On the house: Fox aired 107 ads for its coverage of tea party protests over 10 days
SUMMARY: From April 6 to April 15, Fox News aired at least 107 commercial promotions for their coverage of the April 15 tea parties. The majority of all the ads -- 58 -- ran on April 14 and 15.
From April 6 to April 15, Fox News aired at least 107 commercial promotions for their coverage of the tea party protests that took place on April 15. As Media Matters for America has documented, Fox News aggressively promoted the events in recent weeks, encouraging viewers to get involved with tea party protests across the country. Indeed, Fox News repeatedly described them as "FNC Tax Day Tea Parties." On April 15, four of the network's hosts broadcast live from various tea parties.
Of the 107 ads, 58 were 10-second spots promoting a specific Fox News program that would be covering the events. The programs promoted in the 10-second spots were: Your World with Neil Cavuto, Glenn Beck, The O'Reilly Factor, Hannity, and On the Record with Greta Van Susteren. Of those five, only The O'Reilly Factor did not offer live coverage of the protests from one of the tea party sites. Forty-nine of the ads aired were 30-second spots that promoted Fox News' "fair and balanced network coverage -- live" of the tea parties.
From the 30-second spot promoting Fox News' coverage of the tea parties:
ANNOUNCER: April 15th, all across the country, Americans are making their voices heard.
In California, Texas, Georgia, Washington, D.C., citizens are standing up, saying "no" to more taxes and demanding real economic solutions.
April 15th: As tea parties sweep the nation on tax day, we're there with total fair and balanced network coverage -- live. What is the fate of our nation? We report. You decide.
From the 10-second spot promoting Glenn Beck's coverage of the tea parties:
ANNOUNCER: Taking a stand at the Alamo: Citizens revolt against more taxes and demand change now. Plus, Ted Nugent fires back at the government. Glenn is live at the tea party in Texas.
The majority of the ads -- 58 -- ran on April 14 and 15:
A list of all the commercials coded is available here.
Methodology
The study counted every commercial promoting Fox News' coverage of the April 15 tea parties that aired during Fox News original programming between 6 a.m. and midnight ET from April 6 to April 15. Each commercial was identified as either a 10-second spot or a 30-second spot. Commercials that ran during rebroadcasts of shows were not included. All the commercials that ran during Fox News original programming were viewed on digital video.
Below are the 10-second spots that ran on Fox:
- 4/14/09, Live Desk, 4/14/09, 1:49:40 -- 1:49:50 [Cavuto spot]
- 4/14/09, Live Desk, 2:18:58 -- 2:19:08 [Beck spot]
- 4/14/09, Studio B With Shepard Smith, 3:15:57 -- 3:16:07 [Hannity spot]
- 4/14/09, Special Report With Bret Baier, 6:48:10 -- 6:48:20 [Greta spot]
- 4/14/09, On the Record, 10:47:18 -- 10:47:28 [O'Reilly spot]
Below is the 30-second spot that ran on Fox:
- 4/13/09, Glenn Beck, 5:44:34 -- 5:45:04
They were simply COVERING the ads. ;)
Then they ran an ad telling you to stay tuned for their coverage of the ads, and ran commercials mentioning they were fair and balanced because they covered the ads...
did they ever, constant drumbeat.
Ratings are what its about and if no one noticed, Fox News beat the competition by a very wide margin on the 15th. Ratings sell advertising, and advertising produces profits, and profits are the purpose of business. So, while the ninnies at MMFA are howling, Fox is going to the bank, grinning.
Complain all you want.
Oh, I forgot. Communists think profits are evil.
Well we always knew that for Fox journalistic ETHICS wasnt anywhere NEAR what it is about. I am betting that the networks beat the pants off of Fox like they do every single day but hey keep your fantasies at this point they are all you have. The communist thing is too stupid and pathetic to deal with
So refreshing to hear from you again, Solon. I have always deeply appreciated the journalistic ETHICSof CBS, for instance, with Dan Rather's "fake but accurate" memos. Or the stony silence of the MSM on the pro-life marches in DC each January. Perhaps ytou'd like to defend the NY Times smear of McCain's wife - or for that matter, of McCain and the lobbyist. Maybe you'd like to defend Reuter's faked pictures out of Iraq and Lebanon and Palestine?
