Fox promotion of tea parties follows years of attacking progressive demonstrators
SUMMARY: A Media Matters review of Fox News' coverage of demonstrations prior to the April 15 tea parties found that the network did not offer similarly promotional coverage of anti-war protests or other demonstrations in support of progressive positions. Instead, the network's hosts, contributors, and guests often attacked participants in those protests.
On the April 11 edition of Fox News' Your World, host Neil Cavuto stated: "[A]t Fox, we do not pick and choose these rallies and protests." Cavuto went on to claim, "We were there for the Million Man March, even though as I pointed out, it turned out to be well shy of a million men. We were there for the Iraq war protests and the protests against the Iraq war protests. So, you see, we really don't decide what populist causes matter -- just that when a whole lot of people gather in a whole lot of towns and cities across America, it is indeed worth checking out, not just shutting down." But at Fox News, all protests are not covered equally. As Media Matters for America has documented and the rest of the media have noted, despite its promise to deliver "total fair and balanced network coverage" of the April 15 tea-party protests, Fox News repeatedly promoted the protests that day and in preceding days, while hosts and guests, including those on Fox Business Network, engaged in inflammatory rhetoric during their coverage of the protests. By contrast, Media Matters' review of Fox News' coverage of prior demonstrations finds that the network offered no such promotional coverage of 2003 and 2005 protests opposing the Iraq war, the 2006 immigrants' rights protests, or other demonstrations in support of progressive positions. Instead, the network's hosts, contributors, and guests often attacked participants in those protests. (Where video is not provided, transcripts were retrieved from the Nexis database.)
Protests against the Iraq war
- On the February 3, 2003, edition of The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly stated:
O'REILLY: I called some of the anti-war demonstrators anti-American when they start saying that a -- the United States is a terrorist nation and, you know, giving us this revisionist history that -- this one and that one, we did this and that, and, you know, there's a line. We respect dissent here, by the way. If you're against the war, and -- that's fine, and we respect that. But, once you start attacking your country as fundamentally an evil place, which some of these anti-war people have done, then you're anti-American, in my opinion.
- On the February 16, 2003, edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, host Tony Snow asked Sen. John McCain:
SNOW: Is it your view that the pacifism espoused by the protesters and by some of our international colleagues in fact makes war more likely by giving Saddam Hussein the ability to continue to develop weapons of mass destruction or at least to go ahead and thumb his nose at U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441?
Snow later asked then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice:
SNOW: Do you think the protesters are naive?
- On the February 17, 2003, edition of The Big Story, host John Gibson stated:
GIBSON: But do any of the thousands of marchers march and protest against Saddam Hussein? No. Do they protest that he defies the U.N., the international organization they think it is so important that George Bush dare not defy? No. Do they protest Saddam Hussein's obsession to acquire weapons he could use to make the world cower? No. Do they protest governments in Europe, which want to appease him in the same way Chamberlain appeased Hitler? No. Do they protest bin Laden, who wants to use the war against Saddam as a trigger for more terror? No. In fact, in San Francisco, they actually fought with cops, rioted for peace. Fighting for peace.
- On the February 17, 2003, edition of Special Report, Fox News host and Roll Call executive editor Morton Kondracke said of protesters:
KONDRACKE: And it's curious that they would be supporting a fascist like Saddam Hussein. The only reason that they could be doing that is because they don't like the United States and they don't like war and they don't like a war perpetrated by the United States of America.
Fox News host and Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes also stated:
BARNES: You know, I was struck by how uninformed and morally empty these demonstrations were.
[...]
BARNES: These demonstrators are both morally vacuous, they're stupid, they're disingenuous.
[...]
BARNES: They just don't want a war and they hate the U.S., Mort's right about that.
- On the February 17, 2003, edition of his show, in response to a guest's statement that the protests were "anti-American rallies," O'Reilly stated:
O'REILLY: All right. I believe there's a heavy strain. I don't think everybody -- And I know everybody -- I think there are some sincere peace demonstrators. I just think they haven't thought it through.
I always say to people who are doing this, remember Vietnam and remember Cambodia. What happened there, OK?
Because for every cause there's an effect, all right?
So you don't want Saddam Hussein removed for whatever your reason may be, but you can't guarantee anybody that this guy, a proven killer, will not turn around and do something very heinous. And then what happens? Are you responsible for that?
- On the February 17, 2003, edition of Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity stated of the protesters:
HANNITY: Had we listened to the appeasement movement, the pacifist movement, the same protesters back then as the ones today, the world wouldn't be a safer place. Why do they even have any credibility based on their failure after failure, historically speaking?
[...]
HANNITY: Steven, by the way, these are Marxist groups. They do organize this thing with very anti-American ideas. I don't believe every anti-war protester is anti-American. I'm not suggesting that.
