About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Murdoch's denial belied by Fox News' repeated comparisons of Obama to Stalin

November 10, 2009 4:04 pm ET — 35 Comments

In an interview with Australia's Sky News, News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch falsely claimed that Fox News hosts had not "likened" President Obama to Josef Stalin. In fact, Fox News hosts and contributors have repeatedly drawn comparisons between Stalin and members of the Obama administration, including Obama himself, and have also compared Stalin's policies to Obama's policies.

Murdoch claims none of his "people" have "likened" Obama to Stalin

Murdoch claims "not one of our people" at Fox has "likened [Obama] to Stalin." As the website The Business Insider noted, Murdoch was recently interviewed by David Speers, political editor for Sky News, which -- like Fox News -- Murdoch owns. During the interview, Speers stated, "Glenn Beck, who you mentioned, has called Barack Obama a racist, and he helped organize a protest against him. Others on Fox have likened him to Stalin. Is that defensible?" Murdoch responded, "No, no, not Stalin, I don't think. I don't know who they -- not one of our people."

But Fox News has repeatedly compared Obama and his administration to Stalin

Beck claims to deny comparing Obama and Stalin but sees "echoes of the past that frighten me." While interviewing Florida State University history professor Robert Gellately, author of the book Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler, Beck stated that he was "not comparing what's currently going on in our administration or in Washington" to those three dictators, but nevertheless said, "I see echoes of the past that frighten me":

BECK: [F]or the last couple of weeks, I keep seeing these scenes and I'm like, gosh, I've seen these scenes before, and I couldn't remember where it was. This morning, I'm in a meeting and I remember and I said to the staff, "Lenin, Stalin and Hitler." I am not comparing -- and I doubt you are, too -- I'm not comparing what's currently going on in our administration or in Washington on either side with these guys, but I see echoes of the past that frighten me. [3/26/09, retrieved from the Nexis database]

Beck airs images of Obama and Stalin and asks, "Is this where we're headed?" On his Fox News program, Beck aired video of Obama interspersed with historical footage that included images of Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and Vladimir Lenin and asked, "Is this where we're headed?" [Glenn Beck, 4/2/09]

Napolitano claims Geithner's "power grab" is "unconstitutional": "This is Josef Stalin without the bloodshed." During a discussion of a request by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner for new powers to intervene in the financial industry, Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano said, "I'm absolutely calling it a power grab. It's blatantly unconstitutional." Napolitano further stated, "If the government can do this, this is central planning, Soviet-style. This is Josef Stalin without the bloodshed." [Happening Now, 3/25/09]

Peters compares possible torture prosecutions to "show trials" of Stalin, Mao, Castro, Chavez. While discussing reports that Obama officials were considering prosecuting Bush administration officials who had written memos enabling the use of enhanced interrogation techniques, Fox News strategic analyst and New York Post columnist Ralph Peters stated that the "extreme left has always loved show trials. Stalin set the pace in the '30s. Mao did it. The left's beloved Fidel Castro used it. Hugo Chavez is trying to use show trials right now." [Your World with Neil Cavuto, 4/23/09]

Napolitano compares bank rescues to "Mussolini's Italy" and "Stalin's Soviet Union." Guest-hosting a panel on Beck's Fox News program about infusions of government money into troubled banks, Napolitano asked, "What happened in Mussolini's Italy, what happened in Stalin's Soviet Union when the government came in and said, 'Those private companies that you run? You can still own them. You can still pay the bills. But we'll tell you where to invest your money and what bills to pay.' " [Glenn Beck, 11/4/09]

Beck frequently compares Obama to Hitler

Beck: "This is what Hitler did with the SS." Discussing Obama's call for a "civilian national security force" -- which was a reference to expanding the foreign service, AmeriCorps, and the Peace Corps -- Beck said on the August 27 edition of his Fox News program: "I'm finding this -- this is the hardest part to connect to. Because this is -- I mean, look, you know, David [Bellavia, former Army staff sergeant], what you just said is, you said, 'I'm not comparing' -- but you are. I mean, this is what Hitler did with the SS. He had his own people. He had the brownshirts and then the SS. This is what Saddam Hussein -- so -- but you are comparing that. And I -- I mean, I think America would have a really hard time getting their arms around that."

Beck: "I read [Mein Kampf]" and "the Germans ... were an awful lot like we are now." After asking, "Did the Germans know?" Beck stated that "the scariest book I ever bought was Mein Kampf." He continued, "I went and I bought it and I read it, 'cause I wanted to answer that question. The answer was -- yes, they knew. I think the Germans, however, were an awful lot like we are now, we're kind of living in a denial like -- no, that can't really be happening. No, that really -- you don't want to believe some things but you have to. You have to actually think about them."

