30 reasons why Fox News is not legit
"Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information." -- Society of Professional Journalists
Why the Beltway press has invested so much time and energy in recent weeks defending Fox News, with one scribe even claiming that the White House's public critique of the network was "dangerous to press freedom," and why the press refuses to acknowledge what's so obvious about the cable channel's political pursuits, remains baffling.
The facts regarding Fox News' lack of professionalism seem rather obvious (as I detail below 30 different times). And that ought to be plain for Beltway journalists as well. But whether for reasons having to do with external professional, social, or political pressures, many journalists have opted to pretend that Fox News is a serious outlet, that it's just like its cable and network TV news competitors.
They insist that any suggestion that Rupert Murdoch's cable channel isn't legitimate is completely off-base and that the White House is not even allowed to have an opinion on the issue. Indeed, ABC News' Jake Tapper suggested it was not "appropriate" for the administration to tag the channel as illegitimate. (Tapper himself can't tell the difference between the programming that Fox News and ABC News produce.)
The rush to defend Fox News is an odd one, because I don't remember the same type of the circle-the-wagons defense when the previous Republican administration openly waged war on The New York Times and NBC, two news outlets whose standards far outshine the kind of pseudo-reporting Fox News produces on a daily basis. That Beltway media elites have decided to rally around Fox News of all entities remains as puzzling as it is short-sighted.
The truth is, journalism is not difficult to practice, nor is it tough to identify. Journalists aren't licensed, and anyone can try their hand at it, as the Internet has made clear. So there is no higher authority declaring what is and isn't journalism. But the craft, like obscenity, is instantly recognizable in its true form.
For generations in this country, there has been a sort of a gentleman's agreement in terms of what constituted professional behavior among journalists. And there has been a sense of shame when members crossed those lines into unprofessional behavior. Bosses chastened those employees, people were fired, and ethics panels were summarily convened to make certain the transgressions didn't happen again. Fox News, though, has walked away from all of that. And guess what? The rest of the press hasn't said boo.
That's been the sad case for years. (Playing dumb about Fox News' partisan pursuits now qualifies as a Beltway intramural sport.) Indeed, the loophole, or the caveat, to journalism's gentleman's agreement has always been that the guidelines were voluntary and self-policing. There was no governing body, either within journalism or without, that regulated the product. The only collective deterrent from producing bad journalism, aside from rather lax U.S. libel laws, is a collective sense of shame, a shared feeling that making a factual error -- or worse, purposefully pushing false information under the guise of journalism -- was both unprofessional and unacceptable.
But clearly, Fox News does not share that sense of shame, because it's not part of the larger journalism brotherhood. Fox News doesn't feel like rules such as fairness, accuracy, neutrality, and independence apply, which is obvious since Fox News breaks those rules with stunning regularity. In fact, its programming day seems designed to break the traditional rules ad nauseam. That's what it's built to do. And if nothing else, Fox News is ruthlessly efficient.
So, Fox News has altered the game by unchaining itself from the moral groundings of U.S. journalism. And guess what? There is no industry shame being rained down on the outlet. The rest of the press not only doesn't complain, it defends Fox News and even apologizes on its behalf, which is what we've seen unfold for the last two weeks.
If we're actually going to have this is-the-world-really-round "debate" about Fox News, then let's put it in perspective in terms of what constitutes a legitimate news organization.
Here's how the Society of Professional Journalists describes the craft:
Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility.
The organization's Code of Ethics declares "the Society's principles and standards of practice." In terms of a broad-based definition of what journalism ought to be, the Code of Ethics remains the industry standard. And as you'll see below, Fox News routinely, and blatantly, breaks the code to which ethical journalists are supposed to aspire. Fox News staffers (and not just the opinion show hosts) don't simply fail to live up to the industry's own ethical standards. They produce broadcasts that run directly counter to established values and rules. In other words, they obliterate the Code of Ethics on a regular basis, which to me signals that Fox News is not a legitimate source of journalism.
Below are some cornerstones to journalism's Code of Ethics, followed by clear-cut examples of how Fox News tramples that code:
--Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
Timeline of a [madrassa] smear
--Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
--Never distort the content of news photos or video. Image enhancement for technical clarity is always permissible. Label montages and photo illustrations.
Fox News airs altered photos of NY Times reporters
--Never plagiarize.
Fox passes off GOP press release as its own research -- typo and all
--Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status.
Media adopt gender, racial stereotypes in characterizing Sotomayor's temperament, intellect
--Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
REPORT: "Fair and balanced" Fox News aggressively promotes "tea party" protests
--Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.
Fox News, CBS air clips of peephole video of ESPN's Erin Andrews
--Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone's privacy.
O'Reilly Producer Stalks Amanda Terkel: THE VIDEO
--Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.
Foxy News breaks out the boudoir B-roll to cover "the great breast augmentation scandal"
--Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
Would a real news organization help GOP PACs raise money?
--Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.
