Media Matters president Burns: Fox News "a 24/7 political operation" geared to destroy Obama presidency, progressive agenda
From the October 12 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:
LAWRENCE O'DONNELL (guest host): If you want evidence that the Fox News Channel views itself as an arm of the Republican Party, listen to the man behind the curtain: former Republican Party media adviser Roger Ailes.
In March of this year, Glenn Beck told the LA Times that before he was hired at Fox News, that network's president, Roger Ailes, told him how he saw Fox's coverage of the Obama administration. Quote, "I view this as the Alamo. If I just had somebody who was willing to sit on the other side of the camera until the last shot is fired, we'd be fine."
In our number one story, the Obama administration is officially fighting back by publicly calling out the Fox News Channel for what it is. In an interview with Time magazine last week, White House communications director Anita Dunn called Fox News, quote, "opinion journalism masquerading as news."
Dunn's criticism centered not on the network's news gathering capacity -- she has no problem with White House reporter Major Garrett, for example. The problem the White House sees is pervasive in the channel's entire programming lineup, in its opinion shows and news, and the problem begins with story selection.
From CNN's Reliable Sources yesterday.
DUNN [video clip]: If we went back a year ago to the fall of 2008, to the campaign, that -- you know, it was a time this country was in two wars. That we'd had a financial collapse probably more significant than any financial collapse since the Great Depression. If you were a Fox News viewer in the fall election, what you would have seen would have been that the biggest stories and biggest threats facing America were a guy named Bill Ayers and something called ACORN. I mean, the reality of it is that Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party.
O'DONNELL: When asked if the president would appear on Fox News Channel again, Dunn said the following.
DUNN [video clip]: The answer is yes. Obviously, he will go on Fox, because he engages with ideological opponents, and he has done that before and he will do it again. I can't give you a date, because, frankly, I can't give you dates for anybody else right now. But what I will say is that when he goes on Fox, he understands he is not going on it really as a news network at this point. He is going on to debate the opposition.
O'DONNELL: Joining us now is Eric Burns, president of Media Matters for America, a not-for-profit group that monitors conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. Eric, welcome.
BURNS: Thank you.
O'DONNELL: Why has the White House finally come out and stated the obvious, that the Fox News Channel is opinion journalism masquerading as news?
BURNS: Look, Anita Dunn has it exactly right with her description of Fox News, and I said as much on this program just two weeks ago. But I take it a step further, Lawrence. I think that what we have all thought of as a conservative news organization has really morphed itself this year into a 24/7 political operation with a very specific goal. And that is to destroy this presidency, and destroy any sort of progressive policy agenda that the American people voted for in November.
That's their goal. They've said it. You saw it at the top of your clip. And I think that that's what we are dealing with. And so Anita Dunn is absolutely right to call them out for that.
O'DONNELL: But why -- strategically for the White House, why would they choose now to raise attention to Fox's attacks on the White House?
BURNS: Well, you know, Fox's attacks on the White House -- their attacks on the White House have gotten more and more vicious. They have been going on for quite awhile. But they have gone on a czar witch-hunt, which of course we've all seen. Most of it based on specious facts or no facts at all, especially in the case of -- the recent case of Kevin Jennings, a Department of Education official, that Sean Hannity repeatedly claimed condoned statutory rape. Media Matters was able to completely disprove that.
And they've got a -- they've got a big board of 30 or so of these folks that they have actively targeted and said they are going to go after and try to get fired.
That doesn't sound like a news organization. That's a political operation. I've certainly, Lawrence, have been involved in campaigns, as you have. And that certainly sounds a lot more like what you see out of a political campaign.
O'DONNELL: Now is part of the White House method here to, in effect, quarantine the misinformation that Fox News puts out? Because sometimes Fox News will generate one of these phony controversies, and then other outlets will pick it up because they are covering the controversy. They don't -- they're not covering the thing that started it, the falsehoods that Fox promoted to start it.
BURNS: I think quarantining Fox News is something that is very important. We have worked to do that -- the misinformation coming out of Fox News. It's very important. It's something we have worked to do very hard at Media Matters, and I think successfully in the past. But, as I said, you know, Fox News has really morphed and changed into a political organization.
They're much more dangerous. They're much more powerful. So I'm not sure that that's enough to get the job done. Folks are going to have to really go at Fox News.
And really Fox News is the story. You've got to understand that we have, you know, Mike Huckabee and others -- you know, Dick Morris -- openly raising money for their political action committees on Fox News. We have Fox News folks -- hosts like Glenn Beck organizing political activists -- rather partisan political activist protests -- the 9-12 rallies, the tea party protests. Fox did 22 segments promoting those tea party protests, 37 paid teaser advertisements on that.
