozen and fifty before they no longer get reviewed first. And, welcome! And, have fun!
        Report Abuse
    • Author by srobbins (February 10, 2011 12:22 pm ET)
         
      Weather insider suggests "rain is wet," and "snow colder than rain."
      Report Abuse
    • Author by SMTDL (February 10, 2011 12:29 pm ET)
      7  
      If you actually doubt this inside information,please tell me the last time Fox had any piece on anything that actually praised or was positive regarding the President???If they were fair and balanced there would be something.They go out of their way to find fringe criticism ,like birthers,manufactured issues like speaking to school children,or debunked Breitbart crap,etc.They found ways to criticize even the Arizona speech and featured an unchallenged Sarah Palin "WTF" assessment of the SOTU speech,while both speeches were very positively received by a large majority of America.Why would any actual news organization 'never' agree or support any decision by their President!?Sometimes there is a neutral or "not totally negative" presentation by Shephard Smith and occasionally by O'Reilly but it's never a balanced overall representation.You regularly see the MSNBC line up criticize the President as well as agreeing/supporting.I rarely if ever saw Fox criticize Bush.They attacked every one else that did disagree with him and called them unpatriotic.Now they do that non-stop with this POTUS and still claim fair and balanced.It's not remotely credible!!!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Egbert Souse (February 10, 2011 12:55 pm ET)
        6  
        "... tell me the last time Fox had any piece on anything that actually praised or was positive regarding the President???"

        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?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by thinkplease (February 10, 2011 2:10 pm ET)
             
          Why don't you pry yourself away from the television and try the internet? Reuters, BBC, AP....
          Report Abuse
      • Author by steeve (February 10, 2011 1:15 pm ET)
        3  
        This is not the way to go. Accurate stories praising Bush were few and far between. Criticizing Obama does not show that you're not a liberal.

        It all comes down to true or false.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by thinkplease (February 10, 2011 2:09 pm ET)
             
          Gather your purported facts from diverse sources, do you own meta analysis, and then come to your own conclusions. That would be a thinking man's approach to getting information and news.

          "Trust but verify".

          Don't hate the player, hate the game.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by sociocrat (February 10, 2011 6:43 pm ET)
        3  
        How many times did faux criticize the left for criticizing Bush and making the claim that we should support the president in these times as a point of patriotism? What happened to that, my dear faux?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by sickofyoujerks (February 10, 2011 12:51 pm ET)
         
      How do I make the comments sort 'newest first'...someone please help me
      Report Abuse
    • Author by terrygrada (February 10, 2011 1:03 pm ET)
         
      All tv stations are messing with our minds. There is no perfect news station. Fox sucks for leaning a little right too much. But the other news stations aren't any better. There were tons of articles on how A group of reporters wanted to report the health risks involved in our milk products and were immedietely fired after refusing to lay off the story.

      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.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mary59 (February 11, 2011 11:25 pm ET)
           
        Terry, that local news station was a Fox affiliate. The reporters sued and lost after being fired for refusing to lie about Monsanto.

        Please.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by jjtb4v (February 10, 2011 1:28 pm ET)
      7  
      Well, I've seen political science majors who happen to be conservative actively promoting falsehoods. I know them by name, their classes, their courses, the college they attend and I follow them on facebook. The best ones reach Pamela Geller, Andrew Breitbart and their entire motley crue of spin doctors who work with the sole purpose of destroying Anything that they consider 'liberal', 'progressive', 'anti-poverty', 'pro-equality', or anything else that has made our nation Great in the last 150 years -roughly since the civil war, which they can't wait to undo and reverse the outcome.
      Of course, in this case, Bill O'Reilly isn't making stuff up. http://mediamatters.org/blog/201008270018
      Report Abuse
    • Author by JeffMinneapolis (February 10, 2011 1:44 pm ET)
         
      FOX lies? This will clear it up, no secret source needed.

      http://www.relfe.com/media_can_legally_lie.html
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Meremark (February 10, 2011 1:59 pm ET)
      1  
      -

      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.