FLASHBACK: When Fox News boasted about its "unprecedented" access to the Bush White House
--Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.
--Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
I normally wouldn't spend so much time with the chapter-and-verse examples to highlight the clear fact that Fox News is not a legitimate news organization. But since Beltway media elites continue to cling to the claim that it is, as well as peddle the bizarre, anti-free speech concept that the White House somehow ought to be forbidden to criticize the press, I'll continue with even more inescapable examples to back up the observation that Fox News is not a legitimate news outlet.
For instance, a legitimate news organization does not:
- Source its research to "conservative blogs."
- Purposefully present stories out of context.
- Regularly declare "Victory!" when a White House initiative fails.
- Ignore a breaking news story that embarrasses the Republican Party.
- Invite fringe conspiracy theorists to appear on news shows.
- Suggest during a news program that Democrats voted to "protect pedophiles, but not veterans."
- Routinely accuse the president of the United States of being like Adolf Hitler.
- Describe itself as the "voice of the opposition."
- Air more than 100 commercials promoting partisan political rallies.
- Show 22 clips of health care reform opponents who attended town hall forums, and none of health reform supporters.
- Purchase full-page newspaper ads to spread falsehoods about the news competition.
- Invade the privacy of second-grade students.
- Promote violent political rhetoric.
- Fail to fact-check a murder story before airing allegations about it.
- Allow a news anchor to suggest a Supreme Court nominee is guilty of "reverse racism."
It certainly would be helpful if reporters and pundits who work for respected corporate news outlets and who today defend Fox News as a legitimate operation (or at least chastise the White House for raising doubts) examined the 30 examples I listed above and ask themselves this: If they committed just one of those newsroom transgressions, would they still have a job? Would bosses at ABC or The New York Times or The Washington Post or wherever be willing to have those journalists on staff if they bent, and then busted, journalism's Code of Ethics the way Fox News regularly does?
I suspect the obvious answer is no. And I suspect journalists understand that. So why the Beltway charade? Why refuse to acknowledge the self-evident truth that Fox is not a legitimate news organization?
(Additional research by Simon Maloy.)
Follow Eric Boehlert on Twitter.
Fox's defenders like to point out the pedigrees of the cable channel's stalwarts, including the retired-but-still around Brit Hume.
Right. These aren't replicants formed out of pods a la "Invasion of the Body Snatchers." Before Fox's 1996 founding, they had enjoyed solid, respectable careers.
Why hasn't their employer's bailout from professionalism found them quitting?
Lots of times you just can't quit. A worker, whether paid $50,000 or $5 million, looks for reasons to stay. We can't read people's minds, but it's reasonable to assume the stunningly regular breaking of the rules deeply troubles many Fox employees. Some, perhaps, like to pretend it isn't happening.
A paid Fox News analyst-consultant CAN quit. And one did just the other day: Jane Hall, professor of communication at The American University. Too much Glenn Beck is the reported reason. Hall, incidentally, was a regular on Fox's best program, "Fox News Watch."
We can expect similar departures.
Jerry Elsea
Had many of the reporters who entered the business 5 decades ago maintained even an ounce of objectivity, FOX News may have never been needed. Before Fox News came along, the Big Three, along with most papers in the country were so in the tank for the liberals that competing views were never even addressed, yet alone discussed.
I know no one here likes to deal with the obvious issue of ratings, but the simple truth is that Fox has such high ratings, because no other news network gives conservatives a fair shot, and gives them the time that liberals have always gotten on the big three, as well as MSNBC and CNN.
It was the neglect that you and your fellow journalists showed that created Fox News.
I think you mean, "didn't have a political agenda."
As a liberal, I have never felt the MSM had a liberal slant. Some media reported some stories more than others. They covered more public policy, good government, education, poverty, jobs (including unions) than we currently see. They didn't extoll the benefits of unbridled greed. They didn't feature celebrity PR events but instead paid for journalists to cover beats and uncover stories people in power didn't want revealed.
The many in the old media went to boring meetings for years and years until they actually could describe what was taking place and what choices meant, rather than write incendiary claims that weren't supported by fact.
They seemed to believe the Frank Capra WWII "Why We Fight" propaganda that United States of America really was a moral force, and we did need to demonstrate a morality so as to influence the world to follow us, rather than demand the world do what we said. They felt that just making a buck wasn't good enough if you didn't inform to the best of your ability.
If those were liberal media, I guess we had a liberal media rather than a bunch of people whose ideology begins and ends with holy profits, and damn anyone who thinks otherwise.
FauxNoise lost over $500 million - LOST HALF A BILLION DOLLARS during its first 5 years of operations. FauxNoise was not run as a profit-making business, it was run as an ideological wedge in service of a political party.
