About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

CNN's Martin notes that Media Matters has "the documentation" proving FNC "news" programs echo its "opinion" shows

October 24, 2009 12:02 pm ET

From the October 23 edition of CNN's Campbell Brown:

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

Previously:

Fox News' War On The White House

Burns in Huffington Post:  Fox News Is the Story

Fox's news programs echo its "opinion" shows: Smears, doctored videos, GOP talking points

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by jjamele2880 (October 24, 2009 12:10 pm ET)
      21 3
      I don't get why "the documentation" is in quotation marks. I DO get why there are quotations around "news" when referring to Fox.

      However, I disagree with the claim that "FNC 'news' programs echo its 'opinion' shows." There are no news programs on FNC. Only opinion shows.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by loonz (October 24, 2009 12:27 pm ET)
        9  
        I think they were quoting Martin when they put quotation marks around "the documentation".
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Farzan (October 24, 2009 3:44 pm ET)
             
          Enough with academic arguments over rules of punctuation while the MINORITY conservatives are winning the days.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by CommonSenser (October 24, 2009 2:58 pm ET)
        1  
        Fox is not news. "News" is Fox's nym -- nothing more.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by The_Cat (October 24, 2009 12:13 pm ET)
      23 1
      And now I'm beginning to wonder once more if the tide is perhaps turning against FOX. Do I want them off the air? Hardly. I'd much rather they covered legitimate criticism of the government. With such scrutiny, we might have avoided a pointless and costly war in Iraq. With such scrutiny, we met yet avoid escalation and quagmire in Afghanistan. If Afghanistan needs so much help, then let the UN lead the way. If they call upon us, we will be glad to help as much as we can, but nation building is not our job, nor should it be. Besides which, there are many many pressing domestic issues that we need to resolve before we turn our attention outwards.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by jmariemo (October 24, 2009 1:16 pm ET)
        9  
        I agree 100%.
        The problem is privatized 24 hour news organizations. CNN should deserve the same amount of scrutiny as Fox for even featuring this segment. It is ludicrous that they are even discussing the media vs. the White House! Jeffrey Toobin is right. They should not allow Fox News to set the agenda for the rest of the news organizations, but the grand ol' irony of that one is that he is making this point in a segment about a debate manufactured by Fox News! Please, please Toobin, tell me some gosh-darn news! What about Afghanistan? What about Blackwater's crimes? Its name change? What about that freakin' healthcare bill that every Congressmen is complaining about being "too long and big and scary"?! WHY DON'T YOU(and here's a radical thought) READ IT?! YOU'RE SUPPOSE TO BE JOURNALISTS!!!
        [I'm sorry for the rant.]
        Report Abuse
        • Author by CommonSenser (October 24, 2009 2:57 pm ET)
          1  
          No they should not allow Fox "news" to set the agenda for the other stations, but that is what has been happening for nearly two years now. This time, the WH set the agenda and I am glad they called that right-wing comedy show out on their propaganda.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by aBeck in 10-O-C (October 24, 2009 7:10 pm ET)
          1  
          There is a strong element of mystique in all these media reporters and commentators defending Fox. Fox opinion shows and guests constantly attack every other media outlet (never forget the full page ad claiming non-Fox outlets who "ignored" 9/12 Tea Party protests) in effect trying to de-legitimize them. Fox anchors and hosts constantly bloviate about other media ignoring the stories that Fox covers and how they refuse to ask the "tough" (read 'silly') questions. They attack other media with the same passion as they attack the Obama administration.

          If a dog growls and bites, why pet it, let alone try to feed it?

          Is there an unspoken impurity within the culture of corporate-owned news organizations that renders criticism of Fox as hippocracy? Is this why so few who draw a news media paycheck feel comfortable calling Fox out for what they do? If so, then where is the line that Fox must cross that finally gives them the professional high ground to do so? Just how brittle is the corporate glass house they report from?

          If this is the case then when asked to opine about the Fox controversy, all these talking heads need to say is that " Fox viewers watch Fox to hear what they want to hear and Fox is a successful business" and leave it right there.

