Healthcare

Fox Nation vs. Reality: On McDonald’s Un-Happy Meals

Posted by on November 30, 2011 at 3:01 am. 7 Comments :

Last year the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a law that would require restaurants serving children’s meals to meet specific nutritional standards if they also contain free toys. The law is an attempt to promote healthier options for kids who are increasingly suffering from obesity and diabetes due to poor diets, often provided by fast food chains like McDonald’s.

The law is set to take effect Thursday, December 1. However, the McDonald’s franchise operators in the city have decided to skirt the law rather than comply with it. That news was met with glee by Fox Nation.

Fox Nation

The first problem with the Fox Nation headline, “McDonald’s Outsmarts San Francisco on Happy Meal Ban,” is that there never was a Happy Meal ban. The Fox Nationalists typically engaged in dishonest hyperbole. All restaurants are permitted under the law to serve the very same children’s fare they have served all along. They merely could not use free toys as enticements to impressionable kids. Studies have proven the harmful effect of advertising and promotional giveaways on children. The Stanford University School of Medicine conducted research that found that “advertising literally brainwashes young children into a baseless preference for certain food products.”

In order to comply with the new law’s criteria, restaurants were asked to reduce the fat, salt and sugar in children’s meals and offer more fruits and vegetables. But rather than do the responsible thing by modifying the content of their so-called Happy Meals, the McDonald’s proprietors chose to make customers pay an extra 10 cents for the toy, thus adhering to the stipulation that the toys not be included for free. That is a demonstration of their commitment to profit over the health and well-being of their customers. They say that the extra ten cents will be used to help build a new Ronald McDonald House to temporarily house families with sick children. And, conveniently, their practices will insure a steady supply of sick children to populate the new facility.

Despite the intransigence of the local SF franchises, the national office of McDonald’s has already announced plans to reduce the portion size of French fries and add apple slices to its children’s meals. This news might cause Fox to withhold their support for McDonald’s. That would be more in line with their past. A couple of years ago McDonald’s launched a web site to serve the African American community. The onslaught of vile, racist comments that ensued from the Fox Nationalists was repulsive in the extreme.

Once again, Fox is on the wrong side of reality, decency, and common sense. They unabashedly lie to their audience while championing corporate disrespect for the public. It is just this sort of ill behavior that has caused me to ask: What’s the difference between Fox News and McDonald’s? One sells cheap crap with lots of filler & seasoning to masses with no taste. The other is a fast food restaurant.

Herman Cain: Under ObamaCare I’d Be Dead

Posted by on August 19, 2011 at 4:35 pm. 13 Comments :

Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain is a lucky man. Five years ago he was diagnosed with stage IV cancer in his liver and colon. Today he reports that he is cancer-free. Speaking on this subject, Cain asserted that his luck was due to the fact that he didn’t have to rely on ObamaCare for treatment. Fox Nation reported these remarks that were broadcast on CNN:

“If ObamaCare had been fully implemented when I caught cancer, I’d be dead, and here’s why. I was able to go to the doctors that I wanted to go to – as fast as they could do the tests. I didn’t have to wait six months like you do in other countries in order to get a Cat Scan. And sometimes people die before they get the Cat Scan because the cancer in my body was spreading so fast. But because I was able to get the treatment as soon as I could, and to get the quality care that I did, that’s what has me alive today. You ought to be able to make those choices if you get a serious illness, not some bureaucrat in Washington, D.C.”

From his statement it is apparent that the real reason he was lucky was that he is a wealthy businessman and broadcaster. That’s the reason he was able to go to the doctors that he wanted. That’s the reason he was able to expedite his care. A middle class patient would have had to rely on the generosity of their insurance company and hope the insurer didn’t cancel their policy as a result of filing a claim. Even worse, a poor patient would have to depend on the minimum public services they could wrangle from insufficient and overburdened pre-ObamaCare government programs.

Cain is glad to be alive due to his ability to pay for any medical attention he requires. But he doesn’t care at all about people who aren’t multimillionaires like himself. His insinuation that ObamaCare would have required him to wait for treatment is a flat-out lie. There is nothing in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that would prohibit him from visiting the doctor of his choice. But it does give a choice to the rest of us who otherwise might be unable to visit a doctor at all.