Without FauxNoise we would not have had Dubya as President. Without FauxNoise, we wouldn't have had Tom DeLay, Phil Gramm, Denny Hastert, Dick Cheney, John Bolton, et al who fleeced the nation and left us with $5.5 TRILLION in Federal Debt during the Dubya years, nor would we have invaded Iraq, nor would we be bogged down in Afghanistan due to the Iraqi distraction, nor would we have allowed unregulated credit default swaps, collateralized debt obligations, mortgage back securities with no underlying assets, and $2-4 trillion in non-performing toxic assets.
Claiming credit for FauxNoise takes some chutzpah, when you should be ashamed.
Sorry, but that ship has sailed.
Once again, you show that, at best, you have no idea what you're talking about. Please link to any factual errors made by MMfA. In case you haven't noticed, there are THOUSANDS OF FALSEHOODS revealed here. You can disagree with liberals all you like, but when you justify yourself with lies then you're not interested in accuracy, you just want to bolster your own false beliefs rather than face reality. You also claim that ratings prove something, which is utterly ridiculous -- and even if it were true, all NBC, ABC, and CBS all beat Fox, which, by your logic, means that all of them are better sources of news than Fox. But, again, ratings only show the number of people watching, they have nothing to do with accuracy.
What possible reason does any rational person have to take anything you say seriously when you show yourself to be so deliberatly irrational?
In my younger years as a liberal, this account of the Watergate scandal represented my understanding of true journalism. Woodward and Bernstein were chasing down a story that largely was being ignored. As their story was unfolding, Editor-in chief Bill Bradley would not print any allegation without confirmation from 3 separate sources directly involved. The Washington Post was roundly criticized for pursuing the story and accused of liberal bias. So I came to interpret liberal bias as dedication to truth.
Reporting by Fox News has yet to show similar investigative journalism that even approaches the ethics and professionalism that I grew up respecting.
I applaud Eric Boehlert for highlighting long accepted principles of responsible journalism. Introspectively, I find it instructive that I am feeling nostalgic at this moment.
Spread the word!
Here is the first "disclaimer": "Typos don't qualify ("ooh, the news ticker used a 'D' after his name, not an 'R'!").
If they actually believe something like that (why did that error only happen to Mark Foley (R-FL) and other Republicans in the midst of some sort of scandal?) is just a typo, then they are not going to pay off on anything people submit, regardless of how blatant the misinformation is.
On Facebook, I replied to some RW nutjob who was demanding someone else provide ONE example of Glenn Beck lying. I went straight to Politifact (which denotes all lies/misinformation), and took two of their "pants on fire" lies and displayed them.
On the first, the FBRWnut feigned ignorance, and blew off the other one like Marilyn Chambers on film. So they will not accept anything which goes against their spin. They have ABSOLUTELY no credibility.
That's all you were able to find?
Shame on you and your laziness!
Good job otherwise. ;-)
The lie must have been repeated by at least two national Fox News reporters and left uncorrected.
If it's only said once, which is all it takes to start it, it doesn't count, you lose.
The transcripts and/or video clips must be available on the Fox News website for verification.
So if two people say the same lie, but use a different wording, it wasn't said twice, you lose.
The story, refuting the Fox News lie, must have been correctly reported at around the same time by news reporters from CNN and MSNBC (with links and/or transcripts from their sites).
If they don't cover it, you lose.
This is like when Pickens offered one million for "proof" of John Kerry's service, he wanted so much "proof" that you couldn't win -- not even Kerry himself.
At this point I think it is rather safe to say that the link you offered (I went there and posted my thoughts)... that the website there and its author are blatant frauds!
At least three people posted links to proof which proves at least a few of the thousands Fox Noise lies and the guy continues to weasel his way out of paying...
I posted that those few should consider suing for their $1000!
FYI: I sent this link to both Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow... beats me if they will doing anything with it.
See how perfect a trap that is? It forces you to defend the very people trying to put you in it!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evil Geniuses
Instead of doing your job better, you help protect the first one that would be fired, hoping that way they'll never review your performance.
Simple, they fear they may be next to be criticized, either by the White House or Fox. It's the slippery slope theory that once they acknowledge that the White House may criticize news organizations, one day President Obama will openly mock one of the White House pressroom reporters' stupid, misleading or slanted questions.
Even the Bush W WH criticized those news outlets.
But the press has their panties in a bunch over the WH daring to call out the all-powerfull Rupert Murdoch, eh?
Just shows the sway and influence that Murdoch & Ailes have over the entire media and the fear all news orgs feel toward FNC.
Ah, you must have stopped when your hands cramped up.
Thirty exhibits, perhaps.
And, don't use the FoxNews and Republican 'distractions' when explaining the "WRONG-DOINGS" from your side. Just be "honest" for once, LOL.
Please tell me you were being sarcastic with that...PLEASE!!!!
How Eric B. - could CNN be legit. and FOX not be ?
"We believe what we want to believe." True or NOT True !
- WeNEED-a-Carville
PS- do a montage from CNN and MSNBC on socialism snippets ;)
The evolution of intelligence in the United States is failing miserable. The lack of education enables people to maintain their prejudices and find validation in media outlets that will support their views. Going after Fox serves no purpose. Attempting to educate the ignorant might.
