News Corpse » Howard Kurtz:

Tag Archives: Howard Kurtz

Feb 14 2013 2 cmnts

Bill O’Reilly Can’t Stop Embarrassing Himself: The Drone Edition

Posted by: Mark @ 11:41 am

Last week Bill O’Reilly demonstrated how utterly inept he and his staff were when he asked “You heard anything on NBC about the drones?” Then he answered his own question saying “Neither have I. Neither has my staff.” As it turns out it was actually NBC who broke the story that had spurred the media dialogue on the subject.

However, O’Reilly stiffened his back and insisted that he was still right with a tortured explanation that talking about drones was not talking about drones. On last night’s program he wandered further into delusional territory during an interview with Howard Kurtz, who had previously criticized O’Reilly about his not noticing NBC’s role in the coverage of drones. O’Reilly charged Kurtz with hypocrisy and accused him of…

“…confusing hard news reporting about drones with the New York Times editorial page, which hasn’t condemned, as far as I know, in any great measure as they did with waterboarding, the use of it. What we were clearly talking about here was why the left doesn’t condemn killing terrorists with drones.”

As you might expect, O’Reilly stuck his massive foot into his even bigger mouth yet again. Nearly a year ago, well before this current dust up, the Times published an editorial titled “Too Much Power for a President.” The very first paragraph reads…

“It has been clear for years that the Obama administration believes the shadow war on terrorism gives it the power to choose targets for assassination, including Americans, without any oversight. On Tuesday, The New York Times revealed who was actually making the final decision on the biggest killings and drone strikes: President Obama himself. And that is very troubling.”

The Times goes on to say…

“No one in that position should be able to unilaterally order the killing of American citizens or foreigners located far from a battlefield — depriving Americans of their due-process rights.”

So much for the Times not condemning drones. Even worse, O’Reilly actually contradicted his own premise that liberals have not been critical of Obama’s drone policy despite their criticism of Bush’s waterboarding and torture tactics. In the opening of this segment O’Reilly explicitly acknowledged that liberals were openly opposing Obama’s CIA director nominee over this very issue.

“Will counter-terrorism advisor John Brennan become the head of the CIA? He testifies on Capitol Hill tomorrow, but some liberals don’t like him because he is the director of the drone program that kills terrorists from the sky.”

O’Reilly needs to explain how liberals can be hypocrites for not speaking out against drones when they are, in fact, speaking out and O’Reilly himself has heard it and used it to introduce his story. He may also want to explain how he missed the New York Times editorial hammering the President on drones, but still went on the air to say the Times never criticized Obama. His loathing for depraved lefties was palpable as he piled on his rage:

“This is about one thing. Hypocrisy. You leftists screaming about waterboarding yet they’re muted about killing with drones because they’re in the tank for Barack Obama.”

Right! Leftists like the New York Times, Rachel Maddow, Glenn Greenwald, etc. are all in the tank for Obama even while they harshly slam him for deploying drones. It should also be noted that another news organization actually did mute the drone story – Fox News. Therefore they must also be in the tank for Obama.

How many times does O’Reilly have to get virtually everything wrong before people will take notice that he is just blabbering old fool who can’t form a coherent argument on any subject? If he had the capacity to feel shame he might hole himself up in a cabin in Idaho for the remainder of the decade. Unfortunately, his prodigious ego will ensure that he will continue to misinform his audience and whine pitifully when someone tries to point out his mistakes. And somehow this gets ratings for Fox. Well, I guess if people will watch Honey Boo Boo, they will watch anything.

Jan 28 2013 8 cmnts

General

Fox News Deliberately Low-Balled Sarah Palin According To Reliable Sources (CNN)

Posted by: Mark @ 3:01 am

Much has been made of the news that Tea Party queen Sarah Palin and Fox News, the cable network that served as the PR agency for the Tea Party, have parted ways. The reporting generally implied that Palin had turned down Fox’s offer to renew her contract. That is, in all likelihood, exactly what happened.

However, contract negotiations are more complex than that. And now we have reporting from CNN’s Howard Kurtz that fleshes out some of the ambiguities of the original stories. On his program Reliable Sources, Kurtz expanded on the matter by saying…

“My reporting shows that Fox News did offer Sarah Palin a new contract, but it is what I would call a low-ball offer, significantly less, a fraction of the million dollars a year she had been paid.”

In other words, Fox deliberately made an offer that they knew Palin would reject because they had no interest in retaining her beyond her current contract. As speculated previously here at News Corpse, Fox probably “offered her a moose burger and parking validation to re-up – and even that would have been more than she’s worth.” After all, why would Fox continue to overpay someone about whom Fox CEO Roger Ailes reportedly said he thinks is an idiot?

Palin’s star has been fading fast. Fox News only posted a modified AP story about the separation on their web site. Fox Nation, known for its rabid partisanship and rank dishonesty, didn’t report on it all. As evidence of Palin’s rapidly declining value, her first post-Fox stop was at the Internet’s home of doctored videos and right-wing propaganda, Breitbart News. There she answered a couple of vacant questions from BreitBrat Stephen Bannon, the sycophantic producer of the fawning Palin crockumentary, “The Undefeated” (the most ironically named box office bomb ever, considering it chronicles one of modern history’s most frequently defeated political failures).

In response to Bannon’s query about what she planned to do next, Palin had no answer other than vagaries about her desire to quit “preaching to the choir.” She spoke of “sharing more broadly the message of the beauty of freedom” to a larger audience. She didn’t give any indication of where she would find an audience receptive to her wingnuttery that she thinks is larger than Fox News from which she was just ousted. The narrow appeal of her conservative extremism is unlikely to find much acceptance beyond the tiny choir that is currently singing from her warped hymnal.

Then Bannon asked her where she thinks the country stands today and she launched into a dirty laundry list of every worn out criticism the right has lobbed at Obama for four years. She spoke of deficits and unemployment – problems that resulted from George Bush’s mismanagement of the economy and have improved under Obama. Of course, she also included fabricated controversies about ObamaCare, Benghazi, and gun control, that are a staple of the right’s outrage machine.

Palin told BreitBrat Bannon that “Conservatism didn’t lose.” She blames the 2012 GOP debacle entirely on Mitt Romney, despite the fact that he ran as a “severely conservative” candidate embracing every position held dear to the Republican far-right fringe. And she declares that “we haven’t begun to fight! But we delight in those who underestimate us.” In that regard she must be filled to the brim with delight, because it would hard to have a lower estimation of the woman who thinks a “gotcha” question is “What magazines do you read.”

On the basis of that level of insightful commentary, it’s no wonder that Fox chose to insult Palin with a pittance of her prior pay, and free her to tarnish the reputation of some other news enterprise (i.e. Breitbart). Apparently somebody at Fox has concluded that their reputation has already been tarnished enough.