      -
      Report Abuse
    • Author by jeverfritz (February 10, 2011 2:01 pm ET)
      3  
      I don't like to resort to ad hominem,, but I can't resist. As the saying goes, "Without Free-Speech, how will we tell who the ass-h*les are?" We need to be vigilant in safeguarding to right to free-speech, so Fock Snooze and its minions can continue to demonstrate the same.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by OBXartist (February 10, 2011 2:06 pm ET)
         
      Based on my own observations and actually seeing with my own eyes events which Fox News has then "reported on" and lied about, most of what is detailed in this article rings true to me. HOWEVER, I'd have a lot more respect for it, and the charges would have a lot more traction if the "source" would come out into the open, name names, discuss specific instances that could be proven, etc. etc. Otherwise, it's just anonymous heresay.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by draftedin68 (February 10, 2011 2:17 pm ET)
      4  

      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!

      Report Abuse
    • Author by IntelSebastian (February 10, 2011 2:26 pm ET)
      5  
      Yes you should always temper your view on stories with anonymous sources. Part of what you temper it with is...

      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.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by danisme (February 10, 2011 3:35 pm ET)
          3
        Really? This is what Media Matters is resorting to? Anonymous sources? I think it is pretty clear just who is grabbing at straws to strengthen a misguided agenda.

        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.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Pougy (February 10, 2011 3:06 pm ET)
        3
      This expose is so tacky. All, and I repeat all, of the News Media
      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.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by captaintrav (February 10, 2011 3:16 pm ET)
        3
      FOX NEWS is FAIR and BALANCED, so you know it's good.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by malden621 (February 10, 2011 3:19 pm ET)
      2  
      Never trust anybody who has to say they are fair and balanced every five minutes...
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Vesus (February 10, 2011 3:29 pm ET)
      1  
      Fox wouldn't receive nearly as much criticism if they would just shed the pretenses and stop calling themselves "fair and balanced". If msnbc called themselves "fair and balanced", they would deserve equal criticism.

      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.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Frunobulax212 (February 10, 2011 3:36 pm ET)
         
      Is there any chance that Ailes and/or Murdoch can be indicted on campaign finance law violations? $55 million does seem like its *way* over the limit.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by JasonHaze (February 10, 2011 3:42 pm ET)
      4  
      Big shock Faux makes up stuff, that was apparent to me several years ago....

      Report Abuse
    • Author by justhinking (February 10, 2011 4:06 pm ET)
      6  
      Seems like Fox News has moved from reporting on the repubican party to directing the republican party. Fox gets the viewers all riled up then the republican party adopts Fox's spin as their own. I guess Rupert was right, you don't need an army to take over a country, all you need to do is control the news.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by dkylep (February 10, 2011 4:11 pm ET)
      11  
      Notice how quickly the fake conservative Foxbots are to ask for sources and names and substantive evidence when they themselves are so often reliant on "some people say"?

      Nothing more needs be said to demonstrate their total and utter hypocrisy.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by conservagal (February 10, 2011 4:50 pm ET)
          5
        No, conservatives do not say, "some people say." Couric is the one who says that all the time, along with all of the other major network anchors, and morning co-hosts, like Viera. Try again.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mary59 (February 11, 2011 11:23 pm ET)
          3  
          "some people say" is a Fox standard. Really, where have you been?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by dkylep (February 12, 2011 11:19 am ET)
             
          I'm interested in how you can actually write such bald-faced lies. Have you no shame at all? Are you truly that ignorant? Are you honestly just that bad a person that you lie so easily? Conservagal, what you've just written is so laughably false and easily disproven that I honestly wonder what kind of person you are. Who lies like that?
          Report Abuse
      • Author by rbuck282 (February 10, 2011 9:19 pm ET)
           
