You know me, I love just about any skewering of FOX "News," so much that I use quotes around the second word wherever possible. But how often toes a smack down this thorough, this snarky, this elegantly worded, and this authoritative happen? It's a thing of beauty.
[Excerpt] State Dept. slams Fox News ‘credible journalist’ for ‘asinine’ question about Clinton’s health . . .“We owe you an apology,” Reines wrote. “I’m almost embarrassed to even admit this – but somehow your question at today’s Daily Press Briefing was somehow completely mauled and transcribed in the release. I just called them and read them the riot act for putting such misleading, accusatory, and absolutely asinine words in your mouth. Because after what we and her doctors explained over the weekend regarding her health, you couldn’t possibly have been insinuating the ulterior motives that question implies. No way. No credible journalist would do that without any basis whatsoever. . .”
Can we please stop calling this ridiculous outfit a news station?
[Excerpt]
Kasich Shows He Has Hannity In His Back Pocket: Goes On Show To Pitch His Website, Raise Money For Campaign
More than lavish dinners, snazzy mailers, and email blasts, GOP candidates are flocking to the best fundraising tool this election season: Fox News. As Senate candidate Sharron Angle (R-NV) so aptly pointed out, just one mention of a campaign website on a “friendly press outlet” like Fox News host Sean Hannity’s show can translate into millions of campaign cash. Delaware’s colorful senate candidate Christine O’Donnell (R) even flaunted Hannity’s support before a meeting of GOP strategists, saying “Sean Hannity’s in my back pocket, and I can go on his show and raise money by attacking you guys. . .”
EDITOR'S NOTE: I posted this excerpt before I finished reading it, and didn't realize that the example being used here is actually Sean Hannity's radio show. I thought about editing the post, and then realized it really isn't necessary. Sean Hannity does this exact same thing on his television program. So do other FOX "News" hosts. The differences between talk radio and FOX are paper thin, with tons of bleedover. So, the post stands.
My DVR didn't catch last night's Real Time with Bill Maher, so I had to seek it out on the cable box, and was lucky enough to find it running in. . .well. . .real time this morning. After it was over, I wanted to just surf around the internets for a little while, so I needed to put the teevee machine on something that wouldn't distract me too much. FOX "News" fits the bill. It's good for little else, right?
Heh. Okay, so I'm doing this little experiment. Every so often, I'll stick it on FOX "News" at a time of day when they supposedly are doing "hard news," rather than news commentary. There is no such time of day, apparently. This morning, I landed on America's News HQ, which sounds like a news program. There were two blonde bombshell news readers talking about the GOP "Pledge to America." No, not really talking, pitching. They gave the conservative selling points of the pledge, and left it there, as though there was no counter-point.
Then, they moved on to other issues involving President Barack Obama and the 2010 election. There, they had no problem with counter-points! In fact--just like they do on Hannity, Glenn Beck, Huckabee, and The O'Reilly Factor--they had arguing pundits in split-screen to shout about it! Then they aired various clips of Democrats on the floors of Congress in moments of extreme agitation. . .various Democrats at various times, out of context. I didn't gather what story these clips were connected to, I think it was an attempt to show Democrats being crazy to counter-balance Christine O'Donnell.
Anyway, they managed to squeeze in a little bit of news, a flood, and the Iranian president (where they couldn't resist a little editorializing), but mostly my little experiment proved what it always does: FOX "News" is NOT news.
Gee, I wonder if I've ever used that headline before. If not word-for-word, I've at least used the same sentiment, because they just keep doing it. This morning, FOX "News" Sunday was my first choice to watch on the DVR, because for some reason the (increasingly boring) Meet the Press didn't record. I store these shows up for a little while in the morning so that I can zip through them without all the BP commercials.
Anyway, the first guest was Ted Olson, George W. Bush's Solicitor General (a job until recently filled by Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan). Olson would not be an unusual guest to have on F"N"S were it not for the fact that he recently tried and won Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the case that overturned California's Proposition 8 as un-Constitutional. Prior to that, Olson was mostly known for holding the Bush side of Bush v. Gore, Citizens United and for being the widower of Conservative writer Barbra Olson.