I don't know how many hundreds of times I've heard the MSM tell the US about the wonderful universal health care of Cuba, and its literacy rate. Hasn't seemed to satisfy the 1000s of Cubans who have risked their lives to flee that island prison, though, has it?
Yes, it is a mistake to call the modern Democrat/Progressive a Communist. he's a Facist. Mea Culpa.
Fauxs profits were down last year!
Kind of like the NY Times? Or the Boston Globe? or the LA Times? or the Rocky Mountain News? Oh. you were saying that Fox made money last year? Gee, I guess that's somewhat different than going bankrupt? I don't pay any attention to corporate profits, but I'd guess that Fox was as profitable as any news organization out there.
gotta change your name, man !
they actually did have a te party for eight years. It is just the working majority wasn't invited.
Neither george H nor George W were fiscal conservatives. But the TEA parties were not organized by Fox News, and the people who attended them seemed to be just as ticked at fiscally irresponsible Republicans as at fiscally irresponsible Democrats.
MMFA has tried to paint these events as some sort of 'trick' by Fox News and conniving Republicans. But nothing could be farther from the truth (and MMFA knows that). These things were in the works long before Fox News got on board, and there were a number of Republicans who got booed at them.
I realize the teabagger events were as contrived as those stunts where Pepsi® tries to get a few thousand people out in a field doing some goofy hand jive to sell Pepsi®, but it's been intersting listening to the post-game reports form the attending wingnuts.
Seems like it wasn't really about taxes or socialism or debt, mostly a feel- good group hug for some very misinformed and frightened people.
this methodology has an eerie similarity to a country in ruins after WW2 and some guy rears up as the savior of subject country with cleverly worded speeches to a frightened population that did not know where the next loaf of bread was coming from and needed a wheelbarrow to carry the cash needed to buy such bread. Scare the hell out of the population ( socialism, radical muslim, the president is not american, etc ) and then offer feel good song and dance.i am so thankfull the electorate rejected this. At FOX they are kissing each others feet i cannot tell who is the leader of that pack, yet !
WW2 should read WW1. otherwise it makes no sense.
While I know that Hitler comparisons are frowned upon, I think you've made a valid observation. I don't care what any apologist says, Republicans are using classic propaganda tactics via FOX and Talk Radio. They're fomenting hatred of Liberals and fear of Government using lies and half truths.
Sure, Liberals did some of that during the Bush Administration, but nothing on this scale. To some degree, it's just the nature of politics.
The Republicans, however, seem to be making a concerted effort to split the country along ideological lines. I guess what we see now is the legacy of Nixon's Southern Strategy.
This article is an absolute lie. Period. The Tea Parties were in NO WAY anti-Obama. They were anti-spending, period. If you want proof....READ FOR YOURSELVES SHEEPLE. Sometimes, the lies spread on these sites makes me sick.
As for all the disgusting, shameful references to a sexual act (tea bagging), both my wife and I attended a Tea Party, and I am personally offended. Again, you make me sick. Are you afraid of someone else having an opinion, such that you have to belittle and diminish our voice. Too bad. This is a Republic.
And for all the idiotic postings concerning whether this would happen under a Republican president, or similarly why it wasn't done in the past 8 years...USE YOUR GOD GIVEN BRAIN!! This administration has spent more in 3 months that Bush did in 8 years. If a Republican, or any party, had done this, we SHOULD ALL BE CONCERNED.
Its a shame I still have yet to see one honest, intelligent discussion thread on this blog site. Prove me wrong.
If FOX wasn't promoting the event, why didn't I see any ads on other networks?
Because they're all LIBERALS!!! Of course. Did you expect a different answer?
And their ratings skyrocketed this week. So you can expect much more of the same over the next 3 years.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with their credibility, honesty, objectivity and journaistic integrity.