        First rule: The neo-cons and their mouth pieces don't care what anyone thinks about them...call them hypocrites, liars, chickenhawks....call them whatever you want. The only thing they care about is winning elections and maintaining control. As long as the opposition is distracted by the neo-cons' foolishness and heinous acts (and not actually DOING anything about them)and not focused on winning or gaining control, they will remain in the drivers seat. The Dems had their chance and they blew it miserably due to their total lack of cohesiveness and more importantly the backbone to do what was necessary while they had the chance...like prosecute members of the prior administration for war crimes for example.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Tater (February 10, 2011 5:03 pm ET)
        3
      Tater ain't never heard nothin but straight up truth from FOX. Even the commentators get it right. Don't see what's the problem.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mary59 (February 11, 2011 11:21 pm ET)
           
        You are just a common Tater, eh? Go to this site to watch video of Fox commentators lying, then look up the facts that disprove what they say.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by AlBundy (February 10, 2011 5:34 pm ET)
         
      Flawed new gave the POTUS a complement when he didn't release the rest of the torture memos. So big of them.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Huzzah (February 10, 2011 5:50 pm ET)
        3
      How can you print a long article slamming Fox News for making things up when the only source is anonymous?

      Come on - the idiots at Fox are worth going after, but this article is ridiculous.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Rollo (February 10, 2011 5:52 pm ET)
      6  
      I have been checking this site out for the last couple of months and I have to say there are 3 things I really appreciate about it.

      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.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by grmce (February 10, 2011 6:31 pm ET)
      4  
      The propensity to fabricate news within the Murdoch empire dates back, at least, to his Melbourne TRUTH days and a friend of mine, formerly at the now defunct Adelaide NEWS, recounted such an instance that he experienced first hand following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

      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.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by johnbrown (February 10, 2011 6:57 pm ET)
      5  
      I've been listening to Fox lies since 2000 when they did everything they could to ram Bush Jr.in the White House.But O'Reily telling Obama with a straight face his network doesn't mean to demean him is the biggest whopper yet.Since Rev.Wright Fox has gone nonstop on the president.I wish everyone of Fox's viewers(mostly old people and uneducated rural hillbillies) would read this from this Fox insider.Then they would know what educated people already can figure out about Fox's sinister motivations.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by SolomonKane (February 10, 2011 7:03 pm ET)
      6  
      "We were a Stalin-esque mouthpiece"


      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.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by zzupdown (February 10, 2011 8:22 pm ET)
           
        My understanding is that Fox News really went off the rails when a judge ruled that the FCC didn't have the authority to fine the news channel based on reporting inaccuracies; this gave Fox News the ability to start saying almost anything they wanted, without major repercussions.

        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?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by superfudge (February 10, 2011 8:03 pm ET)
        4
      ARE YOU PEOPLE REALLY GOING ALONG WITH THIS??

      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.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mary59 (February 11, 2011 11:18 pm ET)
           
        So...you watch Fox news and think it's not a bunch of crap? Too bad the Brooklyn Bridge isn't for sale anymore.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by rjnerd (February 10, 2011 8:14 pm ET)
      1  
      Here is a simple example of Fox blatant lying: Republican elected official has a "family values" ("in bed with a dead girl or live boy") "issue".

      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.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by progressive zeppelin 13 (February 10, 2011 9:28 pm ET)
      3  
      The tip has told us nothing new, sadly. Faux News is a lying network... etc. When can we get a "Have you no sense of decency, sir?" about Beck?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by union (February 10, 2011 10:16 pm ET)
        2  
        I know. He's beginning to remind me of Brak from "Space Ghost," or someone who has been hit on the head. I've said it before, and I'll say it again-- as much as I don't like Beck, he needs help. Medication, to start with. I don't know how long his health is going to hold up before he has a meltdown. He should take a very long vacation, or he'll spontaneously combust.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by freemarketsfreepeople (February 10, 2011 9:45 pm ET)
        5
      Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black to me, Media Matters.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mary59 (February 11, 2011 11:17 pm ET)
           
