Following criticism of being an "arm" of the GOP, Fox News aired no live coverage of Oct. 17 media "malpractice" tea party
Following White House communications director Anita Dunn's recent critique of Fox News serving as an "arm" of the Republican Party, Fox News did not devote any live coverage to what it had previously referred to as the October 17 "tea part[y]" protests by Operation: Can You Hear Us Now?, an organization that planned "to show the MSM [mainstream media] that we as the American Public are absolutely fed up with their journalistic malpractice." By contrast, Fox News devoted significant promotion and live coverage of the April 15 tax day tea party and the September 12 "March on Washington."
On October 17, Fox News aired no live coverage of media protests
Operation: Can You Hear Us Now? organized October 17 protests against "journalistic malpractice." According to the Frequently Asked Questions page of the Operation: Can You Hear Us Now? website, the protests were a "nationwide event meant to show the MSM that we as the American Public are absolutely fed up with their journalistic malpractice."
Fox News did not cover "Tea Parties Marching on Media Outlets" live on October 17. According to a Media Matters for America review of Fox News' programming on October 17, the network did not report live on the media protests that day. While Fox News devoted no on-air coverage to the protests that day, FoxNews.com ran an October 17 article headlined, "Tea Partiers Take Aim at Major Media Outlets." The article stated that the "[t]he 'tea party' movement is back" and reported that "[t]he 'Can You Hear Us Now' rallies are planned for Saturday in front of NBC studios in Burbank, CNN in Atlanta and affiliate stations of NBC, ABC and CBS across the nation."
Fox News had previously promoted October 17 "tea parties" protesting "journalistic malpractice"
Fox News website the Fox Nation had promoted October 17 "[t]ea parties marching on media outlets." Linking to the website OperationCanYouHearUsNow.com, a post on the Fox Nation stated:
October 17 non-coverage follows criticism of Fox News
WH's Dunn: Fox News is "opinion journalism masquerading as news." An October 8 Time magazine profile quoted Dunn labeling Fox News as "opinion journalism masquerading as news."
Dunn: "Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party." On the October 11 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources, Dunn said that "I think what is fair to say about Fox and certainly the way we view it is that it really is more a wing of the Republican Party." Dunn also criticized Fox News' "story selection."
Media Matters president Burns: Fox News "a 24/7 political operation" geared to destroy Obama presidency, progressive agenda. On the October 12 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Media Matters president Eric Burns criticized Fox News as "a 24/7 political operation with a very specific goal. And that is to destroy this presidency, and destroy any sort of progressive policy agenda that the American people voted for in November."
By contrast, Fox News heavily promoted and live-covered 9-12 protests
Beck's 9-12 Project helped organize protests, which Fox News covered live. Fox News host Glenn Beck founded the 9-12 Project, which describes itself as "a place for you and other like-minded Americans looking for direction in taking back the control of our country." Beck's 9-12 website worked with others organizing the September 12 "March on Washington." Beck himself participated in the protest by broadcasting live from 1 to 3 p.m. ET on Fox News. Fox News also dispatched contributor Tucker Carlson and reporter and "tea party groupie" Griff Jenkins to the protests:
Beck: "On 9-12, I hope to see you in Washington. I will make sure you're seen all over the country." On August 28, Beck described the 9-12 Project's "March on Washington" as something "worth standing up for" and told viewers, "I hope to see you in Washington. I will make sure you're seen all over the country."
9-12 march website: Beck "really helping our numbers grow!" A post on the 9-12 march website 912dc.org states, "The recent coverage by Glenn Beck is really helping our numbers grow!" The website frequently mentions Beck's promotion of the march and excerpted a September 8 USA Today article reporting that the march has been "[e]ncouraged by conservative commentators such as Fox's Glenn Beck."
Fox relentlessly promoted Tea Party Express. Fox News heavily promoted the Tea Party Express tour -- the final stop of which was the 9-12 protest -- on Fox News, Fox Business, the Fox Nation, and FoxNews.com. The network frequently provided viewers the dates and locations of upcoming stops. For instance, on the August 23 edition of Fox News' America's News HQ, anchor Shannon Bream said, "We want to let folks know" the tour schedule so "they can be a part" of events. The Tea Party Express was organized by a political action committee -- formed by Republican operatives -- whose mission is to oppose President Obama and other Democrats.
Protesters said they were viewers of Beck and Fox News. In a September 15 video titled, "Brought To You By Fox," Media Matters for America documented numerous 9-12 protesters crediting Beck and Fox News with providing "fair and balanced" coverage.