Hannity also had the following exchange with protester Steven Zunes:
HANNITY: Steven, if you don't be quiet I'm going the turn your microphone down. I was about to ask you a question. When we go to war, do you want America to win?
ZUNES: I don't want there to be a war.
HANNITY: The war is coming. Wait a minute. The minute we go to war, do you want this country to win?
ZUNES: You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake.
HANNITY: Hey, Steven, so you're not going to support the troops? You're not going to support them?
ZUNES: Pardon?
HANNITY: You're not going to support them?
NEIL DOBRO (Americans Against Terrorism): There are a lot of Afghanis (sic) who think we can win the war.
ZUNES: I opposed Saddam Hussein back in the 1980s when our government was supporting him.
HANNITY: One last question and I've got to break. Why don't I ever hear you anti-war protesters say, Saddam, disarm like you promised. Give up your weapons. Stop killing innocent people. Why do you always attack Bush and not Saddam?
- On the February 18, 2003, edition of Hannity & Colmes, Hannity stated:
HANNITY: I want to -- you saw the protests over the weekend. Some of the placards on display. "The unelected idiot is going to start World War III." "Bush, stop your terror." "Bush, the baby killer." "Illegally installed, immorally behaved." "Spoiled fascist cowboy." You get the idea.
[...]
HANNITY: And I there's a lot of anti-Americanism and, frankly, there are a lot of anti-Semitic statements in some of the different protests.
During the same segment, co-host Alan Colmes defended the protestors:
COLMES: But let's face it, 100,000 people in New York, San Francisco and Paris, 500,000 in Berlin, 750,000 in London, several million in 55 cities in Spain, including 660,000 in Madrid alone, not all these people are anti-Americans, and many of them have principled views against a war. Let's not paint them all with a broad brush or imply that they're appeasers, anti-American or mean spirited toward the president. Because some of us have a legitimate other point of view.
[...]
COLMES: Dr. Bennett, every time there's an American action that some people object to, the argument for those who are in favor of that action is, you're giving aid and comfort to the enemy. How can one legitimately -- let me just ask you a serious question. How can one legitimately truthfully and principally protest an action that one does not agree with without being called an appeaser, a traitor, or a comforter of the enemy? How can one legitimately do that?
- On the February 18, 2003, edition of On the Record, Fox News contributor Bill Kristol stated:
KRISTOL: On the other hand, I thought Tony Blair, who had hundreds of thousands of protesters in his own country, had by far the most impressive response when he gave a speech Saturday and said to the protesters, look, where were you when Saddam was killing and torturing tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, leaving more hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to their deaths in wars that he started, wars of aggression that he started. Where were all of the protesters then?
- On the February 20, 2003, edition of Hannity & Colmes, Hannity said of Saddam Hussein:
HANNITY: He's emboldened by what he sees at the Council and what he sees in the streets of New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco and in Europe. Does that mean the anti-war movement is giving him aid and comfort?
- On the August 26, 2005, edition of Special Report, Barnes stated of anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan:
BARNES: Look, she is entirely the creation of the American mainstream press, entirely. She has no moral standing. She has no political standing. The press has created her. And why have they created her? It's August. They hate Bush. And they've used her as a mascot to get at Bush. It's as simple as that.
- On the September 27, 2005, edition of Fox News' DaySide, co-host Mike Jerrick asked Gold Star Mothers for Peace founding member Celeste Zappala:
JERRICK: Celeste, let me just jump in quickly here --
ZAPPALA: Sure.
JERRICK: -- because we've had so many people respond to us at DaySide with their emails and phone calls saying that don't you feel like the people who are protesting this war, especially the people we saw down there in D.C. over the weekend, are just giving the terrorists in Iraq and the insurgents in Iraq more hope -- [applause] -- that possibly we're losing will in the United States to continue to battle?
- On the September 27, 2005, edition of The Big Story, Gibson stated of Sheehan:
GIBSON: You know what all this proved to me? Despite her protest, it wasn't about the war anymore. It isn't about the loss of American lives. It isn't about the question of whether the war was something America need to do or something a politician wanted to do. This was about Cindy.
You know what? I'm interested in the war and the war debate, but I'm not interested in Cindy.
- On the September 26, 2005, edition of Hannity & Colmes, Hannity stated:
HANNITY: But today in Washington, anti-war mom Cindy Sheehan is back, and she was arrested following a weekend of rallies and protests on the Mall and in front of the White House. Here are some of the sights and sounds from the radical left wing weekend.
- On the July 27, 2006, edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly said of Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin's vocal protest during Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki's July 26, 2006, address to Congress:
O'REILLY: OK. Can we send her to Guantánamo, is that possible? I guess not.
MAJOR GARRETT (Fox News correspondent): I'll leave that up to you, Bill.
O'REILLY: All right. Well, if it's up to me, she's -- come on, Major! You don't give her that. Don't give her the Factor tribunal. She'll be swimming with the fishes. Just kidding, of course.