        Oh yes, the Media Matters/Soros organization with all those ex-employees who squeal to Fox News about how Soros made them post actual video of people lying. Of course that's propaganda, because showing actual video isn't fair.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by theneisenrules (February 10, 2011 10:22 pm ET)
        5
      Wow. The source. Really, former FOX News employee? Maybe a ticked off toilet scrubber. Ooops, that's going to heart someones feelings. Primary goal is to prop up Republicans and knock down Democrats, possible. That would be one News Channel vs. four would be news networks. That is if they actually stated facts and not just their opinions. You know crap like "Social Justice", "Global warming" what a joke. Personl accountability people. Facts. Give me Facts, I will draw my own conclusions based on the facts. You Libs should try it sometime. Never know, do a little fact finding research. May learn the truth and stop beleiving the "lies" (you people love to throw that word at us conservatives ALOT) flowing from silver tongue media personalities. They certainly aren't journalists. Well that's my view. Feel free to speek your minds. You can't hurt my feelings.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by stacymack3747 (February 10, 2011 10:54 pm ET)
        3
      Who is the insider? please...anyone can make anything up...insider...please!!!

      THE TRUTH HAS NO AGENDA!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by MinaTaor (February 10, 2011 11:11 pm ET)
        1  
        The hilarious part about this statement is that, yeah, you say that now all the while forgetting -or deliberately leaving out- the fact that Fox news plays the role of sympathetic state media as soon as someone they like takes office. So have fun playing the role of "dissident" right now, because as soon as a republican gets into office you'll revert right back to the ultra-nationalist patriot you really are.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Jase (February 10, 2011 11:57 pm ET)
        1  
        Almost as much as Fox News....almost.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by yoiksaway (February 11, 2011 1:00 am ET)
        2  
        So? What's wrong with that?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Fox News - Nothing But Truth (February 11, 2011 9:14 am ET)
            3
          So all of you crybabies about Fox News don't care if the Government lies?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by yoiksaway (February 11, 2011 9:49 am ET)
          1  
          Eh...not really. What's so bad about the government lying?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Fox News - Nothing But Truth (February 11, 2011 2:05 pm ET)
              3
            Well see the Government kind of does this thing called run the country.

            What is so bad about Fox News lying?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by yoiksaway (February 11, 2011 5:10 pm ET)
              1  
              What happened? I thought you posted a comment that basically said, "The government lies. Anyone agree?" Don't see in now.

              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?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Fox News - Nothing But Truth (February 11, 2011 6:28 pm ET)
                  1
                Nothing. Unless they think it's the truth? But that is their problem, not mine.

                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.

                Report Abuse
              • Author by yoiksaway (February 13, 2011 1:30 am ET)
                   
                Nothing? After saying the Government runs the country and the crybaby comment, now it's nothing and it's not your problem?

                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.
                Report Abuse
    • Author by markpinard (February 10, 2011 11:05 pm ET)
         
      This is news?
      I saw nothing here that hasn't been obvious for years.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by bryansipho (February 10, 2011 11:07 pm ET)
         
      I'm so surprised. Is Fox News not "fair and balanced?" Awe. Shock. RAPTURE.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by moonmano1 (February 10, 2011 11:15 pm ET)
        2
      i just wonder if the 500,000 iraqi kids understood befor we killed them ,that there is no controll on news its just propaganda. shamefull you have lost your way to appeeze your zionist masters an lost your integraty with the people
      Report Abuse
    • Author by another crazy right winger (February 11, 2011 12:53 am ET)
      1 7
      Who cares. Fox is still blowing msnbc out of the water. and with olbie going to currenttv bill o'reilly is relly gonna clean house against them.
      and about the fact checking rachel maddow...did ya see the show where she used a satire website as credible! excellent research staff!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by MilitantMNMan (February 11, 2011 4:35 am ET)
        4  
        "Who cares. Fox is still blowing msnbc out of the water"


        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.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by doughpro1604643 (February 11, 2011 9:50 am ET)
            5
          So the several polls that show FOX viewers are the most misinformed mean absolutely nothing.