 Beck claims "I'm not saying that Barack Obama is a fascist," then compares auto maker rescues to "the early days of Adolf Hitler." During the April 1 edition of his Fox News show, Beck stated, "I'm not saying the Democrats are fascists." He subsequently said of efforts to extend rescue loans to auto companies, "if I'm not mistaken, in the early days of Adolf Hitler, they were -- they were very happy to line up for help there as well."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by epkklk851 (November 10, 2009 4:12 pm ET)
      6  
      The one thing that is clear from the interview of Murdoch, it is all about money and power for him. He doesn't care about the truth or serving his audience, he just wants to make money off of them, and he will sell whatever line and do whatever he has to (change citizenship and buy special favors) to do it. These lies and smears are making him money, and he can stand there and lie to keep the cash flowing with a straight face. Those of us who don't watch Fox will be angry, and his audience will keep lapping it up, and believe everything he says because they have already swallowed the poison pill that is Fox News.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Publius39 (November 10, 2009 4:24 pm ET)
         
      Murdoch is all in at this point. Most of his revenue comes from the snake-oil salesmen that are Beck and Hannity, which have in turn permeated and contaminated the supposed "news" arm of Fox News. He can't get rid of Beck at this point, because that would boost his status among the right-wing kooks and make him a martyr of the media. This simply goes to show others that this whole "news" organization is sleazy and needs to stop pretending to be a news outlet and call themselves what they are, a conservative cable-editorial channel.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Publius39 (November 10, 2009 4:25 pm ET)
         
      Murdoch is all in at this point. Most of his revenue comes from the snake-oil salesmen that are Beck and Hannity, which have in turn permeated and contaminated the supposed "news" arm of Fox News. He can't get rid of Beck at this point, because that would boost his status among the right-wing kooks and make him a martyr of the media. This simply goes to show others that this whole "news" organization is sleazy and needs to stop pretending to be a news outlet and call themselves what they are, a conservative cable-editorial channel.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Publius39 (November 10, 2009 4:38 pm ET)
         
      Murdoch is doing what I expected him to do, supporting his cash cow despite the precarious position that it puts him in. This is yellow-journalism and muckraking all over again. I wonder what it will take until someone brings sedition charges against some of these opinion hosts.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by clams casino (November 10, 2009 5:38 pm ET)
      3  
      Come on, it's just Murdoch's opinion that nobody on Fox ever compared Obama to Stalin. He's entitled to his opinion. It's not like he speaks for Fox News Channel or anything.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by right ON (November 10, 2009 5:43 pm ET)
          1
        Wow, you really don't understand this do you? Actually, Murdoch either lied or is ignorant regarding what those on Fox have said comparing Obama to Stalin. It is not his opinion at all, he is factually inaccurate.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by clams casino (November 10, 2009 5:55 pm ET)
          1  
          So you do understand the difference between an opinion and a lie? Then surely you can explain why you think that claiming that Obama made a "very racist comment" is an opinion and not a lie. What comment did Obama make that you think could be interpreted as being very racist?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by right ON (November 10, 2009 6:12 pm ET)
              1
            Look, if someone said Obama was a bad father because he is away from home too much, is that a lie or my opinion? That is an opinion. I would disagree with it and find it stupid and baseless, but it's an opinion nonetheless.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by clams casino (November 10, 2009 6:37 pm ET)
              1  
              But that's not what he said. He specifically claimed that Obama made "a very racist comment about blacks and whites and so on." And you can't even point to which comments those might be. And that's because Obama didn't say anything remotely racist.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by right ON (November 10, 2009 6:40 pm ET)
                  2
                I gave you a perfectly reasonable analogy and you still can't understand it. I'd suggest night school or a correspondence course, maybe they would be beneficial for you. It is my opinion that you need it bad. And that ain't no lie.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by ILikePizza (November 10, 2009 9:00 pm ET)
                     
                  That an analogy is or isn't correct is irrelevant, something is or isn't based upon its own merits. Murdoch has made a declarative statement, i.e. Obama is a racist, on what evidence has he made this declaration? If there is no basis for his statement then it is no longer an opinion it is something else, maybe a lie, maybe a smear, maybe both.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by Victor Colorado (November 11, 2009 9:57 am ET)
                  1  
                  The truth is, you made a very racist comment yourself about this. That is why you're siding with Murdoch.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by right ON (November 11, 2009 11:05 am ET)
                      1
                    Really? Show me.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Victor Colorado (November 11, 2009 11:14 am ET)
                      1  
                      I need to show you my opinion?
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by right ON (November 11, 2009 11:18 am ET)
                          1
                        I knew you couldn't. And you have the nerve to whine about liars? lol.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Victor Colorado (November 11, 2009 11:23 am ET)
                          2  
                          Exactly, Tommy. My opinion was a lie. My apologies.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by westla (November 11, 2009 11:50 am ET)
                              1
                            Come on Victor, in defense of Right ON, your analogy or comparison is not the same thing at all. I read the discussions yesterday about an "opinion" versus a "lie" and that is the context of your post above.

                            You specifically say "The truth is", which does not imply an opinion at all but rather an objective fact. So you absolutely do not state it as your opinion whatsoever, as a matter of fact you directly state the opposite. Then when Right ON asks you for proof you change the context or your statement to an opinion, to try and prove your point about Murdoch and Beck's opinion as opposed to a lie.