2006 immigrants' rights demonstrations
- On the March 30, 2006, edition of The O'Reilly Factor, Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin said of the protesters:
MALKIN: It was the far left, the open-borders activists, who were the ones who are the extremists, who were the ones advocating militant ethnic separatism. This is our stolen land. Chicano power. You had folks with Aztlan T-shirts mugging for the cameras in front of city hall. These are people who believe that the American southwest belongs to Mexico, that we don't have a right to enforce our borders, and who do nothing more than try to sabotage our sovereignty.
[...]
O'REILLY: But what did the Mexican flag say to you, Michelle?
MALKIN: Well, first of all, do not buy Dr. Hinojosa's spin. He sounds very reasonable. He sounds very benign, but the kind of quote-unquote "pride" that a lot of these illegal alien activists are touting now goes much further than just being proud about one's heritage and one's roots. The idea, the intellectual underpinnings of reconquista are embraced by the vast majority of mainstream Hispanic politicians, as well as the international --
O'REILLY: How do you know that, Michelle? How do you know that?
MALKIN: Because I've read -- because I've read the history.
- On the March 29, 2006, edition of The Big Story, syndicated columnist Bob Novak stated:
NOVAK: Where did all these flags come from? Do the young Latinos keep the Mexican flags in their homes?
[...]
NOVAK: I am no hard-liner on immigration who wants to expel 11 million illegal immigrants, but flags are a symbol of national identity. The student brandishing the Mexican flag signals divided loyalty or perhaps loyalty to a foreign power.
- On the March 29, 2006, edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Fox News contributor Juan Williams stated:
WILLIAMS: These kids don't know anything. ... [A] lot of these are poor kids, struggling along in those schools and struggling to gain some sense of identity, so they're going to wave the Mexican flag because they feel somehow they are fighting for Mexicans living in the United States. And they're even going to get into crazy arguments about whether California should truly belong to the Mexico or the United States -- all kinds of stupidity.
But those are kids, Bill. I mean, kids who are -- I mean, they use kids during the civil rights era as demonstrators. The kids know nothing, but at their heart, they feel like they're giving a voice to what their uncles, their aunties, you know, some people who are illegal in this country who may never have a voice against the Minutemen and the far right wing that wants to throw everybody out.
- On the March 29, 2006, edition of Hannity & Colmes, Hannity stated:
HANNITY: No, no, I think [former President Ronald] Reagan made a mistake, one of the mistakes, because he's my favorite president. But, look, I'm saying, at this point, if we allow people to stay that came here illegally and jumped in front of the line, then we're telling other people to do the same.
Here's what I don't like. I didn't like a lot of these signs. "This is you -- this is stolen land, America." "This is our continent, not yours." If you disagree with the idea of amnesty, you're a racist or anti-immigrant. People holding the Mexican flag up. It seemed to be, in many, many ways, outrages, some of the things that were said and done.
- On the April 2, 2006, edition of Fox News Sunday, Fox News host Brit Hume stated:
HUME: Especially, Chris, because reasonable Americans are probably having a difficult time finding anybody to root for in this debate. On the one hand, you have, you know, tens of thousands of people demonstrating, waving foreign flags, on behalf of illegal immigration and against the idea that America should enforce its own laws. What a repellent spectacle.
- On the March 31, 2006, edition of Your World, guest host David Asman stated:
ASMAN: Now, we -- we do -- we're just looking at pictures of San Diego. There is a demonstration going on right now.
At first, we began to see reaction to last weekend's demos, where they all waved Mexican flags. You saw more American flags. Now, we're getting back to the all-Mexican-flag thing. There seems to be an antagonistic edge to these protestors that is just making matters worse. Do you see it that way?
- On the April 10, 2006, edition of Your World, Asman stated:
ASMAN: But, of course, you know, people in the States listen to the protests and listen to the Spanish going on behind you and think that's -- maybe this is just a cover, maybe they're just trying to cover up the real intention, which is to keep things as normal among illegal immigrants in the country.
Asman also had the following exchange with movie director Ronald F. Maxwell:
MAXWELL: It's been the fastest migration in the history of the world. Twenty-five illegal people (sic) -- remember the ones who are already amnestied -- 25 illegal people -- 25 million since 1990. You can't find this in the history of the planet. The result is the Southwest will fall away. At some point, ethnically, demographically, those people will say, "This belongs to Mexico. We're the northern province of Mexico." They're already saying it.
ASMAN: You think we're going -- you think we're going to lose states as a result of this?
MAXWELL. I think that 20, 30 years from now, we will be looking back at this period. This will be the watershed. And we have to decide now -- this -- I don't -- this is not immigration. This is an invasion. This is a future annexation, a satellite state north of the Rio Grande. We have to decide --
ASMAN: But Ron, let me just ask you, are they going to secede from the Union, these states in the Southwest?