Fox News also heavily promoted, live-covered, and took ownership of April 15 tea parties
Network was chief promoter of April 15 "FNC Tax Day Tea Parties." In the lead-up to the April 15 tea parties, which the channel repeatedly described as "FNC Tax Day Tea Parties," Fox News frequently aired segments publicizing and encouraging viewers to get involved with the protests. Fox News itself described the protests primarily as a response to the Obama administration and its policies. A Media Matters study found that from April 6 to 13, Fox News featured at least 20 segments on the "tea party" protests, and a subsequent Media Matters study found that from April 6 to 15, Fox News aired at least 107 commercial promotions for its coverage of the April 15 tea parties.
FNC broadcasted live from protests on April 15. On April 15, Fox News hosts Beck, Neil Cavuto, Sean Hannity, and Greta Van Susteren each provided live coverage from the sites of separate tea parties. Fox News also dispatched reporters and other hosts to the April 15 protests.
"I saw it on Fox": Fox's advocacy turns out crowds to protests. After the April 15 tea parties, dozens of local and national media outlets noted that Fox News was a driving force behind the tea parties. Numerous reports quoted participants saying they were driven to the protests by Fox. CNN and Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz remarked, "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."
The only question is whether FOX's brethren in the Corporate Mainstream Media will admit the truth and chastise the liars at FOX accordingly.... or will they continue to commit Journalistic malpractice and pretend that there's nothing to see here?
The media bias goes beyond the partisan howls of "conservative media" or "liberal media"...the bias by media outlets is rampant on both sides. I watch or listen to little news on Tv or radio...because of my distrust of their factual reporting and biased motives.
I come to this site because issues are generally well-sourced...even with the stated liberal motives. I balance that with trips to Newsbusters and their conservative motives.
The travesty, in my mind, is not being able to trust most of the media reporting as factual...having to expand clipped quotes and soundbites to get the real story.
Would that be that no representative in Congress read the stimilus bill before voting on it? Hmmm were was the alphabet news for that one? Oh yeah, that's right "We had to do something", so just ignore the fact no one knew what the true cost or even the benefit would be.
Or would that be the one when the whitehouse mis-represented the budget/deficit? Their so-called estimate is based on their figures that assume a 3% increase in GDP in 2010. Seriously? Does anyone actually think our economy is going to grow 3% in 2010? My 9 year old knew that was BS!
The problem is that the very premises upon which your approach is based are rooted in conservative presuppositions. For example, in your comment above there appears to be the latent assumption that if Fox News hosts conservative commentators and is considered to have a "conservative bias", MSNBC must necessarily have a liberal bias for hosting mostly liberal commentators. These assumptions, to your mind, are representative of a balanced approach. The problem is that no real equivalency exists - outside of its liberal commentators, little-to-no evidence exists that the rest of MSNBC's programming has a "liberal slant." Plenty of evidence, on the other hand, exists to show that all of Fox's coverage slants to the right in one form or another. False equivalency does not make for balance in considering sources.
This signifies a larger assumption. As a conservative, you want to assume the best intentions on behalf of other conservatives. I did that too and it's natural. In taking that approach, you have to assume that what Fox presents is slightly biased in favor of a viewpoint but not egregiously or maliciously so. In taking this standpoint, you cannot help but notice that Fox's presentation of the world vastly differs from CNN, MSNBC, or the majority of mainstream sources. Being "reasonable", you have to assume that the truth somehow lays between what right-wing sources like Fox says and what the rest of the media says. Inherent in taking that position is an implicit assumption that other media MUST be slanted to the left. Finding a happy median between the two appears to be the reasonable "moderate" course of action.
The problem, however, is that the mainstream, by definition, must represent the center. You don't obtain the status of being "mainstream" unless you present a position that is reflective of the majority of people, and in order to do that you generally have to be objective in your approach. That which is mainstream is the point of reference against which we gauge whether a particular view is "to the left" or "to the right." In assuming the mainstream to be oriented towards the left and trying to balance it against the right, whatever conclusion you come to will automatically have a right-wing slant no matter how moderate or reasonable you try to be.
Look at it this way. Let's say we had a major "news" organization that spread bona-fide "Let's overthrow the government and implement a Worker's State" Communist propaganda. This network, along with the movement it represents, spreads the message that mainstream media is heavily slanted to the right. Now, wanting to be reasonable, I might decide that there is merit to this and thus figure that the truth somehow lies between what both sides are saying. Does this make me a moderate? Or does it, rather, imbue my views with a left-wing bias which prevents me from truly being objective?
I apologize for the length of this; I just wanted to throw it out there.
I thought that was very smart and well thought out.
Earth to lemmings: there is no such thing as an objective media. In order to have an objective media you would have to employ automatons to decide what is newsworthy and then present it without bias as well. There has never been such a thing as an unbiased media in human history because the people presenting, editting and gathering the news are all biased people with their own ignorances, predispositions and beliefs.
Even if you could objectively define the word "centrist,"and the media met that definiton, would it mean that the news presented to the public was informative, accurate or without bias? Answer: of course not.
