Fox News anchors lash out at CNN reporter who said network "highly promoted" tea parties
SUMMARY: Gregg Jarrett said of a report at a tea party by CNN's Susan Roesgen: "[S]he took a swipe at Fox News saying, well, we contrived the whole thing, which is, of course, preposterous." In fact, Roesgen did not say Fox News "contrived the whole thing"; she said the network "highly promoted" the protests.
During the April 16 edition of Fox News' The Live Desk, co-hosts Gregg Jarrett and Martha MacCallum defended their network's coverage of the April 15 tea party protests by distorting CNN reporter Susan Roesgen's remark that Fox News "highly promoted" the protests. After playing a part of Roesgen's CNN Newsroom report, in which she interviewed protesters, MacCallum said that Roesgen "went on to say that it was an anti-CNN crowd. She also took a slam at this network in the process." Jarrett, as part of his response, said that "she took a swipe at Fox News saying, well, we contrived the whole thing, which is, of course, preposterous, and she clearly has to know that -- I would hope." MacCallum replied: "Hard to take credit for all those people painting -- hand-painting their own signs and showing up. It's hard to engineer something like that. But we did cover it, and it was very interesting." In fact, Roesgen did not say that Fox "contrived the whole thing," as Jarrett claimed. Rather, in a part of her report that The Live Desk did not air -- but MacCallum and Jarrett purported to summarize -- Roesgen stated of the protests: "It's anti-government, anti-CNN, since this is highly promoted by the right-wing conservative network Fox." Indeed, Fox News has aggressively promoted the tea parties, which it has labeled "FNC Tax Day Tea Parties," in dozens of instances. Fox News business contributor and substitute host Stuart Varney even said on the April 13 edition of Fox News' Your World, "It's now my great duty to promote the tea parties. Here we go!"
In an April 15 Politico article, Michael Calderone reported that Fox News "declined repeated offers to address the charge that it was blurring the lines between journalism and advocacy." From Calderone's article:
Nobody's covering the tea parties quite like Fox -- and that's prompting critics and cable news competitors to say that the network is blurring the line between journalism and advocacy.
"Fox appears to be promoting these events at the same time it is presenting them in a way that looks like reporting," said Stephen Burgard, director of Northeastern University's School of Journalism.
Burgard called the practice "pseudo-journalism," adding: "We have seen this before from Fox News Channel, but its role as galvanizer of opposition to President Obama's policies and leadership posture appears to be emerging."
A Fox spokesperson said the network did not have an executive available to speak about its tea party coverage. A second Fox representative declined repeated offers to address the charge that it was blurring the lines between journalism and advocacy.
CNN and Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz said of Fox News: "I don't think I've ever seen a news network throw its weight behind a protest like we are seeing in the past few weeks with Fox and these tea parties."
From the April 16 edition of Fox News' The Live Desk:
MacCALLUM: You know, yesterday, right around this time, we were watching -- we always see all the screens of all the different coverage on the other networks, and CNN was covering the tea parties yesterday. Check out this exchange between CNN's Susan Roegsen [sic] and a protester in Chicago. Take a look.
[begin video clip]
ROESGEN: OK, let's see. You're here with your 2-year-old, and you're already in debt. Why are you here today, sir?
UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Because I hear a president say that he believed in what Lincoln stood for. Lincoln's primary thing was he believed that people had the right to liberty and they had the right --
ROESGEN: Sir, what does this have to do with taxes?
UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Hold on.
ROESGEN: What does this have to do with your taxes?
UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Hold on, let me finish speaking.
ROESGEN: Do you realize --
UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Let me finish speaking.
ROESGEN: -- that you're eligible for a $400 credit?
UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Let me finish my point. Lincoln believed that people had the right to share in the fruits of their own labor and that government should not take it. And we have clearly gotten to that point.
ROESGEN: Wait. Wait.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN: I will tell you what it means [inaudible]
ROESGEN: Did you know that the state of Lincoln gets $50 billion out of these stimulus? That's $50 billion for this state, sir.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Ma'am, ma'am, ma'am, ma'am, I --
[end video clip]
MacCALLUM: All right. She went on to say that it was an anti-CNN crowd. She also took a slam at this network in the process. And, you know, I think what the people were responding to there was that she wasn't letting him answer the question.