MAXWELL: Well, the mere fact that we're talking about this, why should we have this as a possibility? Why are we creating the conditions where 15 and 20 years from now, who knows what'll happen? Do we want a separatist movement like what's going on in Canada with Quebec or a separatist movement like the Basques?
ASMAN: Ron, I've got to ask you -- I've got to ask you -- we only have about 20 seconds. What do your Hollywood friends think about your views?
- On the April 10, 2006, edition of Your World, Asman stated:
ASMAN: Should they be American citizens or convicted felons? Across the country, illegal immigrants are protesting to stay in this country. We are live in the nation's capital, where demonstrators are gathering right now at the National Mall, on the streets of New York City as well, and also in Phoenix, where protestors are flying American flags today.
With so many illegals hitting the streets, is this the perfect time to round up these lawbreakers and ship them out? We're gonna debate it.
- On the May 1, 2006, edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor, O'Reilly stated:
O'REILLY: And then there's the hardcore militant agenda of "You stole our land, you bad gringos." This is the organizers of these demonstrations: "The border -- we didn't cross the border, the border crossed us." That is their slogan. That you stole our land, and now, we're going to take it back by massive, massive migration into the Southwest. And we're going to control those places, because you stole it from us, and that's the agenda underneath.
Other demonstrations in support of progressive positions
- On the March 17, 2006, edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly stated:
O'REILLY: In the "impact" segment tonight, once again this year, a gay person, New York City Councilwoman Christine Quinn, wanted to march in the St. Patrick's Day parade under a banner proclaiming her sexuality. And once again, she was denied, because the parade honors a saint and the Irish heritage and has nothing to do with anybody's sexuality. Such a display is deemed to be inappropriate.
The question: Why doesn't Ms. Quinn and others who support her wise up? Why don't they understand that?
[...]
O'REILLY: Well, they can come out on the Gay Day Parade or the Halloween parade. They have plenty of opportunities to do that. This is a saint. Don't you feel that that is inappropriate?
GLASS: Well, when you put it that way, I can see your point of view.
O'REILLY: Well, I'm glad you can, because I'm getting nervous. If you -- if Christine Quinn, who's Irish, and I like Christine Quinn, if she goes to a baptism, doctor, if one of her nieces or nephews are baptized, a baby, you don't walk into the church in the baptism with "I'm queer" on your shirt. It's inappropriate. It's a sacrament.
[...]
O'REILLY: Right. Look, if Christine Quinn wants to go to a party after the parade and celebrate her gayness, her Irish gayness, whatever gayness she's happy about --
GLASS: Right, right.
O'REILLY: I don't have a problem with that. OK?
GLASS: Right.
O'REILLY: And there are plenty of opportunities for her to do that. But in the context of what the parade is, you don't see heterosexuals going out there proclaiming what they do in private. It doesn't happen. So what I'm trying to sell everybody, including you, is that the more this stuff happens, the worse it is for people who are proud to be homosexual.
[...]
O'REILLY: Right. But I don't want these people intruding on a parade where little children are standing there, watching. And then they have to go mommy, "What does that mean?" OK? You have your holiday. You have your Gay Day parade. You have your Stonewall celebration. You have your Halloween deal, OK? You don't need this. Now you understand my point.
GLASS: Yes.
O'REILLY: I think 95 percent of the people watching me understand my point, but there are five who don't or won't. Is that a neurosis?
- On the March 17, 2006, edition of his radio show, O'Reilly stated:
OK, so you're not going to do that. And good. That's the right thing to do. Context is everything. You know, I mean -- and then the parade leaders say, what are we next to have Irish prostitutes marching under their banner? You know, Irish hookers, here we are. Hey, ladies and gentlemen, after the Marist College marching band, we have the Irish prostitute contingent from Nevada. There they are, Tessie O'Shea and the girls. Making good money out there in the money ranch.
You know, come on, it's ridiculous. Nobody's barring anybody from marching in the St. Patrick's Day parade, but what does your sexuality have to do with St. Patrick? Believe me, he doesn't want to hear about it.
- On the May 19, 2006, edition of The Big Story, Gibson stated:
GIBSON: It's Friday, and we are instituting a new service here on The Big Story. We are looking for the person or persons deserving special attention as our "Nitwit of the Week."
Monday, Boston College will have its commencement, and graduates will gather to hear an address from Dr. Condoleezza Rice, the United States secretary of state. She is arguably the highest-ranking African-American woman in the three centuries or so that African-American women have been present here. She is the secretary of state of the most powerful nation on earth. She is discussed regularly as a candidate to be president of the United States.