My perspective isn't unique; in fact, many liberals go even farther and complain of a hard right slant to the network news. The fact is that the network news is extremely close to the center, occasionally drifting a little right or left depending on the topic and the public climate.
The far right simply isn't willing to give up the "liberal media" chant because it's been very successful in cowing media and has effectively moved much of their coverage to the right. As long as it's working, we will never see the right concede that it's working. There is nothing for them to gain by proclaiming their success.
Human beings can be objective in the way they approach facts and information. I believe it is intellectual laziness to dismiss this out of hand as you have done here. You obviously really do implicitly believe that objective approaches are possible. You do admit this by the very fact that you attempt to weigh information from various sources in order to form a sound and reasonable conclusion, from which you form an opinion. That opinion may or may not be correct by your own admission yet it certainly was formed with honest intentions. That's an objective approach.
If you yourself can do it, you cannot reasonably claim that others are not capable of doing it as well. If others can do it, then others that happen to be in the media can do it. They might not get it right all the time, but, again, that does not mean an honest effort cannot be made.
Here is where we get to the crux of the issue. As noted earlier, in order to be "mainstream" an outlet generally has to reflect common views. The mainstream media itself is composed of many media outlets ranging from radio to newspapers to local news to cable news. Now, no one source within the mainstream media holds a monopoly over the whole - Fox News, in fact, loves to gloat that it is bigger than any INDIVIDUAL entity in its particular niche. Some of these media entities are small and independent while others are part of major media conglomerations (which, interestingly enough, tend to be rather CONSERVATIVE when you take a look at them). When separate entities of the same niche are involved in the same area, one would assume they are in competition.
And yet, interestingly enough, these separate news sources report on the same facts! They cover many of the same major stories and ignore many of the same minor stories, all to a degree that inspires some, such as yourself, to refer to them as a singular entity! That they tend to be so similar appears to hint at one of two things - that (A) The major news corporations and smaller entities are tied together in a giant conspiracy to coordinate the nation's news agenda in some maniacal socialist liberal plot that would undermine those same corporations' direct interests... or (B) That they are doing their best to undertake an objective approach under the checks and balances of a market system and that they end up coming to pretty similar conclusions about what is noteworthy and what is not noteworthy to the majority of people so that they can maximize profits.
I lean towards (B) myself.
As for bias itself, bias involves more than just personal opinions. It involves questions of ethics, standards, and journalistic integrity. I would argue that the mainstream media displays these characteristics to a far greater degree than Fox News and the Conservative media.
So...you quote opinion polls and then call everyone else a lemming? ...wow.
Personally, while I'd prefer to see the Fairness Doctrine in place to give a hearing of all sides on all platforms available, whether the commentators can be all conservative or all liberal is quite beside the point. That's not the substantive reason that Fox News and MSNBC are not equivalent.
The real problem is that Fox News allows its bias to get in the way of its ethics and its journalistic standards. MSNBC does not. You can rant and yell all you want about Olbermann, Maddow, and Schultz being raving liberals. At the end of the day, you're certainly free to disagree with them and to go on-and-on about their opinions being wrong. The fact remains, however, that you haven't got a leg to stand on in equating their ethics and journalistic practices to those we see on Fox News every day.
Fox News, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and a host of others are called out on lie after lie after lie on this site. There is plenty of evidence that their ethics are iffy at best. Where is your proof that MSNBC, Olbermann, Maddow, and Schultz engage in the same unethical practices? Where's your proof that they really are equivalent to the loudest voices on the right?
Don't give me this "well, they are far left just like Fox News is far right" bulls*** and point out ways in which they are leftist. That's not what I am asking for. I'm asking you for proof that MSNBC has systematically LIED in order to promote the leftist agenda you claim it advances.
If you can't do that, then there is no equivalency to be made between Fox News and MSNBC. Without proof of that equivalence, I don't see how you have a leg to stand on regarding this issue.
I wish someone would point me to these lies! I come to this website as I do others to get different points of view. I have read many corrections to non-substantive statements made by those Fox fellows but I have yet to read about the overall premise of any topic being exposed as a lie. Help me out here! I want to know when someone is lying and I won't take it on faith via ad hominem attacks.
Here is one lie of which Beck has been accused: “America is good”. Come on! Throw me a bone!
Regarding ethical proof, I watched Olbermann on July 4th since I knew Fox would be biased at its best regarding the Tea Parties. I got no substantive information that whole hour, just rants. I did walk away with an increased vocabulary, "teabagger". Ethical? I doubt it.
Most of the "lies" that are documented are purposefully calculated to make people these individuals disagree with look bad. The smears that are documented here and corrected are the sorts that destroy people's careers and lives. Maybe you can rationalize those falsehoods away as "non-substantive" but I personally consider them vile and despicable.