Furthermore, his slap at government bureaucrats ignores the problem of insurance company bureaucrats. Frankly, I’d prefer to put my life in the hands of a government health care administrator who would base his decision on what is necessary and proper, as opposed to a corporate accountant whose decision is driven by profit.

Herman Cain would not be dead if ObamaCare had been implemented when he “caught” cancer. He would still have been rich and free to see the doctor of his choice. Ironically, while Cain had that luxury, it appears that his doctor may not have been one that he freely chose. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported a couple of months ago that…

“When Mr. Cain found out that the doctor who operated on his cancerous colon was a Muslim, he was bothered by it, he admitted, because ‘based upon the little knowledge that I have of the Muslim religion, you know, they have an objective to convert all infidels or kill them.'”

So even with all his riches he still risked being murdered by a terrorist surgical oncologist. What a world. This is the same man who boasted that he would not appoint Muslims to his Cabinet. I guess the best you can say about Cain’s raging bigotry is that at least he admits that he has “little knowledge.” And isn’t that what Republicans want in a candidate?

James O’Keefe Drops Another Dud, Smears Medicaid

Posted by on July 19, 2011 at 12:54 am. 5 Comments :

James O'Keefe, BoratThe Borat of right-wing, pseudo-journalism, James O’Keefe, has released a new video that purports to expose rampant fraud within the Medicaid system.

As with any video from O’Keefe’s dishonest propaganda mill, the first reaction should be abundant skepticism. After all, this is the same guy who…

  • Deceptively edited videos of ACORN reps to make them look bad, even when in reality they had reported him to the police.
  • Tried and failed to lure CNN reporter Abbie Boudreau onto his love boat for some still unexplained reason.
  • Misrepresented NPR officials so badly on video that Glenn Beck’s web site debunked and denounced him.
  • Was arrested for entering the office of a U.S. Senator under false pretenses, presumably to tamper with the phone lines.

O’Keefe is an incorrigible liar whose antics have earned him the distrust of any reputable media enterprise. His video adventures should be regarded as fiction and dismissed out of hand.

This latest effort starred a couple of self-identified wealthy Russian drug dealers seeking assistance from Medicaid (Why would wealthy drug dealers need federal aid?). This piece has all the earmarks of O’Keefe’s prior fraudulent work. There is plenty of opportunity for him to have mangled the video to make the context unrecognizable from what actually took place. The audio could easily have been altered to make it appear as if the targets were responding to comments that were never made in their presence. There is no reference point from which to determine whether any of his targets had repelled the phony instigators. Surely any laudable behavior would have already been edited out by O’Keefe. This is textbook manipulation as practiced by O’Keefe in the past.

However, the worst part of this supposedly shocking expose is that there is nothing remotely shocking about it. First of all, O’Keefe failed to prove that any fraudulent activity had taken place. There were no applications for aid submitted or approved. Had it proceeded to that point the process would have required his agents to provide Social Security and other personal and financial information that would have prevented any such approval. And the Medicaid reps are probably trained not to challenge people who might be dangerous, such as Russian drug dealers. Consequently the reps were openly patronizing and repeatedly advised them to go someplace else.

Even if there were an opportunity to successfully commit some sort of fraud, it would have amounted to pittance that would hardly have an impact on the Medicaid budget. There is a larger question at play here. Is O’Keefe trying to make the point that there is fraud in the Medicaid system? Saints preserve us – that can’t be.

Nobody in or out of the Department of Health and Human Services would deny that fraud occurs and is a significant problem. That’s why the Department works strenuously to uncover and eliminate such fraud. They work closely with the Attorney General to prosecute lawbreakers. And their efforts bring results such as a bust earlier this year that snared 111 individuals who had been responsible for more than $225 million in false billings. The “Strike Force” set up to investigate these crimes has proven to be impressively successful.

Since their inception in March 2007, Strike Force operations in nine districts have charged more than 990 individuals who collectively have falsely billed the Medicaid program for more than $2.3 billion.

So what is O’Keefe’s team trying to prove? That they can swindle some low grade clerks into passing them off to other agencies while not actually committing any fraud? That they can save the government a few bucks while the government, without their help, is saving billions? If anything, O’Keefe and company are probably getting in the way.