          "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.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by mary59 (February 11, 2011 10:41 am ET)
            2  
            Unreal, doughie. So anything that doesn't support your position, including a nonpartisan research center, in your imagination is funded by the heavily demonized and scary Soros so you can discard this and everything else that gets in the way of your opinions.

            Good work.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by doughpro1604643 (February 11, 2011 12:06 pm ET)
                5
              It declares itself "non-partisan". It's also an organization that is funded by the Pew Charitable Trust. Would you like to see the list of grant recipients of the Pew Charitable Trust? It reveals a real "partisan" opinion. Why on earth does the Tides Foundation need money from the Pew Trust?

              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.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by mary59 (February 11, 2011 5:41 pm ET)
                1  
                Yes, post the grant recipients. Also post the donors.

                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.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by yoiksaway (February 11, 2011 10:50 am ET)
            2  
            Pew...let's see... Oh, that organization that summarizes their study, list their results, and outlines their methodology for all to see. You should read some of them. FOX apologists would even find some ammo in there.

            Anyway, here are some of the several polls/studies that point to the misinformed:

            December, 2010

            August, 2009

            August, 2008

            April, 2007

            October, 2003

            Report Abuse
            • Author by doughpro1604643 (February 11, 2011 12:07 pm ET)
                4
              Read my post above.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by grmce (February 11, 2011 4:19 pm ET)
                1  
                There's none so blind as those that will not see.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by yoiksaway (February 11, 2011 5:30 pm ET)
                2  
                "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."--doughpro1604643

                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.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by MilitantMNMan (February 11, 2011 5:13 pm ET)
            2  
            Of course there is also a Boston Globe study that shows when right wingers are disproved in their beliefs by facts, they are more likely (then left wingers) to dig their heels in and hold on to their beliefs.

            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.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by buddtee (February 11, 2011 7:53 am ET)
        4  
        And Jersey Shore is blowing Fox out the water and so is Sponge Bob Square Pants,Hard Core Pawn and I Carly.I believe even the fishing channel is beating FOX MSNBC and CNN combined viewership.
        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 ......
        Report Abuse
      • Author by hartwilliams (February 11, 2011 8:41 am ET)
        2  
        The astonishing amount of troll traffic bears testament to just how important a story this is. Not that it's new information, but, rather, that it's new CONFIRMATION of an old story.

        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.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by doughpro1604643 (February 11, 2011 12:17 pm ET)
            6
          The astonishing amount of troll traffic bears testament to just how important a story this is.

          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?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by highlyunlikely (February 11, 2011 3:17 pm ET)
            4  
            also here to refute, which they're doing a lousy job of.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by doughpro1604643 (February 11, 2011 4:57 pm ET)
                2
              also here to refute, which they're doing a lousy job of.

              Strictly a matter of opinion. You may think so in here, but out in the real world, it's a totally different story.
              Report Abuse
      • Author by Bob Stanley (February 11, 2011 9:50 am ET)
        1  
        You're not the least bit embarrassed by the fact that it's so easy to confuse satire for mainstream Republican thought? I'm surprised you're not claiming that Rachel did that on purpose.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by storyofcory (February 11, 2011 3:12 am ET)
        1
      While I truly understand the perils of the blind source revealing his or her identity, I honestly believe that doing so would give this story the credibility it sorely lacks... and I say that as a raging Democrat who has NEVER voted for a Republican in my life. I hate Fox News as much as the next guy, but to allege something like this anonymously is like playing with fire. Some media outlet could get sued for slander/libel if the blind source doesn't reveal his/her identity.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by St1kyFinguz (February 11, 2011 5:58 am ET)
        4
      “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.”