By the way? Rhetoric and ethics are two different things. Learn the difference. Olbermann using rhetoric that pales in comparison to that utilized by the right hardly qualifies as "unethical." Those people to which that label has been applied completely called that upon themselves by being so out of touch with contemporary culture that they didn't even bother to consider the satirical ramifications of the political identity they were choosing.
Talk about pejorative framing prejudging the facts. Opinions are not facts.
The facts are the Bush administration added over $5 trillion to the federal debt, including leaving a $1.2 trillion deficit in FY 2009, ended September 31, 2009, before Obama even completed his inauguration speech.
If somebody reports those facts does it make them a leftist new organization staffed by collectivists? If nobody reports it, does it make them centrists or rightists? By choosing not to report it do they have a political bent or are they simply more concerned with ratings, because numbers cause Americans to change the channel? Perhaps if the numbers are delivered by a bimbo from Hooters people will pay attention? Notice, the facts are sitting there unchanged.
The editorial decisions are where the facts are selected and deleted, narratives are shaped, and viewers/listeners/readers are lead.
If have learned that the dolts at ACORN and low income home buyers are responsible for the US housing collapse rather than the $516 TRILLION in collateralized debt obligations in 2007 alone you should question who is leading you to that conclusion. It's likely if you've been watching FoxNew you didn't know Bush left $5 Trillion in new debt, or the effect of derivatives, but you've heard a lot about ACORN without ever meeting one of their employees.
As purge to your system let me suggest 2-4 weeks of BBC America News. It's the best of reporting by people who know how to provide as objective reporting as possible.
Are you using the almost $5 trillion Bush added to the federal debt and deficit to object to overspending and debt or to justify the spending under Obama?
You are right, the facts are the facts but the conclusions we make can be different. If a news outlet reports the same facts but draws a different conclusion that does not mean the facts were misreported.
It is easy to cry about facts being selected and deleted to lead someone to a conclusion. Is that like your objections to debt accrued under Bush? Do you intentionally leave out the facts about the current spending?
I would say it is leftist to criticize Bush over the debt numbers and then support the spending under Obama that are projected to be much bigger. Either you object to debt or you don’t. We should be basing our objections in principle and facts, not just the facts. The facts are just one point on the line, but when connected to a principle or core value you get a true conclusion consistent with both that transcends partisan bickering.
Are you really defending ACORN? - WOW
Fail. If you're going to redact someone's post to conform to your worldview, you're going to get eaten alive on this site. Use the entire quote. He didn't defend ACORN, he lampooned people like you who WAY overattributed influence to that one little non-profit to sway the gigantic American economy. But you knew that, right? Friggin' half-baked sophists come bringing that garbage here and then wonder why they get no respect.
Did you forget about how much Buchanan is on MSNBC? He probably has his own Green Room.
Fox has more viewers than MSNBC or CNN. It does not have more followers than MSNBC, CNN, Local news media, the New York Times, and the host of other news outlets that are referred to as the "Mainstream Media" when they are all considered together. The majority of people get their news from these outlets, which is why there are so many of them and yet they can still make a profit.
Simply because Fox News is bigger than any one outlet does not mean that it is bigger than the rest of the news media as a whole, nor does it mean that it has more followers than the rest of that media combined.
The Mainstream Media, despite being made up of various organizations with different owners, is generally pretty consistent in presenting stories of interest to the majority of people, ignoring stories of little interest, and representing common points of view. They have to in order to keep their consumer base, as a failure to do so means that they won't last very long.
Fox News presents from a different slant. It is not trying to appeal to mainstream audiences, but rather to a niche market it has very nicely carved out for itself. People who fit in that niche generally watch Fox News and there is no real competition for their viewership among different entities because if other news entities tried to gain those viewers they would lose many of the viewers they already have and would have to compete with Fox for a small niche.
That is why Fox News is bigger than CNN or MSNBC. That certainly does not, however, make Fox News representative of the majority of people in this country.
Liberals read. Conservatives gape.
On the other hand, I doubt whether one Fox News viewer in 50 has ever read any Economics textbooks. So who are you kidding?
The theory DOES work! Just opposite to how its proponents argue.
Any Communist or Socialist worth their salt would not consider the American left as part of their numbers. Has it ever occurred to you that the rest of the world considers Democrats RIGHT of center and Republicans/Libertarians to be far off the deep ends of the right?
Both the mainstream varieties of the left and the right support "classical liberalism." It would shock you to learn that we on the "Left" generally support capitalism as well and that socialists reject our views on all the same grounds as they reject yours. The difference is that where Republicans and Libertarians have favored a laissez-faire approach to capitalist economics, the left has moved towards a more Keynesian approach of the sort that pulled us out of the Great Depression and has been used to curb every recession since.
