Fox's Banderas gratuitously injected NY Times into report on Hezbollah leader's appearance on Al Jazeera
Julie Banderas rhetorically asked viewers to "guess which television" outlet Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah had recently appeared on, and then stated: "No, not The New York Times, but Al Jazeera television, broadcasting this terrorist on TV."
On the July 20 edition of Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson, Fox News host Julie Banderas rhetorically asked viewers to "guess which television" outlet Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah had recently appeared on, and then stated: "No, not The New York Times, but Al Jazeera television, broadcasting this terrorist on TV." Nasrallah's appearance on the Arabic satellite TV network had, Bandaras reported, dashed "hop[es]" that "perhaps he was dead."
Media Matters for America has documented conservatives' recent verbal attacks on the Times, including claims that the paper committed treason and suggestions that Times staff members should be "executed" for publishing a June 23 article describing a Bush administration program that monitors international financial transactions for terrorist activity.
From the July 20 edition of Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson:
GIBSON: His group has terrorized Israel for years under his leadership. He has tight ties to both Iran and Syria. So, how much do we really know about the head of Hezbollah? His name is Nasrallah. Here is the host of Big Story Weekend, Julie Banderas -- Julie.
BANDERAS: All right. Well, you know, just about an hour ago, we were thinking or hoping that perhaps he was dead, but now he has reared his ugly head once again on guess which television? No, not The New York Times, but Al Jazeera television, broadcasting this terrorist on TV. So, you know, as you know, this is a guy who is not camera-shy. He goes out of his way over and over to taunt Israeli leaders. And just a day after Israel claimed to have bombed that bunker where we thought he may have been hiding -- well, Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, rearing his ugly head once again today. In an interview aired on Al Jazeera television, he says this: "I can confirm without exaggerating or using psychological warfare that we have not been harmed."
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
...of continuous and gratuitous partisan "slams" against political foes. Indicates a requirement for repetition of "talking point" rightwing narrative that
LIBERAL = THE MEDIA = TERRORISTS
Miss no opportunity to treat this as "conventional wisdom".
Maybe it's time for a recap.
O'Reilly + Ratings = Facts
Coulter + Sales = Literary Legitimacy
Liberal = Media = Terrorists
What will the noise machine bring next?
Is it a requirement for every rightwinger to slam NY Times every time terrorists are mentioned?
And what's the big deal about showing this guy on TV?
Yes, non-liberal media outlets are supposed to take a stab at the NYT every opportunity it can. Failing that, they're supposed to make up some sort of opportunity. Thus sayeth Karl Rove, lord and master of the universe.
I guarantee you if FOX had the opportunity to show the video first, they would in less than a hummingbird's heartbeat.
I did my good deed for the day when I went to the dentist... I switched the channels from FOX News to the British Open.
[link to thinkprogress.org]
All Fox News Employees:
Today we would like you to slam the New York Times whenever you get the chance. No, strike that. Slam the New York Times even when you don't get the chance! What the hell. Just throw in some offhand remark into an unrelated story about Hezbollah if you have to. Even if you have to refer to the Times as a television network, well, that's ok too. Accuracy and journalistic credibility is not the issue here. It's not like we have set a high standard for ourselves in that area.
Thank you and go forth on your agenda of the day.
Sincerely,
Roger Ailes President & CEO, Fox News Network
...if it's really all that scripted... or, if these FOX ditzes are sort of improvising? Maybe there's something in there contract that says they'll get x amount if they throw in inflammatory comments and digs on the lefties?
Why do they have to cover Bandera's only asset(s) with that big ugly graphics?
She goes out of her way to show some cleavage, and Fox just can't seem to work with her on this.
It's a sad commentary when the only positive point you have a journalist is your breasts, and you look pretty.
Monkeyboy:
She's waiting for The National Review to come out with a swimsuit edition.
if we have to listen to her crap!
---"guess which television? No, not The New York Times"---
Ms. Banderas: For cheap and unprofessional reporting, I always look to Fox News-and they never disappoint-but my second choice is the Washington Times television.
I just caught the latest "breaking news" from Fox "media" regarding the violence on the Israel-Lebanon border (they seemed to use the words "crisis" and "turmoil" to describe that violence; perhaps they've concluded that it's not a "war", least of all a "world war"; it seems now to be a "crisis" and "turmoil")...
Anyway, the "breaking news":
It seems GWB's "good friends', the saudi royal family, may enter the fray...
Not in the sense of their previous efforts, as the region's #1 financier of terror and supplier of weapons and explosives to all those terrorists (and the "insurgency" too)...
No, now our saudi "good friends" may wind up "mediating" an end to that border violence; or at least that's the latest "good will" PR being floated by Fox, on behalf the administration and it's "good friends".
Right.
Let's first spin that violence so out of proportion (a "world war"?), and then in the spinning down of the "crisis" and "turmoil", let's credit the wealth, power, and management of the region's terror (of the world's terror!)...
Let's credit GWB's "good friends" with helping to stop the violence.
The spin on this one is dizzying...
