So Campbell Brown is the latest journalist who fails to critically examine whether Fox News is any different than MSNBC. Eric Boehlert has done an excellent job taking down this argument here.
On her October 28 show, following an interview with White House adviser Valerie Jarrett, Brown stated:
So I am stating what I think is the obvious here. Jarrett seems loathe to admit that MSNBC has a bias, and that is where the White House loses all credibility on this issue. Just as Fox News leans to the right with their opinionated hosts in primetime, MSNBC leans left. I don't think anyone at Fox or MSNBC would disagree with that.
Of course, as Boehlert and Jamison Foser have repeatedly pointed out, those who call attention to MSNBC's primetime programming always seem to overlook that three hours of MSNBC's morning programming is dominated by unabashed conservative and former Republican congressman Joe Scarborough (who is often joined by old-school bigot Pat Buchanan).
But the problem with Brown's statement is even more fundamental. Brown -- like Jake Tapper and Howard Kurtz and others -- suggests that Fox News' conservative bias is merely the result of -- or exists solely in -- the network's opinion programming.
Brown states: "It would be great to talk honestly about how we draw important distinctions between the various media outlets." Okay, Campbell, let's break it down again. Here's an even easier way to distinguish between Fox News and MSNBC:
The list goes on...
Note that Fox News as a "news" organization is guilty of all of the above breaches of basic journalist ethics. It's not just Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity.
Brown goes on to state:
Opinionated cable news hosts have a valid but very different role. They either cheerlead or criticize and in doing so they connect with those who agree with them. They validate the opinions of those on the left and on the right. They provoke one another, they fight with one another, and yes, they entertain us, and in a polarized country, that gets big ratings. I'm not critical of what my friends at Fox News and MSNBC do, but it is apples and oranges when compared to what we at CNN do and we should all just acknowledge that.
Brown completely ignores CNN's own "opinionated host in primetime," Lou Dobbs. "We should all just acknowledge that" Dobbs has repeatedly advanced conspiracy theories, including that the President of the United States hasn't released a valid birth certificate, spread numerous falsehoods about immigration, and associated himself and CNN with a right-wing hate group.
"We should all just acknowledge that" as long as Brown and others continue to advance this ridiculous false equivalency between Fox News and MSNBC -- while overlooking the problems in their own houses -- Fox News will continue with business as usual.
I marvel sometimes at the versatility of the crack bias hunters over at NewsBusters. Even though they've spent the better portions of their careers failing to make sense and embarrassing themselves, they still manage to come up with new and inventive ways to look completely foolish. Take, for example, Brent Baker's latest complaint that ABC World News anchor Charles Gibson "had time to convey President Barack Obama's praise of Edward Brooke for 'breaking barriers' as the first popularly-elected black U.S. Senator, but not to inform viewers he broke that barrier as a Republican."
OK, I'm feeling generous -- if Baker wants to argue that ABC should have identified Brooke as a Republican, that's fine. One could just as easily argue that Brooke's accomplishment transcends parties and politics. But then Baker goes on to note that Brooke was "a fairly liberal Republican," and in case you're not a regular reader of the blog, NewsBusters really, really hates liberal Republicans and they get very mad when the media fail to ID such Republicans as "liberals." So Baker is upset that ABC didn't identify as Republican someone who, by virtue of his liberalness, would otherwise be treated as a leper by his blog.
But then it gets even dumber.
Here's the context in which Baker characterized Brooke as a "fairly liberal Republican":
Neither Gibson nor [NBC's David] Gregory pointed out that after two terms representing Massachusetts, in 1978 Brooke, a fairly liberal Republican, was challenged and beaten by one of the media's liberal heroes, the late Paul Tsongas -- a Democrat who was a white guy.
Can anyone explain to me how Paul Tsongas' whiteness is at all relevant here? What is he implying -- that Massachusetts voters in 1978 were racists for voting out a black Republican? That Tsongas himself was a racist for challenging a black Republican? I seriously can't figure it out, and Baker offers no explanation.