JARRETT: Right.
MacCALLUM: They could hear what he was saying, and they wanted her to be able to let him finish his thought about Lincoln and about taxes and the meaning of government in our country. So -- interesting.
JARRETT: Well, I suppose it's OK to challenge somebody. It was sort of the tone in the way she went about it I think troubled some people. And then she took a swipe at Fox News saying, well, we contrived the whole thing, which is, of course, preposterous, and she clearly has to know that -- I would hope.
MacCALLUM: Yeah, interesting. All right. OK. Hard to take credit for all those people painting -- hand-painting their own signs and showing up.
JARRETT: Yeah.
MacCALLUM: It's hard to engineer something like that. But we did cover it, and it was very interesting. We're going to have more on it coming up.
From the 2 p.m. ET hour of CNN Newsroom on April 15:
ROESGEN: Wait.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN: I will tell you what it means [inaudible]
ROESGEN: Did you know that the state of Lincoln gets $50 billion out of these stimulus? That's $50 billion for this state, sir.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Ma'am, ma'am, ma'am, ma'am, I --
SECOND MAN: Sir, sir, sir, sir, sir, sir.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Can you stop this, sir?
SECOND MAN: I need to talk to you.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Hold on, hold on.
ROESGEN: OK. Well, Kyra [Phillips, anchor], we'll move on over here.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Ma'am, ma'am, I'd like to [inaudible]
ROESGEN: I think you get the general tenor of this. It's anti-government, anti-CNN, since this is highly promoted by the right-wing conservative network Fox. And since I can't really hear much more and I think this is not really family viewing -- toss it back to you, Kyra.
There's no question that they highly promoted it. Kieth Olbermann proved it by compiling their shameless pimping of the event into a single clip. It was sort of like watching time lapse photography of a big fat lie being hatched.
I think they're trying to antagonize the administration into trying just that. But Obama has a history of giving his opponents enough rope to hang themselves, and this is no exception. Fox is becoming more of a laughing stock with the American people than they have ever been, and it's because this time, unlike when they were defaming the Clintons on a daily basis, there is a 12-year history of their tactics, and the are more transparent than they ever have been.
I think Obama is handling this exactly as he should, by ignoring it and making Fox more and more shrill and irrelevant as they shamelessly try to get his attention.
President Obama has no history of anything, actually, to include being some kind of tactician. A laughing stock? I don't really think any other news channel would be in business if it wasn't for the bundles that come with the cable packages. I do however see all so-called news more transparent, and this is a good point, but please don't try to say CNN's incessant coverage of Britney Spears, OJ and Octomom means good journalism. In fact, it's why no one watches MSNBC and CNN. Mr. President ignores lots of things, this being no exception, however, it doesn't make Fox news the irrelevant one, to a multitude, it shows arrogance to the people to not answer the discourse. No politician, whether it be GW Bush or BH Obama should ignore discourse.
Uh, slick, in case you haven't noticed... the adults are in charge now in Washington. Adults, as a rule, will not engage with rude condescending spoiled misinformed brats on the 'other side' who hold racist antigovernment rallies simply because their side lost last November.
And let's use just one example from those rallies - the example that is curiously being ignored by the reichwing talkers - the guy wearing the Operation Chaos cap who kept saying Obama'a a fascist. Why would Obama want to have any sort of dialogue with that loser?
No one's ignoring "discourse." They're ignoring NONSENSE emenating from PROFESSIONAL LIARS at Fox.
Agreed. With all the insanity these people keep airing, it only make what's left oft he Rpublican party look bad. The 2010 mid-terms will tell, but I'm pretty optimistic for the Democrats. I expect Obama to win in a landlside in 2012, unless the Republicans undergo radical changes, and come back to the Center. But "moving left" and "radical change" are not things that they have ever done particularly well. ;)
They did a great covering the events of the day, and no one on Fox got a tingly feeling down their legs. Now that is being impartial. But maybe the Obama FCC will take care of it, the police state is already starting. http://howobamagotelected.com/
The police state started 8 years ago. Now it is on its way out.
