Fox Nation: The seedy underbelly of Rupert Murdoch's evil empire?
He's called former Vice President Al Gore an "evil enabler" for speaking at Netroots Nation -- an annual conference that draws thousands of progressive blog enthusiasts. He's likened Markos Moulitsas, founder of the progressive blog powerhouse Daily Kos, to white supremacist David Duke. He's even accused The Huffington Post of using the "same exact tactics that the Nazis used."
To say that Fox News golden boy Bill O'Reilly is no fan of progressive blogs is an understatement akin to claiming the Hatfields and McCoys were mildly displeased with each other.
In fact, just last week, O'Reilly hosted a panel of lawyers who attempted, in vain, to explain that the conservative host's "rights" aren't violated by private criticism.
Back in March, while promoting its newly launched website TheFoxNation.com, Fox News ran advertisements telling viewers that it was "time to say 'no' to biased media and 'yes' to fair play and free speech."
In short, Fox News was jumping headfirst into the blogging world with just the snake oil necessary to cure what ailed O'Reilly -- a fair, honest, bias-free version of what he sees the left serving up.
It didn't take long for The Fox Nation to prove those fancy Fox News promos demonstrably inaccurate -- instead, it seems to have said "yes" to biased media and "no" to "fair play" from Day One.
In its first 24 hours, the website labeled Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) a "[d]angerous duo," linking to an Agence France-Presse article that simply reported that Dodd and Frank "promised President Barack Obama on Monday they would work with the White House to enact a sweeping overhaul of US financial regulatory structures by year's end."
Visitors to The Fox Nation were no doubt confused when they clicked on the link provided by the website to the AFP article in question only to find that it in no way characterized Dodd or Frank as "[d]angerous."
That was Day One. In the two months that followed the website's launch, The Fox Nation has displayed an uncanny ability to mislead readers, twist the truth, spread wild conspiracy theories, and misrepresent the reporting of legitimate journalists and media outlets.
At times, the website has been downright frightening. In early May, it ran a photo of a rifle pointed in the direction of a photo of Obama's head. The headline associated with the rifle image asked: "Why Are Gun Sales Surging?" One can only imagine what O'Reilly and his ilk would have said if a progressive blog -- or a legitimate news outlet, as Fox purports to be, for that matter -- had done the same thing to President Bush.
Debunked conspiracy theories are also finding new life on the website. A headline in late May asked: "Should Obama Release Birth Certificate? Or Is This Old News?" But contrary to the question, the Obama campaign released a copy of Obama's birth certificate, posting it on the campaign's website last year. It also reportedly provided the original document to FactCheck.org, whose staff concluded in an August 2008 post that it "meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship."
About the use of questions like the one just highlighted: In what appears to be an attempt to ward off criticism, The Fox Nation, like the on-screen text on Fox News, often employs the use of questions for its headlines rather than straightforward assertions. It's as if they are pre-emptively saying, "We made no such statement. We simply asked a question."
What has the website asked its readers? Of same-sex marriage, it wondered, "Are 'Triad' Marriages Next?" Following the reported suicide of a Freddie Mac executive, one headline asked, "Was It Suicide?" After the Department of Homeland Security declassified an April report detailing potential increases in right-wing extremism, the website queried, "Is Homeland Security Targeting Tea Parties?" Of course, these are the very same tea parties that Fox News and The Fox Nation went to great lengths promoting.
The Fox Nation has had loads of questions, especially when it comes to Obama's Supreme Court deliberations and his nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor. The website asked, "Why Aren't White Males Being Considered for Supreme Court?" and "Is it Empathy? Or Is Obama Shredding the Constitution?" Of Obama's nominee, the website inquired, "Sotomayor Argued Death Penalty Is Racist... Is She?"
So, is TheFoxNation.com simply the seedy underbelly of Fox News parent company chairman Rupert Murdoch's evil, right-wing media empire?
Boy, that was easy, wasn't it?
Karl Frisch is a Senior Fellow at Media Matters for America, a progressive media watchdog and research and information center based in Washington, D.C. Frisch also contributes to County Fair, a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web as well as original commentary. You can follow him on Twitter and Facebook or sign up to receive his columns by email.
How do I know this?
Well, because FoxNews TELLS me that they're fair and balanced, that's how.
This comment is pending approval and won't be displayed until it is approved.
"act of terrorism" means an activity that -- (A) involves a violent act �or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal �laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal �violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or �of any State; and (B) appears to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce �a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by �intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government �by assassination or kidnapping.
�Ref: United States Code Congressional and Administrative News, 98th Congress, �Second Session, 1984, Oct. 19, volume 2; par. 3077, 98 STAT. 2707 (West �Publishing Co., 1984).�
FoxNews consistently portrays only a portion of a news story to slant it to the likes of their viewing audience, like in their stories recently about the Bible Study group in San Diego. Further research shows that their version of reality was not reality at all.