CNBC ratings would go up if they run ads for " Girls gone wild ".
Crowing about ratings, in this case the last refuge of a scoundrel.
not to mention (so to speak) the obvious quality of the "reporting"
I do not recall ever witnessing authentic protest wherein the participants gathered about a host... er, I mean reporter to hang on his every word.
um, don't they have something better to do?
I honestly did not think Cable News could slide even to lower quality standards. ... just keeps getting worse and worse.
Has any Fox account noted the hate speech/placards that occasion these events? ...
When you throw your name, network, and journalistic integrity fully behind something, you are promoting it.
In fact, it was IN FRONT of the event.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=224258&title=tempest-in-a-tea-party
(Skip forward to the 3:42 mark)
Bush's behavior can never be validated by comparison to Obama's. Despite what the Republicans would have you believe, Obama doesn't warrant that kind of deference yet, even among us libs, and he isn't likely to get it if he doesn't depart from the Bush policies.
Fox would be better served to report the news honestly, and have a lineup of pundits who are experts on the various topics covered therein. They're exploiting a niche, snuggling up to ideological fanatics and political pseudo-intellectuals in order to play the capitalist game at the expense of journalism and a country which is guided by an informed citizenry. There is nothing to provoke them to change their strategy until it stops making them money.
bruce,
Obama is the most radical left wing President ever elected. Calling him a centrist is simply laughable.
Just take a look at his stimulus bill and budget. Did he allow any Republican input or was it all written by Pelosi and Reid. Look at his appointees, almost all leftists, from Holder, to Napolitano, to Emanuel.
Look at his executive orders. Look at his proposals. All call for bigger government, more spending, and spreading the liberal agenda.
Have a good weekend.
i have my issues with Obama, but did you protest so loudly and call Bush a radical leftwinger when he grew government, spent money like a drunken sailor and spread his own liberal agenda. it makes me nuts when conservatives just now wake up from all that because there is a Democrat in the White House.
Thank you, James! AA seems to be like Rush. Bush=good, Obama=bad. Even if they did the same types of things.
But Friedbergboy, you gotta love AA for the comedy if nothing else. Check out the breathless- Red Scare- hysterical- tinfoil hat-doomsday rant closed out with a friendly "have a good weekend!" . Beautiful!
I caught that too Col.----Priceless...hahaha!
You really do think things become true just because you say them. Economically he is to the right of Teddy Roosevelt and HE was a Republican
Therepublican of 1940 is much different than the republican of today.just an example drunken sailor spending for eight years, replacing thye constitution with the patriot Act, starting wars with a country whose leader is despised by the self appointed vice-president,paying for such war and not account for the expenditure, leaqving a political situation for the ' next guy " that will surely result in a one term governance for the difficult decisions that must be made to make americans whole again, not divided into good guy conservatives vs bad guy liberals..
He actually did allow a substantial amount of input from Republicans. The fact that they gave him nothing useful isn't his fault. Come on. That ridiculous budget proposal from the Republicans sums it all up. They're...not...interested...in playing nice with Barack Obama. That you would still feel righteous indignation because the President whom your side lost to isn't placating your every need is one more bit of evidence that people like you don't really want to live in a representative democracy such as this. Perhaps you'd be more comfortable living in a right-wing religious dictatorship, such as, say, Iran? There, people like you are truly revered and respected, and people like me? Well, we get what we deserve, I guess.
AA is allergic to facts. He only thinks what Rush TELLS him to think
I have a sneaky suspicion this tea bag thing is another karl Rove " brilliant strategy "
Fox did not organize the events, they realized the tea parties were going to happen and as a network that is fair and balanced they gave the people at these parties something no other network had the nuts to do. That is give citizens an outlet for their voices to be heard cause the liberal mainstream kool-aid drinking media wants obama to ruin this country.
Their was a real proud moment on Olbermann's show last night with Garofolo. Her calling those who attended racist will not be tolerated. There is a double standard, if sean hannity would have had a conservative guest on calling the left wingers a bunch of racist he would be fired and the guest would be finished. Speaking of garofolo she is to ignorant to be informed, she had not one clue about the people at those protests, and olbermann gave her a forum to vomit stupidity. I am protesting NBC and will boycott all their sponsors. They are a joke. Just look at the ratings of who watches consistently to the networks they may not have much time left on cable any how.