And this is what passes for media criticism on the right.
So yeah, it's dumb. Perhaps not as dumb as Matt Lauer's terrorist neckwear, but still pretty dumb.
I opened up Fox Nation this morning to see the following headline:
Despite the quotes around the word, there is no one quoted in the AP article Fox Nation links to calling the House Democrats' health care reform bill "PelosiCare."
Opponents of the Clintons' reform proposal cooked up the terms "HillaryCare" and "ClintonCare" in the 1990s; more recently, they've dubbed reform efforts "ObamaCare." You may recall that earlier this month, The Wall Street Journal reported that "Republicans are stepping up attacks on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, deciding that a major part of their 2010 electoral strategy will be linking Democratic candidates to her."
Maybe this is all just a coincidence, but it seems far more likely that it's just another example of how Fox News is the communications arm of the Republican Party.
The Sun's David Zurawik has made quite a splash online in recent weeks as he relentlessly attacks the White House for criticizing Fox News and calling it out as illegitimate. While defending Fox News, Zurawik claims the fact that White House aides have an opinion about Murdoch's faux news channel means administration officials are attacking journalism across the board; that critiquing the press now represents a chilling campaign of intimidation.
Zurawik has trotted out the comically inaccurate Nixon's "enemies list" comparison, and generally laid on the rhetoric quite thick: "This campaign by the Obama administration is dangerous to press freedom, and it should concern everyone in the press, not just Fox."
Last night Zurawik was rewarded for his pro-Fox News campaign, in which he completely ignores the "news" product produced under its name, and was invited onto The O'Reilly Factor, where he and the host were in heated agreement that the White House's decision to fact check Fox News was insane. (How original.)
On O'Reilly's show, Zurawik also hit his latest talking point that Fox News is just like MSNBC, and if the WH is critiquing Fox News it ought to take on MSNBC for being unprofessional. We've seen this lazy analogy a lot in the last couple weeks; because MSNBC has a couple liberal hosts, that means its around-the-clock product is exactly the same as MSNBC. Except it's not, which I previously noted:
I don't remember either Olbermann or Maddow comparing MSNBC employees to persecuted Jews during the Holocaust, which was the twisted comparison [Glenn] Beck recently made regarding the Fox News staff.
In other words, I don't recall Olbermann or Maddow going bat shit crazy on national television, scribbling away on a chalkboard as they fantasized about connecting George Bush to every conceivable strain of historical evil. And I don't remember either MSNBC host launching hateful and hollow witch hunts against semi-obscure administration officials, the way Hannity has latched onto the homophobic attacks against Kevin Jennings.
But for Zurawik, because MSNBC plays hosts a couple liberal talkers, it's just like Fox News. Of course, MSNBC also devotes its entire morning programming to a show hosted by conservative, former Republican member of Congress, but Zurawik doesn't address that fact; Zurawik can't point to the daily Fox News show that's hosted by a proud liberal.
But since the TV critic is so sure that MSNBC is just like Fox News, I'd like him to back up the claim. Last week, I produced this cheat sheet for the WashPost's Ruth Marcus and ABC's Jake Tapper *after both seemed to imply that Fox News was similar to MSNBC and ABC News, respectively.
But here's an example of how the Fox News family isn't quite like MSNBC. Here's another another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another.
If Zurawik is so sure MSNBC is just like Fox News, than he ought to produce a similar, detailed list showcasing obvious examples of how MSNBC has walked away from the traditions of mainstream journalism and has purposefully pushed falsehoods, lies and smears under the guise of news. I'm not looking for Zurawik to explain that Olbermann and Maddow lean left. Everybody knows that. And the White House isn't attacking Fox News because it leans right.
The White House is attacking Fox News because it no longer functions as a legitimate news org. I'd like Zurawik to match my two dozen examples above, most pulled from 2009, and show everybody how MSNBC is just like Fox News.