FoxNews consistently has more right wing guests than those on the left. And the ones they have that are supposedly from the left are very poor representatives, and the ones on the right are very good demogogues.
I know what happens on FoxNews.
Trivia:
1. Does FOX Nation have any Chance of competing with Colbert Nation?
2. What is the difference between O'Reilly, Greta, Hannity and Beck?
However, I must say this article "Obama Says U.S. Could Be Seen as a Muslim Country, Too", it is not even from a Fox writer but a linked story from... get this... The New York Times and the first 15 comments are most assuredly NOT from right-wing freaks...
I thought the NYT's was a pinko commie liberal heaven? hmmmph
Fox-Noise... like Rush and all the other worthless right-wing fanatics are the continuous gift that keeps on giving!
I agree with your post.
2) How did YOUR investments do last year?
shipdit
I'm just asking questions, Fox News style.
This isn't the mainstream of MMfa. The three editors produce opinion pieces.
Pot and kettle comparisons work better with examples.
Intellectual, where(?), seems more like hard and gritty boilerplate work to me. Where do you think he's trying for that certain intellectual air?
If you would care to show where their information is faulty it might put some wieght into your posting.
I believe you are another Straussian. Seeking to impress you gets us what?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Feel free to leave. We will somehow try to soldier on and deal with the hole your loss will leave in our lives
Frisch is accusing Fox Nation of being dishonest in its claims of fairness and non-bias. So I can imagine you can show us where Frisch, or MMFA in general, has ever made any claims of being fair, unbiased, or even nonpartisan, only to turn around and do the opposite?
I won't hold my breath.
Bluehawk appears to be another "you want to silence" the opposition and "take away their free speech" poster.
BH; do you have anything (you said you hear it from both ends, the typical strawman argument) for proof that the left is as misleading as the right?
I didn't think so.
Didn't think so...
TRUTH: Stanford now treats armed forces recruiters the same way they treat corporate recruiters. Until recently, armed forces recruiters could set up kiosks in areas normally reserved for student organizations only -- now they must recruit next to IBM, Google and Apple.
FOX NEWS SPIN: "The armed forces have been kicked off campus"
Here's one of many places you can read about it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/nyregion/20recruit.html?ref=nyregion
The reason the Armed Forces were banned FROM RECRUITING ONLY is because that is not about speech or association; and those campuses believed that they were recruiting to fight an unconstitutional war. In fact, one could probably argue that being required to give space to military recruiters was akin to being forced to house troops--also unconstitutional.
Also, usually the right is pro-states' rights and anti-federalism (let alone pro-private business), so it would be a tad hypocritical to expect state colleges or private universities to do the business of the federal govt on their campuses.
For the record, those campuses did NOT ban military personnel, veterans, pro-military speech, ROTC, or belonging to any organization related to the military.
I visit all kindsa web sites. Some of them makes sense. That's why I spend time on this one.
everybody distorts the truth (as if "truth" is is ambiguous)
MMFA is just political spin, too (as if facts are spin)
I hate liberals and nothing you say will penetrate my hardened skull
I really hate liberals because you killed my dog, slept with my wife (and son), took my job, think you are soooo smart, hate America, love terrorists, eat arugula, read "books", and, oh yeah, tax and spend...
Liberals don't have jobs, and us conservatives support all of you lazy people.
Liberals like DIJON mustard! That's French!
Conservatives support themselves, unlike liberals!
LOL!!!!! HAHAH!!!! OMG!!!
Did I miss any other conservative type resonses we normally see on here?
And right now, none of the FCC licensed broadcast media provide a balanced view. They have to respond with sound bytes, wedge politics, controversy and scandal, heinous crime, and gotcha' questions in order get the ratings they think they need to stay in business.
BTW there are more than just Left and Right. There is now Progressive, which covers a wide range of viewpoints, Consciousness Movement, etc which doesn't get any time on advertiser supported media. So, there are more than just Fox News or MSNBC views, which still very much support the corporate control of Washington.
Do yourself a favor. I'm being serious now, if you want to come to this website and post to your hearts content, that is fine by all of us here... but here is something you might want to try as you do so...
If your going to make an accusation, in this case, that Karl Frisch is mudslinging, then why not highlight the specific sentence you consider to be wrong and lets all have at it!
Now I'm talking about the opinion writer hear, not we the posters. Some of us are a little childish at time (myself included) but that is not all together bad.
What is bad is making an accusation without at least some proof or piece of evidence (what you simply think is bad, does not make it so), making a claim of bias and then not replying with said evidence.
So which part of Karl's thread here is equivalent in mud to that of 'other' sites?? Or are you simply a 'drive by' troll with no intention of backing up your BS?
"Fox news golden boy Bill O'Reilly"
"Fox news was jumping into.....snake oil necessary to..."