      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.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by lukeobritt (February 11, 2011 6:26 am ET)
      1 2
      Guys,guys,guys! Chill. This conversation is getting so old. (Not this one in particular, but the whole Fox is evil thing). Yeah, yeah, its propaganda, but what? Like the US doesn't have a healthy tradition of propaganda? Here's the rub, no media survives in this country - for very long anway - without a substantial constituency to support it. We Americans (oops, my bad. apologies to Canada, Central and South America). We US citizens support many institutions whose very existence runs counter to everything we purport to stand for. What's the line from that movie? "We pi$$ into the wind and then complain that it's raining." Democracy has survived many an assault for more threatening than Fox. Let it go, and save yourself all that money spent on Tums.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mary59 (February 11, 2011 11:10 pm ET)
        1  
        Correction. Some U.S. citizens support institutions whose very existence runs counter to everything we purport to stand for.

        The rest of us bother to point that out. Sorry it bores you.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Beesneeze (February 11, 2011 6:44 am ET)
      2  
      I believe the official Fox position on reality is: 'Who are you going to believe, us or you lying eyes'. As an 'opposition news source', by definition they cannot agree with the other news stations, and if the other news stations are doing true reporting, i.e. recording the factual account of occurances in the real world, then Fox has to make-up something to fill their niche as the opposition.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by trisailing (February 11, 2011 6:58 am ET)
      4  
      Great article. It is clear that the internet and organizations like mediamatters.org and opensecrets.org are becoming the only believable sources of information.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by conservagal (February 11, 2011 10:11 am ET)
        4
      I find this very revealing. I came on this site to see if my first comment on MMFA had ever been reviewed and posted. And, here I see all of you commenters have been on this site for 2 days, posting long comments and replies. Do any of your have a job? And if you do, why are you spending all this time at your job posting comments about Fox News? Incredible....
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mary59 (February 11, 2011 10:45 am ET)
        1  
        This is very revealing. I came back here to see what kind of comments had been posted about an hour before I leave for work, only to see your opinion that anyone posting with a point of view different from yours must be unemployed or goofing off at work. Retired persons are slackers of course, as are people posting at work breaks or after hours.

        Nice work, honey. You are definitely a Fox watcher and support their position of just making stuff up.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by conservagal (February 11, 2011 2:16 pm ET)
            6
          Sorry, but people have been posting paragraph upon paragraph, and obsessing about this story, replying back and forth, back and forth. This all takes much more time out one's life than a break at work or at home. And, it all reminds me of the paid hate-mail writers posing as conservatives on DK. I've never seen such JUVENILE comments...
          Report Abuse
          • Author by syrabell (February 11, 2011 3:21 pm ET)
            2  
            There is always time to voice the truth. If you feel that this is a waste of time then don't do it. I have a job, I use my personal time to respond because I know that in a free country expression of ideas is vital to ones freedom. A fundamental of our country is freedom of speech and that is why we post so much. We are active participants in our government and voicing our opinions is vital.

            Just look at Egypt today. The voice of the people was heard. Yea freedom.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by mary59 (February 11, 2011 5:44 pm ET)
               
            Thoughtful replies to posts are not something to criticise.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by punkin (February 12, 2011 8:43 am ET)
               
            oh paaallleeeeease - read the comments on Politico, or Fox nation or Drudge - not only juvenile but hatefull and threatening
            Report Abuse
      • Author by hartwilliams (February 11, 2011 11:02 am ET)
        2  
        Do any of your [sic] have a job? And if you do, why are you spending all this time at your job posting comments about Fox News? Incredible

        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.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by theneisenrules (February 12, 2011 12:28 pm ET)
             