Oh right, so Olbermann let's a guest go on his program to express her opinions and you can't tolerate that? I thought you guys were for free speech? She thought they protestors were racist...big whoopie freakin do, a lot of people thought the same...I guess we should boycott their opinion too then eh?
I think a lot of them were racists. I also think a lot of them were misinformed idiots who couldn't even tell you what their tax rate is. I seriously doubt that more than a few of them are even in the tax brackets that will see an increase. They've been duped by millionaire pundits into protesting taxes that they themselves will never have to pay.
FOX may not have "organized" the events, but they shamelessly promoted them to boost attendance.
News for you, alot of the "Tea Baggers" are racist.
They are disturbing and so is FOX.
I am not a fan of MSNBC, i find Olbermann annoying but he is right on this one
Olbermann is not right, would you like someone to label you a racist and not even know who you are? That is dumb, free speech is great, but when used such as garofolo did is a disaster and is detrimental to her own self. I as an american do not mind her right to say it, but I have the right to choose the sponsors who support a network such as that and boycott them if they continue to support NBC knowing they make comments such as that.
Well, you know... Rush Limbaugh accuses me of wanting to destroy America almost every day. Does that count?
What? You have to listen to limbaugh for more than one day or one hour to understand him sometimes, his mind is to deep for some liberals. And obama is destroying america, I hate to say wait and see cause it may be to late then. What qualifications did obama bring to the white house? My answer is a good teleprompter loader, other than that his speeches are clumsy and boring he has no passion, just words.
Puh-leaze. I'm almost certain that membership in the Republican Party comes with a free labeling gun. You just used the phrase "the liberal mainstream kool-aid drinking media (who) wants obama to ruin this country" and you're complaining about labels? You just used like four labels in that one sentence fragment.
That was not labeling that was pointing out facts, labeling is someone calling me a racist when they do not know my views. I know where the liberal media stands it was clear before the election and it is clear now so that is factual.
I bet you think you are open minded too.
At least HE is thinking. You should try it
Listen to their show before you make stupid comments, really. Liberals love to call conservatives racist all the time. Show your proof also when making comments please.
When your base is the Ku Klux Klan, the american nazi party and the right wing "moral majority" racist seems a very fitting term, don't you agree?
You guys are comical.
And you're pathetic. All you do is come here and call people "Leftists" without defining the term- I'd love to know what is "Leftist" about the records of Napolitano, Holder and Emmanuel. Are they "leftists" simply because they are Democrats?
And you're a liar- the Republicans provided lots of imput for the stimulus bill- it went through several revisions before the final product was released for a vote. Then they refused to vote for it. Then many proceeded to take credit for it's contents.
Obama's proposals "all call for bigger government, more spending..." as opposed to Bush's proposals? Talk about hypocricy.
"...and spreading the liberal agenda." What was that again? Oh let me guess- "Socialism Marxist Health Care France."
So is Jon Stewart, yet like me, he's quite factual.
"...There is a double standard, if sean hannity would have had a conservative guest on calling the left wingers a bunch of racist he would be fired and the guest would be finished..."
Listen to this video and you'll see people on Faux doing what you daid they'd be fired for! Stop your crying!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY04gIruZ4E
So after seeing this video was anyone at Faux fired?
There you go with your facts, citations, and videos again. How is anyone supposed to argue against that?
Garafolo is a peabrain, ""This is racism straight up and is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks. There is no way around that." this is what she said, to blanket assert because of a few nuts that it was fueled by racism. there is nothing more digusting than when someone hauls out the racist charge to automatically silence debate on the issue itself. pathetic. And the fact that Olbermann didn't even challenge her is in itself disguisting. All the blustering around here about the evils of Fox and this kind of crap goes on at MSNBC. Both networks deserve to wallow in the mud with each other, neither has any moral highground.