Yet, 200 or so students at Boston College, along with some professors, will be protesting her presence at the college, protesting especially the school conferring upon her an honorary degree. Why? The students say they object to her presence because she doesn't represent their values. An adjunct professor and part-time novelist named Steve Almond actually quit over her appearance, saying in his resignation letter that he and others object to her because she is a liar. As far as the professor goes, I spoke to him on my radio show until he hung up on me, and the college should consider his resignation good riddance.
When it comes to the students, we have to consider some facts. These are students whose parents have paid upwards of $1,000 a week for them to be in school. They have lived protected and sheltered lives. They didn't suffer an attack on 9-11. They haven't fought the wars that followed. They have virtually no experience in life except for what happened before they left home and what happened when the college professors got hold of them.
Condoleezza Rice helped free more women in Afghanistan and Iraq than anybody has ever freed in the history of man. She is playing a major role in a solution to the war in Darfur. Condi Rice doesn't represent their values. I should say not, since their values seem to be intolerance, closed-mindedness, and the cocksuredness of youth that allows a college student to pass high-minded judgment on a secretary of state.
- On the March 2 edition of his Fox News show, Hannity stated:
HANNITY: All right, take a look at the protesters carrying forth the legacy of Gandhi and Martin Luther King -- shivering in the snow as they protest the Earth's rising temperature as a foot of snow falls. Now, maybe it's just a coincidence that nearly every global warming protest occurs on the exact same day that we have a major snowstorm, or maybe the big guy up there is trying to send a message to these people. We report; we'll let you decide.
- On the March 2 edition of Special Report, Hume stated:
HUME: Well, you have to give those global warming activists credit for pluck. Not only were they were protesting warming temperatures in a city going through its coldest winter in recent memories -- a city in the midst of a snow emergency and sub-freezing temperatures -- they were also doing so on a planet that has seen no average warming for the past 10 years. But climate change alarmists are not easily fazed.
Hannity saw anti-semitism among the peace demonstrators yet held his tongue when Fox showed the teabagger with the sign that read "American Taxpayers are the Jews for Obama's Ovens"
"We were there for the Million Man March, even though as I pointed out, it turned out to be well shy of a million men.
The Million Man March was a mass political demonstration held in Washington, D.C on October 16, 1995.
Wikipedia
The channel was launched on October 7, 1996 to 17 million cable subscribers.
Wikipedia
So, where's their time machine?
J/P=?
Oh Worrier, you're so cynical...
Just today, Rupert held a press conference and said he was sponsoring "cement parties" which would protest the abysmal state of our nation's infrastructure. The cement parties call for an increase in taxes to bolster our nation's infrastructure and strengthen the middle class. In a video to highlight this grassroots movement, uncle Rupert lays himself in the middle of the road and offers to be run over by a cement truck if taxes are not raised. Pretty heady stuff for this maverick!!
All the big Fox names will be attending rallies around the nation. This is a case where I don't understand the liberal media? Murdoch is obviously reaching out, being fair and balanced. The liberal media is just not willing to cover this "cement party" because they hate America, and they hate Roopert.
Mr Rupert bswt be careful with cement parties for this nation has a history of cement parties, specially those held near Chicago and new York. Not fun for some party goers. Rupert, being from a foreign land, may not be completely versed on american history and quait customs.
I need a spell checker on my keyboard. swt should read best and quait should read quaint.
And the Foxnews personality will be working booths clalled" throwing American infrastructure around ". .And for 10 buck you be allowed to throw piece of unsafe bridged. At One of the Fox News host( Beck and Sanity's will headliners at this event) ..Thses pieces cement were at one time part of local bridge and where collected by uncle Rupert personal staff . All proceed collected at throw a chunk of American infrastructure , Will go to repair the bridged that piece was found by.
.There will be .No throwng steel or any other sharp metal objects .We at fox news hope to see ou there .
These were not anti tax protests, they were "WE'RE SORE LOSERS AND HATE OBAMA" rallies.
Nothing more and nothing less. Bigoted, racist, losers.
just imagine the parties had Mrs Clinton become president. Their hate for democrats is obvious, completely missing what makes this society so great.
Fox, thy name is hypocrisy.
Off topic. The parade situation bothered me. (Fox's anti-protestor stance with regard to the parade is a good example of Media Matters' point in this article as to Fox's double standard on protests. The following is not related to the article except insofar as it brought to mind for me this subject.)
I wonder how would I have thought to advocate for gay rights if asked for my advice. One thing I wouldn't have thought of would have been to anger a significant percentage of a large religious and ethnic group.
To take it out of the emotionally charged conflict for a moment, let's say hypothetically that in this country there was a huge Demilitarization Parade (which the Amish also hypothetically took as there identity parade) every year as big as St. Patrick's and that the NRA wanted in on it. My advice to the gun rights people would be, "Stay out of this fight. They probably aren't on average the biggest fans of the NRA's positions, but on the other hand a fair number of them probably do agree with you on individual gun ownership rights, perhaps quietly. Further, among those who are definitely not with you, the big majority--right now--rank many other things way ahead of individual gun ownership restrictions in their voting patterns. Why make enemies unnecessarily? Let them have their day, their way. Don't embarrass them."
