Fox News' War
New video from Media Matters shows network declared "war" on the White House long before Dunn's comments
Washington, D.C. - Following Anita Dunn's description of Fox News as an "arm" of the Republican Party, Fox News personalities have suggested or claimed that the White House declared "war" on the network. In response, Media Matters for America has released a video showing the factually inaccurate smears, blatant political organizing, and explicit lobbying that Fox News has engaged in. Many of these activities have been occurring since January 20 and have only increased in frequency as time has passed.
WATCH VIDEO HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDR47EKTrCQ
BACKGROUND:
Following the White House's exposure of Fox News as a partisan political operation, as opposed to a credible news network, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity have claimed that the "warmongers" in the Obama administration have "declared war" and have their "missiles pointed right at Fox." But, as Media Matters' video and research demonstrates, it is Fox News that has been waging a partisan political war against the White House since Inauguration Day, and while doing so, revealing both its disdain for journalistic standards and its all-consuming political agenda -- qualities that differentiate Fox News from any credible news organization.
Would a real news organization help GOP PACs raise money?
SUMMARY: Although Fox News rejects criticism that it is viewed as a political organization, Fox News contributor Dick Morris repeatedly used his Fox News appearances to solicit donations to an ad campaign by the League of American Voters (LAV), which asserts it is "Leading the Fight to Stop Obama Care." On Hannity, Morris bragged of his group's fundraising success, reporting that his website had "raised now $2.5 million" to run the LAV ads against Democratic health care reform proposals. Morris is not alone in using Fox News as a forum to raise money for conservative causes. Fox News host Mike Huckabee has also used Fox News shows to raise money for Republican political action committees, and Fox News' promotion of the Tea Party Express helped a Republican PAC with fundraising.
"Voice of the opposition": Fox News openly advocates against Democratic Congress, White House
SUMMARY: Since Barack Obama's inauguration, Fox News has frequently engaged in political advocacy against the Democratic Congress and White House. Specifically, Fox News personalities have promoted and encouraged viewers to "join" tea party protestsand town hall meetings. Glenn Beck created The 9-12 Project, and Fox News aggressively promoted and covered the group's September 12 "March on Washington." Led by Beck, the network has engaged in a witch hunt seeking to "get rid of" Obama administration officials and nominees; implored viewers to call Congress and the White House to protest Democratic policies; and celebrated "victor[ies]" when Democratic legislation has been stalled.
Fox's news programs echo its "opinion" shows: Smears, doctored videos, GOP talking points
SUMMARY: Fox News has responded to White House criticisms of its network by claiming that while its "editorial" programs are filled with "vibrant opinion," its news hours are straight and objective. However, Fox News' purportedly straight news programs echo its "editorial" programs: Media Matters for America has compiled a non-exhaustive list -- from this year alone -- documenting how Fox's news programming features smears, falsehoods, doctored and deceptive editing, and GOP talking points.
Fox News on a witch hunt for Obama "czars"
SUMMARY: On September 8, Fox News host Megyn Kelly stated that "more of President Obama's special advisers are now under scrutiny after the resignation of his green jobs czar" Van Jones, and she described "criticisms" being lodged against Obama science and technology adviser John Holdren and Obama nominee Cass Sunstein. Indeed, Fox News personalities have been leading the charge against Jones, Holdren, Sunstein, and other Obama administration officials and nominees they have described as "czars" -- often by unearthing and criticizing statements the officials had made in the past rather than critiquing their job performance or credentials for those positions. Sean Hannity, for example, declared that "my job starting tomorrow night is to get rid of every other ['czar']."
WATCH VIDEO HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDR47EKTrCQ
###
Media Matters for America is a progressive research and information center dedicated to monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the media. For more information, visit www.mediamatters.org.
RSS Feeds
The White-House has showed Extreme Restraint in waiting until now to silence their Chime.
Fox News is really just Fox Entertainment even ACORN has Citied This.