...no wonder it's the NYT again.
(Want to see some real PR on GWB's "good friends"? Then declassify the Conclusions Section, Part Four, of the Joint Congressional Inquiry's Report on the attacks of September 11, 2001; discover what our "good friends" did to us that day; what they continue to do world-wide. Ever wonder who's financing the "insurgency"? Ever notice how GWB not only got a second term out of terror, but he still uses it to stay afloat even today, however so precariously. It's nice to have "good friends" to help guarantee your authoruty and standing with the American people.)
Sounds fair and balanced to me... every regular Fox viewer already knows that The New York Times is a terrorist front organization hell-bent on the destruction of our way of life. LOL
These neocons are real morons. They can't even pose a rhetorical question correctly. Why would an intelligent viewer respond to the question "Guess which television?" with the name of a newspaper?
I'm guessing it takes a sub-90 IQ to be a neocon.
Well, Banderas proves once again why Fox is bin-Laden's favorite television network: BECAUSE THEY HATE AMERICA.
Tabkhan:
Watch it... a remark like that sounds close to treason. Ann Coulter may soon call for your execution. Bill O'Reilly will send Fox Security to your home. And Sean Hannity will smirk as he speaks your name with disgust.
As for me, I'm getting ready to order my "I HATE AMERICA" T-shirt from the The New York Times. They come in black only... but the women's tank top does come in pink. Proceeds go the Hezbollah Institute for Terrorist Studies in Queens. Get yours before they sell out.
Wow. The most obvious comment to make is that the New York Times is not a TV station. How stupid.
An interminable parade of straw man arguments from Fox reveals the intellectual vacuum of their target audience. The Sunday morning spin convention featuring George Steponallofus and George Will has morphed from a once hard-hitting calling of Congress to task into prostrated obeisances to Republican talking points.
...Fox broadcast the video too.
I just thought of Fox's tag line: "We report. You decide."
Yup... fair and balanced.
This is also a gratituous smear of Al Jazeera, which Fox can't stand because it actually gives a voice to Arabs. Yes, it is certainly a biased news channel--but probably no more than Fox. For one thing, it does some excellent on the ground reporting, as a reporter from Haretz (the Israeli equivelent of *The New York Times*) noted that he got info about the current war from Al Jazeera before the Israeli TV news.
It should be noted that Al Jazeera was praised before 9/11 because it actually was a real news station and because it actually allowed Israeli spokespeople to come on TV, something that caused many Arabs to deem it to pro-Western. After 9/11 it has been smeared because it actually shows some of the suffering caused by America's war in Iraq.
They've been talking about it for quite a while, but so far I don't think anything's come of it.
Since they're a commercial network out to make a profit, I wouldn't be surprised if they'll try the same angles as Fox... imagine the smear campaign from Fox if THAT happens!
suggestion that the left somehow sides with terrorists? That is so completely offensive and fails to have even the tiniest grain of truth to it. Why is it allowed to stand? Why do people buy into it?
FOX News = Al Jazeera anyway..
and
does Banderas really have nice breasts?? Now that would give me an excuse to watch FOX News more often..
What a hateful report by Banderas, against The NY Times and Nasrallah! Fox calls itself a news organization; however, it is a propaganda machine designed to direct public though, pure and simple.
is that Fox fans buy it, just like the ditoheads.I hear calls to righty radio and emails to Fox complaining about real news sources reporting facts that don't pump up BushCo.
Imagine being part of the voting American public that swallows this:
Al Jazeera reports items that are not 100% pro-Bush administration.
The NY Times (network news, Air america, MMFA,etc.) reports items that are not 100% pro- BushCo.
Fox only reports 100% pro- American news.
One of these things is not like the other...
Almost never mentioned in HISTORY discussions is that the Native American Red Indians had a news operation "ON THE AIR", and it depicted THEIR view of the monumentous events which were affecting their destiny.
Of course, the White Man "invaders" adopted the reasonable stance that the dirty savages could not be listened to, talked to, negotiated with, or involved in diplomacy. "They LIE," said the plains fighters. "You can't believe a word they say," said the settlers. "The only GOOD indian is a DEAD indian," said the indian fighting cavalry.
None of the invaders cared a THING about "their side of the story." "We BROKE a treaty? Well boo, hoo!"
So we have a MODEL to look to in the case of a media outlet which gives the, for lack of a more precise term, "ARAB" outlook. Al Jezerra needs to be completely demonized, because it does the invaders no good to hear any other side of this story. People being conquered should have NO voice. We can learn nothing we need to know by listening to the whining of ethnicly odd savages.
Our job is SIMPLE: Kill them. Dominate their lands. Just like with the Red Indians in Old America, their "viewpoint" is just a distraction, and certainly a LIE.
Demonize, discredit, and destroy, that's OUR policy, our American Modus Operandi.
And, BY GOD, we should be so PROUD.
Not so obvious, keep it down a little. You forgot to throw in the liberation and spreading democracy.
Hey, Gang! Let's put on an election!
Everybody still alive, come on down and vote.