"O'Reilly and his ilk"
"Boy that was easy wasn't it?"
Now I know that the posters love making personal attacks, I've received plenty here(the only place I've ever been referred to as "flag waving ilk"),however it seems a little disingenuous for a writer on the staff to use such heavy sarcasm and negative wording when attempting to prove a point, hence my use of the term mudslinging. His last line simply proves my point of how the writers try to lead readers from the title to the finish and conclusion. Seems to me that most of the time all they want is a fan club/cheering section. You want to know what's really ironic?...I visited Fox Nation once and haven't been back...I would rather go to opencongress.org.
One last point to all, since everybody is looking for examples of mm overstepping its stated goals of fighting conservative misinformation...the clearest example I can remember on the fly is the coverage mm gave to the Faherty Pelosi-joke nonsense. He is a sports analyst, not a newsman, and was of course lambasted on this website, I'm not sure, can someone tell me what mm story ratio was between Faherty's Pelosi-joke and Wanda Sykes Limbaugh-joke?
"Fox Nation: The seedy underbelly of rupert Murdoch's evil empire?"
"Fox news golden boy Bill O'Reilly"
"Fox news was jumping into.....snake oil necessary to..."
"O'Reilly and his ilk"
"Boy that was easy wasn't it?"
None of those statements are mudslinging. Mudslinging is an attempt to discredit one's competitor, opponent, etc., by malicious or scandalous attacks. Frisch isn't attacking FoxNews' right to exist, or to sponsor FoxNation. It's the message they promote, the misinformation they allow to go unchallenged, that's the issue.
And read the mission statement if you don't understand why there's coverage of David Feherty and not of Wanda Sykes.
Where have you found the lies of MMFA? Post them and refute them.
1) How do you know that other news organizations are distorting the truth (I assume that this is what you mean by "Obama puppydogs")
2) How do you know that Fox News is telling you the complete, "fair and balanced" truth? To what lengths do you go to, to independently verify what they're telling you? On this site, it's easy to find instances of fox news lying or distorting issues beyond recognition -- I'd settle for you finding fault with any of those claims.
Just asking the question, Fox News style.
Panic Time for Pelosi
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has had a bad week. Caught between her own involvement in the CIA interrogations now condemned as torture and her party’s inquisitions, Pelosi floundered. Her fear and frustration have apparently given way to panic after word reached her of the CIA’s reaction to the damage she, President Obama and other Democrats have done to the spy agency in the last three months.
Read The Full Article
ShareThis
"I just want to say something here and now....Nancy Pelosi, along with her buddies Barney Franks, Harry Reid, Chris Dodd is nothing but a lying pig, just like all the other scumbags in the Obama Administration. I used to be a Republican...not any longer.... I believe that we need a new party to clean this mess up . We need to take our government back, and throw all the present bums in prision and throw away the key! I have lost all respect for this government in this country and the corrupt garbage that is running it. Obama is nothing but a clown...just like Pelosi and her "crew"...The whole bunch deserve life imprisionment. or execution."
SHUT UP DEMS
"LOOK NANCY BOTOX PELOSI WE KNOW YOU HAVE KNOWEN FOR QUIT SOME TIME SO SHUT UP BITCH IT'S TIME FOR THE TRUTH. YOUR THE REASON BARNEY FRANK WENT GAY!!!!!"
Thursday, April 30, 2009 at 03:54 PM
MONTANABORN
"Amnesia? Hardly...She is pure evil....How do you get rid of something like that?
I'm afraid that putting a bullet through her head would make no difference. History tells us we burn witches."
Thursday, April 30, 2009 at 11:04 AM
These are actual unedited posts from FoxNation. They ignore mosts posts by progressives and let this kind of hate speech through there so called filters.
Now, can an honest neocon please give some examples--preferably from the same day, as these are--of leftists using similar vitriol? I am perfectly willing to be proven wrong, but I don't think it can be done.
Is Bill O'Reilly a co-conspirator in murder?
Does Glenn Beck advocate burning people?
Is Ann Coulter a Manchurian Candidate?
Is Rush Limbaugh the son of German/Argentinian parents?
Wow, this is fun!
Today-young US teens under or near aged 18 are being routinely arrested and threatened with a charge of producing child pornography with the added threat of inclusion on a sex offenders register for life for taking similar photographs and "sexting" them to each other.
Although it's reported that Murdoch was at first furious with The Sun's editorial decision to publish these topless snaps, he quickly changed his mind as circulation soared and the newspaper maintained it's sales supremacy.
Thus Murdoch's original steps in his world-wide rise to media mogul were aided by the production, sale and distribution (by today's standards) of child pornography. How odd that the same publishing empire likes to hold itself aloft as the guardian of public morals. Page 3 continues of course and even has its own website-sans the 15/16 year old topless pics.