News Corp. "A Racist Enterprise" is at the Genesis of this Tryst.
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
And starkcr31 would never post anything here that's truthful or makes sense - hasn't yet, never will.....
Fine, I'll spell it out: Fox News has been relentlessly campaigning that the Obama Administration is communist, fascist and socialist.
To you, that's is NOT an attack.
In response, the Obama Administration has stated that Fox News is not an actual news organization, rather a political entity that offers a point of view.
To you, that IS an attack.
Again:
WOW!
please don't feed the trolls..
Here's a homework assignment for you. Look up some of the Socialist Party platforms in Europe then compare the planks of those party platforms with what the Obama administration is doing or with the Democratic Party platform for that matter. The word socialism isn't used as an opprobrium in Europe. That's why socialists correctly identify themselves for what they are over there. They don't have to hide behind words like liberal(none of you are actually classical liberals anyway) and progressive. It's why I have so much respect for Senator Bernie Sanders. He is a socialist, but he doesn't try to hide it. His voting record is very similar to most so-called progressives. What does that tell you? You shouldn't get offended when someone properly identifies you for what you are.
As for the fascism charge: I think it is completely offbase to use that word if the person is referring to the extreme nationalism of many fascist states. It would also be inappropriate if they were referring to the eugenics of the Nazi brand of fascism. But if the person is specifically making the charge that modern liberalism has certain familial resmblances to economic(see, I can do it, too)fascism then the identification is spot on.
You're like my favorite crazy aunt. Even if I *AM* pretty sure you're a guy. I really do enjoy your presence here nonetheless, and I really do mean that as encouragement.
It's funny, though, how socialists identify themselves for what they are over in Europe and yet they almost universally identify the American left as being "right of center" and as being only leftist in relation to the American right. Regarding Democratic platforms, European socialists almost universally state that Americans don't go quite far enough.
But please, don't let that fact get in the way of the point you're trying to make.
But to your point about leftists in Europe sometimes accusing the Democratic Party of not being left enough- the Democratic party is only to the right of socialist parties(in practice but not ideologically) in Europe because they have to be politically. There is a difference between the left's ideological desires and what they can actually get accomplished politically. This country is still a right-of-center country. This is what stands in the left's way.
This is why you get a Clinton Administration that embraces welfare reform even though it doesn't want to. It was done prior to the '96 elections to improve Mr. Clinton's poll numbers. The Democrats always have to worry about the next election. This is the same reason that the right can't get through some of its agenda, either. There is a difference between ideology and practical political considerations. I stand by my point that modern liberalism as it is defined in this country is nothing more than small s socialism from a strictly ideological point of view.
Cheers!
(http://www.nytimes.com/1992/07/24/us/the-1992-campaign-deficit-politics-white-house-prods-congress-on-deficit.html) to a surplus of 236 billion dollars in January 2000 (http://www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa/Publications/Notes/2004Notes/NotesMarApr04gso.PDF). What have the fiscally conservative republican presidents of the past 50 years left us? Bill Clinton is the only president in the past 50 years to oversee a federal budget that had a true surplus if you seperate the funds from social security (http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/defic09p.pdf).
Your arguments are lame.
He is therefore, destructive to American values, the Constitution, our liberty, and our entire way of life.
To support such a man, you would need to be either stupid, naiive, or likewise subversive.
At best, you've proven that ACORN needs to improve its hiring standards. You're a far cry from proving that there is systematic corruption within the organization itself.
You are my favorite delusional lefty. How many times does ACORN have to get busted for you to admit the obvious? Even a large majority of Democratic senators voted to strip these clowns of some federal money. No organization, legitimate or illegitimate, should be getting tax dollars anyway. If this organization is on the up and up then why won't they open up there books to an independent audit. Their organizational structure looks like that shell game operation that the good folks at Enron cooked up.
There are many former administrative officers at ACORN who are calling for an investigation of their finances as well. It won't be easy for ACORN to just dismiss these charges as racism because the majority of these former employees are black.