Chris Wallace did his level best to push the presumed "typical" FOX viewers' viewpoint on the same-sex marriage case, repeatedly hammering Olson with questions right out of the right-wing playbook. Question after question, time after time, Olson replied with cogent, logical, legal answers, not once falling into a trap or contradicting himself. I was very impressed. I'll admit to having had concerns when I'd originally heard that Olson was the lawyer trying Perry. While I'm still extremely wary of the results of the Citizens United case, it is clear that Olson is a brilliant legal mind, one that is capable of seeing logic and the law ahead of partisanship. My hope from today's interview is that he may have put a seed of rational thought into the minds of FOX "News" viewers.
The second guest was apparently a Republican dude (Mitch Daniels it turns out, whoever that is) who has aspirations to be a presidential contender. I have no idea who he was--as far as I know, I've never seen him before--because I was typing the stuff above! But the reason I started writing this post is what Wallace said when he lead into second interview: (paraphrasing) "Up next, what can Republicans do to ensure big wins in the 2010 elections? Our next guest. . ."
Of course the show's last half is nearly always filled with the ludicrously named "Power Panel," their "fair and balanced" discussion group. This week, the right is represented by extreme neocon William Kristol and Darth Cheney's daughter, Liz Cheney. The left--as usual--had Juan Williams and some lady I've never seen before. Even when FOX has equal numbers of right vs. left-leaning pundits (if you pretend that Wallace is neutral), they stack the deck with heavy weights on the right and feather weights on the left.
Now, it would be a rare thing indeed for me to recommend watching a clip from this highly-skewed program. But I'll make an exception for the Olson interview. It's kind of fun to see Wallace's tactics fail when he's up against someone who can outthink him.
I'm double-dipping into the Media Matters stuff for this must-read article showing exactly how a right-wing phony outrage story goes from a germ of an idea to a full-blown news story (and very often to a quietly ignored debunking later on). It's good stuff, and you probably have noticed parts of it in play. We've been faced with this stuff for so long, it is really depressing that the mainstream media hasn't paid attention to what FOX is doing. At least, after reading this, you'll know, and start to recognize it.
[Excerpt]
The Fox Cycle: From bogus right-wing attack to mainstream news
As more and more media outlets follow Fox News' lead in covering the manufactured New Black Panther Party/Department of Justice (DOJ) scandal, Media Matters offers three case studies of previous bogus right-wing attacks that, with help from Fox News, went mainstream before being debunked. . .
Read more (no, seriously, read it!) at: Media Matters
Back when I started writing this blog, just over three years ago, there was a commonly remarked upon "ailment" called Bush Derangement Syndrome. I'm sure that if I had any conservative readers in those days, I'd have been accused of being a BDS sufferer. It didn't matter what the charge was, or what beef we liberals had with Bush/Cheney, it was hand-waved off as BDS, a knee-jerk automatic hate impulse with no basis in fact.
I of course felt that I had good reason to take issue with the Bush Administration (as did the groundswell of Obama voters, clearly). I also thought it was ironic, considering that the same conservatives leveling BDS diagnoses were simultaneously suffering from CDS: Clinton Derangement Syndrome, since they managed to lay off every Bush failure as "Clinton's Fault." I have pretty good proof too that their charges were mental delusions: Socks the Cat's Christmas card list? Travlegate? Impeachment for lying about a blow job? Really?
Well, the derangement pendulum has swung back, as I knew that it would. We've been seeing it since the first tea bagger dunked his virgin bag. And the movement that was practically born in full CDS--namely FOX "News," conservative talk radio and conservative blogs--are now in full-blown ODS, levelling everything and anything they can at President Barack Obama, not caring if it is true, if it matters, or if it even makes sense. Which seems a lot closer to CDS than it does to BDS. Now, when they eventually get around to seriously proposing impeachment--and they will--let's see if it can be over something even dumber than a blow job.
[Excerpt]
"Summer of rage": Obama Derangement Syndrome grips conservative media once again
In recent weeks, conservative media have been consumed by "Obama Derangement Syndrome," accusing President Obama of being insane, of colluding with Russian spies, of trying to create a civil war and implement one world government, among other things, while also claiming that his administration is trying to control everything under the sun, including the Internet and, inexplicably, your toilet. . . Read more at: Media Matters
Just a quick note to reiterate: FOX "News" is NOT news. I know, I know, I've said this many times before (hence the word "reiterate!"). But it is interesting to note that every time I've tried the FOX "News" hard news experiment, I've come up with the same result. Supposedly, there is a line to be drawn between FOX "News"'s opinion programming, and their hard news shows. But there isn't.