Realizing that you are fundamentally a part of a society that is larger than yourself and realizing that you have responsibilities and duties within that society isn't collectivism - it's called being civilized.
Who could believe that a Rhodes scholar with a PhD in Political Science (Maddow) might be more knowledgeable about politics and government than a college dropout (Beck)!!
I have no problems with political commentators of any stripe offering their opinions AS opinions. I do resent any media lies, even those embedded in opinion programs or in written articles.
Fox has a long way to go if they are seriously entertaining the idea of being fairer and more balanced.
For the rest of it, three hours of Scarborough matches the three hours of Olbermann, Maddow and Schultz (or almost--I doubt that Scarborough would fare well in a debate with either of the first two). And don't even try to bring the opportunistic Chris Matthews into it--for every item you can quote that shows him leaning to the left, we can quote two or more that show him leaning to the right.
On balance, MSNBC is moderate, with perhaps a slight tilt to the right (though nowhere near as badly as when they employed Tucker Carlson and Glenn Beck). CNN, with nothing to counterbalance the neanderthal Dobbs, is distinctively to the right. Fox is off the map, which is why they are not being given the respect that real journalists earn.
For quite some time, Fox news continued to report about scandals with prostitution rings at Acorn, while many other news organizations had little or no comments at all. To be fair, some organizations may have mentioned it, but not to the extent that Fox news reported it again and again.
MSNBC has its own prejudices--just like all networks--including Fox news. While other news organizations report protests, Fox news promotes and supports them. While other organizations look for facts and base commentaries and opinions upon them, Fox tends to ignore facts, distort them, or even make up their own. It is strange that polls conducted by Fox news and its associates tend to support conservative viewpoints and criticisms of the Obama administration. On the other hand, polls conducted at MSNBC often support their viewpoint. The difference is that MSNBC frequently reports polls conducted by unbiased and fair polling agencies. Polls don't tell us much about what is actually going on unless they are from a recognized polling organization.
No one on MSNBC is at all similar to Glenn Beck, who like Rush Limbaugh, currently lives on another planet. For Fox news to claim that Glenn Beck is fair, unbiased, and truthful requires a complete distortion of any ideas of truth.
In summary, Fox news is more sensational and gets a lot of viewers with distortions, lies, and half-truths. MSNBC has a few sensational items but generally bases ts opinions on facts, even though they may be less exciting, less incendiary, but more in line with what a news organization should be.
The Liberal Media bias is not overt, but reveals itself in what it chooses not to report. It managess and manipulates rather than reports news.
Finally, no Fox personality can begin to approach the hatred and vitriol exhibited by Keith Oberman, Chris Matthews, or Rachel Maddow. So don't preach Herzog.
Fox, nor MSNBC nor CNN are "NEWS" networks, they are opinion networks. That's all. If you are watching Fox [or MSNBC or CNN] to get your news, you are WOEFULLY uninformed.
News and/or truth has no bias. It is what it is. Opinion, on the other hand, is ALWAYS biased. You just happen to choose opinion which agrees with your own bias.
Give me any examples of Chris Matthews or Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow making the kind of ludicrous claims that Beck does (i.e. lengthy segments devoted to making comparisons between the current or past administrations and Nazi Germany, implying the existence of FEMA concentration camps, suggesting that ACORN orchestrated the levees breaking in NOLA during Katrina so as to allow for the destruction of records, accusing the current or past admininistrations of socialism, communism, fascism, attempting to destroy America, etc.) See if you can find Keith, Rachel, or Chris engaging in promoting conspiracy theories and accusations on that level.
Also, see if you can find any evidence of Keith or Rachel or Chris citing nonexistent publications to support their arguments, as Bill O'Reilly has done. See if you can find Keith or Rachel or Chris unflatteringly photoshopping pictures of reporters they don't agree with, and then putting those pictures on television for the entire nation to see without disclosing that they altered the image, as the hosts of Fox & Friends did. See if you can find Rachel or Keith or Chris calling any President a racist with a deep-seated hatred of any race of people, as our friend Glen did.
Also, MSNBC's opinion programming may be dominated by liberals, but conservatives are represented. Same with CNN--Lou Dobbs has his own show. If it's so important to Fox for them to be "fair and balanced", then why not let a liberal have his own show? They recently fired an incredibly intelligent and level-headed liberal contributor who appeared on O'Reilly regularly and managed to never get into a shouting match with him (which is rare for liberals who appear on O'Reilly). And Fox fired him for no apparent reason, aside from that their shareholders didn't like him.
No human being is entirely unbiased. We all have opinions, and I'm sure that journalists spend enough time reporting on politics as to develop fairly well-established political opinions. Your opinions may make themselves evident, but they don't have to influence your reporting. In short, Katie Couric may be a liberal or a Democrat or whatever, but she doesn't allow it to interfere with doing her job.