I also remember an amusing story about Acorn from a few years back. ACORN was trying to get an exception to the state of California's minimum wage laws. They reasoned (correctly) that they could hire more workers if they could hire them at a lower rate. It seemed to pass completely over their collectivist brains that this might apply to other businesses (I count ACORN as a business)as well. The minimum wage or a minimum labor price will lead to a surplus of unemployed labor as sure as night follows day. They tried to justify it on the grounds that they were a non-profit. This amuses me. ACORN's administration seems to profit financially and otherwise quite nicely from their shake-down racket.
Cheers!
Engage in name-calling often? Funny how if I called you an idiotic right-winger you'd be all over me for calling you names instead of addressing the substance of your comments.
Then again, when someone is as far off the deep end as you are, I suppose EVERYONE appears a bit delusional.
Don't worry, though. I'm rather fond of you as well, despite the fact that you remind me of my crazy uncle that no one likes.
Just once. It has yet to be done in a manner that would hold up in court - in this country we assume innocence until someone is proven guilty and that guilt has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Yeah, that generally tends to happen when allegations, even spurious ones, are floating about. It proves nothing and you know it.
Again, because in this country groups and individuals are innocent until proven guilty. ACORN has no responsibility to prove its innocence when confronted with mere allegations. Those of you that are making the allegations have the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that wrongdoing has actually occurred. You guys have failed miserably up to this point and, quite frankly, you come off as jackasses when you try to assert otherwise in the face of constant rebuttals.
Excuse me, are you honestly asserting that black people are granted special rights in this country that makes them exempt from criticism? What a load of utter bulls***. You guys make that claim all the time yet you do jack to actually prove it. This race-based crap wins no one to your side. Black people get criticized heavily all the goddamn time. Has it ever occurred that implicit in such comments is a cryptic call that we actually need to crack down even HARDER on them?
As for the name calling: guilty as charged. I'm sorry you got your feelings hurt when I called you a delusional lefty, but didn't you say that I was like a crazy old aunt? Hypocrisy, heal thyself.
As for your race-baiting charge- I only brought up race in this context because the cries of racism are a favorite weapon of the left in regard to those who are critical of ACORN. Anytime someone is critical of that organization, the chants of racism inevitably bubble up out of the left. The left evidently thinks that this is an effective tactic. That little boy has cried wolf one too many times though. ACORN is heavily staffed and associated with the black coomunity and that is why the criticism from former employees that are black is so difficult for the left to combat. It makes it impossible to employee their usual race-baiting tactics in this instance.
I must have really got under your skin this time given the general aggressive tenor of your post. Reading through your post, one can almost imagine the author frothing at the mouth in a red-faced rage while composing it. Really now, cursing?? Tsk Tsk. I hope the rest of your day goes better.
Cheers!
Like I've said before, at best all that has been proven is that ACORN really needs to tighten up its hiring standards among its ground level operatives. I know that you know full well that the fraudulent voter registrations were submitted by folks that were unethically trying to meet registration quotas in order to get a few extra bucks. You also are fully aware that it was ACORN itself that flagged the questionable registrations, and that it was required to turn them in by law.
Pointing that out is a far cry from proving systematic corruption.
As for the racial statement, I think you guys bark up the wrong tree every time you bring it up. Yes, part of the criticism of those that go after ACORN is that their efforts are at least partially racially motivated. But it's a silly straw man to act as though that's the main argument being made in defense of the organization. I personally think these attacks are entirely political and consider the racism aspect, while present in some segments of the population, to be entirely overplayed. I was on the right once - I remember how frustrating it was when the left would play the race card when it did not really apply.
With that said, I think that a lot of the racism that exists within our society isn't blatant so much as based in certain assumptions we make without thinking. That is very real and it's actually the most dangerous form of all as it does not readily present itself for criticism.