Case in point, America Live with Megan Kelly. I put the TV on FOX for a few minutes while I caught up on emails and such. And in the space of 15 minutes, the hard-right tilt and obvious opinion was evident. In her tease of what was coming up in the 10:00 am hour, Kelly's entire list of stories was "Do the Democrats. . .?" and "Does President Obama. . .?" At the top of the hour, she teased it all again (how much time is spent on these shows telling you what's to come, anyway?) and in each instance, punctuated her delivery with sneers, a sing-songy voice, pregnant pauses. She could just has easily been guest hosting for Sean Hannity. This is allegedly hard news. It is not.
I couldn't bear to watch much FOX "News" today. But what little I did manage to catch absolutely confirmed what is related in the excerpted article below. In fact, FOX "News" very clearly picked sides in this health care reform battle, fighting against it for the past year.
And before somebody gets it in their head to say that MSNBC was the flip-side in this issue, no they weren't. Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann and Ed Schults regularly cast the various bills in a dim light, usually arguing that the bill didn't go nearly far enough. As for the MSNBC news operation, I honestly can't speak to it. But I'd wager that their slant couldn't approach what is seen on FOX "News."
[Excerpt]
If There Is Any Further Question About Whether Fox Is a "News" Operation
I will recommend to historians and semioticians very close study of the footage being produced right at this moment, on the Fox "News" Channel, as it covers the vote in the House on the health care reform bill.
The background footage virtually the entire time is of "Kill the bill!" crowds chanting at the Capitol. "Anchor" woman Megyn Kelly is at this moment breaking the news that Obama's popularity ratings are the lowest of his administration and interviewing an expert on whether this reveals America's recoil at the fundamental "statism" of his world view. Then an on-the-scene interview to confirm that the people who yesterday yelled "nigger" at Rep. John Lewis and "faggot" at Rep. Barney Frank were "an unrepresentative minority" of the protest crowds, and that in fact the typical crowd members would have been "the first to condemn" such harsh terms. Just now going to break, with pan of a huge shouting "kill the bill!" crowd at the Capitol. Seriously, you would think martial law was about to be imposed in DC. . .
I've lost count how many times I've declared that FOX "News" isn't news (hence the quotes). I've offered up evidence, anecdotal, transcriptual and uh, video. . .al. Everybody knows that FOX "News" is infused with a right-wing slant all day long. The only ones not admitting that are FOX themselves, and "FOX fans." Who are, it should be pointed out, nearly exclusively right-wingers.
Here, one of FOX's many arch right employees, Karl Rove, sort of admits it. But he once again tries to draw a line between FOX's opinion and "hard news" programming. It is a distinction without a difference, as anyone with a functioning brain can see, by merely sampling some of their daytime or weekend programming. Virtually all of these "hard news" programs feature the same right-wing terminology in the stories, the same story topics, and the same pundits in Q&A segments as their opinion shows. For all the crap FOX fans give MSNBC for featuring Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann in political news programming, they seem not to notice people like Karl Rove being right there in the mix for the same sorts of shows.
I could go on defense for MSNBC here, but it is not necessary. They are not declaring themselves "fair and balanced." FOX is. And it is just stupid that we have to keep dancing around this subject, keep acting as though FOX "News" is merely somewhat right-leaning. They're far further around the bend than that. And you know what? If the channel was called FOX News & Opinion, and their motto was "The Other Side of the News," or something like that, there would be no problem here. But they keep insisting on keeping the charade alive.
[Excerpt]
Karl Rove Confesses: Most Of Fox News Is Unfair
Today on Meet the Press, Tom Brokaw (sitting in for David Gregory) interviewed Fox News contributor Karl Rove. In the course of the discussion Rove spewed the routine misrepresentations and falsehoods that one one might expect of him. But there was one exchange that was surprisingly honest:
TOM BROKAW: You’re now at Fox News. Do you think that Fox News is fair to President Obama?