They are deeply, deeply involved in the political activities of the conservative movement. And I would say that they are essentially directing them, from all available evidence.
O'DONNELL: I think there is very little evidence that Fox is going to respond in any kind of positive way to this White House criticism. Don't you agree with that?
BURNS: I don't think so. But, you know, I'll tell you what. From, you know, from the guy that -- that created the Willie Horton ad, who is running Fox News, I don't know what anybody can really expect. We're just going to have to get tough with them --
O'DONNELL: Yeah, there's not much to expect there.
BURNS: -- and the news media is going to have to get tough with them.
O'DONNELL: Right. Eric Burns, president of Media Matters for America, thanks for your time tonight.
BURNS: Thank you, Lawrence.
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
Right On Politics
you guys are doin a great job, keep those haters on their toes
Ki-ora from New Zealand:)
Oh Sean, I don't know what I am going to do, the Obama Administration is picking on FoxNews. What are we going to do, we had such plans. Bush was so nice to us, but the Obama Administration, they actually demand we ask legit questions, and they don't let us get away with the ones we used to get away with. What are we going to do? Why, CNN is actually fact checking comedy skits about Obama, and that's our role to ridicule the President. CNN is such a terrible network for trying to take over our position as the most skewed network. Perhaps we should send them a bomb disguised as a gift. I thought this would be all fun and games, unfairly picking on the Dems, but Obama is making it so difficult. Lets wake up your boss, Rush, and see what he thinks we should do.
When did this happen?
Back when Alan Colmes worked there....
I watch Morning Joe just about every morning when I get home from work (I'm a 3rd shifter). What I like most about it is that they do represent two sides in honest (most of the time) debate. They give both sides equal opportunity to spell out their positions, and do so without overtly slamming the guest. There's no overt hatred and finger-pointing either. Rational debate, for the most part, is the crux of the show. Name one show on Fox that can say the same?
O'Reilly's show always has om opposing views, in fact he probably has on more liberals than all of MSNBC. You obviously don't know what you are talking about.
But your cut the mike comments shows you too don't know what you are talking about. You point to one or two instances over 10 years and take that as the norm. You are not honest enough to admit it is not. And if libs came on and actually answered the questions that were put to them and discussed the issues they were brought on to speak about, their mikes would never be cut.
I mean, I'd hate to think that you're doing all this lying for nothing!
FairLiberal, please try again. Your first answer wasn't even close.
No.
Because he's a partisan hack. Only the most obtuse lemming could take seriously what Burns says about media fairness. The singular purpose of this website is to promote his progressive political agenda, not to be fair-minded to liberal and conservative viewpoints alike. That this nimrod blasts Fox for pushing an agenda, on msnbc of all places, is absurdly hypocritical . . . yet still it's typical of a leftwing media zealot.
All criticism of Obama must be protested against, and demagogue halfwits like burnsy do their part to ensure that the lemmings in the msm toe the line.
you obviously dont know the purpose of this site, so stop acting like you are the voice of reason here. the purpose of MMfA is to expose conservative bias, because nobody else is willing to do it, and the wingnuts throw out the tired "liberal media" claim, proving it by pointing out some anchors and blindly labeling them as liberals. the point here is that the "liberal media" is a well-known myth that has been proven and debunked, and it is the conservative media that gets the real spotlight, hence the fact that everything beck, oreilly and limbaugh say is actually talked about and considered, while something olbermann, maddow and cooper say is practically ignored by the mass because of their lack of a loud voice. now if you cant even remotely see that scenario in some light, then you have serious issues with being brainwashed and blinded by your own ideology.
now regarding msnbc... what have they done even similar to fox news? have they promoted rallies and staged parties to support liberals to go up against conservatives? no, they arent a propaganda arm of the democratic party... if they wanted to be, they would be a lot more popular and well-known. they arent... fox news is because they make themselves as a political organization set out to smear anything liberal or democratic and prop up conservatives every chance they get. look at the last 8 years under bush... did you ever see sean hannity or bill oreilly really rail against george bush and take him to task? of course not... they were so far up his you know what that it was getting disgusting. they never, ever saw a single thing wrong with bush, and praised him and treated him as a proclaimed patriot. msnbc hasnt done anything like that with obama... in fact, the supposed liberals like olbermann and maddow have attacked him for his policies which they disagree with.
next time, do your research before you make blind accusations about msnbc or media matters.
you are in the wrong place if you want to spew ridiculous lies... go take your rants to newsbusters and that palace of paranoid pansies.