          As a consumer of news, I have no problem with labeling Fox as a communication arm of the Republican party and an engine of conservative activism.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by bluestate69 (October 25, 2009 4:22 am ET)
          2  
          jeffrey toobin should have a show on cnn. his point was well made, and it shut up the fox sympathizers. he should have a show. it'd be better than the wishy washy, we're considered liberal because we aren't lou dobbs, anderson cooper and wolf blitzer shows.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by Jollymon (October 24, 2009 2:52 pm ET)
        3  
        I wouldn't mind Fox off the air, as well as CNN and MSNBC unless they can quit with the 24 hour news cycle, quit having so many opinion shows, quit having six people talking about a topic at once, quit using bloggers, emails and twitter posts as actual "news" feedback from people that have no credibility, and quit saying we will "leave it there" when a good or controversial point is made and then go to a story about a high speed chase or balloon boy. Ugh! I want some news on the "News" networks, not this crud.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by bluestate69 (October 25, 2009 4:15 am ET)
        1  
        you bring up a wonderful point about legitimate criticism and scrutiny of government. there was none such scrutiny of the government's plans to go to war with iraq. 2002 was a time of flag lapels and patriotism, and media would pay a price if they were critical of the war effort. conservative media lined up with the president, and anybody that questioned them would be considered unpatriotic or terrorist sympathizers. now a days, when you stand up for this president, you're considered unpatriotic and a terrorist sympathizer!!! what a difference a (d) makes from an (r).
        Report Abuse
      • Author by joedla1117 (October 25, 2009 3:37 pm ET)
        1  
        I agree about what they should be reporting.
        However, think about this: If a "Tabloid" at the checkout counter started actually started reporting acurate truths about important ongoing events: Would they ever sell a single paper? The more extreme and outrageous, the better the sell. Unfortunately, some people will believe anything.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Jollymon (October 26, 2009 1:00 pm ET)
             
          I don't read tabloids. People that do are too stupid for their own good, and are probably the majority of viewers of Fox "News." Real news is already extreme and outrageous half the time. And if it isn't the "News" networks make it that way so people will watch. That is the problem. It's infotainment, not information.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by Zorro (October 25, 2009 10:22 pm ET)
           
        "...nation building is not our job, nor should it be." I agree with that, but the question remains this: if we go in a country and rid that country of the nuisance that presumably affects our national security and our international geo-strategy, and in the process we bring that country to its knees with collateral damages, on whose shoulders should lay the responsibility of nation building?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Snowbank (October 24, 2009 2:06 pm ET)
      1  
      Roland Martin and Rachel Maddow of CNN and MSNBC respectively, and Lawrence O'Donnell of MSNBC are the ONLY News personality to have brought up that

      a) Fox News anchors drive the lies that their opinion shows create and turn them into talking points other news organizations have to follow and

      b) Fox News pushed, encouraged and promoted the anti-Obama rallies, which disqualifies it from being called a News organization.

      Why why why why why why why doe the other so-called News organizations bend over backwards to DEFEND Fox, when Fox is trying to destroy them and journalism?!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by princeofwheels (October 24, 2009 2:40 pm ET)
      15 2
      Now that Fox is out of the closet, it must "news-up" or shut up.

      Watch for a kinder, milder, victimesque Fox for a week or so. But they will fall back into their old Con ways.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by critical tinkerer (October 24, 2009 2:42 pm ET)
      1  
      This segment proves that Obama did the right thing by critisizing the FNC. It started the debate over that and it will most probably start other news chanels to start investigating Fox's 'news'.
      Even tough the Fox got the coleeges to start on their side, they will loose them by fals claim that critisism from Obama is the same as blocking them out of acces to administartion, by falsley accusing Obama that critisizm is the same as attacking the jurnalists right on informations/ attack on first amendment.
      Critique is nothing else but a critique.
      Now the FNC will have whole lots of jurnalists investigating their stories, that was Obama's intention.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by frankdenice (October 24, 2009 2:49 pm ET)
      1  
      Please, will someone remove the word News from Fox News. Clearly there is no news reporting done by the network. It should just read "Fox", and what does a fox do? They hunt down their predators!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by CommonSenser (October 24, 2009 2:50 pm ET)
      1  
      Fox "news" is a propagandist organization. Murdoch has distorted "freedom of the press" to mean lying to the masses is profitable. Apparently, it is all legal. Change the law to hold these idiots accountable!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by SLRTX (October 24, 2009 4:25 pm ET)
      10 2
      There's a term for what Fox is doing.

      It's called - the tail wagging the dog.

      State the lies on the "opinion" shows, repeat it until the "viewers" get riled up, then report on how riled people are about "what's being said" on the "news".

      All you need to do is to selectively choose what to lie about in the first place - set the agenda.

      The rest flows naturally.

      A self-perpetuating, agenda-setting operation.

      It's as much brilliant, as it is insidious.

      And, it's not a new strategy. It worked well for the Nazis in Germany.

      http://www.psywarrior.com/Goebbels.html
      Report Abuse
      • Author by jmariemo (October 24, 2009 6:28 pm ET)
        3  
        Wag the Dog was an incredible film exploiting those tactics. Of course, it was a satirical jab at the Clinton Administration, but brilliant nonetheless.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by rkallen09 (October 24, 2009 8:54 pm ET)
          5  
          Of course, it was a satirical jab at the Clinton Administration
          Actually, oddly enough, it wasn't. In fact, the movie was released in December of 1997, over a year before the Lewinsky scandal hit the news papers. It wasn't until January of 1998, when Clinton made his famous, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," quote. It just so happens that this was the month that the movie was released on to VHS/DvD.