That, in fact, may be their true intention. The only reason they engaged in this bit of childish play-acting is to disparage Medicaid and do harm to its mission of helping people get access to health care. O’Keefe would be satisfied if his deceitful operation were to put an end to Medicaid or cripple it by cutting its funding. Of course, Medicaid would not be the victim. It would be the millions of Americans who rely on it – the elderly, the poor, the young, the disabled. These are the people whose lives O’Keefe seeks to make ever more difficult. He must be so proud.

PolitiFact Lie Of The Year: Government Takeover Of Health Care

Posted by on December 17, 2010 at 10:47 am. 16 Comments :

PolitiFact, an independent fact-checking project from the St. Petersburg Times, has selected their “Lie of the Year” from the hundreds that are dispensed annually by politicians and pundits. It must have been a grueling exercise, but their selection is more than deserving.

“PolitiFact editors and reporters have chosen “government takeover of health care” as the 2010 Lie of the Year. Uttered by dozens of politicians and pundits, it played an important role in shaping public opinion about the health care plan and was a significant factor in the Democrats’ shellacking in the November elections.”

The folks at PolitiFact cited several examples of this lie’s use by prominent by public figures and documented the basis for their decision. The phrase was coined by GOP pollster Frank Luntz and adopted by the Republican Party and conservative lobbying groups and think tanks like FreedomWorks and the Heritage Foundation.

The one criticism I have with PolitiFact’s analysis is that it doesn’t give sufficient blame to the media in general and Fox News in particular. Fox News acted as the PR agency for promoting this flagrant lie. There was even a leaked memo from Bill Sammon, the Washington managing editor, that instructed Fox producers and reporters to refrain from using the more neutral “public option” in favor of “government-run.” So this lie, which was certainly on the lips of Republican politicians, was company policy at Fox News.

PolitiFact did report that the media had participated in disseminating the lie. However, they said that “an accurate tally was unfeasible because it had been repeated so frequently in so many places.” Did its use by Fox overload the PolitFact database servers? The report then went on to cite examples such as 79 occurrences of its use on CNN. Seeing as how Fox News incorporated the lie into their style guide, it would have been helpful to get an estimate of its use on that network. Suffice to say that it probably went into the hundreds, if not thousands.

In defense of PolitiFact, if they were to document every lie that is told on Fox News they would have to recruit an army of researchers that would rival the U.S. Infantry.

Why Is Andrew Breitbart Against Mothers And Keeping Kids Safe?

Posted by on March 29, 2010 at 8:14 pm. 5 Comments :

Once again, Andrew Breitbart has dispatched his henchman, Jason Mattera, to annoy a member of congress. This time it’s Sen. Al Franken and, just as happened when he ambushed Rep. Alan Grayson with a false assertion that the health care bill provided funds for child molesters, Mattera is made to look the fool.

In this episode of Mattera’s Morons, Jason stalks Sen. Franken to ask about an alleged provision in the health care bill that allocates $7 billion for jungle gyms. The only problem for Mattera is that nothing of the sort is in the bill. Franken is acutely aware of this and engages Mattera in this exchange:

Franken: You came up to me and said “You know the part of the bill where they give $7 billion dollars to fund the jungle gyms?” And I said “Show me that.” It doesn’t say that in the bill.
Mattera: Oh, it says infrastructure for healthy living in playgrounds for schools. What is that an army of monkey bars?

Sorry Jason. The bill doesn’t say anything about playgrounds or jungle gyms or monkey bars. And when you approach someone who is much more knowledgeable than yourself about legislation, you ought not try to lie about what’s in the bill. What the bill says is that funds in this section can be used for…

(i) creating healthier school environments, including increasing healthy food options, physical activity opportunities, promotion of healthy lifestyle, emotional wellness, and prevention curricula, and activities to prevent chronic diseases;
(ii) creating the infrastructure to support active living and access to nutritious foods in a safe environment;

So now we see that Breitbart and his ward are just as opposed to safe schools and nutritious foods as they are to preventing child abuse. But I have to admire his tenacity. After making an ass of himself over the non-existent jungle gyms, Mattera plowed ahead with a complaint about language in the bill that provides new mothers with reasonable breaks for breast feeding. I thought Republicans were supposed to be the “family values” party. Not that they ever actually supported family values, but they have long sought to pretend that they did. But here the truth is revealed as Mattera berates Franken for supporting a bill that permits new mothers to care for their infant children.