You are either blind, stupid or insane. And FOX is damaging YOUR party. And that link goes ot nothing more than a bunch of pathetic whining from a bunch of losers that make Al Gore look like the World Heavyweight Boxing Champion.
Sean Hannity said he hasn't felt this great about conservatism in years. I laughed my arse off. All TEA day was was a Pep rally for conservatives to make themselves feel relevant for the first time since, hell, who knows. Congrats. However, the reality shows you are still irelevant.
"All TEA day was was a Pep rally for conservatives to make themselves feel relevant for the first time since, hell, who knows."
Well... all told... it seems that less than 90,000 showed up nationwide to the little tea bagging love fest for the right-wing fringe... and considering that Fox highly promoted the farce... and they have what... 10 million or so watchers... tells a lot about where FoxNoise stands at it pertains to honesty, integrity, and that oh so popular Fair and Balanced moniker they feel the need to mention incessently, not to mention just how relevent Fox IS NOT!
With that said... it is almost tempting to demand that MMfA stop wasting its time covering Fox... but then I realize... as long as Fox is still on the air... keep up the good work MMfA!!
Roesgen (paraphrasing): "Why do you think Obama is a fascist?
Protester: "Because he's a fascist."
These, my friends, are the Fox viewers in a nutshell.
I read over at Newshounds where someone was at a protest and had a sign that read "Obama is the Anti-Christ".
When she was interviewed, she said, "I don't really believe that, I just like calling him that."
That, too, are Fox Comedy Channel viewers in a nutshell {and I do mean "nut" . . .}
"Summary: Gregg Jarrett said of a report at a tea party by CNN's Susan Roesgen: "[S]he took a swipe at Fox News saying, well, we contrived the whole thing, which is, of course, preposterous." In fact, Roesgen did not say Fox News "contrived the whole thing"; she said the network "highly promoted" the protests."
Sounds to me like Jarrett has a guilty conscience . . .
"No question, These last couple weeks were one of the more scary ones in our nation's history." A little melodramatic there, don't you think?
British burning the Capitol, Civil War, WWI, Pearl Harbor, etc. might have been a bit scarier.
As for Susan, it's pretty obvious she's extremely biased (perhaps the FCC should investigate) and financially inept.
These guys give her a brutal takedown. The math about IL is great. I don't understand why the rightwing is considered stupid by the left. Debt is a big deal:
http://intellectualtakeout.org/readtheblog/2009/04/16/cnn-crashes-party/
I don't understand why the rightwing is considered stupid by the left
Read some posts by anotheramerican, fairliberl, missdee, shoes89, and pointofview and then get back to me.
Or simply google a Bush 43 press conference.
Summary: Gregg Jarrett said of a report at a tea party by CNN's Susan Roesgen: "[S]he took a swipe at Fox News saying, well, we contrived the whole thing, which is, of course, preposterous." In fact, Roesgen did not say Fox News "contrived the whole thing"; she said the network "highly promoted" the protests.
Agreed - Roesgen did not say Fox News contrived the whole thing. But as my chemistry teacher used to say,"No matter how you paint it, an outhouse is still an outhouse." MMFA is apparently not interested in Roesgen's obvious lack of professionalism as a reporter. Once she crossed the line and started arguing with the interviewee she ceased being a reporter and became part of the story. Her comments about how much money he and the state of Illinois were going to receive were not relevant to the gentleman's point. Clearly the guy was not the best person to ask about what he was there for but he was at least trying to get out an answer. Roesgen was obviously not in the mood for that and kept interrupting him. I expect those attitudes and actions out of hosts and other talking heads conducting an in-studio interview on any given network. But a reporter has to ask questions, get a response, thank the interviewee and be on their way, possibly to ask someone else questions.