          With the cruise missle strikes on terrorist targets in response to the African embassy bombings that soon followed his admission of guilt in the relationship with Lewinsky, the movie is almost eerily fortelling, but it was certainly not a poke at the Clinton administration. The events hadn't occured yet.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by rkallen09 (October 24, 2009 9:05 pm ET)
            3  
            ooops. Got my dates mixed up, but it was Operation: Desert Fox which occured in December of 1998 that Clinton was accused of trying to throw off attention from his scandal, which would have been a year after the movie release.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by jmariemo (October 25, 2009 4:18 pm ET)
              2  
              Ah. That is a strangely coincidental movie to make during that time. I always thought it was odd that Hollywood would criticize a Democratic President (this is purely based on generalizations). Maybe, Republicans spread the myth in an attempt to discredit Clinton.
              Report Abuse
    • Author by Redwhiteandblue (October 24, 2009 5:06 pm ET)
        1
      I don't see what the big deal is. I like Fox News. I'm glad someone out there is asking the tough questions and exposing these dirt bags. If you don't like it don't watch it. And where are the lies? Most of the lies are coming from the white house which should concern you more.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mescal (October 26, 2009 9:25 pm ET)
           
        Are you serious?

        You're here, at Media Matters, and you can't find any trace of the lies shoveled out on a daily basis by the Faux News Channel? You don't understand how to click your mouse? You're really that deliberately obtuse?

        None is so blind as he who will not see.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by teabaggers ♥ [wing]NUTS (October 24, 2009 5:40 pm ET)
      9 2
      thanks to MMfA and others, the word is carefully and systematically being spread about what fox news really is and if they are legitimate. everyone says they are winning this war and that they are getting more popular from it... just watch. in a month or so, the more the white house neglects fox news, the more people will start to wonder "maybe there is something wrong with fox news", and they will have to defend themselves even more, as they are now. and people like oreilly claim that fox news' ratings have gotten better from the feud... they have stayed the same.

      i think the best analogy to relate to this whole thing is like in baseball when a batter keeps fouling off pitch after pitch after pitch, and the more you foul it off, the better it gets for the batter. and once they see what they like, they will jump all over it.

      in this case, the more that people hear the real truth about fox news, the more they will become convinced about who they are. and when you are the white house, you have the biggest megaphone in the country, if you know how to use it. lets hope they dont weaken and continue to stand up for themselves.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Martha (October 24, 2009 5:47 pm ET)
      1  
      Dr Rachel Maddow explains as only she can, in this excellent piece. Basically;

      What "NEWS" network has EVER organized, promoted and hosted protests against the sitting POTUS and government?

      That, in and of itself, immediately disqualifies them as legitimate "news".


      The have an agenda against the government ergo cannot be "news".




      Why Fox News isn't news

      Oct. 23:

      Rachel Maddow points out what has been largely overlooked in the discussion of the White House feud with Fox News, that explains why Fox is not news.
      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/33456104#33456104
      Report Abuse
    • Author by denjaman (October 25, 2009 12:47 am ET)
         
      Haha Rick said "we are gonna leave it there."
      Report Abuse
    • Author by donwelty (October 25, 2009 3:52 am ET)
      4 2
      a certain percentage of American people have been watching Fox news. A lot of people have said because of the controversy with Fox news as a "news" organization, Fox news would get more viewers. I think that's sure when the short run, but in the long run people will see Fox news for what it is and the controversy will go away and Fox news will be about the same-- but with less respect from a public.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by fullerdaughter (October 25, 2009 9:28 am ET)
         
      I donot have a problem with Fox News reporting the facts and watching the White House, but where was Fox News when the previous White House (Bush) was waging a war against Iraq, toturing people, or planting questions and people in audiences where Bush spoke? Where was the reports from Fox of the facts and finding the facts? I really have a problem with anyone who cheers when Chicago lost the bid to the Olympic games and it is assumed that President Obama failed, one who cheers when someone yells out during a state of union address, or when someone goes on Fox News and make disparaging comments about Michelle.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Cheney2012 (October 25, 2009 10:09 am ET)
      4 11
      By citing a politically-biased organization like Media Matters, Martin instantly discredits himself and his opinions.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by tbone (October 25, 2009 10:26 am ET)
        6 2
        So I presume you'll call out all the Fox News commentators when they cite the Rush, Beck, Heritage Institute, Drudge, Breitbart and similar.