Hmm, maybe I was just watching the wrong channel- all I saw on camera were drooling morons who had only the faintest inkling why they were wearing teabags on their heads while dressed like Disney's conception of George Washington and carrying signs reading "Osama Obama Bin Lyin."
Oh wait though- I was watching Fox.
I agree that Garafalo was wrong in this instance- it wasn't all about racism. There was plenty of ignorance, mob mentality and paranoia involved too. They deserve to be discussed as well.
there are fringe nuts in any protest, look at gay rights parades when the media focuses on the most outlandish, it makes for good TV coverage. I believe this was no different. Garafolo just fell for it because she obviously doesn't know any better, or she does and is intentionally being an idiot.
there are fringe nuts in any protest, look at gay rights parades when the media focuses on the most outlandish, it makes for good TV coverage.
You know what? That's an excellent point. I've found so many of your posts to be inflammatory and thoughtless, but you nailed it here.
Actually that is far from true. Janeanne is outspoken. In fact inflamatory. She however is a very smart lady and knows exactly what she is doing. I sometimes cringe when I hear her. I also think she is sometimes unfair and overgeneralizes. By no subjective standard however can she be called unintelligent. It is like Rush or the Weinerdog. They MAY be crude and in Mikeys case insane but they arent stupid
her motivations don't interest me in the least, whether she is stupid or just inflammatory to get attention it is irrelevant. She had no business making such an unfounded accusation based on what she witnessed by some idiots with signs. Condemning an entire group of people because of the actions of a few is misinformed, unfair, inflammatory, elementary and stupid. With Garafolo, take your pick.
Yeah. I think she was wrong to do that but you SAID she was a peabrain. NOW you say you dont care about her motives. She HAS her motives and she is NOT stupid by ANY measure.
peabrains aren't necessarily stupid in my opinion. It just means you don't use the brain you have. Garafolo's comments in this instance were indicative of someone not using their brain, or using it to manipulate and distort. I said, I don't much care which is which. Neither are endearing.
This makes no sense still. You're tying yourself in knots. If you don't care about her motives, then you don't care if her motive is to manipulate and distort.
So which is it? Is she a peabrain, or not? Do you care about her motives, or not?
Or are you simply trying to distract us from the point being discussed, which is FoxNews airing multiple ads?
Oh, and just to tell you - she didn't say this because of a few bad apples. She believes that the vast majority of people at these events were motivated by their distaste for Obama, and she doesn't believe that it's distaste based on his politics, but rather his skin color.
You are such a tool.
is give citizens an outlet for their voices to be heard
You mean like the guy, when asked he thinks Obama is a fascist said:
"He is a fascist".
Those voices?
Prove his policies up until this point are none other than facist, I beleive he is going down the road of marxism myself. Read up on black liberation theology and marxism.
Their was a real proud moment on Olbermann's show last night with Garofolo. Her calling those who attended racist will not be tolerated.
"Will not be tolerated." By whom? Is that a threat?
Here's what wont' be tolerated- being sold some BS by a "News" organization without calling them ON their BS.
What are WE going to do about it? Continue to talk about it and educate people on the Right Wing Propaganda Machine that is Fox. But sorry I interrupted- what are you going to do rather than "tolerate" Garafalo's exercise of free speech?
so the next time some dippy rightwinger makes an inflammatory comment on Fox or some other media outlet, let's see how many liberals rush to that person's defense and call it an exercise of free speech? this just illustrates the hypocrisy from the left.
zzzzzz wake me up when you have something insightful to say beyond "they are both wrong, the liberals are just more wrong" or "who cares?"
because if you're too simple to be able to call out hypocrisy when it comes from "your side", you have no business or credibility when you criticize it on the other. I will keep that in mind when reading any of your posts from now on.
You've never made an intelligent point on this or any other thread, and frankly, I'm bored to death waiting for you to do it. You've got nothing to say, you NEVER have anything to say, and I can only assume that you live your life in a kind of dull, bored pain. The kind I feel whenever I read one of your sad little posts.
you just confirmed you're a hypocrite, I bet that was painful for you.