Her exiting the scene was also unprofessional. While she was wrapping up the segment she commented about the gathering being "...anti-government, anti-CNN, since this is highly promoted by the right-wing conservative network Fox." She is generalizing without enough facts, uninformed at best and unprofessional at worst. It's not a reporter's job to editorialize, only to report.
Do you honestly think that Fox News reporters act professionally?
I am sure that there are reporters from any given network who are less than ethical in reporting a story. 60 Minutes reporters such as Mike Wallace were notorious for "staging" situations to make the interviewee look really bad. Of course he never taped any of that so it would never make it on the air. But if I were the head of the news department and saw one of my reporters pull that kind of stunt they would be fired - period. Thanks for the reply!
I'm still curious: do you think that Fox News reporters act professionally? Hannity, Beck, O'Reilly, Cavuto--they all lie regularly and their lies have been documented. These people are Fox's big names and they represent their entire organization; do you think that they have any credibility?
The difference between Roesgen and Hannity, Beck, Cavuto, O'Reilly, Cavuto, Matthews, Schulz, Olbermann, Maddow, Scarborough, Schuster, Blitzer, Colmes, Limbaugh, Boortz, and all the rest is that only Roesgen is a reporter. They rest are technically "hosts" or "opinion makers" and do not abide by the same rules. That does not give them license to lie yet every one of them have distorted the truth at some point in their careers. I do not believe any of them all the time; I realize they each have their own values and agendas and they will do whatever is necessary to advance their own talking points.
With that being said I think Beck was the most forthright and truthful in his view that both political parties are to blame for the current economic mess. No one else was even close to that assessment. I give Mike Barnicle big kudos for his interview (on Hardball) of Congressman Pence and the Chicago organizer of the Tea Party rally. It was a good interview and Barnicle let them answer the questions completely without interruption. And to their credit, neither Pence nor the organizer try to "spin" the question or blame Democrats. Chris Matthews would have never conducted that interview as professionally as Barnicle did. Yet he was the only one on MSNBC who made the effort, while Olbermann and Maddow were content to baselessly blast the events out of hand to advance their own talking points.
Fox News (at the corporate level) is just as guilty for the overexposure given leading up to the rallies and then "hijacking" some of them for their high-profile hosts. I will give Beck a pass because I feel he is the only one who got the essence of the rallies right. It just is not good for the local events to be allied with a network that is anything but "fair and balanced". People like Hannity are more of a polarizing influence and he did the effort more harm than good - same goes for Cavuto. Hopefully if this kicks off again on July 4th maybe Fox will not be so arrogant and the other networks will be more forthright in accurately reporting the rallies instead of just dismissing them outright as something they are not. Thank you for the reply!
"were not relevant to the gentleman's point. Clearly the guy was not the best person to ask about what he was there for but he was at least trying to get out an answer."
She asked him why he thought Obama was a fascist... his childish answer was... "Because he is"... now... if this childish image is what you want to be handed... then by all means... keep trying to defend that guy and do all you can to blame Roesgen for doing all she could to allow the guy to clarify his answer... "Because he is"... is not an answer to a serious charge, especially one of fascism... that is why right-wing non-thinking is so dangerous to our society.
"Her exiting the scene was also unprofessional."
Really dumbass... you really believe that? Toward the end of that 'interview'... the crowd began to chant louder and began to swarm around her... what was she supposed to do... stand there and let those riled up knuckleheads get even angrier? I suppose you think that if they had beaten her down for staying, you'd be claiming that she deserved it for not getting out the way she did (that you call unprofessional)
"It's not a reporter's job to editorialize, only to report."
This is the most meaningful and brilliant sentence of your entire post... now ask yourself this one while using Fox 'News' as the basis for it! Kind of makes you wonder how and why they are even on TV... or allowed to call themselves 'news'??
"She asked him why he thought Obama was a fascist... his childish answer was... "Because he is""
In what part of the interview did that exchange take place between the "Unidentified Man" and Roesgen? It's not in the transcript provided by MMFA nor is it in the YouTube video lasting around ninety seconds. If there was any exchange where the response is "Because he is..." I agree it is childish.