I wonder what was the gay rights organizers' interest in marching actually about. I wonder did they not hinder the cause of gay rights. I wonder was this not obviously going to be the effect.
Was there some other agenda that they were pursuing either for their own psychological satisfaction or perhaps to satisfy another element(s) they may be aligned with? Did they primarily want to help themselves or did they want more so to hurt the parades' subject religion and ethnic group. Perhaps by embarrassing us they made points with other group(s) which wouldn't have helped them otherwise, or to a lesser extent. If that was in fact the scenario, then tactically I suppose it made sense, otherwise it didn't IMO.
Well, I don't mean to nit-pick here, but what does MMFA expect? They were the lapdogs for Bush, now they are the attack dogs. They are no longer the voice of the White House. They are the voice of the dissenters/angry racist uneducated mob.
I personally believe that dissent, no matter who is in office, is patriotic. I mean, even if the stuff they say is racist and inflammatory, I think we as Democrats/liberals need to make sure we don't find ourselves copying the same tactics that conservatives/Republicans used when we dissented. I know it feels good to be back in power. But if we can show the electorate that we don't do ad hominem attacks (like McCain in 2008) or question people's patriotism (unless they are sympathizing with the Somali pirates like Rush Limbaugh) then it would make us look better in elections.
I do think it is necessary though to point out the right's hypocrisy. Although rather than say "Why do you hate America?" we can say, "Whenever we did that you always asked us 'Why do you hate America?' and questioned our patriotism" etc etc. It will make them look like idiots.
The right just doesn't understand that we ALSO protested because we didn't want Bush and co to DESTROY OUR GREAT COUNTRY (which is what they almost did) just as the tea baggers think Obama is doing (even after less than 3 months in office). Sorry, did I say "think"? I meant...hallucinate.
I think the most polite thing to do when speaking to the GOP is to remind them that tyranny is the not the same as losing. (from the great Jon Stewart)
Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it. - Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural Address. March 4, 1801
What would MMFA have had to cover this week without the tea parties? Probably there would have been a substantial staff reduction. Thanks to Fox for keeping MMFA's part of the economy "stimulated"!!!!
No. The right-wing would have focused on something else if they didn't have these idiotic teabagging get-togethers to latch onto.
Oscar,
I myself wondered the same thing. Why is the left so up in arms about this that mouthpieces like MMFA have to on ad absurdem?
I also take note again how people on the left disparage anyone who doesn't agree with them. Especially the continued reference homosexual references.
You'd think, by their continual proclomations for being tolerant of diversity, that those on the left would actually be tolerant. But that is shown time and again her that is not the case. It seems to me the left's true colors of bigotry and hate show when so many easily resort to using derogatory gay sex terms to insult the people of good will who attended the recent tea parties.
Of course the left disagreeing with those on the right is fair game, However sinking to this low level of insults to describe ideological opponents in degrading sexual innuendo shows the hypocricy and juvenile nature of so many on the left.
AnotherAmerican,
Although you're likely not aware of my history here as it's a tiny fraction of your own, I have read a number of your many comments and I know you take some abuse here. For what it's worth I think you play it very well. You're a good politician. I disagree with you on the substance of almost every comment I've read of yours, but I like your style alot.
But you did say something here with at least a grain of truth in it (IMO): "...the left's true colors of bigotry and hate ..."
What I think happens is people feel they have immunity from being bigoted towards some groups as long as they have the chits of being against some other bigotry. The anti-bigotry cancels out and heals their own bigotry in their minds. Similar to the businessman who unethically makes a lot of money but also gives a lot to charities to compensate.
>>What I think happens is people feel they have immunity from being bigoted towards some groups as long as they have the chits of being against some other bigotry.
You are using bigotry in the wrong way. Some liberal dimwits (Olberman, Shuster), decided they couldn't resist an obvious joke at the teabaggers expense. A good journalist would have used his time to actually explore some of the stupidity behind the protests, rather than sound like a 7th grader. But we liberals never get good reporters.
funnymanpants,
I perhaps should have been more explicit. I was speaking about bigotry generally, not about the sexual slurs Anotheramerican was complaining of. That's why I first so tightly cropped the AA quote I then responded to ["...the left's true colors of bigotry and hate ..."].
You're correct though, about the use of 'bigotry' not being the appropriate word for the insults made by the left in this case.
>>Of course the left disagreeing with those on the right is fair game, However sinking to this low level of insults to describe ideological opponents in degrading sexual innuendo shows the hypocricy and juvenile nature of so many on the left.