Jul 17 2012 9 cmnts

Economy, General, Media Bias

The Swiss Boating Of Mitt Romney: A CNN Fable

Posted by: Mark @ 10:50 am

When you hear the right complain, as they always do, about the so-called liberal media, keep in mind the fact that Fox News is the most watched cable news network, that the Wall Street Journal is the largest national newspaper, that talk radio is dominated by conservatives, and that the Internet’s most referenced site belongs to Matt Drudge. What exactly do they think the media is?

Add to that the fact that many establishment news providers bend over backwards to avoid being targeted by conservative critics for having a liberal bias. Or worse, they strive to emulate the right-wing media in hopes of duplicating their perceived success.

CNN is the worst offender in this contest of running to the right. Their aggressive shift in ideology has been well documented. They have hired numerous far-right extremists with no effort to achieve any sort of balance. And that includes the news chief, Ken Jautz. Consequently, their ratings have collapsed along with their journalistic integrity.

Swiss Mitt This past weekend CNN broadcast another example of how their sinking ethics have impacted their news judgment. The segment by Tom Foreman was centered on the absurd premise that the Obama campaign has engaged in “Swiftboating” Mitt Romney by accurately questioning his business experience, his millions of dollars in off-shore tax havens, and his refusal to release more than a year or two of his tax returns. Foreman concludes his report saying…

Tom Foreman: In ad after ad, Democrats are suggesting that Romney is a fatcat job outsourcer, an opportunistic financial predator, and an elitist out of touch with the working class. Never mind that many of those claims appear to be backed with little or no evidence. [...] Some Republican analysts fear that Mitt Romney could be the second politician from Massachusetts to be Swiftboated out of the presidency.

The problem with Foreman’s conclusion is that there is abundant evidence of the claims made in the Obama ads. And the questions they raise are those that would require answers from any political candidate. Who could deny that Romney is a fatcat? The job outsourcing by Bain entities is not even denied by Romney. He just argues that he wasn’t there at the time (despite official SEC filings that contradict him). And how could someone be more out of touch than by saying that he likes to fire people, he’s not concerned about the poor, and that corporations are people?

Foreman was not alone in raising the specter of Swiftboating on CNN. Reporter Jim Acosta misused the term when he interviewed Mitt Romney on Friday asking him whether he thought he was being Swiftboated. Talk about your softball questions. And media analyst Howard Kurtz also misused the term while promoting his Sunday program Reliable Sources. He was acutely concerned about Romney’s welfare under the intense pressure he must be suffering.

Howard Kurtz: I’ve been increasingly worried about whether the media that have been pushing a lot of these stories, “Boston Globe”, “Washington Post” on outsourcing, “Vanity Fair” on Cayman Island accounts, seem to some people to be echoing the message of the Obama campaign by raising so many questions about Romney’s business background.

Apparently Kurtz is of the opinion that if a story is getting a lot of attention the reporters should immediately stop covering it for fear of overtaxing the beleaguered subject of the story and to avoid charges of bias by “some people” on the receiving end of the bad news. How very considerate of him.

For the record, Swiftboating is a term that describes a campaign to disparage a candidate’s strengths that is based on falsehoods and lacks evidence. It is wholly improper to use the term simply to denounce ads that are critical of a candidate. Criticism that is rooted in the truth, with evidence to back it up, is not Swiftboating in any way shape or form. In fact, refraining from such relevant criticism would be campaign malpractice.

Asking Romney to account for his activities in business, which is the core of his campaign, is fair game. So is asking him to release tax returns as almost every candidate in modern times does – since his own father set the standard back in 1968. But suggesting that news coverage of such issues is Swiftboating, as CNN has done three times in as many days, is proof that the network has lost all interest in being a professional news enterprise.

Jul 02 2012 2 cmnts

General, Wankery

Bill O’Reilly Is An Idiot Whether Apologizes Or Not

Posted by: Mark @ 6:25 pm

Back in March, Bill O’Reilly had a contentious debate with Caroline Fredrickson, the president of the American Constitution Society, on the potential outcome of the Supreme Court’s hearing on ObamaCare. Ms. Fredrickson presciently predicted that the bill would be upheld as constitutional and even noted specifically that the justification would come from the Constitution’s taxing authority. However, O’Reilly disagreed and concluded the segment by saying this:

“Ms. Frederickson, you’re going to lose, and your argument is specious. We appreciate you coming on. But this is absolutely a mandate. It’s absolutely a force. It’s absolutely police powers from the federal government, and it’s going to be 5 to 4. And if I’m wrong I will come on, and I will play — I will play your clip. And I will apologize for being an idiot. But I think you’re desperately wrong.”

Last week, following the Court’s decision, O’Reilly was on vacation, but he did call into his program and spoke with guest host Laura Ingraham. He said nothing about himself having been so desperately wrong. Today he returned and brought up the the incident in March, however, he did not apologize. Just prior to a disingenuous pseudo-apology, he declared that he is “not really sorry,” which cancels out anything he said afterwards. You don’t get credit for an apology if you precede it by saying that you’re not really sorry.

Rather, O’Reilly spent several minutes blaming CNN’s Howard Kurtz and Media Matters for – well, I couldn’t really figure what he was blaming them for. Apparently they were somehow responsible for his being a complete moron, and therefore he had nothing for which to apologize. He alleged that Kurtz was empowering Media Matters in some respect, and that…

“Kurtz does the bidding of Media Matters, and, I don’t know, maybe I should just ignore that and, as you say, move along down the highway, but it certainly disturbs me a little bit.”

And that was it. No actual apology. No admission that he was an idiot. No integrity in keeping his word. Just an obvious and pathetic dodge. He pointed fingers at others who had nothing to do with any of this and pretended that he never made a spectacularly stupid promise in support of his ill-informed prediction. It was a display of dishonesty and cowardice that befits someone like – well, like Bill O’Reilly. So I thought I’d help Billo out by saying what he is to chickenshit to say:

I think that about covers it.

Oct 23 2011 3 cmnts

General

Liberal Media My Ass!

Posted by: Mark @ 1:39 pm

Nothing will make me happier than when the utterly delusional notion that the media in this country is liberal has been refuted, defeated, exterminated, and cremated.

While most observers are already aware of the fact-hating editorial policy of Fox News, at least they did fire Glenn Beck earlier this year (although only because his increasingly hysterical ravings were making them look bad). What people may not have noticed is that CNN is taking up Fox’s slack.

This morning on CNN viewers could have awakened to see two of Beck’s surrogates bloviating on the events of the day. Amy Holmes, an anchor on Beck’s GBTV was a guest commentator on Reliable Sources with Howard Kurtz. A couple of hours later, Will Cain, a repoter for Beck’s The Blaze appeared on CNN’s Your Money.

For CNN to feature two representatives of Glenn Beck’s insignificant and failing Internet venture is unbelievable. Is that the best they could come up with? Was CNN unable to find any reputable commentators from distinguished networks, newspapers, or universities? Or maybe their attempts to book members of the John Birch Society fell through.

Elsewhere, NPR made news by firing the host of an opera program because she had taken part in an OccupyDC protest. According to NPR, Lisa Simeone was sacked because her activity “has the potential to compromise our reputation as an organization that strives to be impartial and unbiased.”