"Toward the end of that 'interview'... the crowd began to chant louder and began to swarm around her... what was she supposed to do... stand there and let those riled up knuckleheads get even angrier?"
At what point in that video was she being threatened by anyone in word or deed, implied or directly? She stayed on after that segment to have a discussion with others at the rally. If she thought her life was in danger she would have left or the cameraman would have caught some or all of it on tape. Did she say or report anything after the interview to her boss that she felt her life was threatened? Please post a reference.
"This is the most meaningful and brilliant sentence of your entire post... now ask yourself this one while using Fox 'News' as the basis for it! Kind of makes you wonder how and why they are even on TV... or allowed to call themselves 'news'??"
I neither said nor implied that any network is better than another, nor am I endorsing or defending Fox News. I took this one example of this one reporter and commented on her skills and responsibilities (or lack thereof) as a reporter. It didn't matter what network or local news station she was fro. Her combative attitude with the "unidentified man" took out the objective aspect of the interview, made her part of the story and was wrong. Thank you for the reply!
Ok... I'll admit that this particular video clip does not show everything I speak of... only because I thought I was on the thread that actually speaks about that which I mention... the full one of Roesgen speaking to the other guy with the picture of Obama dressed as Hitler hanging on his neck... that is the clip I was posting about and is another thread.
Going through all these clips and threads I simply got them mixed up...
So everything I say is legit... just not to this specific video clip of Fox critiqing a seperate portion of the entire CNN segment...
No problem. I had to go back to the video to see if I had missed anything as well. There are always going to be those who will hijack an event for their own agenda and I find that if the media concentrates on that minority then the overall message is lost and their credibility goes down the tubes. Those out to denegrate President Obama are the ones who don't get it and I am personally embarrassed about that. I don't agree with his economic policies but he's the President and he inherited a big mess from Bush on many fronts. Thanks for the reply!
Once she crossed the line and started arguing with the interviewee
She was trying to get an answer and none of these teabaggers were providing any. Shouldn't a reporter be trying to get answers?
I loved it how she quickly turned away from the idiot with the fascist sign to talk to the guy from Illinois. Maybe she shouldn't have interrupted him so much, but the guy was making absolutely zero sense.
He wasn't trying to get out an answer - he was trying to regurgitate the monologue hate radio told him to say but the crib notes were in the hand that was holding his child.
I expect a Matthews, Hannity, Colmes, O'Reilly or any number of "talking heads" to be argumentative with a guest with whom they disagree. Trying to make their own point or advancing an agenda is not the job of a reporter. When they do that they are no longer an objective observer and become part of the story. The same holds true if the reporter tries to make the "fringe" elements appear representative of the majority. I don't care who the reporter is or what network they represent; the behavior is still wrong.
As for the interruptions, it was just bad manners. If she was on a timetable because of a live feed that means she needed to identify some interviewees beforehand and give them her question(s). Not everyone is able to come up with a great 10-second soundbite. Or the alternative would have been to interview beforehand and edit as necessary for the broadcast. In any event it did not go well for either the reporter or the "unidentified man" and gave a very skewed picture of the rally. Thank you for the reply!
Trying to make their own point or advancing an agenda
Wrong. She was attempting to get the teabaggers to make THEIR point and advance THEIR agenda. They couldn't. Google it and watch it again.
ROESGEN: OK, let's see. You're here with your 2-year-old, and you're already in debt. Why are you here today, sir?
UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Because I hear a president say that he believed in what Lincoln stood for. Lincoln's primary thing was he believed that people had the right to liberty and they had the right --
ROESGEN: Sir, what does this have to do with taxes?
UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Hold on.
ROESGEN: What does this have to do with your taxes?
UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Hold on, let me finish speaking.
ROESGEN: Do you realize --
UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Let me finish speaking.
ROESGEN: -- that you're eligible for a $400 credit?
UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Let me finish my point...
Yeah, that's a great reporting technique...not.
ROESGEN: What does this have to do with your taxes?
There you have it. That's the proper question to ask given that the protest was all about TAXES. He didn't answer the question. Probably couldn't. Nobody deserves a soapbox on the teevee. He should have answered the question and then tried to get in his diatribe against Obama.