                            You're not being fair, and you are just demonstrating an unwillingness to accept another opinion.

                            I expect better from you considering many of your posts are succinct and to the point, and I agree with many of them. This was beneath you, in my opinion.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by Victor Colorado (November 11, 2009 11:54 am ET)
                              1  
                              You're right, my opinion is far more threatening than Murdoch's. Thanks for noticing.
                              Report Abuse
                            • Author by right ON (November 11, 2009 12:16 pm ET)
                                1
                              Thanks westla, but your correct smackdown of Victor is way above his pay grade, look at his moronic response to you as evidence of that. He should be at the children's table.
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by Victor Colorado (November 11, 2009 12:34 pm ET)
                                1  
                                So Murdock's "he did make a very racist comment" is just an opinion and my "you made a very racist comment" is a fact? Really?
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by westla (November 11, 2009 12:41 pm ET)
                                    1
                                  Victor, That was just explained to you, the difference. If you are unable to comprehend it, or understand it, perhaps it did go over your head.
                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by Victor Colorado (November 11, 2009 12:56 pm ET)
                                    1  
                                    The only difference you've tried to explain between my opinion and Murdoch's opinion is that my opinion is somehow a fact because I claimed that my opinion was true. Do you think Murdoch knew his opinion was not true? Isn't that a lie?
                                    Report Abuse
                                    • Author by westla (November 11, 2009 1:04 pm ET)
                                        1
                                      Murdoch offered his opinion that Obama's response to the Gates incident were racist, a ridiculous assessment of those comments. But Murdoch's opinion is subjective, his take, his opinion. As horrible and idiotic that it is, I think we both can agree on that.

                                      You then said Right ON made a racist comment out of thin air, and said it was the truth. Even though you can't point to any comment he made, nor is there any truth to it, much less an opinion of yours since you made it up.

                                      This is my last comment to you on this item as not only is it wildly off topic, my apologies for that, but it is repetitive. You and I will not agree, but I still think you are a credible poster and I enjoy most of your opinions, just not this one.
                                      Report Abuse
                                      • Author by DellDolly (November 11, 2009 1:12 pm ET)
                                        3  
                                        So, the fact that he added "the truth is...." magically changes his opinion into a fact?

                                        How exactly does that happen? How does an opinion become a fact simply because someone says that they strongly believe that opinion by adding "the truth is..." to their opinion?

                                        Hint - it doesn't. Not at all. It's still an opinion.

                                        And yes, we know, Victor made it up. So did Murdoch. I am not sure why you don't understand that Victor purposefully said a false thing because Murdoch's comment was untrue also! That seems pretty self-explanatory, but you don't understand?

                                        Right over your head.

                                        Whoosh.

                                        And then you try to defend your indefensible take on all this by saying that you and Victor disagree. Nope. Victor is right, and you are wrong. It isn't an opinion that one can disagree about that Victor's "The truth is..." doesn't magically transform his opinion into a fact.
                                        Report Abuse
                          • Author by DellDolly (November 11, 2009 12:36 pm ET)
                               
                            Right over their heads.

                            Whoosh.
                            Report Abuse
    • Author by magnolialover (November 10, 2009 6:02 pm ET)
      2  
      And here folks, we see continuing proof that these guys who run media operations (Murdoch) are apparently unaware that the things that are said and shown on TV are, and can be, recorded, and played back.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by News Corpse (November 10, 2009 6:25 pm ET)
      3  
      Obviously Murdoch is lying. He knows quite well that Beck and others have likened Obama to Stalin and other dictators.

      Murdoch also lied about the "balance" on Fox. He said that they have Democrats and Republicans, but the other networks have only Democrats. Well, how would he respond to these facts:

      Fox does not have now, nor ever has had, a program hosted solely by a Democrat/liberal. CNN has Lou Dobbs, Nancy Grace, and until a few months ago, Glenn Beck. MSNBC currently has a three hour morning show hosted by conservative former Republican congressman Joe Scarborough. They have also employed Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham, and Michael Savage.
      When Murdoch hires a former Democratic congressman to host his own three hour program, he can talk about balance. Until then, he can STFU.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by rrastro (November 10, 2009 11:12 pm ET)
        1
      Obama is not like Stalin-- Obama doesn't have the balls to starve farmers for their refusal to comply with his will.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by JustSaying (November 12, 2009 9:58 am ET)
         
      From Wikipedia about truth....
      Truth can have a variety of meanings, from the state of being the case, being in accord with a particular fact or reality, being in accord with the body of real things, events, actuality, or fidelity to an original or to a standard. In archaic usage it could be fidelity, constancy or sincerity in action, character, and utterance.[1] The term has no single definition about which a majority of professional philosophers and scholars agree, and various theories and views of truth continue to be debated. There are differing claims on such questions as what constitutes truth; what things are truthbearers capable of being true or false; how to define and identify truth; the roles that revealed and acquired knowledge play; and whether truth is subjective, relative, objective, or absolute.
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.