Never mind that Simeone hosts a music program and does not cover politics or any other subject that could pose any kind of a conflict. Unlike NPR’s Mara Liasson who is a political reporter as well as a commentator on Fox News. Somehow NPR justifies Liasson’s fraternizing with Fox on matters that are explicitly political, but Simeone can’t introduce classical music after having exercised her Constitutional right to free speech on her own personal time.

Conservatives assail CNN as the Communist News Network due to their perception of it as unabashedly liberal. NPR is a perennial target of right-wingers in Congress who seek to defund what they considered to be a hopelessly biased mouthpiece for the left. At what point are these fallacies laid to rest? Do we really need any more proof than when CNN hosts two Glenn Beck flunkies on the same day, or NPR fires an opera program host because she is a liberal outside of work?

The Occupy Wall Street movement has done a great job of defining the 99% of Americans who are being rolled over by the !% of wealthy, corporate interests who are dominating our political culture. Something the Occupiers need to remember and focus on is that the media in this country is also wealthy and corporate, and they are Platinum members of the 1%. Wall Street firms and bankers spend billions on advertising and the media rewards them with positive coverage and the sort of ludicrous editorial decisions noted above. This needs to be addressed and corrected if we are to see any substantive improvement in the massive social and economic disparities that are threatening our nation’s welfare.

Sep 29 2011 5 cmnts

General, Media Bias

The Sorry Truth About Roger Ailes And Fox News

Posted by: Mark @ 10:50 pm

A few days ago Howard Kurtz of Newsweek published an article profiling Roger Ailes, the CEO of Fox News. It was revealing of both Kurtz and Ailes.

The first sign that Kurtz was either unconscious or delusional was when he offered this description of Ailes’ allegedly changing moods:

“[A]s President Obama’s popularity has plummeted and the country has grown increasingly sick of partisan sniping, something unexpected happened. Roger Ailes pulled back a bit on the throttle.”

Kurtz never provides any evidence to support that contention. In reality Fox News is just as extreme an outlet for rightist propaganda as it has ever been. They incessantly hammer on fabricated scandals and openly disparage the President. The departure of Glenn Beck, which Kurtz mentions in passing, has done nothing to reduce the vitriol. Now Eric Bolling is calling President Obama a socialist in the program that replaced Beck.

Kurtz did manage to slip in this insight from unnamed Fox executives:

“Privately, Fox executives say the entire network took a hard right turn after Obama’s election, but, as the Tea Party’s popularity fades, is edging back toward the mainstream.”

The interesting thing about that is not the contention that Fox is “edging back toward the mainstream.” It’s not. What’s interesting is the admission that Fox “took a hard right turn.” That is something that Fox has been denying for years as they pretend to be “fair and balanced.” It also contradicts the constant Fox drumbeat of support for the Tea Party which they believe is a dominant factor in modern political culture (despite their puny 16% approval in recent polling). Another moment of clarity occurred when Kurtz painted Ailes with concern after the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

“Ailes ordered his troops to tone things down. It was, in his view, a chance to boost profits by grabbing a more moderate audience.”

Notice that Ailes did not want to tone things down to ease tensions and prevent further outbursts of violence. According to Kurtz, Ailes wanted to tone things down to make more money. Of course, returning to reality, Ailes never toned anything down and he most likely doesn’t believe that doing so would be more profitable.

Perhaps the most unintentionally hilarious part of the profile is when Ailes complained that “America used to be able to get straight journalism.” This was such an egregious separation from sanity that even Kurtz noticed.

Roger Ailes is still running a dishonest enterprise dedicated to spreading falsehoods and advancing an ultra-conservative agenda. He still employs demagogues like Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Megyn Kelly, and Sarah Palin (who is NOT running for president and Fox is lying about it). He still allows the ignorant stooges on Fox & Friends to spew gossip and inane conspiracies.

Kurtz was able to ply a few morsels of truth from Ailes about his inherent bias, but that does not excuse his naivete about whether Ailes has softened. He hasn’t. And in the coming months, as the election season heats up, expect to see even more radically untrue attacks on Democrats and progressives. If Kurtz really thinks that Fox News is moderating their biases, he is even dumber than Sarah Palin.

Dec 09 2010 2 cmnts

General, Media Bias

BUSTED: Fox News Memo Reveals Coordinated Bias

Posted by: Mark @ 1:27 pm

In August of 2009, while the debate over health insurance reform was in full swing, GOP pollster Frank Luntz appeared on Sean Hannity’s program and advised Hannity and other Republican operatives to stop using the term “public option.” As a result of his own polling Luntz discovered that…

“…if you call it a ‘public option,’ the American people are split, [but] if you call it the ‘government option,’ the public is overwhelmingly against it.”

Luntz is a Republican pollster who specializes in language. His web site, The Word Doctors, sports the motto “It’s not what you say. It’s what people hear.” He is responsible for introducing rhetorical distortions such as the “death tax” into the public discourse. He truly does have a gift for doctoring words.

Two months after Luntz’s appearance with Hannity, Bill Sammon, Fox News’ Washington managing editor, issued a memo to Fox producers ordering them cease the use of the term “public option.” Media Matters published the memo today:

From: Sammon, Bill
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 8:23 AM
To: 054 -FNSunday; 169 -SPECIAL REPORT; 069 -Politics; 030 -Root (FoxNews.Com); 036 -FOX.WHU; 050 -Senior Producers; 051 -Producers
Subject: friendly reminder: let’s not slip back into calling it the “public option”

1) Please use the term “government-run health insurance” or, when brevity is a concern, “government option,” whenever possible.
2) When it is necessary to use the term “public option” (which is, after all, firmly ensconced in the nation’s lexicon), use the qualifier “so-called,” as in “the so-called public option.”
3) Here’s another way to phrase it: “The public option, which is the government-run plan.”
4) When newsmakers and sources use the term “public option” in our stories, there’s not a lot we can do about it, since quotes are of course sacrosanct.

This is about as clear a demonstration of institutional bias at Fox News as you’ll ever see. The evidence of their bias has always been apparent on the air, but this shows that it isn’t merely the opinions of the presenters, but that it is a coordinated policy embraced and enforced from Fox News’ executive suites. It is also contrary to an earlier memo Sammon distributed disingenuously asserting that, “We do not cheerlead for one cause or another.” However it is perfectly aligned with Sammon’s ideology as expressed in his books:

The Evangelical President: George Bush’s Struggle to Spread a Moral Democracy Throughout the World
At Any Cost: How Al Gore Tried to Steal the Election
Strategery: How George W. Bush Is Defeating Terrorists, Outwitting Democrats, and Confounding the Mainstream Media.
Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism from Inside the White House
Misunderestimated: The President Battles Terrorism, Media Bias and the Bush Haters

In an interview on The Daily Beast. Howard Kurtz got Sammon to respond to the email flap:

“The term public option, he said, ‘is a vague, bland, undescriptive phrase,’ and that after all, ‘who would be against a public park?’ The phrase ‘government-run plan,’ he said, is ‘a more neutral term,’ and was used just last week by a New York Times columnist. I have no idea what the Republicans were pushing or not,’ Sammons says. ‘It’s simply an accurate, fair, objective term.’