So please, show me one example of a mainstream media news anchor (and not an opinion commentator) allowing their personal politics to influence their reporting?
Just because you believe that there is substance to the witch hunts that Beck and Hannity pursue doesn't mean that they are legitimate stories.
You are not being intellectually honest if you believe that there is no difference between the radically biased OPINION and innuendo which is presented as "news" on Fox and REAL news. News is news. It has no slant. Just because you don't like the NEWS which is being reported doesn't mean that it's not true. NEWS cannot be "fair and balanced." It is what it is. Opinion can be, but it rarely is . . . particularly on Fox.
...and I am not sure the word hatred applies to the others either.
Can you show me an example from Keith Olberman, Chris Matthews, or Rachel Maddow's vitriol and hatred:
to match this hateful personal attack by Glenn Beck?
to match this history of vitriol by Bill O'Reilly?
to match this smear by Lou Dobbs?
to match this bit of vitriol from Ann Coulter?
Remember that the examples I've cited, according to your own words, can't begin to support the hatred and vitriol exhibited by Keith Olberman, Chris Matthews, or Rachel Maddow, so I'm expecting some really amazing citations from you.
FOX Propaganda has ceased to be fair and balanced, and that's assuming it ever was. Don't believe me?
I would also examine the contributors to both networks when making such claims. I find that MSNBC's contributors are less likely to spew controversy than those who serve Fox.
Of course, this is merely opinion.
When Vice President Dick Cheney has "downtime" at a hotel, his requests are pretty modest. A queen or king size bed. A desk with chair. The temperature set to 68 degrees. Oh, and "all televisions turned to Fox News."
W-H-Y- faux??
Don't answer, WE ALREADY KNOW!!
*
Maybe what you meant was "hateful?" As in, they present truthful, factual arguments that your favorite commentators haven't a chance of refuting? Doesn't that sound more truthful?
So when the media:
Sat on the warrantless spying on Americans for a year (when they had the story ready to go before the 2004 election), refused to investigate/report on the Downing Street Memo and report on the manipulation of intelligence while it was known and going on, engaged in psy-ops on the American public (through Judith Miller's columns) to push the public to war, failed to report on Cheney's secret meetings with oil industry figures on energy policy, failed to report on allegations of criminal use of white phosphorus and health problems associated with depleted uranium rounds, refused to report (for several years) on leaked memos from FBI agents regarding the use of torture in military prisons and the size and reach of the Bush extreme rendition program, failed to report on The Cheney Doctrine and its implications on the GWOT, they were being liberal? Really?
So the media are liberal because they leave conservative stuff out? Hmmmm...What are they when they leave information critical of conservatives out or are complicit in conservative schemes? Are they liberal then, too? How is that exactly?
Sounds like to me, that MSM has lost what news is about, sounds like they are lazy and sit around waiting on their marching orders. Yea, and FOX is the Right Wing media!!!! You all just crack me up.
Dunn: "Whether it was a David Plouffe video or an Obama speech, a huge part of our press strategy was focused on making the media cover what Obama was actually saying as opposed to why the campaign was saying it, what the tactic was. … Making the press cover what we were saying."
"Very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn't absolutely control," said Dunn.
Please tell me how it is fair and balanced reporting for Fox news to shamelessly promote a political protest 24-hours a day and then, a few weeks later, when a protest for gay rights draws a crowd similar in size, they all but ignore it. I thought thousands of people marching on DC was huge news! Right, Fox?
And again, I will ask you to please explain to me how it is "fair and balanced" for a news outlet to provide round-the-clock coverage to one political demonstration and then, a few short weeks later, essentially ignore another political demonstration of similar size?
Why are they promoting Right wing issues..they even immediately tried to paint the Holocaust Museum shooter as not being from the right!!!How many Health reform supporters have they had on their show vs opponents??
Its is intellectually dishonest to say they are fair and balanced.They just attack a little less during the news shows versus the commentary shows.Shepherd Smith is similar to the others networks inhow he presents the news..and of course he is attacked by most Fox viewers!!!They are looking to hear validation of their views not real news!!they can continue to say "I told u so" ...we're doomed,"where's my country"..etc..etc..
Rupert Murdockis trying to redefine news coverage to influence his self interests and promote his agenda,so has hired accordingly and set up theorganizationalstructure to do so which is his right.Just stop lying about fair and balanced and get on with a truthful categorization of what Fox is: a far right/anti Dem-Liberal-Progressive et al/conservative support organization!
Maybe that's why there was no live coverage of the teabagging - they thought it wasn't until Ash Wednesday.
Teabaggers - making fun of conservatives by using a homosexual term
Ash Wednesday - Catholic religious holiday
Since the "Lent a Hand" was in title, but you should have made reference to the Fox writer not Catholic’s.