Right James- declare victory and go home. I think that's for the best.
I'm perfectly happy to let kids play with shiny toys as long as it keeps them quiet.
You're wrong, jamesB. Here's why:
You cannot say that some dippy right-winger will make an inflammatory comment on Fox or some other media outlet, claim that liberals won't rush to their defense, then say that this (untrue, has not happened story) "illustrates" the hypocrisy from the left.
There is no illustration of hypocrisy from the left, UNLESS IT HAPPENS (Lefties not defending right-wingers for their stupid comments). You can't call us hypocrites now, and how such a thing illustrates the left's hypocrisy based on a theoretical situation, one that may or may not happen.
IF/WHEN it happens, and IF/WHEN liberals don't call run to their aid, THEN you can call us hypocrites. Until then, you're just projecting.
well you can bet you won't see mmfa cover any of it, or ever criticize anyone on the left, so you can breathe easier you won't have to comment on their hypocrisy, unless someone brings it up on a thread like this one. Garofolo's inflammatory nonsense was not theoretical, and it did happen.
I wasn't talking about Garofaolo's "inflammatory nonsense". I was talking about your hypothetical nonsense, you know, the way you said that this may happen in the future to prove that liberals are hypocrites NOW.
You're really not that bright today, are you?
Many wingnuts own Time Machines. What may seem like hypothetical situations to us are cold hard facts to them. Because they've been to that event that happens after the "if".
That is right. They wont in the same way MRC wont cover conservative media. So what? Do you need to read the mission statement again? They are not required to do everything or unilaterally disarm while the conservative versions of MMFA cover ONLY thier side. This isnt hypocrisy by ANY reasonable definition
so you're comparing mmfa to the mrc? Wow, high bar there.
They are much better at what they DO. It might have something to do with better material. Perhaps smarter people but YES their objectives are roughly the same so the comparison is obvious.
i don't expect mmfa to cover it, regardless of the fact that it does compromise overall integrity when you only show one side, it is what they do. so be it. But when it's brought to the attention of the posters posting here and they respond with some attack, then the label of hypocrite is earned.
No it does NOT compromise their overall integrity to cover only one side when it is made clear that is all they are GOING to do. Just like MRC and AIM cover ONLY their side. One side of a debate is not obligated to make the other sides case for them NOR to unilaterally disarm showing BOTH sides while the other side shows ONLY theirs. How are we supposed to respond when you call us on liberal hypocrisy because of something Janeanne Garafalo says? I gues you think that like you want MMFA to unilaterally disarm you also want to be the only one making attacks? How is THAT not hypocrisy?
call us on liberal hypocrisy because of something Janeanne Garafalo says?
James is obviously referring to the Garafalo that speaks for all Democrats every time she opens her mouth.
Well let's compare. A modestly successful actress who appears on talk shows about every other month vs. a 24-hour tv network that reaches 10's of millions of homes.
How about when the ACLU defends organizations like the KKK? Does that count?
i don't know to what context you are referring too?
He is probably referring to the ACLU going to court to support the right of the KKK to march in Skokie Illinois on free speech grounds. That is what is widely considered a lefty organization defending the rights of what is widely considered a far right organizations right to free speech WHILE they disagree ADAMANTLY to their message
so that absolves the left of any hypocrisy regarding condemning their own whey they do exactly what they decry the right for? Is that the point? In any event, anyone that turns a blind eye to behavior within their own "ideology" that mirrors behavior of the other side and criticizes it is being hypocritical, I don't care whether it's liberals or conservatives. I would most would agree on that basic point.
I dont know what point you are trying to make. Do you think an ideology exists that encompasses more than three people that will not have some within it show hypocrisy? Of course not. Is that a reason to talk about LEFTIST hypocrisy as if it were an inherent trait? If all you meant is that somewhere there is a lonely lefty showing hypocrisy it really wasnt a point at ALL. If you broaden it beyond that then how is that different than Janeanne generalizing her racism comment to all the teabaggers because of a few of them?
i was an asked an off topic question about the ACLU and the KKK, and then you tell me you don't know the point I am trying to make? I just summarized it for you quite plainly in my previous post. If you don't get it, it's not my fault. all your rantings here make no sense.