If you believe that you’re probably already a loyal Glenn Beck viewer. Sammon’s complaint that “public option” is vague and bland is actually an endorsement of its neutrality and makes it more appropriate for unbiased reporting. Sammon knows full well that “government-run” is a loaded phrase. It certainly would have an impact on the anti-government Tea Party that is the foundation of both his network and the Republican Party.

His claim that he has no idea what Republicans were pushing is utterly implausible. If it were true it would mean that he is an incompetent manager and an uninformed journalist. How could he not know the GOP preference for “government-run” when it was broadcast on the second highest rated Fox News program? Does he expect people to believe that Frank Luntz could conduct polling on the phrases and report the results to Sean Hannity, without him having any knowledge of it? And was he entirely oblivious to the fact that only Republicans ever used the term “government-run”? His defense forces us conclude that he is either a liar or an idiot.

When Sammon objected to accusations that he was biased, Kurtz correctly pointed out a number of incidents that supported the accusations. He also mentioned a couple of Sammon’s books. However, I can’t let this little escape from reality go without comment:

Kurtz: “The significance of the marching orders is that they were issued to the news division, which aims to be fair and balanced and is run separately from the opinion side, populated by the likes of Hannity and Glenn Beck.”

I would like to see Kurtz provide any evidence that the news division at Fox is run separately from the opinion side. Or that they aim to be fair and balanced. The significance of the marching orders is that they were marching orders. An ethical network would not impose such constraints, even on their editorial commentators. The only sort of enterprise that would do so is one that is focused, not on news, but on propaganda; one that has an agenda and seeks to maintain ideological purity in their messaging. In other words: Fox News.

Nov 18 2010 13 cmnts

General, Media Bias, Propaganda, Wankery

The Nazi Talk On Fox News Starts At The Top

Posted by: Mark @ 11:28 am

If you have ever wondered where Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity et al, get their propensity for accusing every liberal or Democrat of being a Nazi, the mystery is solved.

Roger Ailes is the chairman and CEO of Fox News. As such he can be considered the role model for his staff and the authority on the network’s journalistic doctrine. In an interview this week with The Daily Beast’s Howard Kurtz (Part 1, Part 2), Ailes demonstrated precisely the sort of example he hopes to set for his team. In response to a question about Juan Williams’ departure from NPR, Ailes said:

“They are, of course, Nazis. They have a kind of Nazi attitude. They are the left wing of Nazism. These guys don’t want any other point of view. They don’t even feel guilty using tax dollars to spout their propaganda. They are basically Air America with government funding to keep them alive.”

That’s right. The folks at NPR are synonymous with a genocidal regime that murdered millions and sought to create a vast tyrannical empire for a “master race.” I always suspected that Lake Woebegone’s predominately white, Christian residents were secretly fascists.

This wasn’t a slip of the tongue. He said it three times. And if this is what he says in public to a reporter for The Daily Beast and CNN, just imagine what he says privately to direct the activities of his news producers, correspondents, and anchors. And what must Mara Liasson, an NPR correspondent and Fox News contributor, think of Ailes trashing her primary employer this way?

Ailes is guilty of a typical anti-Semitic tactic of trivializing the Holocaust in an attempt to dampen its historical impact and ultimately deny its existence. This is illustrated further when Ailes defended Glenn Beck’s atrocious smear of George Soros as a Nazi collaborator. Ailes dismissed the criticism directed at Beck by disparaging an imagined cabal of…

“…left-wing rabbis who basically don’t think that anybody can ever use word, Holocaust, on the air.”

Of course, there is no support for that statement. The Jewish organizations that condemned Beck’s programs are not averse to using the word, they merely object to it being used to slander actual Holocaust survivors, and to turning it into a colloquial insult. However, Ailes apparently believes the word should be used more frequently, no matter the context, and aimed at any progressive individual or institution that he doesn’t like. And his network is evidence of that belief. (See Lewis Black’s Nazi Tourettes)

The interview revealed several other examples of the inherent bias of a network that calls itself “fair and balanced.” On President Obama, Ailes advanced the notion that he is somehow “foreign” saying that…

“He just has a different belief system than most Americans.”

That must be why most Americans voted for him and still prefer him to every potential Republican opponent. They also prefer him to our previous president, George W. Bush, whom Ailes praised saying…

“This poor guy, sitting down on his ranch clearing brush, gained a lot of respect for keeping his mouth shut.”

I may have to give him that one. Keeping his mouth shut may be the only way Bush could ever gain respect. However, Ailes must not be paying attention because Bush hasn’t set foot in Crawford since he left the White House. His faulty attention span also missed some critical facts regarding Rupert Murdoch’s political contributions:

“Rupert Murdoch’s worked for 60 years. He’s the biggest media mogul in the world. I don’t think anyone can tell him what to do with his money. That’s sort of his right.”

Except that the millions of dollars that Murdoch donated to partisan GOP campaigns didn’t come out of his pocket. It was from News Corp, so it was the shareholders who were paying for his electoral largesse.

Finally, Ailes couldn’t help taking a swipe at a perennial foe whom he apparently thinks is another enemy of America: Jon Stewart.

“He openly admits he’s sort of an atheist and a socialist. [...] He hates conservative views. He hates conservative thoughts. He hates conservative verbiage. He hates conservatives. He’s crazy.”

OK, let’s just set aside his hyperbolic derision of Stewart’s faith and patriotism. Ailes casts Stewart as crazy and hateful toward conservatives. But he sure gets along well with Bill O’Reilly, Newt Gingrich and many other conservatives who have been guests on his show. But here’s the fun part:

“If it wasn’t polarized, he couldn’t make a living. He makes a living by attacking conservatives and stirring up a liberal base against it. He loves polarization. He depends on it. If liberals and conservatives are all getting along, how good would that show be? It’d be a bomb.”

Couldn’t you make almost the exact same comment about Fox News? Just switch liberals and conservatives as the objects of attack and you have the Fox business model. And he’s right. Without the constant liberal bashing and polarization Fox would bomb. That’s because they don’t have any actual news to support their network.

Ailes exhibits a stunningly dense appreciation for reality. He is oblivious to what every objective analyst sees with crystal clarity. But the worst part remains his personal affinity for the sort of rhetoric that divides our nation. His embrace of Nazi and socialist slurs is a crucial part of the broadcast philosophy of Fox News, and now no one can wonder who set that repulsive and hostile tone that the rest of the network emulates.

Update: Roger Ailes has issued an apology of sorts. He sent a letter to Abe Foxman of the ADL saying that he regretted his use of the term “Nazi attitudes.” However the rest of the letter was a surreal justification for his language.