The reason they don't want to talk to FoxNews is not a shortage of time, nor is it the fact that FoxNews raises legit issues! It's because talking to FoxNews gives them legitimacy that they don't deserve!
The "issues" that FoxNews uniquely raises are almost always baseless smears, not issues that should be addressed. They're issues that distract from the TRUE issues that our nation should be addressing, and that derailing of the conversations we should be having should be called out for the damage it does to your national debate!
And if you come here and only hear name calling and no substance, well, there's no hope for you. The authors of everyone one of MMFA's research postings ONLY use substance to support their efforts and they never name call.
The ACORN "story" is about a few corrupt low-level employees and an imaginary pimp, ho, and a fictional underage sex slave ring.
Any outrage over the REAL underage sex slaves imported by our war profiteers in the Middle East?
the questions that Fox raises are legitimate
No, they're not.
There are RADICALs in the current administration
How do you know this? Because Beck/Hannity/etc. told you there are?
Or did you instinctively know it due to some of them being black, hispanic, or gay?
Of course there is nothing to ACORN corruption, of course!
And that's from a former 'insider'.
As far as radical goes, to a lefty, a lefty seems just perfect. To obama a guy that killed cops and bombed the pentagon for the CORRECT political reasons is not a radical, is he? Even if recently that non-radical speaks of his interest in pyrotechnics, "I don't regret setting bombs...I feel we didn't do enough." It's like looking to chairman mao for guidance, and really what's wrong with that?!
Speaking truth to/about progressives
And why are these questions NOT legitimate? Why shouldn't we be able to ask WHO is writing our laws and voting on our country's policy? The left seemed all to eager to question Bush's motives at every turn, and they should have seeing as how that administration was just as shifty. Shouldn't we be able to ask our government why in the world they think it's beneficial to further ruin our economy by raising taxes for a program that will enevitably bankrupt us? Ideological differences aside, this administration (just as the last administration, no I didn't support BUSH either) is spending us into oblivion and no one on the left seems to think that if we keep this up, we will all be royally screwed in the very near future. You must not have kids, because I can't see any parent accepting the future that these politicians are presenting us with for their children to have to bear. I seem to recall all the outrage at the soldiers dying abroad during the Bush administration, where is your outrage now? We have just experienced the most deadly month to date for our troops. It is inconceivable how the left holds these double standards up as if "your" guy is any better? It is so strange to see you all turn a blind eye when the guy sitting in the Oval office is from your team.
Listen, I VOTED FOR OBAMA. I bought his message. I was ready for this country to make a change...for the better. And I am dissapointed in what has happened since he took office. We as Americans are NOT better off, we are not making more money, we are not selling our homes. We are floundering while Washington spends our money and funnels it to special interest groups or wastes it on idiotic programs like Cash for Clunkers.
And lastly, I say that there are Radicals in this administration not because of what Fox pundits say, I see RADICALS in this administration because they are radical, and they prove it with every word that spills from their own angry mouths. Words that NO ONE HAS YET TO DENY SAYING.
Funny, all I hear about on Fox and hate radio are the stories about the fake pimp, the fake ho, and the imaginary underage prostitution ring.
War profiteers are stealing millions EVERY DAY. Any outrage over that?
And I am dissapointed in what has happened since he took office
He's only been in office 10 months. He's trying to end 2 wars left on his doorstep and keep the economy from tanking while restructuring health care away form the insurance company vampires. How about giving him a chance?
I see RADICALS in this administration because they are radical,
Sure you do. And I see dead people.
How do you know this? Because Beck/Hannity/etc. told you there are?
Or did you instinctively know it due to some of them being black, hispanic, or gay?"
Ah no...because Beck/Hannity/etc..play the video with the radicals' own words. But we're supposed to believe Obama, MM or YOU that what we hear is somehow a 'lie' or made up.
the questions that Fox raises are legitimate
No, they're not.
So a group of organizations that come under an umbrella called ACORN -- that receives millions in taxpayer dollars on the federal and state level -- is supposed to be immune from any kind of scrutiny?
ACORN has been shown to have a perfect record now of not questioning criminal activity. Perhaps it is because they are a criminal organization?
you creeps from wingnuttia have no clue as to what corruption is. sure, some things at acorn are troubling and need to be addressed but are no where near the scale of the others i mentioned. until you call out those other companies you will just keep showing yourself as an ideologically driven fool who has no concern for anything except money and power.
We know they are radicals by their own words. And what is this obsession you seem to have with race?
"Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information." -- Society of Professional Journalists
So what happened to Dan Rather and his manager with the fake documents on Bush's ANG duty which she knew were faked and the information on GWB was wrong as well?
How about when 60Minutes had to blow up a truck to make people beleive there was a problem with Chevy Trucks?