It was NOT off topic it was a rational response to YOUR claim about liberal hypocrisy because liberals WOULDNT support the free speech rights of a rightwinger. He gave an example of WHEN THEY HAVE. There is no way in the WORLD that is off topic. As for what makes sense. I fear YOU are not the best judge of that. I dont see you have the capacity to understand the concept
Here's some more info. :
TAXES, IN CONTEXT.... Last week, Bruce Bartlett, a former Treasury Department economist in the Bush administration, wrote an interesting column comparing U.S. tax rates with countries around the world. Bartlett, a conservative, found that the United States "is a relatively low-tax country no matter how you slice the data." In 2006, total taxation (federal, state and local) amounted to 28% of the GDP. Of the 30 countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, only four had a lower tax ratio than the U.S.
But, conservatives said, who cares what kind of taxes are imposed by other industrialized democracies? Since when do we care? So, this week, Bartlett went with a different approach, comparing the current U.S. tax structure with recent generations.
The exercise is straightforward enough. Bartlett identified the "effective federal income tax rate -- taxes paid as a share of income -- for a family with the median income. The median is the exact middle of the income distribution -- half of families are above and half are below. It's as close as we can get, statistically, to the typical American family."
He found that the median family, in the most recent year available, "paid 5.91% of its income to the federal government in the form of income taxes." In 1981, the median family paid double, and current rates are "well below the rate that prevailed from the 1950s through the 1990s."
What's more, the 2009 numbers are almost certainly lower than 2007, thanks to Obama's middle-class tax cut.
Given all of this, Bartlett draws the right conclusion about the "Tea Party" events this week, where Tea Baggers complained bitterly about a crushing tax burden: "I believe this was largely a partisan exercise designed to improve the fortunes of the Republican Party, not an expression of genuine concern about taxes or our nation's fiscal future. People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously."
Post Script: For the record, I made this chart, using the table in Bartlett's piece. I'm hoping to break into the lucrative world of chart blogging someday.
So tell me again what you people were protesting?
The above taken from Washingtonmonthly.org
I like the fair tax, you are taxed on what you buy and not what you earn from what I have read, that way you do not have the top 50% paying 97% of federal taxes. It would eliminate a lot of abuse and get rid of the IRS. That is what I am for cause everyone has to buy and it would do better and everyone would be contributing. IMHO
Fox ... gave the people at these parties something no other network had the nuts to do. (Anebriated)
I'll give you tjat point, no argument.Fox is the only network with the nuts to do this. Hannity, O'Reilly, Cavuto, nobody else has that kind of nuts.
It's manufactured dissent.
I think Garofalo was correct as well.
Witness: the signs/placards carried by these so-called 'protestors'. Can one be more racist?
Witness: the man screaming "Kill Him" when Obama's name was mentioned at one of the teabaggings. That man needs to be arrested, immediately.
And these douchebags think they are mainstream? Really?
99% of the "tea baggers" were perfectly sane, coherent, intelligent, well-spoken middle class people with literate arguments to make about the problems with our tax system and their deep concerns about the deficit.
1% were racist idiots who showed up because Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck told them too.
Right, JamesB? Did I do good? Do I get to tend the rabbits now?
commonsense, I ask you what I said above, and I know you will give me an honest answer. Look at the TV coverage in most cities of gay pride parades, do they show two guys walking along, or do the show the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, or some flamboyant drag queen? They always show the outlandish because it makes for better TV coverage, forget that the majority who attend have their children with them and look just like the rest of us. You can't go by what you see or read, it isn't representative of the masses at all.
I'll give you a bit there...
BUT there is a difference between an outrageous drag queen and some knuckle-dragging racist screaming "Kill him!" at the mention of Obama's name.
One calls for the death of the leader of the free world.
