Jon Stewart on Fox News' sparse gay-rights march coverage: "Gay people aren't vampires, they show up on camera"
October 14, 2009 10:30 am ET
From the October 13 edition of Comedy Central's The Daily Show with Jon Stewart:
Expand All
Expand 1st Level
Collapse All
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
They spent less than 4 minutes covering the Gay rally. That's the disparity that's relevant.
The rally from this weekend was not promoted by any network 24/7; it was, truly, a grass roots effort, and it was all but ignored by both Fox and other networks.
We should absolutely hold Fox accountable for their hypocracy, but we should also hold the mainstream media responsible for ignoring a true grassroots protest, while covering the Fox-promoted tea party.
Then they did absolutely NOTHING to cover the gay march with just as many people. Is it surprising? No. But, it does once again prove the irrelevance of Fox News for anyone trying to get any actual facts or journalism. It also once again proves to the Fox dittoheads (stark, fakeliberal, etc.) that their channel does nothing but tell them what they want to hear and almost nothing else at all.
It is almost sad that they have now accepted their place in their niche, nutjob market and are no longer even attempting to be taken seriously as a source of journalism. They continue to preach to the crazy choir only what they want to hear.
If only Fox News had a Clue.
They had plenty of Mis-information on Kevin Jennings.
They Smeared him without Mercy & never stoped grinning.
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
Guess you missed the irony . . . 70,000 Teabaggers were a BIG STORY . . . so BIG that Fox took out a full page ad in several newspapers questioning where the other networks were [an ad which used a photo taken from CNN's stock, btw]. The fact that all of the other opinion networks and news networks DID cover the teabaggers was beside the point, according to Fox. They didn't cover the teabaggers ENOUGH . . . it was BIG, it was HUGE! Now, when 70,000 gay and lesbians and their families and supporters had a similar march . . . again, all of the other opinion and news networks covered the march . . . where was Fox?
It's about HYPOCRISY, fairliberal, but that went right over your head, as usual.
The left just loves those hypocrites.
What number WOULD you accept then, huh?
It wasn't 2 MIL. Great. It wasn't 70K. Fine. WHAT DO YOU THINK IT WAS?
And consdiering the covergae they were given in general, and the disprotitionate coverage (as well as logistical support) that they got from Fox, can you justify the lack of coverage of [another large protest] in any way OTHER than political bias?
Don't bother nitpicking the number, make an argument. What's the broader point here?!
------------------------------------------------
If it were, say, 200,000, does that even make a difference?
oops. HL would rather argue numbers because he doesn't have an argument to your point of political bias.
The Metro's additional passenger load that day is a better focus, and that points to about 40,000 extra round trips on the subway that day. Inauguration Day had more than 10 times as many extra trips.
Matt Kibbe, president of FreedomWorks, the group that organized the event, said on stage at the rally Saturday that ABC News was reporting that 1 million to 1.5 million people were in attendance.
At no time did ABC News, or its affiliates, report a number anywhere near as large. ABCNews.com reported an approximate figure of 60,000 to 70,000 protesters, attributed to the Washington, D.C., fire department. In its reports, ABC News Radio described the crowd as "tens of thousands."
ABC News Reported D.C. Rally Size in Tens of Thousands, Not 1M to 1.5M as Activist Said...
An alleged photo of the crowd seemed to support the estimates, except for one problem (as pointed out by Catharine Richert in the St. Petersburg Times): The photo actually depicts a 12-year-old Promise Keepers rally.
If not for the fact that the National Museum of the American Indian (built in 2004) is missing from the picture, crowd-estimators might still be scratching their heads.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-01-19-crowd_N.htm
I don't "love" Obama, I just don't understand how anyone can call Obama a "radical," he's not. He's pretty moderate.
I'm a Southern Baptist from a very, very conservative background and a very, very conservative community. Conservative meaning traditional values, not the phony crap pushed by Fox and hate talk radio. These folks are offensive to most real conservatives because real conservatism is not about hatred and exclusion.
Do not even pay these people any mind. Because if they knew anything about traditional values of what this country is for then We The People would be at the top and not this pro-business rule that has been pedaled at the Americans for years! Once this country supports the people of this country then we can see a rise in our country as a powerful force. Right now the politics in this country stinks! Too much corporate influience and less government rules for the people.
I totally agree with your comment regarding the politics of this country stinking. I'm SOOOO sick of people showing more loyalty to the letter in the ( ) than to their country.
What was the average temperature last year?
No, that's not what I asked for.
What was the average temperature last year?
On Inauguration, more than half a million extra round trips. More than 10 times as many extra trips on Metro. That doesn't even count for the fact that many, many locals knew to avoid the Metro on 1/20 and walked to the event, versus very few locals who would have attended the 9/12 event.
So, our best estimates would be less than 1/10th the number of people at the 9/12 event versus Inauguration.
Based on metro trips, and the unofficial fire department estimate of crowd size, it was around 70,000 people and certainly less than 100k.
Here is the picture, in case you forgot.
Point two no one except a few bloggers used that photo, Beck didnt use it Hanitty didn’t use it Fox didnt use it Malkin didnt Freedom works didnt useit. Hell ive seen liberal bloggers claim 3.8 million at the inauguration.
Would you prefer I use 'tea partiers' rather than 'teabaggers'*, highliter? How about I abandon both terms, and just call it the 9-12 Astorturf Event? It's more accurate, more honest, and completely inoffensive.
*this was a term they used about themselves, to begin with.
The 9-12 protest was a continuation of the April 15th protests. Simple enough.