How about when the NYT stepped down on a reporters story that if published would cause great harm to Obama's campaign? Remember the one on ACORN that got squashed?
How about the ABC infomercial on Healthcare, hmm no dissenting opinion there now. Yes Mr Obama you can have all the time you want commerical free to tout your plan on healthcare.
How about how the MSM and ACORN? Big story that Fox got and ran with while the MSM ignored the corruption happening at ACORN which is one of Obama's pet organizations.
How about the MSM not looking at Rev Wright, Van Jones very close and not informing the public as to who Obama associates with or wants as advisors. Fox does it, but God forbid the MSM go against what the administration is pushing, wouldn't want to let the public know the truth now eh.
Every single point Boehlert made is at the least double for the MSM when it comes to the dems and Obama, heck even researchers confirmed it.
Pew Research:
"a study by the Pew Research Center showed that 40 percent of Fox News stories on Obama in the last six weeks of the campaign were negative. Similarly, 40 percent of Fox News' stories on Obama's Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, were negative.
On CNN, by contrast, there was a 22-point disparity in the percentage of negative stories on Obama (39 percent) and McCain (61 percent). The disparity was even greater at MSNBC, according to Pew, where just 14 percent of Obama stories were negative, compared to a whopping 73 percent of McCain stories -- a spread of 59 points."
As far as GWB critizing news organizations, this is a little different when an administration comes out and touts the lies about FOX not being a news organization.
The MSM is afraid of FOX news, what a load of BS. Afraid that if you criticize the administration the same will happen, what a joke. The MSM has been in the bag for Obama since the beginning and won't say jack about the lies of the democratic party or Obama himself. MSM coming out to support Fox, yea what a load of BS.
Yea, I would say before calling Fox out for not being a news organization take a good hard look at what the MSM is pushing which is nothing but half truths, no truths or burying the story.
Yea, sorry Eric your socalled 30 points are nothing but a confirmation of what the MSM isn't which is a true outlet for news.
Wait, you provided no examples, nor did you provide any proof to support your unfounded opinion.
Even your first item on the timeline of a smear includes others, beside Fox that reported the story. Yet contrary to what the first dictate of 'journalism' requires, something or other about false headings, media matters (for very little) goes ahead with the legitimacy of FNC in the title.
Problem is not with misinformation but with the information that Fox provides about the lefties and lefty leanings of this administration. The more America sees, the more they reject lefty views of government and governing. The democrat party and its lefty allies are in disarray because of the exposure to the light of day of their plans.
When it get's down to it, 'journalism' is in the eye of the beholder. What Americans are 'beholding' these days is the accuracy of message found at Fox, one that truly is fair and balanced, and not the message the lefty fringe would want them to hear.
Please Eric, get up out of the corner,out of the fetal position and quit whining. America rejects the lefty philosophy and it will continue to be reflected in those pesky ratings.
So until your wet dream comes true, when the thought police czars invoke the fairness doctrine and commits some Chavez-Stalin-Castro fumble-ruski, understand that when given a choice to hear propaganda or the truth, truth, and Americans will always win out.
Speaking truth to/about progressives
Just like Rush, with talent on loan from God!
You are welcome.
But furthermore, I don't think that Fox can simply go, "oh, beck or hannity or etc. is an opinion commentator," and then wash their hands of all responsibility for what they say. I think that Fox has to, to some degree, take responsibility for the statements made by the people on their network. If Fox simply wants to avoid ever being put in the position of having to defend statements made by Beck or Hannity or whoever, then they shouldn't put them on the air. Period.
If Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow were guilty of advancing the kind of bizarre and outrageous conspiracy theories that Beck and Hannity have (FEMA concentration camps, the birthers, etc) or of calling a public political figure a communist, a socialist, a fascist, a Nazi, etc. or of accusing the president (or anyone for that matter) of trying to destroy America, then I would similarly expect MSNBC to be held responsible for the statements made by their employees.
And, probably most significantly, the problems with Fox news is not limited to their opinion commentators. Fox news (opinion and news programs alike) devoted round-the-clock coverage to the 9/12 protest in DC. Yet, just a few short weeks later, when a protest for gay rights attracted a crowd similar in size, it was essentially ignored by Fox news. I was under the impression that thousands of people marching on Washington was a pretty big story.
There is nothing wrong with Fox having mostly conservative reporters or mostly conservative commentators. We are all human beings, and we all have opinions and biases. However, journalists should make every possible effort to keep their personal beliefs from interfering with their professional responsibilities, and Fox has demonstrated time and again that they are far more committed to being partisan than to being responsibile journalists. I think that is illustrated fairly well in the fact that they gave 24/7 coverage, in addition to running promos for, one political protest and then turned around and immediately ignored another political protest that didn't align with their personal ideology. That is very, very far from fair and balanced reporting.
Thanks for making me spit my root beer right on my keyboard with this one Ruby!