2. Teabagging is not strictly a homosexual term.
3. I am a Catholic--I attend Mass almost every Sunday and I observe all major Catholic holidays, including Ash Wednesday. I will also willingly admit that I am often hypersenstive to criticism/mockery of Catholics and/or Catholicism because I feel Catholics are often misrepresented and unfairly stereotyped. That being said, there was nothing offensive in phredicles post. It was a simple play on words. A fun, silly little pun. It was in no way derisive towards Catholics.
4. Okay, I feel that's enough derailing for now. I apologize, fellow MMfA posters, for engaging in the derailment. But, Mr. Mark, I would be so very appreciative if you would respond to my above post and the issues I took with your original comment.
Okay, thanks!
Psssst - it's not exclusivley a "homosexual term". Heteros can have fun teabgging too!
It was self-applied by the Taxed Enough Already protesters who were hanging teabags off their hats . . .
Markbfoot199 : fail.
It's not a homosexual term. I don't know how that got around. I have seen liberal commentators say this also. The term has been around for decades that I know of...probably much longer than that.
I think it is hilarious that the Teabaggers have naively self-described themselves that way. I will call them that, because they call themselves that. Therefore it's not a slur.
NOW that everybody is watching, w-e-l-l . .
HYPOCRITIES, not even standing up for what they 'allegedly' believe in. They were and are ALL truly chickenhawk cowards . .
*
I have to take back the "shouldn't have called anyone an idiot" remark. I am tolerant but not of ignorance.
Can you please explain to me exactly what these people are protesting? They call these protests "Tea Parties" but I don't understand the point behind them besides "Obama is bad" and "We want our country back." It's hard for me to debate with someone when they have no clear rational argument, and a lot of the explanations I've heard have been very clear but not at all rational. Thank you.
Somewhat surprising (to me) how fast and far the residents (toadies?) in MSM 'media properties' heard of and acted on ostracizing FUXNews, as disciplined here at Media Matters.
I am reminded that the 'media mavens' see themselves being in a "clubby atmosphere" (the very words many of them told me during my rookie season in the 'club'), and now it becomes apparent in the 'in group' how fast word gets around from Media Matters as the source. More especially as it appears The White House 'information officer' quotes Media Matters.
Which explains the sudden extra presence of 'refined' Comments, here, infiltrating, interposing, intent with a mercenary zeal bringing specious 'counterpoint'-posed rightwing memes. The trolls go where the pain comes from which cripples propaganda poobahs. ("Refined" is shown by offering a small irrelevant concessionary point to start the Comment, first, then plopping down the rightwing brick o' hate boilerplate.)
Republicans stand for nothing, not on any principle or tenet; only their common bond is anti-Democratic -- singularity of 'message' is why their party purity enforcers so readily maintain uniformity. Scratch the superficial statements of any Republican voter you may know to ask, Why be Republican?, and every time the answer is that he or she, (or, often, 'my father') "always hated what the Democrats did that time ... that one of them ... did that one thing ...." And conversely, the answer he or she never says, "much admires Republicans standing for and doing a specific civil good."
So from the Bushes psycho Poppy, "sick puppies" is his slam on 'Democrats.' He said nothing -- he had nothing -- of esteem in FUXNews, i.e. 'Republicans.'
So in Comments, never is heard an encouraging word for Murdochian destructiveness; always always always the only tone of note is "the 'other' media are all liberal ('Democratic') and that is intrinsically bad and righteously hated" (by 'I'-writer). ... because there is no practiced good or principled stand to cite of FUX media.
Don't swallow the troll memes. Don't even chew 'em.
I think I understand "liberal bias" now. You know libs love them some F136 jets and other tasty defense contracts!
jojo1040, why do you hate corporations so much?
General Electric is a great example of a modern day fascist arrangement. The fascist bargain works something like this for the large business: the state will allow you to keep your business, but it will be have to adhere to and promote the government's social agenda. The businesses' profits and marketshare will be protected through mandates, favorable regulations, and subsidies if not outright bailouts. The regulations will be advocated in the name of the children, environmental concerns, or consumer safety. The regulations are hard to oppose if couched in these terms you see. The political capitalists, as oppossed to market capitalists like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates, understand mass psychology very well.
G.E. bet heavily in the last 10 to 15 years on so-called green technologies and much of this investment didn't pan out for them by market test, and now they look to the state to bail them out with green mandates and subsidies that they benfit from disproportionaltely in comparison to smaller market rivals. Is this moral?
Did anyone else wonder how G.E. was able to get classified as a bank to be eligible for TARP bailout money in a matter of a week? Other companies have tried unsuccessfully for years to engage in banking activity. Might it be because of their cozy realtionship with that Leviathan in D.C. we call our federal government?
