Election

Bill O’Reilly’s Fair And Balanced Presidential Poll

Posted by on December 19, 2007 at 11:08 am. NO Comments :

Bill O’Reilly is currently polling his audience on the presidential candidates. He has completed a survey on the Republican field in which Mike Huckabee prevailed over Giuliani and Romney. Now it’s the Democrats turn. The poll includes only Clinton, Obama and Edwards.

Needless to say, this poll will have absolutely no significance to any campaign and will be illustrative of nothing but O’Reilly’s monstrously disturbed ego. But that doesn’t mean we can’t have a little fun with it anyway. After all, it’s not as if we would be violating any of BillO’s journalistic standards:

Throughout the past year, The Fester has been hammering John Edwards as a phony who has sold his soul to the far left. O’Reilly is apoplectic in his ravings about how Edwards is intent on destroying America. I wrote about the media Ganging Up On Edwards last June and it has only intensified since then. For more detail, check out this brand new video from Brave New Films that also features Fox News’ attacks on Barack Obama.

Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to venture to the Forbidden Zone itself and vote for John Edwards. Vote for Edwards whether or not he is the candidate you are supporting. An Edwards victory could be just the thing to send O’Reilly over the edge of the precipice upon which he has been teetering for so long.

The poll is on the front page of BillOReilly.com. I would suggest that you go to Google, or some other neutral site, and type the URL in from there so that O’Reilly’s web minions don’t get curious about a lot of voters coming from this site.

It will be interesting to see how O’Reilly will handle the announcement of an Edwards victory provided by the visitors to his own web domain. He said that he will be announcing the poll results on Thursday (tomorrow), so waste no time in placing your vote. And feel free to enlist your friends and family. We may all finally get to see that vein on his forehead burst.

I can’t think of a better Holiday gift than getting to stick it to The Fester one more time before the new year.

Update: Poll results: Obama – 58 / Edwards – 27 / Clinton – 15.
Second place aint too shabby for Edwards on O’Reilly’s show where he is bashed incessantly.

How To Handle Fox News

Posted by on April 11, 2007 at 4:41 pm. NO Comments :

The Politico speculates that Fox News might retaliate against John Edwards for his principled stand against participating in debates sponsored by the network devoted to defeating Democrats. But it doesn’t require much imagination because Fox has already stooped to issuing veiled threats directed at independent minded politicians:

“Any candidate for high office from either party who believes he can blacklist any news organization is making a terrible mistake about journalists.” ~ Roger Ailes, Fox CEO.

To which I would respond:

“Any news organization who believes they can smear any candidate for high office from either party is making a terrible mistake about democracy.”

Roger Ailes is not someone to whom I would turn for advice on journalistic ethics. This is, after all, the same man who said, with a shamelessly straight face…

“The greatest danger to journalism is a newsroom or a profession where everyone thinks alike.”

Then he hires Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, John Gibson, Fred Barnes, Neil Cavuto, Tony Snow, Brit Hume, John Moody, etc. Now that the right wing tunnel vision that plagues Fox has resulted in the objects of their scorn declining to submit to the abuse, Fox gets cranky.

Earlier this year, the publicist for Joan Baez protected her client from a pre-Grammy assault by Mike Straka, VP and Executive Producer of FOXNews.com. Straka wrote of his surprise at being avoided, saying…

“she was on her way over to talk to Anita Vogel and me when her publicist whisked her away shouting, “They’re FOX. We don’t talk to FOX.”

Imagine that. Straka, the author of “Grrr! Celebrities Are Ruining Our Country,” was surprised that a celebrity didn’t want to talk to him. Sounds like an alert publicist to me.

So what’s wrong with the Congressional Black Caucus who, despite having been rejected by Edwards, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton, insist that their Fox-sponsored Democratic primary debate is still on:
“As a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization, the CBC Institute is holding the debates to help educate African-Americans and others on key issues of national policy.”

I submit that the CBC could go a lot further to help educate African-Americans by refusing to be exploited by a network that has repeatedly slandered them. And if they really think that debates on Fox represent…

“…a unique and rare opportunity for the candidates to present their message and ideas to millions of voters in a manner that is unfiltered by any political or news organization.”