I wonder… Would Mattera prefer it if the woman had an abortion so that she wouldn’t have to miss any work time? Should she quit her job and reduce her income and her family’s ability to provide for themselves? Maybe she should just leave the kid at home and let it fend for itself in a Randian adventure of survival. Mattera’s idiocy is illustrative of something we’ve known all along: Conservatives care very deeply about fetuses but once you leave the womb they don’t give a flying frak.

This hysterical video was, once again, featured on Breitbart’s BigGovernment web site as well as the Fox Nation. And it still amazes me that Mattera thinks he comes off looking good in it. He clearly has a perverse sense of pride. Also Jason, it only makes you look like more of an immature jerk when call Franken “Senator Smalley.” It just drives home how obvious it is that you are NOT good enough, NOT smart enough, and, doggone it, no one likes you.

[Update, 3/31/2010:] Had this been announced a day later, I would have been certain that it was an April fools joke, but no…..Jason Mattera has actually been named editor-in-chief of the uber-conservative Human Events Magazine. Human Events sees some potential in this 26 year old moron whose chief quality appears to be making himself look like an idiot. Now he will oversee the magazine as well as their Internet properties like RedState, home of the new CNN contributor, Erick Erickson.

Fox Nation Scare Tactics: Armed IRS Agents To Enforce Obamacare

Posted by on March 23, 2010 at 3:53 pm. 16 Comments :

Fox Nation IRS ArmyIn a fit of psychotic bluster, the folks at Fox Nation have posted an article with a headline that was manufactured from whole cloth. There is nothing in their reporting, or the column to which they linked, that remotely implied the message in this headline:

“IRS Hiring Thousands of Armed Tax Agents to Enforce Obamacare.”

The source for the Fox Nationalists is a column in Tucker Carlson’s right-wing Daily Caller. You might expect that Fox could rely on Carlson to support their hallucinatory journalism. After all, Carlson is a Fox News employee. But the article in the Caller, while misleading on it’s own, doesn’t go anywhere near the Fox misinterpretation.

The Caller’s headline was somewhat less dishonest: “IRS looking to hire thousands of tax agents to enforce health care laws.” It does not make a declaration of fact that agents are actually being hired, only that the IRS is looking into it. But more importantly, there is no mention of these agents being armed. In all likelihood, any new hires are going to be accountants with calculators, not mercenaries with machine guns. That, however, didn’t stop the Caller from posting an accompanying photo of heavily armed soldiers in combat gear who have nothing whatsoever to do with the story. And, of course, Fox Nation re-posted the same photo.

The Caller’s article is filled with falsehoods. Anyone who actually bothers to read the article will notice that there is no substantiation of its claim that Democrats are working with the IRS to hire new agents. The only confirmation comes from Republicans supplying their own speculation as to staffing requirements.

It is fair to assume that expanding efforts to collect revenue would require additional personnel. However, the article notes that the new hiring is aimed at collecting taxes unrelated to the health care bill. So are Republicans and the Fox Nationalists taking the position that tax cheats should not be pursued or held accountable? Should law abiding Americans have to shoulder the burden for these deadbeats? Yes, that’s exactly their position. Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee even issued a report that criticized the administration for proposing $8 billion to fund tax compliance measures. It seems to me that an $8 billion allocation to recover an estimated $300 billion in delinquent taxes is a pretty good return on investment and an effective way to reduce budget deficits.

The content of the article in the Caller is misleading in many respects, but the Fox Nation version is delusional. It states flatly that the IRS is hiring “armed” tax agents. It states flatly that these new agents will be dispatched to “enforce Obamacare.” Neither of those statements are substantiated and they aren’t even in the linked article. Yet the Fox Nationalists post the photo of soldiers in combat attire, weapons at the ready, deployed in a search and destroy posture.

The obvious intent of Fox is to frighten their congregation of Psycho-chicken Littles into believing that the “revenuers” are advancing on them to take their money and send them to FEMA camps where they will be forced to have abortions and marry gay socialists.