You have some example of Olbermann or Maddow advancing conspiracy theories on par with Beck, who has implied the existence of FEMA concentration camps and suggested that ACORN orchestrated the breaking of the levees in New Orleans during Katrina in order to destroy records, or Hannity, who has given air time to the birthers?
It's much more effective to counter a claim with your own actual facts, rather than telling me that my claim made you spit root beer on your keyboard.
If you can read, you will see countless examples of Olberman's downright nasty smears and distortions. How's this one about Sara Palin? ""mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick".
Of course this probably doesn't qualify as an insult to you lefties. In fact, on the 1 to 10 scale of name calling by you folks, it's probably down around 1.
Mmmm, mmmm, mmmm.
Incidentally, wasn't that quote about Michelle Malkin, in response to her "nasty smears and distortions"?
Pardon me all to heck barb! Oblerman calling Malkin a ""mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick" is so much more tolerant then calling Palin same. You lefties are so compasionate.
I'd like to hear a good reason why anyone should be tolerant of that. Why is she the one who needs compassion in this picture, exactly?
It can be debated whether his comment was over-the-top or not, but there does seem to be some justification behind the sentiment.
What is NOT occurring on both sides are the outrageous conspiracy theories, like FEMA concentration camps, ACORN blowing up levees, Obama not being an American citizen, etc.
Way to go.
And as for your comments about the gay-rights march in D.C., the simple truth about this is most people really don't want to hear the continual in your face drumming over gay-rights. The large majority of people in America are "straight". Thus, to keep their ratings up where they belong (best in cable news by a factor of 4x or so - higher then all the other cable news programs combined), FOX News decided to not cover it. Let the other cable news nets spend their money on things the vast majority of normal folks don't wanna see.
The vast majority of people didn't want to see the 9/12 March either, but FoxNews showed it.
And when they DID cover it, they SAID that they covered it because any march with that many people deserved to be covered! If that's the case, if what they said was true, then they should have given a similar amount of coverage to the gay march. They didn't. They're hypocrites.
Now, if Fox could just go ahead and state publicly that their priority is getting high ratings and telling people "what they want to hear", then that'd be just dandy. Somehow I don't think that's their plan of action.
As you my recall, from under your tin foil hat, Fox News was able to turn the election in their favor using their almighty power and divine media influence. Obama never stood a chance against such "exposure" of "lefty views" of government, governing, governance, and governiness. Not only was Obama exposed, he was shamed back into the obscurity of his day job in the Senate. Yep, America saw it, and they rejected it, just like you say, ProphetCon. How awesome it must be to live in your version of reality where Fox News can will anything to happen.
Well, I guess with all the happiness found at the town hall meetings, the thrill toward this administration shown at the march on DC, the joy of government excess from the Tea Party, the desire to move lefty in polls showing the excitement of forced socialized medicine by the citizenry, why even the coming together of the democrat party to pass lefty bills like cap and tax, global warming crappola and nationalized obamacare all seem to point that for sure the wise ways of lefties are fully embraced.
Or maybe it's lefties just....
whistling past the political graveyard. See ya on Tuesday and in 2010!
Speaking truth to/about progressives
[end snark]
And by the way, these examples would be hilarious parodies if they weren't actually true: "Routinely accuse the president of the United States of being like Adolf Hitler."
Gee, seems to me the lefties were doing the same with George Bush.
And by the way, it IS a First Amendment issue.
Speaking truth to/about progressives
However, they do NOT have the right to misrepresent themselves as a fair and balanced, reliable news network as they do so.
And, however much it might "seem to you" that "lefties were doing the same with George Bush", just you saying so doesn't qualify as reliable evidence to support that claim.
Please, by all means, supply me with some example of a major cable news network engaging in the same kinds of namecalling, smears, and partisan attacks towards Bush as Fox has towards this president (i.e. calling Obama a socialist, a communist, a marxist, a fascist, dedicating lengthy segments on opinion programs to detailing the many ways in which this administration resembles nazi germany, accusing him of attempting to destroy America or being a racist with a deep-seated hatred of white people, etc. etc.)
Those voices in your head are back, aren't they?
Here's one.
Here's another.
and again, the guy who cut the checks for media matters (for very little).
Speaking truth to/about progressives
In addition, one video of one opinion commentator is not substantial evidence that an entire major cable news network is engaging in this behavior.
Look at the article above, detailing numerous instances of multiple different Fox personalities completely flushing journalistic integrity down the toilet.
"One dude on MSNBC said fascist once!" doesn't, in my humble opinion, quite measure up to the behavior of Fox, as detailed above.
And, if you are (I'm not assuming you are) at all annoyed/disgusted/appalled by Keith Olbermann uttering the word "fascist" during a monologue about Bush, then what on earth, praytell, makes you feel that the incessant name-calling at Fox is somehow justifiable?
Here we go again we this quote!
I meant to say. Here we go again with this quote!
Weird world that Fox.
Give it up Eric. Only you and the MM fellows, formerly the mouthpieces for the DSCC and DCCC, care about this. Change the channel.