That's the dumbest things I've read so far this morning. O'reilly and others at fox have no more of a "loud voice" than the lemmings you mention. They all have primetime slots to voice their opinions. Those at Fox have no inherent advantage. It's notable that you cite two "news" organizations who spew a progressive agenda, yet cry about the single media outlet that leans right.
Your remaining rant is pretty inane. Hannity and O'reilly are opinion shows, just like KO's and Maddows. Yes, Hannity and to a lesser extent Oreilly, twist their coverage in favor of the conservative viewpoint, but no more so than KO, Maddow, Shuster and Matthews heap their adulation on all things Obama on a nightly basis
Besides, FOX promotes the hiring of liberal commentators based on market forces alone. If they're going to set up an entire lineup of conservative commentators, then there's a market for liberals that's going to be taken advantage of. And they also have Scarborough, who is not a liberal. Matthews is not a liberal either, at best he's a political junkie who has biases for and against people on both sides. Look at his fawning over Bush in his flight suit, Romney's shoulders, and his dislike of Hillary Clinton in any number of comments he's made about her.
There's really no comparison between the two. Conservatives tend to argue that all networks are liberal anyway, so what venue is there to provide commentary about FOX's undeniable bias?
then how do you explain oreilly, hannity and other fox commentators having huge ratings that gets out to millions more viewers than msnbc and cnn?
so the super high ratings arent an advantage?
and how do msnbc and cnn spew an agenda in any similar fashion to fox? nobody spews propaganda like oreilly, hannity and beck. olbermann and maddow are small potatoes as far as the type of vitriol and delivery fox spews. and my complaint towards fox news is that they twist and distort many facts about obama while completely smearing him with lies. i have nothing against them making legitimate criticisms, but everything they do is a complete smear job.
so the way olbermann, maddow and matthews state their opinions is similar to hannity, oreilly and beck? labeling whomever they disagree with un-american, loons, and other names that are tantamount to a hit job. and last time i checked, those 3 at msnbc dont yell, scream and interrupt their guests like the 3 at fox do. granted, matthews will do it every now and then, but please... the comparison is ridiculous.
Actually he sounds more like the Obama administration, they are the ones sending out officials to decry Fox. I remember hearing Bush asked if it bothered him to be criticised so much by the media, and he said no it comes with the job. It's too bad that sensitive little Obama doesn't realize that too.
The problem with your silly uninformed argument is that Fox News and the owner make it very clear that they are the "voice of Oposition". That is not the duty and responsiblity of a News Agency, especially one who proclaims to be "fair and balanced". Two of Fox News Talk hosts: Sean [Klan]nity and nutcase Glen Beck said on record that they intend on bringing down Obama and this admininstration, and they used Fox News and their show criticizing and attacking this president on a daily basis. These liars are using Fox News as a guise to commit treason. It is un-patriotic and un-American to overlook or disregard the will of the people. We had an election and they have spoken and because these racist sore-losers are unhappy a black man is in the oval office they are now spitting on the constitution and democracy, for personal reasons. The H%*l with them and those stupid folks who still try to defend Bush, his failed policies and his betrayal to the American people. Bush whole presidency was about getting rich and that is exactly what he done.
Funny how you object to Fox being the voice of opposition but do not object to MSNBC 's opposition to everything Bush for 8 years , or to MMFA total dedication to being the opposition to conservative views with no regard to fairness or accuracy.
And it is also laughable that you decry people getting rich when your beloved dems are the wealthiest of our politicians.
Websites are not the same.
so NO other channel brings on opposing views? are you sure about that, FL?
if you didnt notice already, rachel has debated many other conservatives aside from buchanan... like the head of one of those tea parties organizations, gov tim pawlenty, rep. steve king of iowa, and many others.
ill agree with you that that segment was a little stupid because she was bringing on people who werent actually talking her down, and agreeing with her instead. but the claim that she has never debated anyone is false. in fact, her new promo shows her debating with the tea party guy i mentioned.
First off, they have never shown that they are dedicated to anything of the sort. They oppose and decry conservative media misinformation. They've never said that they oppose honest conservative political philosophy. This is the stupid "censoring me because you disagree with me" argument that's never been true about MMFA.
And "no regard to fairness or accuracy"? When has MMFA ever been caught being unfair or inaccurate? They use the very words, in context, that people say or write. One can't get more fair and accurate than that. They provide links every time.
You need to put down the mirror when you're delusional like this. Projections of insanity are not pretty or flattering.