The other is just a draq queen.
that's not the point though, which is who does the media navigate towards on reflex, find the most offensive or the most outrageous and stick that on the cover of a newpaper or in the graphic of a TV spot. Of course they are not comparable, I never meant that at all. But they are when it comes to who TV likes to highlight.
Sure, the teevee reporters went up to the most outlandish and idiotic teabagger. I think it was mostly, if not all ,random sampling. And from that you get this guy:
Teabagger: "I think he's a fascist"
Reporter: "Why"
Teabagger: "Because he is"
Which reminds of me of Gramps best moment on the campaign trail and stolen by this guy: "We're going to win in Iraq - by winning!".
Forgot the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMxKMr2wnhk
and I need to add, I have no problem with the drag queens of anyone, I think it makes for an interesting and diverse mix, in fact I like it when people celebrate who they are. I am just making a comment on media coverage and how it is often skewed.
And BTW,
The Sisters are here in SF. I see them quite often and am thankful for the important work they do in our community.
I totally agree, they do much good stuff.
"you cant go by what you see or read, it isn't representative of the masses at all."
Ok, James- we aren't supposed to believe our eyes, or our ears. Just because we saw racist paranoid propaganda plastered on hundreds of signs all over the country, the tea parties weren't about spreading racist propaganda. But please, let us know what's left if we can't believe our eyes and our ears? Are we just supposed to take what JamesB says instead?
And yes, the media DOES focus on the outrageous and the controversial. The problem with your argument, however, is that Fox NewsChannel actively promoted these events, and had every reason to show them in the best possible light. Yet even Fox showed the cracked nuts and ignorant dopes waving their lame signs. That tells me that racism and paranoia were the DOMINANT themes of the tea parties, not incidental ones highlighted by the media.
But what do I know- all I did was use my eyes and ears, when all along I should have been waiting for JamesB to tell me what was what.
wallow in your own ignorance, I have no interest in joining you there.
That's right- you want to pretend you didnt' see what you saw, and you didn't hear what you heard, but I'M wallowing in ignorance. WTF-ever, man.
How do you explain this Bruce ? : http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/04/the-rotting-racist-underbelly-of-the-tea-party-protests/
Excuse me I meant JamesB.
have you read nothing I've just written? Of course there were idiots and racists protesting, but are you going to paint a broad brush and condemn the thousands who are not? If you need to do that to feed your disdain for those you despise politically, go ahead. I don't feel the need to do it, sorry.
I'am saying alot of this protest makes no sense if you look at what Obama is doing. See graph above that I posted. The protest to me are more about Obama's skin color than the policies he is pursuing!! I don't have to villianize them thier doing a fine job on their own!
protests are made up of a cross section of people; informed, concerned, misinformed, uninformed, racists, non-racists, women, men, grandmothers, students, on and on. You are still painting with an unfair broad brush.
Yes the protest are made up of many people but the "ugly underbelly" had a huge element of racism, that is undeniable!
Yea JamesB tax-cuts for 95% of people and a 39% top tax-rate that won't take effect to 2011 and this :
time to take to the streets!?!?!?
Thanks for the link. Looks to me like a wide spectrum of ages, genders, and economic backgrounds (not races, though). And the guy in the tie definitely has a futuer as a radio talk show host.
I dont think it fair to judge a protest by its lowest common denominators. Janeanne as being herself a firebreather and a smart one at that. I disagree and think she should not have thrown out the racist label in such an all encompassing way. I usually agree with her
fair enough, well said about the lowest common denominators. Wish I had said that.
Thank you. I appreciate that.
I see your point - and I agree, for the most part.
Janeanne is quite a smart cookie - and I alsu usually agree with her.
However, from the reports I saw, the signs I saw and the things people said, these teabagger-thons seemed more like hate rallies than protests...
From the little I saw they didnt seem to have any unifying thing to protest and THAT is quite odd. Never been to a protest like that. They seemed to just be united only in their anger at the new administration and Obama in particular.
As the newspapers die a lingering death, sites like this will become even more important.
Media Matters needs to begin naming sponsors of Fox News.
I don't understand why MM is shy to do this.