First he blamed it on his anger at NPR for having fired Juan Williams. Then he shifted gears and blamed it on a couple of rabbis with whom he had met to discuss Glenn Beck’s frequent comparisons of Nazis to Democrats, progressives and other Beck targets. He also defended Beck’s Smear-laden programs on George Soros by saying that his “Brainroom” had found the programs valid. For an apology he sure had a lot of other people to fault for his wrongdoing.

But the real flaw in the so-called apology is that Ailes sent it to the ADL. But it wasn’t the ADL whom he had called Nazis. It was the folks at NPR. I don’t think you can call it an apology if you don’t address it to the people you actually offended. It was more of a cowardly PR gesture.

Sep 26 2010 6 cmnts

General

NewsBusters: The Most Powerful Name In Stupid

Posted by: Mark @ 8:29 pm

You know that you’ve reached new lows in stupidity when you make it necessary to defend CNN/Washington Post media columnist Howard Kurtz. But Noel Sheppard, NewsBusters’ Associate Editor, can hang his head in pride at having achieved just that feat.

In an article “analyzing” a segment of Kurtz’s Reliable Sources, Sheppard manages to demonstrate an astonishingly deficient ability to comprehend simple English. In this segment Kurtz correctly criticized Fox News in general, and Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity in particular, for falsely asserting that Democratic Delaware senatorial candidate Chris Coons had “admitted” to being a Marxist. The basis for the assertion was this excerpt from an article Coons wrote 25 years ago in college:

“I spent the spring of my junior year in Africa on the St. Lawrence Kenya Study Program. Going to Kenya was one of the few real decisions I have made; my friends, family, and professors all advised against it, but I went anyway, My friends now joke that something about Kenya, maybe a strange diet, or the tropical sun, changed my personality; Africa to them seems a catalytic converter that takes in clean-shaven, clear thinking Americans and sends back Bearded Marxists.”

It’s plain from reading this that it was Coons’ friends who raised the subject of his being a Marxist, and even that was clearly stated to be a joke. There is nothing there resembling an admission of Marxism, and there is no way a person with a functioning cerebrum could arrive at that interpretation. Which neatly explains how Beck and Hannity managed to do so. Kurtz, for whom I rarely find anything worthy of commendation, deserves credit for calling out the pair of Fox News hacks for their blatant and deliberate deceit.

Here’s where NewsBusters steps in to lather themselves in shame. Sheppard begins with an inquiry as to why Kurtz didn’t mention a previous article that appeared in Politico and referenced the Coons article. Sheppard asks…

“Why didn’t Kurtz scold Politico? After all, [Politico author Alex] Isenstadt appears to be the first national reporter to bring this article to light.”

The answer, of course, is that Isenstadt never alleged that Coons confessed to being a Marxist. There is nothing wrong with drawing attention to prior writings by political candidates. The problem comes when someone dishonestly portrays the contents of it, as Beck and Hannity did. Isenstadt didn’t do that so there was no reason for Kurtz to scold him.

Next Sheppard quotes a line from Isenstadt’s article that cites Coons’ campaign spokesman calling the “bearded Marxist” reference a joke. Sheppard then asks…

“Is this where Kurtz got the idea that the whole article was a joke? From Coons’s campaign spokesman? That doesn’t seem like good journalism, does it?”

Sheppard wouldn’t know good journalism if it reached out of his monitor and slapped him. The first idiotic hokum in this question is the premise that Kurtz held that “the whole article” was a joke. Kurtz never said that, nor did Coons or his spokesman. But where Sheppard goes off the rails is by suggesting that Kurtz got the idea that it was a joke from the campaign spokesman’s comment rather than from the actual text of Coons’ article that said explicitly, “My friends now joke that…” It was right there in black and white, in the original article, that Kurtz, and everyone else who can read, got the idea that it was a joke. It couldn’t be more clear if you pasted a picture of Henny Youngman above it. I guess it’s that clarity that accompanies reality that confused Sheppard.

And yet Sheppard persists in making a fool of himself. He concludes his analysis by complaining that Kurtz has a double standard because he criticized the coverage of Coons but not that of his GOP opponent, Christine O’Donnell. However, Kurtz was criticizing the Coons coverage because it was wrong. The coverage of O’Donnell was merely replaying video of her own performance on television. Nobody mischaracterized what she said, they just broadcast it as it was. If there was something wrong with it, even Sheppard didn’t bother to point it out. But he did take one more swing at the debunked smear that Coons was a self-avowed Marxist:

“As such, an autobiographical article by Coons in which he referred to himself as a bearded Marxist is all a joke while comments O’Donnell made concerning her religious faith are somehow relevant to this campaign.”