          That's great. An intellectual jobless deadbeat. Your welcome by the way. I can only logically conclude that my tax dollars help pay for your education. You libs and your free rides. And yes I watch FOX News and listen to Glenn, Rush, and Sean. And yes I intend to help destroy the democratic party in the next elections and get rid of entitlement programs. Your welcome again. GET A JOB!
          Report Abuse
      • Author by syrabell (February 11, 2011 3:24 pm ET)
        2  
        Yes we have jobs and some of us are lucky enough to not have to work 24/7 so we can spend lots of time pointing out the mistakes of Fox News. How much time do you spend listening to their statements vs. investigating their sources for accuracy?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by research goddess (February 11, 2011 10:58 am ET)
      3  

      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.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by porkido (February 11, 2011 11:53 am ET)
         
      This is news? Fox gets caught doing it over and over again. You don't need an inside source...just turn the television on.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Republic (February 11, 2011 12:24 pm ET)
        1
      Did MM plant someone at FOX? Very well done, bravo!!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by binsacca (February 11, 2011 12:57 pm ET)
         
      name the source or this isn't really news. we can all see that anyway.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Glenn Beck Review (February 11, 2011 1:27 pm ET)
      3  
      I saw this yesterday and have it set to republish on The Glenn Beck Review. This is pretty damning, and I've encouraged Cenk Uygur to get an interview with this person. Uygur has made it his mission to destroy Fox, and to that end he needs whatever help he can get.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by conservagal (February 11, 2011 2:17 pm ET)
          6
        We are so afraid of Cenk! And, what if he can't come up with anyone?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by MilitantMNMan (February 11, 2011 5:19 pm ET)
          3  
          We are so afraid of Cenk! And, what if he can't come up with anyone?


          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.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by highlyunlikely (February 11, 2011 5:48 pm ET)
            3  
            There sure have been a slew of cult members in the last 2 days so I'm hardly going out on a limb to suggest someone sent them here, and like good lemmings they obeyed. So you'd think that having gone to the trouble of registering and posting they'd put some effort into coherent, reasoned arguments. That they don't is because they can't.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by conservagal (February 11, 2011 5:53 pm ET)
              3
            You didn't answer my question. If Cenk can't interview the so-called source for this article, because he doesn't exist, what then? I think MMFA is going to be sorry they ever posted this.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by mary59 (February 11, 2011 11:05 pm ET)
              1  
              I'm sure that your hypothetical doesn't deserve an answer. But thanks for trying.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by theneisenrules (February 12, 2011 12:50 pm ET)
              2
            Speaking of "cults", if I may, I just wanted to thank this Liberal sect for allowing we poor pathetic weak minded conservatives the opportunity to have our say on your completely Fair and Balanced website. I don't know what we would ever do if we didn't have you incredibly intelligent all knowing Libs to keep us straight. Oh I know, we wouldn't have to pay incredibly high taxes for entitlement programs that the government can't afford anyway. We may even have a functionl Republic again. That's right, we live in a Republic. Not a democracy. Look it up.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by progressive zeppelin 13 (February 12, 2011 11:41 am ET)
           
        Cenk FTW!
        TYT Army is too STRONG!
        Report Abuse
      • Author by LynnwoodObama (February 11, 2011 10:34 pm ET)
           
        ...Fox lawyers argued it was their first amendment right to report false information. In a six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals decided the FCC’s position against news distortion is only a “policy,” not a “law, rule, or regulation.”

        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 Akre’s 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, “It’s vindication for WTVT, and we’re very pleased… It’s the case we’ve been making for two years. She never had a legal claim.”

        Read it yourselves: http://www.relfe.com/media_can_legally_lie.html
        Report Abuse
      • Author by mary59 (February 11, 2011 11:04 pm ET)
        1  
        Nice parody, cola. You can dump your dumb act now, thanks.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by loosywitdafacsies (February 11, 2011 3:18 pm ET)
        3
      Hmmmm, if I had a choice of whom to lunch with, Murdoch or Soros. It would be Murdoch hands down. Although, given the chance I would much prefer to dine with the "inside source", providing that he can even be produced.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by timekeeper (February 11, 2011 4:54 pm ET)
      1 2
      “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.”