While I agree with that sentiment, it has nothing to do with the item by MMFA, does it? The item posted by MMFA points out the hypocrisy behind the label "fair and balanced."
"using derogatory gay sex terms to insult the people of good will who attended the recent tea parties."
The right also has itself to blame.
To set the record straight, the literal tea bag symbolism was not introduced by the left. If you're foolish enough to use tea bags to symbolize what you believe to be a very serious political cause, be prepared for the viral repercussions.
"People of good will" used the term themselves.
"People of good will" organized efforts to mail tea bags to members of Congress...
"Tea Bag the Fools in D.C."
"Send a Tea Bag to Washington!"
"Send a Tea Bag to Washington FREE SHIPPING"
As I said more than once. I dont care about the protest. I am glad to see protests even when I disagree with their focus. It IS direct democracy in action and that just isnt a bad thing. The point you seemed to have missed AGAIN is that it is a massive breach of journalistic ethics to PROMOTE and ADVOCATE protests. I would have said the same for the anti war protests I attended and even spoke at. They should be reporting news and not trying to leverage THEIR AGENDA. This is actually a simple concept and your comittment to NOT see it is just sad.
Well said Solon.
Welcome back. Hey man I was worried when you vanished, I thought you were a goner. As in pushing up daises :-O
Any idea how someone hijacked your moniker a few months ago?
Good to see the REAL Solon back :-)
Thanks Jeter. No idea HOW I did read some of his posts as I came here semi regularly to read but I am the REAL solon accept no substitutes. Not that anyone reading his comments would have thought he was me.
It really is great that you're back! Looking forward to reading your posts.
there is plenty of material out there. it is possible the tea parties were a diversion from the presidential trips, which incidentally, in my opinion of course, were very successfull.
"What would MMFA have had to cover this week without the tea parties?"
That's the dumbest question I've seen asked here in quite a while, and there have been a lot.
If there was no teabagging, there would have been a 24/7 conservative hissy fit over the DHS report on right-wing extremists, instead of dividing their time between the two. In the absence of both of these conservative chorus tunes, the covering of Jesus' name during Obama's speech at Georgetown would have been the Obama Outrage of the Week.
"What would MMFA have had to cover this week without the tea parties?" - oscar the grouch
Better question: What would the Fox Comedy Channel have had to cover this week without the teabagging parties they THEMSELVES promoted?
Oh, I dunno . . . actual NEWS, perchance?
.
My issue with FoxNews trying to claim that they cover all protests is their lack of criticism of any in the crowds on April 15th.
They criticized all the other protestors from previous protest marches. From the ones that were extreme and to false criticism and baseless caricatures of those who weren't extreme but were on the other side of the philosophical fence from Fox.
I didn't hear a word of criticism of the extreme on the right at the tea parties from FoxNews. I listened for it. It was not present in any of their coverage.
That's the biggest red flag. I wish that MMfA had highlighted that shortcoming more.
They were too busy screaming that the DHC report was calling all "conservatives" radical terrorists.
Cavuto went on to claim, "We were there for the Million Man March, even though as I pointed out, it turned out to be well shy of a million men.
And, as KO pointed out the other night, the Million Man March took place a year before Fixed News went on the air. Okay, on cable.
You know you're in trouble when Colmes sounds like the sage of the bunch.
The guy talking about Lincoln and the one calling Obama a fascist who also had the "oven" sing and the Hitler-Obama poste, both guys were on Mark Levin'sshow the next day. The Lincoln guy said he has been a NewsBusters regular for years and "honed" his arguments for battles againt liberals. Really, it was nothing more than a right wing pep rally to finally feel good about themselves for the first time in years probably. Kuum By-F-ing Ahh!!
I wonder if ANY one of the MMFA writers or any one of the posters on ANY of these tax rally threads actually WENT to one of these events to observe EXACTLY what went on? Yet they write with such certainty and confidence about what happened and who was there.
In the new lingo:"Tea-Party Fail" Where is the groundswell, outrage, liberal reporting? Dud! Talk about milking a rock. The righ-wing and Fox News are digging a hole in the middle of an ocean, with tweezers. Keep it up! Go ahead, more power to you. Be my guest, have fun. I am laughing at you! Unfortunately, they will continue. There are far more pressing and newsworthy issues, to address. I like it, freedom of the press. They can say anything they want and I support them. I comment and tune them out, for better news. What a way to vent.
Fox News was the only news forum (besides Fox Business) to cover the tea party events fair & balance. What you guys are missing from this protest that it wasn't just about taxes (which will be going up, way up, in 2011), but it was also directed toward all the spending, bailouts, pork projects & earmarks that congress is so hyped on getting passed (which started in 2006 while Bush was President). This wasn't just a republican protest, but there were also democrats, independents, and liberterians there. The only thing the mainstream media is doing is cutting their foot off. Who can seriously take the mainstream media serious after the choice "tea-bagg*#g comment? Not me. I want honest & fair journalism... Not journalism full of opinion and are so in the tank for this current administration.