Once again, Coons did not refer to himself as a “bearded Marxist,” and his friends who did so were joking. And both candidates’ histories are relevant to the campaign, but they must be presented accurately. Unfortunately, Sheppard prefers the lying gasbag approach.

~~~

On a separate matter from the same program, Kurtz earned himself another commendation by calling out his own network, CNN. They declined to broadcast a story of war atrocities by Michael Ware due to graphic imagery. Kurtz observed that a story of this importance should still have been aired, and if the images were deemed too disturbing they could have simply left them out of the broadcast. He also took the network to task for refusing to make anyone available to discuss the matter. Kurtz deserves credit for that position. I hope we see more of this sort of media criticism going forward, but I’m just a cockeyed optimist.

Jul 12 2010 12 cmnts

General, Media Bias

More Proof That Fox News Is Not News

Posted by: Mark @ 6:57 pm

As if any further evidence was needed…..

Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post wrote a profile of Fox News anchor Bill Hemmer. The piece began by making a completely unsupported assertion that Hemmer was “a middle-of-the-road guy.” However, Kurtz quickly redeemed himself by pointing out that Hemmer’s record of fairness and/or balance was something less than pure.

“The first solo guest on every show but one, from June 1 through July 2, was a Republican or conservative — including Karl Rove (twice), Steve Forbes (twice), House GOP leaders John Boehner and Eric Cantor, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, economist Art Laffer and officials from the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute. Conservative commentators, such as John Fund and Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal and Byron York and Chris Stirewalt of the Washington Examiner, appeared by themselves. Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce, a Republican who is a leading opponent of illegal immigration, was on three times. By contrast, a relative handful of Democratic lawmakers were given solo spots, while Democratic strategists were generally paired in debates with Republican counterparts.”

The rest of the article pretty much receded back into the sort of mushy puff piece for which Kurtz is well known. Kurtz didn’t even challenge the anchor, whom he described as having an “infectious grin and golly-gee demeanor,” when Hemmer noted that…

“A viewer needs to understand a story in a short period of time, otherwise they will zone out or they will change the station. Complexities are difficult to sell.”

It’s a good thing Hemmer doesn’t have to report on anything complex like a war in Afghanistan, a Supreme Court nomination, a teetering economy, or an environmental catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico.

You might also recall that Michael Clemente, senior vice president of Fox News, defines the hours of 9am to 4pm, and 6pm to 8pm, as the dayparts that air straight news. So Hemmer’s 9:00am program is the springboard to Fox’s news day. And like the rest of the Fox News schedule, it is infested with right-wing bias. In this case the bias is delivered with “boyish enthusiasm” and a comforting simplicity.

Update: Hemmer ventured off to Brian Kilmeade’s radio show to respond to charges of partisanship on his program. He blamed it on Democrats who, he says, refuse his invitations to appear.

I hope he’s right. Democrats should refuse to appear on Fox News. And for the same reason they wouldn’t appear on the Lyndon Larouche Network. Fox is not a legitimate news enterprise and should not be treated as one.

Mar 15 2010 3 cmnts

General

Howard Kurtz Stumbles Into The Obvious On Glenn Beck

Posted by: Mark @ 1:17 pm

Nobody is going to mistake Howard Kurtz (CNN/Washington Post) for an insightful media analyst. His sycophantic and highly conflicted reporting barely qualifies as news on most days. And his latest column for the Post is no exception. However, it does hit on a couple of obvious truths that only Kurtz can think of as revelations:

Howard Kurtz: Beck has become a constant topic of conversation among Fox journalists, some of whom say they believe he uses distorted or inflammatory rhetoric that undermines their credibility.

Ya think?

HK: [Fox News VP Bill] Shine says that last fall a vice president was assigned “to help keep an eye on that program” and review its content in advance — a full-time job.

A full-time VP to keep an eye on Beck? I sure hope that guy had mental health insurance. Also, he didn’t do a very good job, judging by what made it to the air.

HK: Television analyst Andrew Tyndall calls Beck an “activist” and “comedian” whose incendiary style has created “a real crossroads for Fox News. [...] They’re right on the cusp of losing their image as a news organization,” he declares.

What on earth would it take for Tyndall to regard them as over the cusp?

HK: When Fox covers breaking news during Beck’s hour, some journalists say, they are flooded with angry e-mail from viewers about the preemption.

And who could blame them? Beck’s viewers don’t want to be bothered with “news.” Even the sort that Fox pretends to deliver.

HK: Some staffers say they have watched rehearsals, on internal monitors, in which Beck has teared up or paused at the same moments as he later did during the show.

Because the secret of good comedy/propaganda is timing.

HK: Beck has caused such anguish at Fox that some of its journalists celebrated the failure of last week’s interview with embattled ex-congressman Eric Massa, which Beck pronounced a waste of time.

If those “journalists” want to celebrate whenever Beck’s program is a waste of time, they could celebrate every day.

Thanks Howie, for your always keen and penetrating outlook.

[Update: 3/17/10]: It appears Fox News CEO Roger Ailes was disturbed by Kurtz’ article. He hustled down to DC to dress down his staff for talking about “The Family.” In short he ordered them to shut up, fall in line, obey, or leave. And what ever they do, do not have an independent thought. That’s what the talking points are for.

Roger Ailes channels Michael Corleone:

Nov 29 2009 NO cmnts

General, Wankery

CNN’s Howard Kurtz On Glenn Beck, Fox News And Whores

Posted by: Mark @ 4:21 pm

Today on CNN’s Reliable Sources, host Howard Kurtz raised an issue of obvious hypocrisy on the part of Fox News. The segment addressed an incident a couple of weeks ago when Rep. Alan Grayson referred to an aide to Fed chairman Ben Bernanke as a “K Street whore.” Fox News jumped on the comment and repeatedly criticized Grayson for making an insensitive and sexist remark. Grayson has since apologized.

A few days ago Glenn Beck used similarly offensive language when referring to Sen. Mary Landrieu. Beck said that Landrieu was “hooking” but “not cheap.” Kurtz took this opportunity to upbraid Fox News for being less than fair and balanced because they didn’t report Beck’s remarks or criticize him. Beck has not apologized.

I suppose I shouldn’t complain that Kurtz properly observed Fox’s hypocrisy. However, Kurtz left something out of the story that many people might consider relevant. You see, Mark Halperin, editor-at-large and senior political analyst for TIME, had something to say about Landrieu as well. He posted this modified photo of the senator on his TIME web site, The Page.

Why didn’t Kurtz take Halperin to task for a visual commentary that was just as offensive and perhaps more repulsive? Could it have anything to do with the fact that Kurtz’s employer, CNN, is owned by Time Warner, and so is Halperin’s employer, TIME? It is unlikely that Kurtz was not aware of the Halperin incident, as it caused such a ruckus he was forced to remove the picture.

Kurtz’s impartiality has been questioned on numerous occasions. Most frequently with regard to his role as a media analyst for both CNN and the Washington Post. Critics have complained that he cannot serve both masters and expect to be regarded as thorough and neutral, while he insists that he has always been tough on every news enterprise on which he reports. However, in this case, he blatantly lets his corporate cousin off the hook.

If Kurtz wants to be taken seriously, he needs to begin acting like an impartial observer. All that he accomplishes with this sort of hackery is to embarrass himself and the news bureaus that employ him. But on one level we can have a fair measure of confidence: When Kurtz reports on the behavior of whores, he knows what he’s talking about.

To his credit, Kurtz did challenge Jim Geraghty, the right-wing lip-servicer from the National Review, who tried to excuse Beck’s boorishness, by saying…

“Oh, I see, Grayson should be held accountable because he’s an elected official, and Glenn Beck is in the gasbag business, like many of us on television.”

That’s telling him – and yourself too.

Oct 26 2009 6 cmnts

General

Guilt By Association With Fox News

Posted by: Mark @ 4:57 pm