They don't bat 1.000, but it's not that often when I see an unfair or inaccurate story. Relative to websites in general, they do pretty well.
Just to be more precise. Burns is a partisan hack who is pushing his progressive agenda. But he is also pushing the Obama Agenda in complete coordination with the White House and other similar organizations such as the Center for American Progress, SEIU and others. All bought and paid for by George Soros.
As such, Mr. Burns heads a criminal enterprise that is using tax-exempt funds for political purposes in coordination with elected officials and political parties.
MMFA should be investigated and shut down or at least stripped of its 501c3 status for the its blatant;y political and obviously coordinated activities.
Dunn came out with this whining about FOX on one of the Sunday shows and here all these groups like MMFA are continuing to pound the point on Monday and Tuesday. Certainly no 'planning' went into this attack. Of course not.
Pushing for an end to unconstitutional DWI roadblocks is not equivalent to promoting drunk driving. Nor is it a plot in cooperation with alcohol manufacturers.
Arguing against unfair zero tolerance policies in elementary schools that threaten to put an unknowing 6 year old into reform school for bringing a Cub Scout universal eating utensil to the lunchroom is not equivalent to wanting to remove all bans on weapons in all schools. Nor is it a plot by the NRA in cooperation with this kid's parents.
Nope. The singular purpose of this site is to publicize conservative media misinformation so as to better educate the populace.
If that misinformation were to stop, it would be fair to both sides. As it is now, conservative media misinformation is unfair to both sides.
I couldn't help but notice that you didn't disagree with a single thing Burns said on this program. I was all set to cast him aside as a hack, but if he's going to do all this unobjectionable truth-telling, I guess I'll have to keep listening to him.
show ONE example of MSNBC cheerleading for president obama.
I guess that in the simpleton minds of these brain-dead conservatives, truth and facts equate to "Cheerleading for President Obama".
That you can't see that networks obvious socialistic leanings is well....... you've left me speechless.
Seriously, people actually come as dumb as you?
When faced with a presumed huge list of examples, pick a couple and write them down. Don't state that there is a huge list of examples.
You may note that when MMFA was asked to come up with examples of bias in Fox's non-opinion programming, they actually wrote some down.
Oh, and by the way, NOT SMEARING Obama... as the Faux News Channel does... is not the same as cheerleading for Obama.
I guess you don't really have one.
NONE OF THE CABLE NETWORKS are NEWS networks, they are OPINION networks. Fox's representative admitted it the other day in response to WH criticism. The one thing that the rep could be faulted for is saying that Fox viewers UNDERSTAND that it is an opinion network. Obviously, that's not true.
BTW, if you are including MSNBC and CNN in the dreaded MSM, then Fox is right there with 'em.
Jesus, but H L Mencken had you guys pegged.
im going to be a mass communications major and i cant wait to voice my opinion about this network to a broader audience, if you want to call it that, yet.
all i know is i want to fight it as much as possible.
Loks like as Jack Nicholson put it, you can't HANDLE the truth.
Some people just don't get it.
These conservatives keep tipping their hand. Take out the "un-American" in front of that word that O'Reilly is very, very fond of, and you would have looked like someone with a reasonable point.
This administration, and its doting acolytes, are unbelievable wimps. As Binx alluded to a few posts up, the overall percentage of the population at large who watches Fox is miniscule, yet Obama still cries about this network notwithstanding his sea of worshippers in the msm. Pathetic.
The rational thing to do, if your in a position to do so, is to crush your opposition? I suppose thats what that invisible sea of worshippers is for.
They seem to be much concerned with what ever carrot Faux Gnues is waving in their collective face these days to do much worshipping.
http://newsrealblog.com/2009/10/12/meltdowns-attack-on-fox/
while something olbermann, maddow and cooper say is practically ignored by the mass because of their lack of a loud voice.
That's the dumbest things I've read so far this morning. O'reilly and others at fox have no more of a "loud voice" than the lemmings you mention.
or?
by pongotwistleton (2 hours and 36 minutes ago)
In view of their dominant ratings, I don't think Fox is squirming much.
The human, existence
Is failing, resistance
Essential, the future
Written off, the odds are
Astronomically against us
Only moron and genius
Would fight a losing battle
Against the super ego
When giving in is so damn comforting
And so we go, on with our lives
We know the truth, but prefer lies
Lies are simple, simple is bliss
Why go against tradition when we can
Admit defeat, live in decline
Be the victim of our own design
The status quo, built on suspect
Why would anyone stick out their neck?