After struggling for fourteen months to derail the President’s agenda, and failing, Fox is upping the ante. They want people to be so afraid that they will fortify their bunkers, stockpile weapons, hoard rations, buy gold (brought to you by Glenn Beck), and prepare for Armageddon. And the way they advance that goal is by disseminating lies like this story from the scare-meisters at Fox Nation.

Boob BombsUpdate: Fox News continues to pour on the fear mongering. They are now reprising a story originally posted at Fox Nation almost two months: Boob Bombs! Terrorists Could Use Explosives in Breast Implants to Crash Planes.

Back in February the story was sourced to the ultra-wingnut WorldNetDaily web site. This time Fox is sourcing it to The Sun, Rupert Murdoch’s UK tabloid, but, hilariously, the article quotes “terrorist expert Joseph Farah.” In fact, Farah is no terrorist expert, he is the publisher of WorldNetDaily. The propaganda comes full circle.

It seems that they are just going to repeat this story every few months until either people are sufficiently terrified of titties, or until Al Qaeda decides to give it a try. I maintain my position that this could have a devastating impact on air travel. As I said in February:

We would need to start including Scarlett Johansson in our profiling criteria. And because the same explosive devices could be inserted in the buttocks, Jennifer Lopez would have to be added to the no-fly list.

Update II: All of this is reminiscent of the hysteria Glenn Beck tried to trump up over what he said was a civilian national security force that Obama was supposedly amassing to assault him and his congregation. As it turns out it was just an initiative to expand the peace corps and similar organizations.

[Also…] FactChect.org debunked the claim of IRS hiring thousands of agents.

Stay scared America.

Waterloo For Fox News?

Posted by on March 22, 2010 at 7:47 pm. 5 Comments :

Fourteen months. Fourteen long months of the most venal, histrionic, sensationalized, dishonest, and relentless crusade of disinformation, and what do they have to show for it?


[Purchase FreakShow stickers at Crass Commerce

Fox News has been the official campaign headquarters for opposition to health care reform. They dispatched their top personalities to headline rallies and protests. They consigned thousands of hours of valuable air time to anti-reform politicians and pundits. They converted their studios into Republican platforms for electioneering and fundraising. They adopted the Tea Party “movement” so thoroughly that they even rode along on its bus tours and branded its events as Fox enterprises.

And they lost.

Fox News is fond of reminding everyone of their ratings dominance. Although the cable news universe is comparatively tiny (Fox News has less than half the viewers of the lowest rated broadcast news program on CBS), Fox incessantly boasts that it is the leader in the space. But the fallout from the health care debate ought to demonstrate precisely how little that victory means in the macro world of politics. If the number one cable news network cannot sufficiently move public opinion to produce a legislative victory after fourteen months of persistent propaganda, it would be folly to regard them as if they were some formidable bastion of power or influence. Yet that is exactly how they are regarded by their patrons in the Republican Party (and many in the press).

Last July I wrote an article describing how “Fox News Is Killing The Republican Party”

Fox has corralled a stable of the most disreputable, unqualified, extremist, lunatics ever assembled, and is presenting them as experts, analysts, and leaders. These third-rate icons of idiocy are marketed by Fox like any other gag gift (i.e. pet rocks, plastic vomit, Sarah Palin, etc.). […]

By doubling down on crazy, Fox is driving the center of the Republican Party further down the rabid hole. They are reshaping the party into a more radicalized community of conspiracy nuts. So even as this helps Rupert Murdoch’s bottom line, it is making celebrities of political bottom-feeders. That can’t be good for the long-term prospects of the Republican Party. […]

This is a textbook example of how the extreme rises to the top. It is also fundamentally contrary to the interests of the Republican Party. The more the population at large associates Republican ideology with the agenda of Fox News, and the fringe operators residing there, the more the party will be perceived as out of touch, or even out of their minds.

See also: As Fox News Goes Up, The GOP Goes Down

Undoubtedly, Republicans will still embrace Fox News. They are not about to abandon the media megaphone that they believe is most in tune with their agenda. Consequently, they will continue to be hampered by the association with unhinged hyperbole like this:

Glenn Beck: This is the end of prosperity in America forever if this bill passes. This is the end of America as you know it.

Hannity: If we get nationalized health care, it’s over; this is socialism.