Much has been made the past week of the so-called “war” between the White House and Fox News. Never mind the fact that there is nothing occurring that remotely approaches being characterized as even a metaphorical war. The administration merely expressed an opinion that Fox is more engaged in partisanship than journalism, a view most objective analysts would regard as obvious.

Ironically, it is Fox itself that has been the most vocal about the dispute. They have devoted more airtime to it and have enlisted their corporate cousins at Fox Nation, the New York Post, and the Wall Street Journal to pile on. And at the same time that they bemoan their being the target of a presidential smackdown, their own Glenn Beck offers his conspiratorial thesis that it is all an attempt to distract the public from the administration’s attempt to ram what he calls a socialistic, government-run health care bill through Congress. In a double-reverse, pitchback, fakeout, Beck’s accusation that this spat is nothing but a red herring is delivered even as he dedicates the majority of his own program to the fishy story. He is, therefore, a major contributor to the distraction about which he is complaining.

This is the sort of strategic schizophrenia that makes it difficult to even bother trying to engage with Fox. They want people to believe that they are a credible news enterprise, yet they sponsor anti-Obama tea party protests. They want people to believe that they are fair and balanced, but they populate their air with wall-to-wall propaganda and Republican talking points. They want people to discriminate between what they claim is their news and editorial content, but their news is fully contaminated by the right-wing fungi with which their editorial is fatally infected.

It appears that the only way to relate to Fox is to disengage. That is the course that Jane Hall, an associate professor in the School of Communication at American University, and a frequent Fox contributor, has taken. This weekend on CNN’s Reliable Sources she told Howard Kurtz that she has left Fox and gave as part of her reason that…

HALL: I’m also, frankly, uncomfortable with Beck, who I think should be called out as somebody whose language is way over the top. And it’s scary.

KURTZ: Was that a factor in your decision to leave Fox?

HALL: Yes, it was.

I can’t help but wonder why more people haven’t come to the same conclusion. An association with Fox can only bring derision and ill repute to anyone who actually covets a career in journalism. Being yoked to Fox ought to be regarded as scarlet letter that permanently stains any hope of a reputation for ethical reporting.

It is time to start holding people accountable for the choices they make and for the partners with whom they align themselves. If someone elects to be on the same team as Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, that relationship cannot be swept under the rug. They must expect to be identified as the professional comrades that they are. Just as Jane Hall ankled Fox due to her objection to being affiliated with Beck, any others who share that objection ought to do the same thing.

This is not a case of an aversion to being affiliated with a deviant associate who broke the law or violated rules of the company or society. Certainly Katie Couric should not be held to blame because another employee of CBS News was caught blackmailing David Letterman. In the case of Fox, the deviants are celebrated and highly promoted by Fox. They are regarded as treasures and they contribute significantly to Fox’s success. They are not black sheep, they are leaders and they are the most visible icons of Fox’s identity.

For this reason people like Chris Wallace should not be able to set aside his relationship to Sean Hannity. In fact, Wallace has said of Hannity that “I generally agree with him.” Major Garrett cannot pretend to be a journalist when he shares airtime with Bill O’Reilly. In fact, Garrett, formerly of the Washington “Moonie” Times, is amongst many Fox presenters who has written books that are as overtly partisan as O’Reilly’s. And all the other wannabe reporters who rub shoulders with the likes of Dick Morris, Ann Coulter, Neil Cavuto, etc., should be made to feel the embarrassment they are due.

Most importantly, News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch cannot be permitted to wash the slime from his hands. Rupert Murdoch IS Glenn Beck. They are inseparable and indistinguishable. Murdoch likes to present himself as an old school news publisher, but he is actually a tabloid sensationalist who has done more to tarnish the profession of journalism than anyone before him. His purchase of the Wall Street Journal was intended in part to bring him respect and to co-opt the credibility of the iconic financial digest. But instead of the Journal lending its glow to Murdoch, Murdoch has leeched his bile onto the Journal. From now on the Wall Street Journal is the paper of Glenn Beck. His picture should appear in the masthead. In fact, Glenn Beck’s alternately smirking and scowling visage should grace the cover of every News Corp enterprise. It should be sewn onto the lapels of every News Corp reporter. It should edited into every Fox News program and promo.

It is precisely because the editorial content at Fox is indistinguishable from what they call news, that no one in the Murdoch family of companies should be allowed any distance from the insane ravings of Glenn Beck. From now on it is Glenn Beck’s Fox News, Glenn Beck’s Wall Street Journal, Glenn Beck’s Rupert Murdoch. If Murdoch is happy to sponsor Beck’s program, even as advertisers desert it, then let him be melded to it. If he is proud of his racist and incendiary provocateur, then fasten Beck around his neck and let this be the legacy he leaves. If Beck is what he wants, then Beck is what he gets. And Murdoch will forever be remembered, not as a media baron or press magnate, but as a disreputable exploiter of division and hate. His legacy, in the twilight of his career, is inextricably intertwined with the mugging buffoonery of Glenn Beck. And heretofore, no one will be able to conjure up the memory of Murdoch without being drenched in the spittle and dementia of Beck. Congratulations Rupert.

[Update:] Beck has responded to Jane Hall, calling her “that idiot who left Fox:”

BECK: “Well, don’t let the door hit you on the ass when you leave. I’m going to miss you, I am, whatever your name is.”

Here we have Glenn Beck, a drug-addicted, alcoholic dropout, calling Hall, a Phi Beta Kappa with a master’s degree in journalism from Columbia University, an idiot. And Beck doesn’t even know her name although she’s been a Fox News contributor for eleven years. No wonder she doesn’t want to be associated with that network anymore. Why would anyone want to be?

Oct 12 2009 13 cmnts

General

White House: Fox News Is A Wing Of The Republican Party

Posted by: Mark @ 5:50 pm

Perhaps I should just forward this to the Department of Redundancy Department. White House communications director, Anita Dunn, appeared on CNN’s Reliable Sources with Howard Kurtz and made some rather obvious, though too often unsaid, remarks about Fox News’ role as a right-wing megaphone.

It is about time that the administration articulate what anyone paying attention already knows. The highlight of Dunn’s comments is simple and straight forward:

“The reality of it is that Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party. And it is not ideological… what I think is fair to say about Fox, and the way we view it, is that it is more of a wing of the Republican Party.”

These remarks were in response to an inquiry by Kurtz about previous comments by Dunn that Fox was “masquerading” as news. Kurtz went further to inquire as to whether Obama would appear on Fox again. Unfortunately, she said that he would. That, of course, would be a mistake for all the reasons she just articulated. Fox News is not a news network, and they no more deserve Obama’s presence than does the National Enquirer. Why would they agree to appear on a network that masquerades as news?

In response to Dunn’s comments, Michael Clemente, Senior Vice President of News for FOX News, said:

“An increasing number of viewers are relying on FOX News for both news and opinion. And the average news consumer can certainly distinguish between the A section of the newspaper and the editorial page, which is what our programming represents.”

The problem with that statement is that Fox’s news is as much opinion as their opinion is. Even their top “news” people, like Bill Sammon, Major Garrett, Neil Cavuto, Carl Cameron, etc., are steeped in personal biases to which ethical journalists would never sink. Another problem with Clemente’s statement is that it contradicts Bill Shine, senior VP for programming, who admitted that Fox News is the “voice of opposition.”

Glenn Beck was moved to spend the first 20 minutes of his program on this matter, and another six minutes later in the show. That’s half of his airtime, during which he characterized Dunn’s appraisal as an assault on free speech. Never mind the fact that Obama, and any public figure, has the right to book their own appearances. That does not in any way impose on the free speech rights of Fox News. They can, and do, continue to spew their partisan views. More evidence of this is that Bill O’Reilly also spent about nearly half of his show grumbling about Dunn’s remarks. Beck and O’Reilly are just whining about being left out, the same way Chris Wallace did when he called the Democrats a bunch of “crybabies.”