I don't mean to especially pick on G.E., though. Other companies like Archer Daniels Midland(ethanol lobby) and Hallibuton(military-industrial-congressional complex) also stick out like sore thumbs when I think of other modern-day fascist arrangements. You guys don't want to see it with G.E. because they have a "green" image. Archer Daniels Midland plays a very similar "green" game with equally prosperous results. None of these above companies are market capitalists, though; they are politcal capitalists of the most cynical kind.
GE has been building stuff for the military for decades.
But somehow now they're suspect because a Democrat is in office? That's ridiculous.
You said that my argument falls apart under the least bit of examination. If that's the best "examination" that you have to offer, then you better try a little harder. You refuted nothing I said. You could have posted your comment without even having read my post. Are you people really the best and the brightest that the left has to offer? Let me just say (start sarcasm) that I am in total awe(end sarcasm).
Maybe now would be a good time to reign in that superior attitude of yours so as not to make such an a$$ of yourself.
For some, you may still be a little to close. Could you move a bit further, just far enough so as not to be able to reach your keyboard?
Personally, I assume superiority over people who disregard proper punctuation and make up words like "ignorances."
I don't assume that you're mentally deficient, whether you disagree with me, or not. I assume you're a malevolent troll posting in one window and Googling words like "fascism" and "reductio ad absurdum" in another so as to appear more educated and thoughtful than you really are.
Actually, it's ironic that you, the group-think "classical liberal," would hurl around perjoratives like "smug little collectivist." You haven't posted a single original thought on this site. You continually regurgitate the contradictory puree of garbage and bile that your favorite hate-talkers spoon feed you, so really, you've never disagreed with anyone here. Glen Beck has.
Does that mean I get healthcare reform?
Wow - you really aren't very bright, are you? It was me that made the comment and it was regarding your inability to follow a thread. Thanks for the laugh as well as confirming you are a wee bit slow.
I said nothing about following "my thread'. I pointed out that you responded to the wrong post and mis-read the flow of the thread. You also didn't seem to realize that I posted the "superior" comment And I do think now that it has been pointed out to you, you are still too thick to understand what you have done.
Carry on you "classical liberal libertarian socialist" guy!
I decided not to take you up on your advice, but, I would like to offer you some advice of my own. Could you just take a couple of more steps to your Left? Yes, yes! to the edge of the cliff. There yet? Good! Now just take one more step to your Left. I promise you that the socialist utopia you've been looking for is at the base of jagged cliffs just below. The Pied Piper of Hyde Park will be waiting for you there.
I do appreciate your implict acknowledgement that you people on the left are (small s) socialists. So many of the fellow travellers who visit this site seem to be blissfully unaware of the nature of their professed ideology. I'm glad that you acknowledge your economic philosophy without equivocation even if you don't truly understand it.
I've read Locke. I've read Smith. I've read Jefferson and Morris and Washington and even that little pain Paine. Can you honestly say the same?
That's kind of odd. MMFA never made such a claim. I could ask you the same question: Do you really think that Media Matters is running scared of you or Fox? (insert laughter here).
You must have learned to debate on the playground. I am sure you are able to quite formidably mock the other second graders with that rapier wit of yours.
For the past twenty years, the Right Wing has been relentless in trying to brand the mainstream media as liberal and biased and it has worked.
Now, we have a chance to show what true bias is - as if anyone who watches Fox couldn't figure it out for themselves. But perhaps from now on, those who sees Fox News Channel on at a McDonald's or an airport or any other public venue will question the slant they're taking on stories they cover.
If so, this will be a very good thing for America.
When you start with a wrong allegation it makes your whole post wrong:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/12/tea.party.rally/index.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KezSMQBLoU
Fox made the alleagation that no one coevered it but they were wrong as usual:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/18/fox-news-newspaper-ad-mak_n_291494.html
What no other news channel did was promote them unlike Faux. Tell me how did Fox miss this story?:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/10/jon_stewart_on_fox_and_the_gay.php
Fox is being called out for their dissemination of lies and misinformation,some of which you have just regurgitated here,so you can certainly understand why. You just made yourself look foolish by repeating Fox without investigation wouldn't you rather have the truth or both sides as you put it. In the video by Jon Stewart, Fox by not covering the Gay Rights March on Washington(which was as large as the tea-baggers march)was definetly trying to silence their voice. Apply some of your questions to Fox.
Stop and think if you allow some voices to be shut down, what happens when all voices are shut down? Don't delude yourselves into thinking that can't happen to us. It has happened in countries all over the world, sometimes slowly and sometimes abruptly.
So if you don't agree with a group or with their views you right now have the right to ignore them. If all voices but one are shut down, you will not have the ability to ignore them.
Again this is about one of our hallowed tenets the right to free speech. The only strictures I know about are those such as yelling fire in a crowded theater. What all of the voices you are talking about are not putting anyone in danger.
Do you really want to be part of starting to shut down freedom of speech?