I think your post was doubleplusgood! Keep up the good work. The party leaders at the Ministry of Truth are most pleased with your progress.
But hey, you just go ahead and keep telling yourself whatever you need in order to keep your disconnected paradigm in check. The fnords can't eat you if you don't see them...
P.S. You really don't like to be identified as a collectivist do you? I'll have to make a mental note.
Cheers!
Sorry to disappoint - I wasn't quite aware that I was being graded on post quality here. I admittedly am quite cranky due to being up since 1 AM this morning... I don't function well without my sleep!
FOX NEXT DAY - "Obama won't go on FOX, I wonder why? Is he afraid"
hahahaha........... dense, man, dense.
Oh, well it's not like Fox would edit those videos so that some of them don't show the workers calling these horrific actors on their bluff, and others just flat-out telling these n00bs to "get out," right? ...waitaminute...
And I suppose ACORN wasn't targeted because they registered poor, black voters, right? ...waitaminute...
Oh, well, it's not like Fox hasn't been following the Conservative motto of "Defund the Left" by calling for ACORN's funding to be cut off, right? ...waitaminute...
Grow up, n00b.
I'm about to get Poetically Mid-Evil on your Ass & you gonna know it.
Your Uncontrollable Lust should have been a family issue.
By the time i'm thru, you won't be able to use the Softest Toilet Tissue.
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
Reminds me of Harry Truman. His supprters said "Give 'em hell, Harry!", and he replied "I tell the truth about the Republicans, and they THINK it's hell."
:-)
They were attacking the white house.
It does make me wonder, though. What if you don't get to hand-pick the examples? What if you had to respond to the examples MMFA listed in this very article? Would you be forced to concede that Fox News is attacking the white house?
(9/11 truther wasn't a legitimate story. Unlike death panels, birthers, and mccarthyite whichhunts, it was never promoted by influential people.)
It also isn't quite fair for Fox to say, "well, Beck or Hannity or whoever is just an opinion person," and then wash their hands of all responsibility for anything they say. Fox has to, to some degree, claim responsibility for the statements made by the people they put on the air. And if they don't want to be held responsible for the statements of their commentators, then they shouldn't put them on their network.
I would expect MSNBC to take responsibility if Keith or Rachel were guilty of:
Citing a nonexistent publication to bolster an argument (as O'Reilly did). Advancing bizarre, outrageous conspiracy theories like Beck did (FEMA concentration camps, ACORN blew the levees in New Orleans) or Hannity did (the birther conspiracy, the Clintons were involved in Vince Foster's death). Photoshopping a picture of a reporter they disagree with and putting that image on the air without disclosing that it was altered (as Fox and Friends did). Etc. Etc.
The list goes on and on.
As a side note, watched a few mins. of Greta last nite (rolls eyes) and appears Greta is just dumbfounded that MSM is NOT vouching for faux's NEWS credibility . .
Gee, Greta, I'm thinking, maybe the MSM agrees with the White House, ya think??
During the daily WH roundtable interview (where the top WH reporters for ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, & CNN get a 5 min one-on-one with a top WH official), the WH decided not to invite FOX to do the interview.
The other legitimate news organizations told the WH that if FOX wasn't invited, then they were not going to show up either.
It seems that they see that if the WH house can separate one from the herd, then they could never report an event 'against' the WH either. It really is kind of chilling, no matter what side of the aisle you are on. I wonder what would have happened if Bush would have tried that against CBS after Dan Rather was caught with un-collaborated documents.
The WH has not made any effort to silence Fox nor have they stated that they will refuse to grant interviews to Fox. All they did was make a statement about Fox's clearly demonstrated priorities. There is nothing chilling about that.
There is no reason why Fox should not be held accountable for their irresponsible practices. See my above post for examples of these.
When are the foxies gonna get it thru their pointy heads that the CABLES will prove they're nothing but HYPOCRITES:
GILLESPIE: I’ve had a concern with NBC news for some time. I’ve expressed it privately to them. My concern is that, you know, the likes of commentators and quotes when really they’re advocates.