UPDATED: Earlier this year, Zurawik attacked MSNBC this way [emphasis added]:
Even Rachel Maddow, who is the nicest, with her snide smile and arched eyebrow and mocking, they target people and hold them up for ridicule. It's exactly what happened in propaganda in the '30s in Europe. I'm not kidding you.
But today, Zurawik, a media critic, defends Fox News.
UPDATED: Ironic. From last month:
*I updated the original language, which claimed ABC' Tapper had insisted Fox News was "just like" ABC News. That was too literal. Instead, Tapper last week wondered if it was "appropriate" for the White House to suggest Fox News was not legitimate, and pressed White House spokesman Robert Gibbs to explain how Fox News was "any different" from ABC News.
As if President Barack Obama didn't have enough on his plate with health care and Afghanistan, he's now faced with the problem that can't be solved: Women.
Right. From the latest Marist poll:
55% [of women] approve of the president's job performance while 38% disapprove.
And from Gallup's latest detailed look at the topic:
Among women, Democrats maintain a solid double-digit advantage in party identification over Republicans, 41% to 27%.
I'm guessing that last November, Sen. John McCain wished had the kind of "problem" with women that Obama supposedly has today.
During the October 28 edition of her Fox News show, Greta Van Susteren purported to host "a healthy debate" about health care reform.
During the first 35 minutes of the show, Van Susteren interviewed Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ), and -- for 10 minutes -- Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to discuss health care reform. (Van Susteren also interviewed Fox News contributor and former GOP Sen. Rick Santorum and Jeff Birnbaum of The Washington Times about issues not related to health care reform.)
Eighty advertisers have reportedly dropped their ads from Glenn Beck's Fox News program since he called President Obama a "racist" who has a "deep-seated hatred of white people." Here are his October 28 sponsors, in the order they appeared:
Here's Chris Matthews tonight, dismissing the relevance of a thesis written by Bob McDonnell, who is currently the Republican nominee in the Virginia governor's race, when he was 34:
It's hard to build a whole campaign on somebody else's term paper. He's [Creigh Deeds, McDonnell's opponent] going after the other guy for writing some right-wing stuff about 25 years ago.
Emphasis very much Matthews' -- his voice dripped with contempt as he spat out the phrase "term paper."
Now, here's what Chris Matthews said about the thesis -- not "term paper" -- back on September 1:
MATTHEWS: Here's a guy that said as follows. In his thesis, he wrote, of federal money for child care programs -- quote -- "Further expenditures would be used to subsidize a dynamic new trend of working women and feminists that is ultimately detrimental to the family by entrenching status quo, the entrenchings of status quo, of non-parental primary nurtured children."
In other words he's saying that, if you give tax cuts or tax breaks for people for child care, you're encouraging the wrong pattern in American life, women in the workplace.
MICHELLE BERNARD, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes.
MATTHEWS: That's a bad thing.
BERNARD: Yes. Yes, from his perspective -- or at least from his perspective when he was 34 years old. Here's the dynamic you have to look at. Sometimes, you might say, well, you can't say that somebody believes the things that they wrote or that they have not evolved if they wrote a thesis, say, at age 21 or 22. He was a 34-year-old -- 34-year-old man when he wrote this.
MATTHEWS: This wasn't the indiscretion of youth.
BERNARD: Exactly. It absolutely wasn't the indiscretion of youth.
Second question, then, is, did he write this because he thought this would be appealing to the teachers at Pat Robertson's school, a very far- right conservative school, or did he write this because he actually believes it? Women are one of the most important voting blocs in the country.
MATTHEWS: What do you think of the character of a person who writes something that the teacher might like in a major essay, a major thesis? This isn't something you knock off in a pop quiz.
MATTHEWS: This is something you devote yourself to for at least a year.
MATTHEWS: Anybody in grad school knows what I'm talking about.
It's a major commitment of -- of who you are. You write something you believe is useful to the academic discipline, something you believe, or else why write it?