Cheers!
Changing the channel won't stop them from being able to direct some of the national debates we have. They get more credibility than they deserve. We shouldn't waste any time talking about non-existent death panels. We should have debates about real issues with factual information. We shouldn't have FoxNews telling us that a kid was 15, and therefore his teacher ignored his responsibility to protect the child from statutory rape, when there was much more evidence (later proven) that the kid was 16, and therefore the teacher WAS fulfilling his legal obligation to be a confidential resource for that student. FoxNews reporters didn't give that contradictory age information to their listeners for days and days, yet it was readily avaiable for them to access. They asserted facts not in evidence and omitted the evidence that eventually was proven to be true.
I could go on and on. The author above did. MMFA has been doing this for years.
The whole nation should care about this. They slowly are becoming aware of it - that's why only 20% will admit that they still claim to be Republicans!
Hardly. Fox News is important because it can establish narratives and steer public debate. When those narratives are based on false premises (death panels?), when voters are misinformed because an agency with a powerful megaphone is manipulating them, then that is a huge concern, especially if other outlets start to emulate them. Regardless of ideology, a news media that's trying to advance a political viewpoint instead of inform is dangerous to democracy.
You hit it on the head! The only way to counter misinformation, lies, and partisan propaganda is to ensure that we have an informed citizenry. How do we do that?
There are two kinds of Fox News supporters: 1) uninformed citizens that fall for the propaganda, and 2) Fellow travelers who know the lies but don't care because it furthers their goals and supports their belief systems: greed, power, racism, etc.
DellDolly: More and more people care about Fox directing the debate? According to the Nielsen's, more and more are tuning in to Fox to actually hear the debate. Where's your journalism degree from again?
Dandelion: A news media advancing a political viewpoint is a danger to democracy? It's ONE cable network vs. all the other networks, nearly every large metro newspaper in the country, plus Hollywood and academia. Get a grip.
More and more people are refusing to identify themselves as Republicans. Were you awake for the election last fall? There wasn't a single at-risk Democratic seat in Congress. How many Republican-held seats were lost?
When you talk about FoxNews minor ratings increases, you're talking about weather. When I talk about an overall awakening to the poisoning of our society's discourse because of FoxNews and their ilk, that's like climate. Weather is transitory. Climate is long term trends.
And to your "points" to others. It's a myth that there's a widespread liberal media bias, and so no, it's not just fair to have one that is right of center AND that lies, distorts and omits relevant data that their listeners deserve. You're the one who needs to get a clue!!!!! A news source advancing lies, distortions and omissions all while claiming they're fair and balanced poisons the debate, and yeah, that's very deleterious to the American people to have to wade through the detrious to get to the real facts and the real issues. It hurts our nation to have to continually debunk the "death panels" false talking point, for example, instead of being able to talk about how beneficial it will be for end-of-life counselling to be paid for by Medicaid if patients want to take advantage of that informative service.
And you're the one who complained about MMFA. If you don't like what they do, leave. No one would have suggested you leave had you not complained first about being here and reading what we and MMFA have posted, you dum-dum. And we know you're lying when you say that you are comfortable and having fun here, and that's why you hang out - that's a feeble defense. What we know is that you are frustrated and angry, and that's why you hang out, and that's why you complained - because you're angry and frustrated! This is not rocket science! When you assert that ETRW needs to chill out when he demonstrated no angst about this, what you tell us is that YOU are the one who is feeling uncomfortable and peevish. And do you know what the definition of "whining" is? A feeble, peevish complaint.
So, that makes you a whiner. Not us. You.
In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.
http://www.relfe.com/media_can_legally_lie.html
Fox news is asking..
"Would you support health care reform legislation if it did not contain the government-run insurance option?"
and the options are..
"a>Absolutely. Congress should stick to legislating laws and regulations, and let the free-market system work.
b> Probably. I’m still unsure whether reforms will cut my medical bills, but something has to be done.
c> No. The current health care system works fine. Leave it alone and let the free-market system work.
d> Undecided."
As one can see, there is no option to say "No I won't support a legislation without a public option because I want a public option to be provided"..
This is how cheap and false fox news is.
Below is an article discussing recent actions by Obama and how the media would have reacted if it had been Bush.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28764.html
Here's an article on how Obama "controlled" the media during the campaign. You would think they would be embarrassed but I'm sure libs just viewed it as well-done, investigative journalism.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=113347
Speaking of investigative journalism, have you seen any since Obama took the reigns? The media was constantly holding the Bush administration accountable and rightfully so. Now, 60 Minutes is investigating the high price of bananas (lead story first week of Aug). If roles were reversed, we would see in depth investigation of Fannie & Freddie, Charlie Rangel, Dodd & Conrad VIP treatment, ACORN indictments in 15 states, implications of trillions in debt (Bush and Obama's fault), implications of Obama's energy plan on jobs/economy (oil has doubled since Obama was elected while oil supplies are at record highs), lack of transparency (list is endless), honest debate on global warming instead of no debate at all, lobbying impact despite promises to the contrary, how Obama is protecting lawyers, stimulus package, Rahm's Chicago house being declared a charity, Obama's donor list and college transcripts (transparency?), economic impact of cap & trade, tax & spend hunger, efficiencies/inefficiencies of national healthcare in other countries, efficiencies/inefficiencies of healthcare already in the US (MA, Hawaii, TN), why dems were investigating Roger Clemons while the economy crumbled, ......instead we get stories on bananas.