GLENN: No, they’re journalists. They’re not commentators. They’re journalists.
GILLESPIE: On MSNBC. Like Christopher Matthews and Keith Olbermann who are, you know, left wing attack, you know, part of a left wing view of the world, which is fine. You know, they’re labeled as commentators in that arena. But I worry that the commingling that you see and the blurring of the lines between NBC broadcast division and the NBC commentary division is constantly blurred and you now see the news anchors and others sitting down with Olbermann and Matthews on election nights talking to them like, you know, they are Edward R. Murrow.
GLENN: Yeah. You know, it’s very interesting because I do not call myself a journalist. Keith Olbermann will. I don’t call myself a journalist. I’m not a journalist, even though the San Francisco Chronicle called me one and we had an argument about it. But I’m not a journalist, nor would I anchor the coverage on CNN for the election and do it in a serious sort of way.
GILLESPIE: Right.
GLENN: Wouldn’t do it. I’ll give you commentary about the election.
GILLESPIE: Sure, absolutely.
GLENN: But I’ll let you know it’s commentary. They have intentionally blurred the lines over there.
MMFA provides examples every day of the lies and distortions from FoxNews. You couldn't provide an example a day of similar behavior from MSNBC.
I think it is fair to say that when you listen exclusively to a left wing media watchdog group, you are not going to get news on liberal distortions, only the conservative ones. No wonder you think Fox is so awful, when in reality their journalism arm is no different, is just because they run mostly conservative commentators they get undue weight.
CNBC getting punked by a hoax isn't equivalent, or even in the same ballpark as what FoxNews does!
Major FAIL.
Breaking.....
Obama Administration's War on FoxNews now a quagmire. Does the administration have an exit strategy?
That is why he had the fewest press conferences in his first term in the modern era?
That is why he would not speak to an audience that had not been purged of dissenting voices?
That is why he was afraid to speak to the NAACP for a long time?
Please... Try to be credible.
Bush routinely invited conservative commentators to off-the-record meetings, but a liberal couldn't get an invitation to the white house to save their life.
Obama has done interviews with Fox, and has invited conservative commentators to discuss the issues.
Don't pay attention to 10 percent unemployment!
Don't pay attention to the non-decisions for Afghanistan!
Don't pay attention to sinking revenues!
The problem is Fox News! The problem is Fox News!
(
Don't pay attention to any of the strawman arguments.
Stupid righty's think that the Obama Administration is made up of about 10 people, and so if they pay attention to debunking FoxNews and trying to get other news organizations to stop giving them credibility, it will stop them from being able to address other issues.
Of course it's not true. The Obama Administration is handling issues just fine. We don't need no stinkin' concern trolls.
Controversy generates interest which in turn spikes viewer numbers which raises advertising revenue. Fox is doing what they are in business for. With that being said, I believe the error Fox has made is in applying this formula to the news division. There is (and should be) a distinction between the two.
I am of the opinion that there is not really enough real news to support a 24/7 news show and the demand for content to fill the time slots has created these "talking heads" that try to pass themselves off as knowledgeable journalists when in fact, they are self promoting primadonna's who build their viewership by being controversial.
Fox News' 'journalists', and their commentators are about nothing but hate mongering, anger, and thinly veiled racism.
HOORAH! It is a breath of fresh air.
But since I'm consistent and honest, and you're neither, I guess you can't understand that behavior.
Proof is below..
http://www.relfe.com/media_can_legally_lie.html
They Mau-Maued the congress with their tea parties--they convinced no one in the public, but they sold Republican congressmen and women that they were on the right side of public opinion to oppose Obama.
As a conservative I believe James Madison when he says:
Contrast this with progressives who I believe have a tendency to run on platforms that focus on taking money from "the rich" in order to provide government assistance to the poor.
See how fun this is. Now somebody else go.