        I won't hold my breath.

        Your premise is false on its face anyway. There is nothing wrong with citing opinion pieces, shows, and websites as long as you identify it as such. The problem with Fox is that they frequently parrot false and misleading opinions as factual.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Cheney2012 (October 25, 2009 10:40 am ET)
          2 13
          It's as simple as Media Matters being wrong as well as bought and paid for by the liberal political machine.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by jjamele2880 (October 25, 2009 10:50 am ET)
            8 2
            zzzzzzzzzz....when are the new talking points going to be ready? The ones you are using now are sooooo stale.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by pongotwistleton (October 25, 2009 1:02 pm ET)
            3 10
            It's as simple as Media Matters being wrong as well as bought and paid for by the liberal political machine.

            In the same vein, Obama and friends instantly undermine their position when they go on nbc or msnbc to whine that foxnews is a propoganda machine. They use one propoganda outlet to discredit another. Of course they realize the mindless lemmings who worship at the feet of our chosen one are so transparently stupid that this hypocrisy will go over their heads. As examples of the lemmings, I refer you to the blogger on this site, and their adoring sheep who thank them for their articles.

            And yes, Martin is dumb as rocks if he thinks the half-wit hacks at mmfa are fair arbiters of what constitutes a valid news network. But if you've ever seen his show, you'd already know that.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by Brabantio (October 25, 2009 1:01 pm ET)
        6 1
        Citation of a biased organization's documentation of film and transcripts taken from FOX broadcasts:proves nothing about FOX because the source is biased.

        Citation of heavily edited footage from anti-ACORN hacks dressing up early for Halloween attempting to entrap low-level office workers into giving advice to fake criminals:proof positive that ACORN is a criminal organization.

        I'm glad we got that hammered out.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by The_Cat (October 25, 2009 5:08 pm ET)
        1 1
        Your claim that MMfA is politically biased is quite curious to me, Cheney2012. Since I'm feeling curious, I'll admit I have a question for you. Do you think liberals or conservatives are more likely to point out conservative misinformation in the media?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by kalvinb (October 25, 2009 10:49 am ET)
      1  
      I just think that the rest of the media should not use FOX News as the lead for reporting news. I am discouraged by some of the other network personalities defending what they know are questionably biased and highly opinionated news reporting by fox. It is as if they don't want to comment in fear that they may have to work for FOX News one day.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by themidnightreview.com (October 25, 2009 11:17 am ET)
      5 2
      I am glad to see the debate finally start to take place and people start to wake up to the Fox News lies... towards the end, there was no defense of Fox. None.


      -----------------------------
      The Midnight Review
      Mum Is The Word
      Report Abuse
    • Author by bintx (October 25, 2009 4:18 pm ET)
      1 1
      The problem is that the 24/7 cable networks are ALL, for the most part, simply opinion networks. If you are getting your "news" exclusively from any of these networks, you most likely are not very informed. Fox is just the most egregious of the three in its relentless propaganda. The other two do, during the day, have actually news programming; however, at night . . . not so much.

      I watch all three at various times during the day, and watched FOX almost exclusively a few years ago, so I can comment on it. [When it become basically just like hate talk radio, I couldn't watch any longer for more than a few minutes at a time.] The Foxbots here, most likely, watch ONLY Fox and are, therefore, unable to make an informed criticism of MSNBC or CNN. That's been my experience, anyway. They watch only the "news" which agrees with their own perception of "truth."
      Report Abuse
    • Author by noneyabidnis (October 25, 2009 5:47 pm ET)
         
      Who's the hottie in the far upper right?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by noneyabidnis (October 25, 2009 5:49 pm ET)
           
        To be more clear, who's the hottie on the upper right at 1:35?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by ceejay (October 25, 2009 6:17 pm ET)
             
          I am a former manager at one of the big three networks. What needs to be understood is the laziness and complicity of fellow journalists. They know off the record that Fox News is full of it. They just don't have the courage to step up to them...maybe because they think it would affect their employment in the future. Joe Johns knows better and Roland called him out on this. It would only take a few minutes to look at the documentation on Media Matters or any other source to see that all of Fox News is slanted. To pretend otherwise gives reporters like him all the legitimacy of a WWE referee. Hear no evil...see no evil.
          Just a side story of the media's complicity with Fox News. When the stink of Michelle Obama's "for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country" statement...you notice you never heard what she said before that comment. It is not a coincidence. That day Fox News was the only camera at that event. I was working for a network when that video was fed over. Fox just kept re-racking to that one soundbite. They never fed over anything else. No one asked for more or cared to get the raw video supplied to them. They got their right wing controversy hand fed to them and they were satisfied. Do not let other networks off the hook.

          Report Abuse