Fellow members
Club "We've Got Ours"
I'd like to introduce you to our host
He's got his, and I've got mine
Meet the decline
We are the queer
We are the whore
Ammunition
In the class war
We are worker
We love our queen
We sacrifice
We're soilent green
I can only imagine how much whining there would be if all the newsstations were conservative/libertarian except for one. FoxNews is one cable news outlet that doesn't even reach some parts of the country still and the left is apopletic. We classical liberals, as opposed to the state-worshipping collectivists who mistakenly call themselves liberals today, don't even have one newsstation or major newspaper to call our own, but we don't moan like you spoiled little socialists because our views aren't given a fair hearing in the dominant leftist press. We use the internet to communicate and our message gets out. The philosophy of collectivism and centralized federal power is the dominant narrative in the major media, but, yet, you guys still find some news organization to complain about. Unbelievable!
It's like you lunatics can't even handle one discordant note in your otherwise harmonious leftist newssphere.
And you're calling someone else an "in-bred idiot." Glass houses my friend. . . .
Whew, tough guy, I see you're one of the dumber boot-lickers on this site. So now Fox is violating the law. Good luck getting them prosecuted, genius. Tell me, diogenie, esquire, a specific instance where Fox has violated the law by way of the speech voiced on that network. It's been a long day, and I need a good laugh . . .
If you're serious, then you should be granted a scholarship to an insane asylum. Your mindset is redolent of the old soviet union. Thankfully, our constitution protects Fox news against intolerant psychos like you; rather than protect you against having to hear their terrible criticisms of our dear leader.
WHAT MORAL RIGHT DOES FOX NEWS HAVE TO USE LIES TO DECEIVE PEOPLE IN ORDER TO ACQUIRE THEIR POLITICAL AIMS?
Not legal right but MORAL one. Legal rights protect you from the government not from an angry mob. Fox News' lies have been catalogued here ad nauseum. They have been told of their lies and repeated them. They accused former president Clinton of everything from murder to embezzlement in order to get Bush elected (though Gore won the popular vote). What followed were a bunch of idiots wrapped in the American flag driving this country into the ground. Fox News helped them with convenient lies and misinformation every step of the way. Now they are trying to do the same thing and accuse Obama of everything under the sun. They think its cute and enjoy the power of these lies. Are these moralpeople at Fox News? Please keep quoting the constitution at me after you've done your darnedest to destroy it. It will protect you from the government not from the people.
The revolution will be twittered!
I think you should start with J.S. Mills, Adam Smith, Bastiat, Say and Locke. Those intellectuals would give you a good introduction to classical liberalism. Then you could read some of the better 20th century intellectuals like Mises, Hayek, Rothbard,Schumpeter, Friedman, Rand and Sowell. After that, maybe we can have an intellectual discussion.
So I'll ask the question again, the question you seem determined to avoid...
This web site has demonstrated on numerous occassions that Fox News has made statements that are simply untrue. The half-truths are too many to count. Despite being caught in a lie instead of apologizing, they repeat the lie.
What moral right does Fox News have to use misinformation to deceive the American people and corrupt the foundations of democracy? (not legal but moral)
As such, Mr. Burns heads a criminal enterprise that is using tax-exempt funds for political purposes in coordination with elected officials and political parties.
MMFA should be investigated and shut down or at least stripped of its 501c3 status for the its blatant;y political and obviously coordinated activities.
Dunn came out with this whining about FOX on one of the Sunday shows and here all these groups like MMFA are continuing to pound the point on Monday and Tuesday. Certainly no 'planning' went into this attack. Of course not. Awsome post Cheney
item 1
If you want to be professional you should quote Glen Beck or at least provide a credit for your assertions.
item 2
Can you find a source for your assertions? Here's one that took me about 60 seconds
I know MMFA doesn't get any money from David Koch and friends. You may want to research Koch.
item 3
Since items 1 & 2 demonstrate false information (aka propaganda) we get to the purpose of MMFA:
This post is 100% political and self serving of the site. Why is it tax exempt?
MMFA and its supporters are interested in reporting as part of news coverage, and the editorials promoted as, well, editorials.
Perhaps this should be a Federal Trade Commission issue focused on truth in advertising. If they changed the the name of FNC to "Fox Opinion Channel" we'd have truth in advertising.
"News" organizations have always understood thier special place in our society. As with the medical field, the "business" of news is a little different than other business, inwhich standards outrank profits. Generally, professionals in that field also understand their special place in society.
Apparently, "news", for Murdoch, does not reside on such a pedestal. Clearly, he views "news" as just another business - with any and all competitive practices are fair game.
It's not "news" for which Murdoch strives. It's viewers.