Neil Cavuto: National Healthcare: Breeding Ground For Terror?

In an inspired fit of illogic, Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard appeared on Fox News this morning to accuse Democrats of being partisan. His evidence was that 34 Democrats voted with Republicans against the health care care bill, but no Republicans voted with the Democrats in favor. Of course, that’s actually evidence that the Democrats were NOT partisan. They demonstrated some diversity in their views while Republicans all marched in lock-step against the bill. In further support of this inane argument, Hayes may have uttered the day’s funniest, and most truthful, commentary:

“If Bart Stupak was a Republican crazy he probably would’ve stuck with his original position.”

I couldn’t agree more. Sticking with his original position against the bill, would certainly have qualified Stupak as a Republican crazy. And it is generous of Hayes to admit that holding the Republican view is tantamount to being insane.

Where do you go after you’ve argued that Armageddon will be the result if your alarms are not heeded (as GOP chair Michael Steele did today) and your argument is rejected? Do you moderate your rhetoric and attempt to restore civility to the debate? Or do you accelerate into a frenzied panic and march a phalanx of livid lemmings over a cliff? My money is on the latter, so far as Fox News is concerned. They still consider it to be in their best interests to manufacture the sort of melodrama that captures television audiences.

Here it’s important to remember that the interests of a television network are worlds apart from those of a political party. So while Fox is happy to gin up the rancor in hopes of attracting more viewers stimulated by bloody conflicts, the GOP will only be further damaged by the partnership. However, unfortunately for them, they have nowhere else to go. Fox News, and a few other rightist authors and radio talkers, have become the de facto face of the Republican Party. This is a point made by conservative strategist David Frum in his discussion of health care winners and losers:

Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government.

Frum goes on to predict that the continuing, and escalating, hysteria will be a boon to right-wing media. I’m not sure that I agree with him on that point. Certainly the hardcore disciples of Beck and company will remain glued to their sets. But we might also see audiences recede out of frustration and/or fatigue. After pouring everything they had, including their sanity, into a winner-take-all death match and losing, it would surprise no one if a significant segment of the audience decided to take a vacation from the lunacy. If an effort as determined and prolonged as the one Fox just concluded could not prevail, then what would it take?

The good news from all of this is that, as abhorrent as Fox News is, it ought not to be viewed as a Goliath that will crush any opponent. They gave it their all and came up short. They huffed and they puffed, but the House stood strong (oh wait, that was a wolf). This is the clearest evidence yet that Rupert Murdoch’s empire is a paper Fox. However, that doesn’t mean that it should be neglected. It can still bark ferociously and the other members of the media pack continue to give Fox more credence than they deserve. And for these reasons we must remain vigilant and prepared to respond to the deceitful and unethical practices of this phony pseudo-news enterprise.

In the long term I continue to believe that an informed public will reject Fox’s brand of shallow and divisive disinformation. And looking back, the health care debate may one day be perceived as a turning point. It may be that this long, sordid affair will be the battle that turns the war for responsible journalism to favor reason and truth. It may be Fox News’ Waterloo.

[Update: 3/25/10] David Frum has been dismissed from his job at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. That’s what he gets for going rogue.

Fox News Portrays Health Care Advocates As Violent

Posted by on March 9, 2010 at 8:51 pm. 5 Comments :

This morning in Washington, DC, at the Ritz Carlton Hotel, there was a rally held to protest the insurance companies and lobbyists responsible for abusive increases in insurance rates and opposition to health care reform. America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), an industry lobbying organization, were meeting at the Ritz.

The rally actually got a little coverage on Fox News. Megyn Kelly’s program showed live streaming video of the health care protest with reporting from Jake Gibson. Suffice it to say that it was something less than fair and balanced.

During the segment Kelly and Gibson made suggestions that the crowd was potentially violent. They talked about arrests and worried aloud about what was going to happen when the health care executives and lobbyists meeting inside the hotel came out. The chyron said

“Police Concerned Protesters Might Storm Ritz Carlton in D.C.”

Of course there was no evidence presented that the police had any such concern and there was no interview with the police. There also were no arrests, contrary to Gibson’s reporting. The protest ended without incident and Kelly failed to note that no storming of the hotel took place.