Well, I’d just have to conclude that they are acutely naive.

It’s nice to see that the Edwards camp isn’t caving in to Fox’ tantrums. Edwards’ aide Jonathan Prince, responding to the prospect of vengeance from a spurned Fox, said:

“What are they going to do? The more that they behave outrageously, the more they show that they’re not a legitimate objective source of news.”

Bingo! If there is anyone who is still intimidated by the cable news neighborhood bully, this is all you need to know. It is now safe to stand up for honest reporting and unbiased coverage. Fox can’t persist with their defamatory behavior and expect their targets to stay silent and absorb the blows. And they can’t fight back either because it would just confirm their image as antagonistic and ideologically slanted.

The jig is up. Fear not, for there is no wizard behind the curtain. If you stand up to Fox, Fox will stand down – or fall down, flat on its face.

Fox Is Just Misunderstood

Posted by on March 13, 2007 at 4:53 pm. NO Comments :

Noam Cohen, writing for the New York Times business section, is an exceedingly compassionate fellow. In his article recounting the meltdown of the proposed Fox News Democratic debate, he cites unnamed “analysts of the cable news world” who speculate as to the fallout from the Democrats’ impudence:

“On the one hand it feeds the image of Fox News as besieged by mainstream media outlets and political enemies, which plays well to its loyal audience.”

On the one hand, therefore, Fox is reveling in martyrdom. If these analysts are correct, then what would stop Fox from covertly sabotaging the debate or its participants in order to enhance its reputation with its loyal audience (and further its conservative agenda)? Isn’t that exactly why the Democrats stood against the Fox-sponsored event in the first place? And who are these analysts that would describe Fox News as “besieged by mainstream media outlets” as if they didn’t know that Fox News is itself one of the largest mainstream media outlets in the world? But that’s not all:

“Yet, these analysts said, being shut out of a debate denies the channel the ability to be above the fray and be perceived as a mainstream journalistic outlet.”

These analysts must be residents of the Washington Home for the Criminally Obtuse. How is Fox being denied the ability to shape how they are perceived? They have 24 hours a day to demonstrate that they can be above the fray. They have 365 days a year to behave the way a mainstream journalistic outlet is expected to behave. To suggest that all Fox really wants is a chance to prove that they can play well with others is to ignore their past performance on the playground where they unrepentantly engaged in blatant bullying and hostility. Peruse these examples from their Permanent Record:

If Fox can’t be trusted to be fair and/or balanced in the course of their daily pseudo-news gathering and reporting, why should they be rewarded with a high profile event that would convey onto them a respectability that they have not earned and do not deserve?

Nevada Dems Fox Up Debate

Posted by on February 21, 2007 at 12:19 pm. NO Comments :

From the “What Were They Thinking Department:” The Nevada Democratic Party has announced that they will conduct an August primary debate that will air on Fox News. This is the same Fox News:

  • whose chief anchor, Brit Hume, dismissively described Rep. John Murtha as senile.
  • whose VP, John Moody, claims that terrorists are “thrilled” with the Democratic Congress.
  • whose top on-air personality, Bill O’Reilly, accuses Democrats of wanting to lose the war in Iraq.
  • whose #2 program’s host, Sean Hannity, called for assassinating Nancy Pelosi to keep her from becoming speaker.
  • whose recently named head of the upcoming Fox Business Channel, Neil Cavuto, asks if “Democratic leaders who criticize the war in Iraq actually aiding the terrorists?” (and where Nevada’s Republican Senator, John Ensign answers, “You bet they are.”).
  • whose chairman, Rupert Murdoch, admitted that he manipulates the news to shape public opinion.

For the Nevada Democratic party to get in bed with the liars and propagandists at Fox is, at best, naive and, at worst, suicide. They make the claim that it will be helpful to appeal to Fox’ audience, whom they don’t have an opportunity to engage very often. If that argument ever held water (which it doesn’t), it certainly does not for a debate amongst Democratic “primary” candidates. In the general election you might want to reach the broader electorate, but how many Fox viewers are registered Democrats who will be voting in the primary?