At one point, Beck makes the ludicrous claim that it is Fox News who is “standing up for the republic and the Constitution.” He later complains that he was corrected by Dunn on a misstatement he made about Major Garret not being called on in news conferences. It was, of course, true that Beck made that statement and that it was false, but he just laughs it off. Then he goes on to make some more mistakes (otherwise known as lies).

Most notable was his mention of Nixon’s enemies list, about which he said, “That whole thing. That was just about who’s not coming to state dinners.” However, Nixon aide John Dean stated the true purpose for the list as “how we can use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies.” This meant tax audits, grant availability, federal contracts, litigation, and prosecution. For Beck to so cavalierly lie about what was one the most despicable actions by a leader in our nation’s history says so much about Beck. He probably thinks that the Final Solution was a dish washing detergent.

In the end, Fox’s defense is the best evidence that Dunn’s remarks are are all too true.

Sep 29 2008 NO cmnts

Election, General

This Week With John McCain

Posted by: Mark @ 12:12 pm

It seems fitting that John McCain sat down with George Stephanopoulos yesterday on a program called “This Week,” because the name itself carries the suggestion that what you hear McCain say will only be operative for a limited time. Next week may be a different matter entirely, and last week has succumbed to history’s dust bin.

The tone of the interview was set early on with McCain answering the second question in a distinctly political dialect:

Stephanopoulos: Congress has to pass a stimulus plan for the middle class, which extends unemployment benefits, adds infrastructure funding, and sends money to the states to shore up their budgets. Are you for that, as well?

McCain: I am for keeping taxes low. I am for whatever steps we think we need to be taking right now.

Wow! So, by extension, he’s against whatever steps he thinks should not be taken. That’s a courageous stance.

It was also noted by several observers that McCain would did not look at Obama at all during the entire debate. Even when they shook hands, McCain quickly turned away. This behavior was somewhat eerie and obviously purposeful. When Stephanopoulos asked him about it he said:

McCain: I was looking at the moderator a great deal of time. I was writing a lot of the time. I in no way know how that in any way would be disdainful [...] I’ve been in many, many debates. And a lot of the times I don’t look at my opponents because I’m focusing on the people and the American people that I’m talking to. That’s what the debate’s all about.

Got that? He was looking at the American people. That’s why he was unable to glance at his opponent, to whom he was presumably engaged in discourse, even once in an hour and a half. Did he have a magic mirror that allowed him to see voters in their living rooms as they watched the debate on their TV machines? Would he also decline to look at Putin and other world leaders with whom he meets in order to keep his gaze on Americans that he is imagining?

Next up, Stephanopoulos asked McCain about Sarah Palin’s assertion that she, like Obama, would approve of cross border incursions into Pakistan to target Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. This is contrary to McCain’s own position, though he denies it:

McCain: She would not – she shares my view that we will do whatever is necessary. The problem is, you don’t announce it.

The problem is Palin did announce it, as did McCain in the same sentence that declared that he would not. McCain further argued that, while Palin said what she said, she shouldn’t be held to it because it was said while someone had a microphone picking up what she said, and besides what she said was the same thing that he was saying and that she did “just fine.” Can we hold him to that?

McCain also defended Palin from criticism she’s received, much of it from conservatives, that she is unprepared for the position that McCain has thrust her into.

McCain: Listen, I’m so excited about the reaction that Sarah Palin has gotten across this country, huge turnouts, enthusiasm, excitement. She knows how to communicate directly with people. They respond in a way that I’ve – that I’ve seldom seen. You know, they can complain all they want to. I’ll rely on the American people.

The American people have resoundingly rejected Palin. She has the lowest favorability ratings of anyone on either ticket. And it isn’t because she is getting bad press. In fact, Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post is reporting that many journalists are “censoring their comments about Palin to avoid looking like they’re piling on.” He also notes that CBS has more embarrassing responses from the Couric interview that they haven’t aired. So if CBS and others in the press were more honest and candid, the public’s view of Palin would be even worse.

That’s what McCain had to say this week on “This Week.” I can’t wait to hear what he’s going to say next week.

Jul 15 2008 NO cmnts

General

Brit Hume Not Stepping Down From Fox News Program

Posted by: Mark @ 1:36 pm

Actually, Brit Hume is stepping down from his fox news program, Special Report. I just thought it would be nice if the headline of this article served as a tribute to Hume’s journalistic record:

Brit Hume From Howie Kurtz at the Washington Post:

“Sources familiar with the situation say that Hume, 65, will give up his job as Washington managing editor and anchor of “Special Report.” They say he is near a deal to continue with Fox in a senior statesman role, not unlike that of Tom Brokaw at NBC, for roughly 100 days a year.”

Kurtz notes in his column that Hume’s chummy relationship with the Bush White House helped him snag some exclusives. For instance, Hume got the only interview given by Dick Cheney after he shot a hunting companion in the face. What Kurtz didn’t say was that Hume and Fox News censored the interview to hide the fact that Cheney had been drinking that day.

No replacement has been named yet for Hume. One possible candidate is Jim Angle, presently the chief Washington correspondent for Fox News and a regular guest host on Special Report. Angle’s reporting is at least as slanted as Hume, so he would be able to slide right into the new role. But who know, maybe they’ll go with Sean Hannity or Karl Rove. At Fox News, journalistic credentials are not a prerequisite.

May 19 2008 NO cmnts

General, Ratings

Fox News On O’Reilly vs Olbermann: If You Stop, We’ll Stop

Posted by: Mark @ 10:17 am

Howard Kurtz has a revealing backgrounder on the battle between Bill O’Reilly and Keith Olbermann. O’Reilly, who has a superstitious aversion to saying Olbermann’s name, has directed his attacks at NBC, calling its chairman, Jeffrey Immelt, “a “despicable human being.” He even blames Immelt for the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq. The sad reality is that Ailes, O’Reilly, and Fox News are far more culpable for the tragedy that is Iraq via their persistent disinformation and cheerleading for the war.

Kurtz reports on conversations between Fox News president Roger Ailes and NBC CEO, Jeff Zucker. Ailes is reported to have jumped in swinging at Zucker:

“Ailes warned that if Olbermann didn’t stop such attacks against Fox, he would unleash O’Reilly against NBC and would use the New York Post as well.”

Unleash O’Reilly? Wouldn’t they need a permit from the Department of Animal Control for that? It’s interesting that Ailes openly asserts that he exercises editorial control over both O’Reilly’s program and the New York Post, for which he has no executive responsibility. NBC is to be lauded for their refusal to similarly impose such controls on Olbermann.

While Ailes is violating every tenet of journalistic independence, O’Reilly is behaving like the bully he is known to be. And worse, he is rapidly spinning into the Delusions of Grandeur Zone:

“That Immelt man answers to me. . . . That’s why I’m in this business right now, to get guys like that.”

O’Reilly’s claim to domination of GE’s CEO is both pathetic and laughable. The Factor averages about 2.5 million viewers a day. NBC Nightly News does three times that. The Today Show more than doubles O’Reilly’s numbers. The idea of Ailes and O’Reilly pushing NBC around makes no sense. But that never stopped O’Reilly before.

Now it appears that Ailes is already making good on his threats. The New York Post’s gossipy Page Six is asking whether the “notoriously odd” Olbermann is “on the verge of yet another professional meltdown?” That’s funny coming from the notoriously disreputable Post, and particularly Page Six, which has a history of publishing false items and hiring corrupt columnists.