      Oh please. This person sounds like all the liberals on this forum. whatever.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Upgrayedd (February 11, 2011 8:10 pm ET)
        2  
        It's OK.
        We understand the truth hurts.
        Guess the truth is something your not used to watching Fox.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by mad dog dem (February 11, 2011 8:04 pm ET)
         
      Who knew/ Yeah right!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by dickhead (February 12, 2011 1:22 am ET)
         
      "The source", really? First and last time I come to this site.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Ratu01 (February 12, 2011 3:02 am ET)
      4  

      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.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by theneisenrules (February 12, 2011 1:21 pm ET)
          6
        Wow, just wow. I just wanted to take a moment to thank Glenn Beck for reminding me to "Trust but verify". Decided to pop on over and check out what the other side of the isle was up to. Destroy Faux nooz, Glenn Beck, yada yada yada. A whole bunch of jobless(new that one), intellectuals(sort of), none fact believing, tote the liberal line, and so on. Yeah, no worries here same old same old. Talk about a cult sect. So, Glenn's numbers taking a hit. Yeah, how about that house, whew, November was a tough month for the Libs. Oh no, a conservative who knows his Facts. Quick someone find something to discredit him, or at least call him a name or something. Oh, sorry about that, didn't mean to rub it in. Yes, yes I did. Hope you all are saving your pennies. Your going to need them in the next few years, you know, when we cut all of your entitlement programs. Then abolish "Obama Care".
        Report Abuse
    • Author by countexia (February 12, 2011 7:52 am ET)
         
      The influence of Shinto on culture can hardly be overestimated. Although it is now near-impossible to disentangle its influence from that of Buddhism, it is clear that the spirit of being one with nature that gave rise to this religion underlies such typically Japanese arts as flower-arranging (ikebana) and traditional Japanese architecture and garden design. A more explicit link to Shinto is seen in sumo wrestling: the purification of the wrestling arena by the sprinkling of salt and the many other ceremonies that must be performed before a bout can begin are definitely Shinto in origin. It is still very common for Japanese to say, "Itadakimasu" (I humbly partake) before eating, and the Japanese emphasis on proper greetings can be seen as a continuation of the ancient Shinto belief in kotodama (words with a magical effect on the world). Many Japanese cultural customs, like using wooden chopsticks and removing shoes before entering a building, have their origin in Shinto beliefs and practices. Also, a number of other Japanese religions, including Tenrikyo, have originated from or been influenced by Shinto.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by becca1099 (February 12, 2011 9:57 am ET)
         
      I refuse to watch Fox "News" - however, anyone, i.e. this a who remains nameless in their accusations are not to be taken seriously! Fox has and always will have the idiots who WANT to believe they are being told the truth; their viewers believe in the great conspiracy of our government and the "communist, muslim, terrorists takeover of America! Fox viewers have very sad and obviously unhappy lives so FOX fills that void and creates their passion!
      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 - - - -

      Report Abuse
    • Author by cfulwood (February 12, 2011 10:48 am ET)
         
      What are the requirements to challenge a broadcasting license?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Wordslinger (February 12, 2011 10:55 am ET)
         
      This would have been a REAL story if the source was real. Why waste our time this way? Our opposition will acuse Media Matters of "making stuff up," and for all any of us readers and members know, maybe this was a fictional piece. What it wasn't is real journalism!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by foxnews (February 12, 2011 5:26 pm ET)
         
      wow...is this serious? A Fox News "insider"? What in the story isn't available to anyone who's researched Fox? What makes this person an insider?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by spacetracy (February 12, 2011 6:36 pm ET)
         
      Let's clarify that word conservative.. FOX news is more like
      Regression- istic.
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

About the Blog

Feed Icon
  • County Fair is a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web as well as original commentary, breaking news and rapid response updates to major media events from Media Matters senior fellows and other staff.