To write an article about objective journalism with a backdrop of reporters asking the president what has enchanted him, CBS using fake documents (the font used didn't exist at that time) to undermine an election, CNN fact-checking an SNL skit, NBC personalities nearly wetting themselves when Obama speaks, NBC personalities saying they will do anything to get Obama elected, NY Times putting Abu Ghraib prisoner pictures on their front page 53 times, NY Times and others running (front page) untrue rumors about McCain having an affair, NY Times admitting they dropped the ball on Obama.....and literally 1000s more examples.
How about some articles on why Obama's policies are good for the economy, jobs and America? I'm sure he appreciates you diverting any attention away from his failed policies. The self righteousness on the left is entertaining.
Now, FoxNews has taken up the "we're a victim here" meme, that's for sure. But they aren't, just like a convicted criminal is not a "victim" of the criminal justice system and the sentence he receives, FoxNews is not a victim of anyone who points out FoxNews' errors and omissions.
MMFA has already debunked the Politico story - Politico leans right, and they did the infamous false eqivalency argument - Bush was a failure in many ways, and his administration was called to account for those failures. Obama's been getting attacked where it's not deserved.
MMFA has also already debunked the WND story about Obama's campaign controlling their message. No one ever said, nor implied, nor meant, that Obama controlled the media, but many on the right lied about that, just like you did here. But you're about 2 days late. Of course, we love it when ignorant people like you come here pretending that you're going to educate us, when the fact is that we already know more about these things than you do!
You lie about the Dan Rather story and Bush's TANG career. Most of what you say is simply nonsense from right wing talking points, or irrelevant. On top of all that, even if some of what you say is true, two wrongs don't make a right, so even there, you'd be wrong and inappropriate! If it's wrong to do, it doesn't make your side's errors okay if someone from our side did a similarly wrong thing. I don't know why people like you don't understand this simple concept, that it doesn't excuse your error to say that someone else did it too!!!
It's your side that are the hypocrites. That has been well established. It's your side that has misplaced self-righteousness.
So I'd like to invite you to put together an article about any of the other networks that have behaved as Fox News habitually does. Put something together that looks like this article. Show us how any other network has repeatedly violated the journalism code of ethics. Don't refer to other outlets. Link to actual stories carried on the object of your scorn. You said it would be easy. Put up or shut up.
Ignoring people like Glenn Beck doesn't work. It's not a good idea.
Blame the Obama White House for his soaring ratings.
I wonder how many sight hits MMFA gets by exploiting Beck....hmmm.
Hypocrisy at it's finest. You libs have all the networks except one, and what do you do....attack the one!
We don't have all the networks. We've debunked that myth many, many times.
There is no liberal media bias. It's a myth. It was always a myth. It was started by partisan rightwingers back about 30 years ago in order to push a conversative agenda that gave them the opportunity to craft rightwing media sources like Rush Limbaugh and FoxNews and "seem" to be reasonable in doing so.
Is truth plural? Does the sun rise both in the west as in the east, is the sky green or is it blue, or can one decide on their own which is true, in America?
I have had people tell me that they watch Fox because it tells the truth, and I try to argue that point with them, pointing out that Fox airs incorrect information all the time!
I ask again, is truth plural?
The other news outlets are defending Fox, I believe, because they don't want to tick off the crazies. There's too much likelihood that these people, whose dogmatic fervor evokes images of Al-Qaeda training videos, might resort to violence if their feelings of marginalization grow stronger. Since Fox so enjoys the false equivalency between Islam and terrorism, let me construct a simile their viewers can appreciate: Fox News is the radical cleric leading chants of "Death to the infidel!"; Fox viewers are the unwashed peasants who can neither read nor understand the intricate poetry of the Koran; the infidel is anyone who challenges anything said on Fox, ever, for any reason. That's how I see Fox, and that's why I think the White House's decision to treat Fox as the enemy should have appealed greatly to the unwashed masses of Fox viewership; hell, we're just gettin' our preemptive war on.
Either that, or certain journalists are just jackasses practicing ego-defense.
I promise us "secular fanatics" won't resort to throwing people into wood chippers (while alive - feet first), sawing off any heads, dragging bodies threw the streets, or any of the other killings Al Quada practices in. Although we may pump up the volume (aka torture at Gitmo) to punish the non secular - non fanatics.