For those trying to keep up (baby steps), Ms. Roesgen wasn't going to get a paycheck unless she tried to make herself relevant? So the writers of this blog also had the same ultimatum, no controversy, no paycheck, "go out and make up something controversial, you've only attacked Fox news three times this week, the quota is four."
Your post has too many words in it for me to assume that you are illiterate, so why don't you go back the original "blog" and try READING it. Then maybe you might care to enlighten us as to what was inaccurate about it.
I'll explain this in small words, so you can keep up... "Bias" and "Agenda" etc... merely provide the motivation to go out and get the facts. They don't impugn the facts that are found. If you have any actual EVIDENCE to the contrary, but all means, please provide some. If all you have is just more opinion and insinuation, just STFU. We all know that MMFA is liberal. THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE.
For Fox News to suggest reporters at other networks aren't professional is hilarious
Fox is like the "B" leagues of TV
That may very well be but Fox's primetime lineup (starting with Glenn Beck) pretty much trashes CNN and MSNBC in the ratings. Fox can't fake those numbers. Fox clearly isn't "fair and balanced" by a long shot but I wonder why the other news outlets paid so little attention other than to denegrate the tea party gatherings? Why, out of the MSNBC lineup that night, was Hardball (guest hosted by Mike Barnicle) the only show to actually interview an organizer from one of the rallies? Ironically the organizer was from Chicago. Roesgen was at that Chicago rally and it never occured to her to find the organizer and interview him?
Fox can't fake those numbers.
Cigarettes were popular once too. Means nothing.
Cigarettes were popular once too. Means nothing.
Bad analogy. Means nothing.
If Garofalo (or Olbermann, Maddow, et al.) had bothered to go back and see Beck's programs up to and including the one in San Antonio she would have heard equal condemnation of Democrats and Republicans for the economic mess we're in. He has been pretty consistent with that message, even when his program was on CNN during Bush's term. Beck, speaking like a libertarian on economic issues, gets it. Others like Hannity and Cavuto were bastardizing the events for their own gain and that just ruined the message that needed to get out. Fox definitely went overboard in promoting the Tea Party events but the other media outlets should have made more of an honest effort to contact organizers early on to see what the aim of the rallies was.
As it was many of the rallies I saw on the news reminded me of Ron Paul events - though the message was really simple, those who had any grievances against the government showed up, even those considered "fringe elements". Of course Olbermann was only too happy to show only those signs that were deragatory to the president during the Garofalo segment to emphasize her "racist" comments, but that's what I expect out of Olbermann. The CNN reporter in Chicago only read signs that had nothing to do with the aims of the rally. When she was shown a sign right behind her that said "Republicans Suck", the reporter merely said that the sign was not immediately visible by the cameraman...how convenient.
"only read signs that had nothing to do with the aims of the rally."
The vast majority of the people that showed up at those tea bagging love fest had no idea what the aim of the rallies? parties? gathering of gnomes? was!!
Face it... the rallies may have been thought to be about taxes... which is a joke all its own since none of these clowns bothered to protest publically while Cheney.... er Bush was the president... but in the end only the lowest form and weakest intellectually of our society came out to show their lack of giving a damn about America!
How can I say that... easy... where were you and all these other people's anger and fustration when the Bush regime was giving away billions to corporations and destroying our economy with a useless war and no-bid contracts, and... and ... UGHHH! Don't tell me that suddenly you people all woke up simply because we have a Democrat in the White House!
I never voted for Bush nor have I ever agreed with his spending, the war in Iraq, secret prisons and in general the highjacking of the Republican Party from its small-government, lower taxes and less spending roots. They're just as bad as the Democrats on the economic front, but they typically tax just a little less. Both sides will do or say anything to advance their agenda even if they have to lie. The Democrats are no different in that regard than the Republicans. I'm registered as independent in my state. Thank you for the reply!
Susan Roesgen is on a "previously planned vacation" after receiving thousands of e-mails criticizing her disgusting impersonation of a journalist.