You folks at media matters must love attacking fox news. You have obama shaking hands with someone who called him ignoramus, yet you insist on talking about how fox is terrible. Last time I checked their ratings were so high no one was even remotely close.
If you must insist on trying to put fox down, I have a idea. How about have someone from media matters go to fox and debate them on the issues and share your content you so happily display here.
*sigh* Why do wingnuts continue to insist that ratings = content?
And funny thing: I've never heard Chavez calling Obama an "ignoramus" - though, if true, I guess that would be better than calling him "the Devil" . . .
.
i think the best example of protest attacking by fox news is oreilly's bigotry against gay pride parades... he just simply cant stand people of the same sex kissing or holding hands. i assume hes just so much of a homophone and he cant handle it, but he uses the excuse of little kids standing around watching and that they would be disturbed by seeing such a thing. give me a break.
Not that MM would ever post any of my messages - me being a conservative puke and all - but did any of you liberal loonies happen to notice any difference how the tea baggers conducted their protests vs. how typical lefties protest? Example: tea baggers pick up their trash after they are done. Left loonies leave cars turned over and fires burning. My six-year-old grandson can tell the difference. Tea baggers kept their clothes on. Loonies strip done to the "bare" essentials (if we're lucky they keep some clothes on).
Hypocrisy literally oozes from the pores of leftists; and they will never, ever, acknowledge it because of their blind hatred of a man who won the 2000 election fair and square and saved their and their families life’s in spite of you lefties fighting him at every junction. And how convenient you leftists always "forget" every major democrat also agreed Saddam had WMD and signed on to the war in Iraq. Your revisionist history is why your credibility has sunk to new lows and why your drive by media friends (NYT, Boston Globe, CNN, NBC, LAT, ad nuasum) are all in serious financial trouble - many close to BK) will soon be past tense. heh heh heh.......
PS: let me know if you need my 6-yr. old grandson to help you comprehend what you read. You're welcome.......
tea baggers pick up their trash after they are done
They also tossed some of it over the White House fence, causing a minor security situation.
Change left to right, liberal to conservative, and then you'd have a truthful post.
Example: tea baggers pick up their trash after they are done. Left loonies leave cars turned over and fires burning. Good job with the generalities there. Since you have decided to play that game, allow me to contribute. It can be said that bitter angry losers - on the right, of course - who listen to hate radio speech shoot 'libruls', shoot police officers, and bomb federal buildings. So how does that grab ya?
My six-year-old grandson can tell the difference. Oh, I'm sure. Tea baggers kept their clothes on. Thank god for small favors. Loonies strip done to the "bare" essentials (if we're lucky they keep some clothes on). What, during the Sixties?
Hypocrisy literally oozes from the pores of leftists; Oh please, there is PLENTY of hypocrisy from your side and they will never, ever, acknowledge it because of their blind hatred of a man who won the 2000 election fair and square and saved their and their families life’s in spite of you lefties fighting him at every junction. Uh, my life was never in danger during W's term from ANYONE, certainly not Iraq, so W didn't 'save' me or my family. And how convenient you leftists always "forget" every major democrat also agreed Saddam had WMD and signed on to the war in Iraq. Nice try at a strawman there, but we 'libs' know that not every Dem is 'perfect' and that mistakes are made. Your revisionist history is why your credibility has sunk to new lows Oh really? Better check the returns from last November and why your drive by media friends (NYT, Boston Globe, CNN, NBC, LAT, ad nuasum) are all in serious financial trouble - many close to BK) will soon be past tense. heh heh heh....... Well, you just gave it away that you are a dittohead and your pathetic attempt to connect the decline of the traditional MSM and some 'resurgence' on the part of the Right is... well, pathetic and devoid of any real understanding. Of course, you take your cues from Rush so at least I understand how your mind operates.
PS: let me know if you need my 6-yr. old grandson to help you comprehend what you read. You're welcome....... Of course, you just have to end with a 'shot' at the community which makes me wonder why anyone should care what you think in the first place...
Well said Retiredinsf... Couldn't have said it better myself. Just look at Janeane Garofalo and what she said on Pewkerman (MSMObama)... The people at the tea parties are all Racist because we have a black president. But back in 2003, she was on the other end stating that the protestors (her included) against Bush and the war were desendent and had every right to protest against the war in Iraq. Double standard? I should say so! Liberals don't know how to protest in a decent manner and if they would just open their ears for a moment, they would know what we, the people, are really protesting about. But if they need to know again, we are protesting that Congress & the WH are not listening to us about what they are doing. The last time I read the Constitution, Congress & the WH works for us; not us working for them!
But now there is something bigger brewing... they are wanting to control the CO2 in the air. Watch our American... government is preparing to tax us for breathing!