KARL ROVE: I think they - on the news side, absolutely. I think that they’ve got first-rate individuals at the White House who - do their job. And in an objective, fair, and balanced way, yeah, absolutely. . .
Do you really think I could pass on a story with the following headline?
[Excerpt]
The O’Garbage Factor: Fox News isn't just bad. It's un-American.
Last week, when White House Communications Director Anita Dunn charged the Fox News Channel with right-wing bias, Fox responded the way it always does. It denied the accusation with a straight face while proceeding to confirm it with its coverage.
Consider Fox's Web story on the episode. It quotes five people. Two of them work for Fox. All of them assert that administration officials are either wrong in substance or politically foolish to criticize the network. No one is cited supporting Dunn's criticisms or saying that it could make sense for Obama to challenge the network's power. It's a textbook example of a biased journalism. . .
Sorry for the redundant and obvious headline. I just couldn't think of what else to title this piece. After watching my DVR recording of last night's Real Time with Bill Maher, I turned the cable box to 721, which is the HD version of FOX "News." Why? Oh, frack, I don't know.
What I got was FOX News Watch, which sounds like a "straight news" show, but I suppose if you parse the title, it comes down to watching FOX "News", right? That sort of navel gazing is exactly what I found. When the White House's Anita Dunn gave her smack down of FOX "News," the sting must've smarted for a good long time. Because for an entire segment, FOX News Watch talked about nothing else. And their panel discussion group--no different than if it was on Hannity or FOX "News" Sunday--defended FOX's reputation by. . .going after Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann, for one. And by claiming that FOX is news, bookended by opinion shows, and that people know the difference.
Really? OK then, is FOX News Watch a news show, or an opinion show? The segments following the "is FOX real news" bit included, "is Obama being transparent enough?" and then a "was Rush Limbaugh treated fairly by the NFL?" Juan Williams, a token in a couple of ways (sorry), gives a game effort to arguing against an obvious partisan bent, even if he has a blind spot as it pertains to FOX's coverage. The rest--all of them--were arguing from a right-wing standpoint. As on damned near every other FOX program.
As I've said before, if you have eyes, ears and brains, you can see FOX's right-wing bias at any hour of the day. Watch the news crawl at the bottom of the screen. Watch the in-house ads for other programming. Their gamest efforts at "straight news" are even tinged with right-wing bias by their story selection, and framing. Geraldo Rivera's show At Large you would think would be a left-slanting opinion show. But it isn't, not really. The subjects are chosen with a right-wing audience in mind. What's Geraldo covering this weekend? "Is the NFL being fair to Rush?"
Listen, if FOX "News" were really a straight-ahead news channel, with a few hours of "opinion," and was not an ideologically driven political entity, answer me this. Why is virtually every "defender" or "FOX Fan" a right-winger? Hmmm? And why is FOXNation, the internet offshoot practically a right supremacy, evangelical, tea bagging, birther, deather, tenther, wingnut meeting? Why?
The attempt to defend FOX "News" as a legitimate news gathering organization is laughable. Preposterous. And every "FOX Fan" knows it.
I covered this before, but I've found the video. FOX "News" and its rabid fan base will often try to say that only their "opinion" shows like Hannity and The O'Reilly Factor are rightward biased. The rest is Fair and Balanced™ don'tcha know? Vaguely creepy Chris Wallace anchors the FOX version of a hard-news Sunday morning show. Wallace occasionally asks a probing question or two of his conservative guests, but the agenda is not hard to spot.
Then, when they get to the "opinion" part of the show (the ludicrously named "Power Panel") all pretense of objectivity goes right out the window, with a couple of fringy nut neo-cons, two milquetoasty barely liberals, and Wallace as a moderator. But check out which side of the argument Wallace comes down on here.
[Excerpt]
Wallace defends torture, snidely says it’s ‘purely coincidental’ U.S. hasn’t been attacked since 9/11.
In an interview with Fox News’s Chris Wallace that aired on Fox News Sunday this morning, Vice President Cheney adamantly defended the Bush administration’s torture policies. “The thing I keep coming back to, time and time again Chris, is the fact that we’ve gone for eight years without another attack,” Cheney argued. During the panel discussion later in the program, NPR’s Juan Williams ridiculed the entire debate. . .