This is typical of the blatant bias exhibited by Fox News. During months of protests at town hall meetings where Tea Baggers were overtly hostile, loud, rude, and aggressive, Fox News never insinuated that they presented any sort of threat whatsoever. That was true despite their signs that promised they would “come armed next time.” And some were even observed carrying guns.

However, when a couple of thousand people gather peacefully to advocate on behalf of humane health care policies, Fox portrays them as thugs who are preparing to storm the defenseless executives and lobbyists who are just trying to have a quiet meeting in a luxurious hotel.

Fair and balanced? You decide.

The Anatomy Of A Glenn Beck Lie

Posted by on February 3, 2010 at 7:02 pm. 16 Comments :

Glenn Beck Rodeo ClownGlenn Beck’s glassy-eyed followers are irredeemably mesmerized by him and would sooner hack off a limb then concede that he was less than honest about anything. They wail plaintively that he is unwaveringly truthful and that no one has ever proven that he has lied. For the record, I have proven it many times.

On today’s program Beck was generous enough to provide another example of his compulsive dishonesty. And it was packaged in a familiar form for Beck: the old out-of-context video clip gambit. On this occasion Beck presented this segment of President Obama discussing health care:

Obama: [W]e said from the start that it was going to be important for us to be consistent in saying to people if you can have your — if you want to keep the health insurance you got, you can keep it, that you’re not going to have anybody getting in between you and your doctor in your decision making. And I think that some of the provisions that got snuck in might have violated that pledge.

After playing the clip, Beck went into outrage overdrive, complaining first about the sentence fragment “…consistent in saying to people…” implying that Obama was only “saying” these things and that he didn’t mean them. Only an idiot would interpret these extemporaneous remarks in context that way. And that, of course, is Beck’s built-in excuse.

But the larger corruption of the truth was Beck’s reaction to the news that some provisions were “snuck” into the bill that violated the pledge that no one would get between you and your doctor. Beck was aghast that the President would tolerate such legislative misbehavior. He castigated the President for not immediately putting a halt to Congress’s covert attempt to countermand his promise and tarnish his honor. Beck went on to declare that if the President had spoken up about this, that he (Beck) would heartily approve:

Beck: Well let me tell you something. Not only would that be the right thing for any president to do, his approval ratings would go through the roof. People would actually say “Well OK now, wait a minute. If he’s gonna do that I might actually listen to him.”

Apparently Beck wasn’t listening because Obama did precisely what Beck was accusing him of not doing. Obama expressly stated that he had caught the errant provisions and set about eliminating them. And this information was in the very segment that Beck had just played on the air. Except that Beck cut out the parts where Obama talked about scrubbing the problem provisions. Here’s the quote again in full. Note that the bold section in the middle is the only part that Beck played:

Obama: If you look at the package that we’ve presented — and there’s some stray cats and dogs that got in there that we were eliminating, we were in the process of eliminating. For example…

…we said from the start that it was going to be important for us to be consistent in saying to people if you can have your — if you want to keep the health insurance you got, you can keep it, that you’re not going to have anybody getting in between you and your doctor in your decision making. And I think that some of the provisions that got snuck in might have violated that pledge.

And so we are in the process of scrubbing them and making sure that it’s tight.

The complete clip shows unequivocally that Obama is keeping his pledge regarding the doctor/patient relationship. In fact, he was merely giving an example of incidents where institutional kinks can waylay legislation and demonstrating that he wasn’t falling for it. But Beck’s audience won’t know that because Beck unscrupulously edited it out. Then he portrayed the President as negligent for not doing something that in reality he did. And he even went so far as to admit that the American people would reward the President for doing the things that Beck left on the cutting room floor. And, of course, that’s reason Beck did it.

Beck certainly knew the content of the whole speech. So it is inescapable that he deliberately misrepresented it to advance his deceit. He purposefully truncated it to prevent his audience from seeing anything about Obama that they might regard as positive. And in the process he hammered Obama for not doing what he actually did do.

It’s too bad that most of Beck’s disciples will never hear about this fraud. Although many are so thoroughly bewitched that they might not even grasp it if they did hear about it. But it is important to continue to document it. Open minded people who haven’t formed opinions about Beck need to have this kind of information to keep from being duped by him.