If you can't substantiate your claim, which I have not run across before, I will certainly not do it, nor will I accept it.
"DC Fire Department Report" Quote Regarding September 12 Event Misrepresents Agency Policy
In reference to the September 12th Tea Party event held in Washington DC, quoting a “DC Fire Department Report”, regardless of what any media reported, the size of the crowd of those who attended this event were never estimated by DC Fire & EMS. Any reports contrary to this are false. The DC Fire & EMS Department does not estimate crowd sizes.
A Twitter posting estimating the crowd gathering at Freedom Plaza only as “large, possibly as many as 60 thousand” stated that it was an early estimation of that specific area (Freedom Plaza), not the number of participants in the event.
http://newsroom.dc.gov/show.aspx/agency/fems/section/2/release/18165
There ya go happy and Its straight from the DC fire and EMS page.
And sorry I cant read your link the Computer at the military school Im attendin blocks Snopes.
Must of been looking very hard. Oh thats right MMFA or MSNBC didnt cover it so you didnt hear it.
When I mentioned that I prefer not to call names, I meant calling other posters here at MMfA names. I have been called many things besides my screen name, and it is a rudeness I have decided not to return. However, when people who actually work for their money take time off to protest a tax hike for their BOSS, then a bit of name calling is in order. If this same group of people has launched a teabag protest, sending out e-mail to the faithful to encourage them to teabag their elected representatives, calling them teabaggers seems only fair. That they complain about it, after starting it themselves, sounds like petulant whining.
MMfA is a media watchdog group, not the media itself, and does not report news. Go click the 'About us' link, and read for yourself.
As for crowd numbers, the 9-12 protests drew less than 100,000 people, and likely a number not too far from the 70,000 that is generally agreed upon. The gay rights march drew similar numbers. Crickets from FOX. Not all day coverage, not a month of buildup. Almost nothing at all. FOX Propaganda once more earns its name.
I have not heard estimates as high as 4 million for the inauguration, but considering the 1.5-2.0 million estimates, it is likely jumping the shark. For FOX to claim 2 million as opposed to the 70,000 or so that showed up is clearly not jumping the shark. It is jumping an ocean full of sharks.
Lastly, while FOX whined about how nobody else covered the 9-12 protests in a full page ad, which was of course a gigantic lie, they used a background image from a CNN camera covering the 9-12 protest!
If I had to choose between MSNBC and FOX, I would have to go with MSNBC, as they are far more liable to report on reality. Not really fair to compare the two, though, because, as I've said before and will continue to say, FOX is a propaganda network, and not in the news biz.
If you want to talk crowd estimates, for the inauguration there was a spike in one way trips of around 500,000 for that day. For the 9-12 protest, the spike in one way trips was around 40,000. How is it possible that they were the same size? Answer: It's not.
Keep posting. I'll do the same. Hope tomorrow is better for ya.
Several people who regularly post here attended both the inauguration and the 9-12 protest. As eyewitnesses to both events, they say the 70k estimate is reasonable, and that 9-12 crowds were dwarfed by inauguration crowds.
Let's just say that some number of people showed up, and leave it at that, I guess. You won't offer a number, and, based on metro ticket sales, I find 70,000 to be very reasonable.
Per my unaswered post above...
What number WOULD you accept then, huh?
It wasn't 2 MIL. Great. It wasn't 70K. Fine. WHAT DO YOU THINK IT WAS?
And consdiering the coverage they were given in general, and the disprotitionate coverage (as well as logistical support) that they got from Fox, can you justify the lack of coverage of [another large protest] in any way OTHER than political bias?
Don't bother nitpicking the number, make an argument. What's the broader point here?!
------------------------------------------------
Like I sadi: If it were, say, 200,000, does that even make a difference?
Why don't you tell Fox News that? Or Limbaugh, Beck, Malkin, Corsi, et al?
Guess you missed the irony . . . 70,000 Teabaggers were a BIG STORY . . . so BIG that Fox took out a full page ad in several newspapers questioning where the other networks were [an ad which used a photo taken from CNN's stock, btw]. The fact that all of the other opinion networks and news networks DID cover the teabaggers was beside the point, according to Fox. They didn't cover the teabaggers ENOUGH . . . it was BIG, it was HUGE! Now, when 70,000 gay and lesbians and their families and supporters had a similar march . . . again, all of the other opinion and news networks covered the march . . . where was Fox?
It's about HYPOCRISY, fairliberal, but that went right over your head, as usual.
If Fox is angry that the tea party didn't get the coverage it deserved, shouldn't they also be angry that this protest didn't get the coverage it deserved? Fox are the hypocrites here.
Also, for the record, Stewart regularly mocks CNN and MSNBC as well.
-----------------------------------------------
Why do make it so easy?
What a deceptive claim by both Stewart and MMFA, he points to the limited coverage by both CNN and MSNBC but blames Fox for their sparse coverage. That is the status quo here.
FairLiberal
Reality ---
Jon Stewart points out the limited coverage by Fox, compared to their coverage of the 9/12 rally.
Could you provide some support for that statemment.
Do the disect of Fox Snooze and right-wing talk radio, and you will see the overall deadication to deny gays rights. Even the loony christians are all over it as well. Of course you can not use hate-speech remarks over the air whether if its radio or TV, but you can tell their is some homophobia there and their word are on the boarder.
Here you go:
Fox Nation: This Gay issue is a cancer to this society, it needs to be eradicated!
Total filth and hate at Fox Nation.
----------------------------------
The Midnight Review
Mum Is The Word