That was September 1. Now, McDonnell looks likely to win, so Matthews dismisses the thesis as a mere "term paper."
Politico is trying to make a scandal out of a "defaced flag" video submitted to an Organizing for America health care video contest. Why? Because someone who entered the contest is bitter about not being named a finalist. No, really: that's the whole story.
One of the 20 finalists in health care video contest run by Barack Obama's campaign arm features a mural of an America flag splattered with health care graffiti until it's covered completely by black paint.
In the video - which is accompanied by the sound of a heart monitor pumping and then flat-lining - words such as "pre-existing conditions," "homeless" and "death panel" ultimately obliterate the flag, which reappears on screen seconds later with the words "Health Will Bring Our Country Back to Life" on the blue field where the 50 stars usually are.
According to the Organizing for American Web site, the 20 finalists in the "Health Reform Video Challenge" were chosen by a panel of "qualified" Democratic National Committee "employee judges."
A contestant whose video didn't make the final-20 cut complains that a video "defacing the flag" won't do much to help President Barack Obama or the Democrats sell health care reform.
"They should never pick that," said the contestant, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "It makes the Democrats look really, really bad."
That's literally all it takes to get a Politico hit piece these days: an anonymous complaint from a contest loser. And a fairly tepid complaint, at that.
I'm not sure what's more pathetic -- that Politico published this obvious (and so far unsuccessful) bit of Drudge-bait, or that it took two people (Jonathan Allen and Daniel Libit) to write it.
But you have to wonder why Politico thought this nonsense was newsworthy after having ignored the blatantly racist photo hosted on the RNC's Facebook page.
UPDATE: Looks like -- in this case, at least -- Politico isn't too dumb for Drudge, after all; he finally gave this "story" a link.
After their attacks this summer on then-Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor over comments she made about the importance of diversity on the federal bench, the conservative media is now targeting Judge Edward Chen, President Obama's nominee for the district court in Northern California, for previous comments he's made on the subject. In doing so, conservatives have twisted the statements of both Sotomayor and Chen to attack them. It is worth noting, however, that in 2003, while debating President Bush's nomination of Miguel Estrada to be a judge, then-Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT) said that "Hispanics have reinvigorated the American dream, and I expect they will bring new understandings of our nationhood, that some of us ... might not fully see with tired eyes."
In 2003, Hatch said:
The Hispanic experience, in fact, sheds new light on the debate we have been having about ideology in judicial confirmations. Many new Hispanic Americans have left countries without independent judiciaries, and they are all too familiar with countries with political parties that claim cradle-to-grave rights over their allegiances and futures.
I have a special affinity for Hispanics and for the potential of the Latin culture in influencing the future of this country. Polls show that Latinos are among the hardest working Americans . That is because like many immigrant cultures in this country, Hispanics often have two and even three jobs. Surveys show they have strong family values and a real attachment to their faith traditions and they value education as the vehicle to success for their children.
In short, Hispanics have reinvigorated the American dream, and I expect they will bring new understandings of our nationhood, that some of us some of us, Madam President--might not fully see with tired eyes.
Without trumpeting the overused word ''diversity,'' I have made it my business to support the nominations of talented Hispanics for my entire career in the Senate. I hope that the desire for diversity that many of my Democrat colleagues say they share with me will trump the reckless and destructive pursuit of injecting ideology into the judicial confirmations process as we move forward on this particular nomination.
In Spanish-speaking churches all over this country and in every denomination, Hispanics sing a song called DE COLORES. This means OF MANY COLORS. It celebrates the many colors in which we all are created.
Hispanics know they come in many colors, with all kinds of backgrounds. They enjoy among themselves a wide diversity already. They left behind countries filled with ideologues that would chain them to single political parties. Latinos share a commonsense appreciation of each other's achievements in this country without any regard whatsoever to ideology, over which some Americans have the luxury of obsessing. [Senate floor speech 2/5/03]