Last month, Fox ran some irresponsibly false stories claiming that Barack Obama had attended a radical Muslim Madrassa as a child in Indonesia. They later falsely accused Hillary Clinton’s campaign of leaking the news item. In response, Obama reportedly “froze out” Fox News and declined appearances and comments. That was exactly the right way to deal with a network that can only be expected to sabotage the interests of Democrats. They’ve said as much over and over again.

Obama should be the first candidate to declare that he will not appear in the August debate if Fox remains its host. Nothing has changed at the network. They have neither apologized nor issued a correction, so Obama’s shoulder ought still to be cold. Then Hillary and the rest of the field should follow suit. Not a single one of the Democrats has anything to lose by snubbing the debate, and not a thing to gain by submitting to it. CNN is hosting a Nevada debate in November, so the candidates and the citizens will have ample opportunity to engage one another.

Until Fox has demonstrated that it is not hostile to the party, Democrats should not lend the network any air of legitimacy. More importantly, they should not let themselves be suckered into an event that their hosts will most assuredly use against them if given the chance.

BlogPac is mobilizing an email campaign to Tell Democrats to Freeze Out Fox News.

Obama Snubs Fox

Posted by on January 31, 2007 at 4:48 pm. NO Comments :

Mary Ann Akers reports from behind the scenes in Washington:

Sources tell The Sleuth that the Obama camp has “frozen out” Fox News reporters and producers in the wake of the network’s major screw-up in running with the erroneous Obama-the-jihadist story reported by Insight magazine.

Finally, a public figure with the sense to make Fox’s fiction factory pay a price for broadcasting fake news. If more politicians applied this model to their press relations, Fox would be forced to think twice about running with unverified hit pieces. Or else they would have to be satisfied with exclusively Republican guests and subjects (that’s not too steep a fall).

The Fox reaction is to whine about reporters who are being punished for something they had no part in. What a load of disingenuous, denial-laden hogwash. It was not just the Barbie’s and Ken’s on the Fox morning show that spewed this trash. Several of the anchors of other programs delighted in pushing it along. And none of the on-air talking heads had the journalistic integrity to acknowledge the fraud in this story. There are no innocent parties at Fox. Anyone who didn’t report the debunking of the piece is as guilty as those who fanned the flames. And they certainly won’t make any points with the use of threats, as expressed by one courageous, anonymous source at Fox:

“Obama and his staff are in for a rude awakening if they think they can write off Fox News. If a candidate is serious about running for president, he or she is going to need a network like Fox to reach out to all those voters in the red and purple states.”

Another anonymous Fox spokesperson (even their spokespersons are afraid to go on record) said in response to questions of a Fox “freeze-out”:

“If true, perhaps Mr. [Robert] Gibbs [an Obama campaign manager] should reconsider that ill-advised strategy given his candidate is trailing by 20 points in the polls.”

I’m not sure what polls Mr. [Fo]X is referring to, but most polls show Obama at the top of the pack in the Democratic primaries. He is even competitive with the top Republican candidates. So apparently Fox’s defense after having been shown to be a purveyor of lies is to manufacture more lies.

Senator Obama made the right decision. Here’s hoping others follow.

Cheney – Fear Mongrel

Posted by on September 8, 2004 at 8:15 am. NO Comments :

Vice-President Dick Cheney is warning Americans that if they “make the wrong choice” this November it will result in more terrorist attacks. This shockingly transparent attempt at fear-mongering does nothing to advance the campaign dialogue and, in fact, insults all Americans by suggesting that they cannot make a free decision without assuming responsibility for catastrophe if they are wrong. And, of course, there is only one “wrong.”

Cheney is not foreign to making such over-the-top allegations. He is, perhaps, the most strident purveyor of the universally rejected theory that Saddam and bin Laden were collaborators. He also frequently says that…

“Terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength; they are invited by the perception of weakness.”

This view always prompts me to ask myself just what he means. Is he saying that in September 2001, with the Bush administration in office for 9 months, the terrorists perceived weakness and were, thus, invited to attack?

The sad thing is that, while I may ask myself these questions, no one in the media is asking them of the vice-president or the administration he serves.