First Do No Harm: Jane Hamsher On Fox And Friends

Posted by on December 22, 2009 at 12:07 pm. 26 Comments :

Color me disappointed. Jane Hamsher is a first-rate blogger/analyst and an admirable advocate for progressive causes. Her web site, FireDogLake, is a must read. That is why what took place this morning on Fox News is all the more disturbing.

Steve DoocyIn a segment titled “First Do No Harm,” Jane engaged in an interview on her opposition to the Senate health care bill. It’s bad enough that Jane would appear on any program on Fox, but her decision to submit herself to Steve Doocy on Fox & Friends is just baffling. Doocy is the poster child for ignorant disinformers of the world. He makes Sean Hannity look like a Rhodes Scholar. For Jane to be subject to an interview by this evolutionary throwback to cave-dwellers is unconscionable.

For the record, I happen to think this bill should pass. Mainly because I am pessimistic that we can get anything better on this go-round. I think there are too many people in Congress who are compromised by their association with Big Pharma and that the process is dreadfully dysfunctional. The best political approach appears to me to be an incremental one. That said, I completely agree with Jane’s criticisms of the bill, and I respect her opinion.

Hamsher: People on the right, people on the left are looking at the Senate and they’re saying, “Nobody’s there representing us.” Nobody’s representing the people. It’s just a matter of who’s in power and who’s taking Pharma’s money.

Exactly. Jane and I have the same goals for health care reform. We just differ on whether to scrap this bill and start over, or pass it and push for more later. But she ought not to have sunk this low. Is she really this desperate for a platform? It doesn’t help her cause in the least to fraternize with the goons at Fox. They have just one agenda: Destroy Democrats and progressive reform. And there was a time when Jane recognized that (h/t pontificator):

Hamsher: Fox is not a news outlet, it’s an openly partisan opinion factory and the Democrats should not be legitimizing them (and allowing them to recruit Democratic viewers to propagandize to) by doing this.

Exactly. What happened Jane? The only purpose served by appearing on Fox is to validate them as a legitimate news enterprise. It permits them to persist in their dishonest claim to being “fair and balanced.” It lends credibility to a network that has not earned any on its own. And there is no benefit to promoting a progressive point of view on Fox, even if well stated, because their audience is not just unreceptive to it, they are overtly hostile.

What’s more, Fox will aggressively exploit your appearance to their advantage. They will either make you look stupid or portray you as supporting their agenda. In this case, Fox is using Jane to bash the health care bill. They are positioning her as another reason to defeat the evil, socialist Democrats in Congress. Fox looks upon this as, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Fox is opposed to the health care bill. Since Jane is also opposed to the bill, in its current form, let’s have her on to beat up the people on her own side. It’s a win/win for Fox. Bash the bill and Democrats in general too. And Fox will replay slanted excerpts of this interview over and over for the rest of the week. Jane ought not to empower that sort of cynical exploitation.

Doocy began the segment by shamelessly exploiting Jane’s past experience as a breast cancer survivor. This is a typical ploy by Fox to tug at heart strings and to imply that this gives her opinion more weight. Jane’s contribution to the debate lies in her analytical ability and insight, not her medical history. But Fox doesn’t care about Jane, her health, or her position of the issues. They only care about disparaging their perceived enemies. At the close of the segment Doocy announced that…

Doocy: If you would like to sign her petition to try to kill the Senate bill, go to our web site at FoxandFriends.com

So Jane didn’t even get the benefit of a plug for her site (although it did appear on screen). Fox used the whole piece to promote themselves and drive traffic to their own site. Any Fox viewer who happens to click through to Jane’s petition will see a list of reasons to oppose the bill with which Fox viewers will fiercely disagree.
Starve the BeastFox conservatives oppose the bill for completely different reasons than Jane and other progressives do. Consequently, they would never sign her petition. Once again, Jane has achieved nothing of benefit by appearing on Fox.

There is some irony in the title of Jane’s segment on Fox: First Do No Harm. She should take that advice and stay the HELL off of Fox News! Such appearances only do harm to Democrats and progressive reform.

For a complete analysis of why it is pointless, and even harmful, to appear on Fox News, see my Starve The Beast series.

Update: Jane responded to criticism of her Fox gig on her own web site addressing the content of her remarks, saying…

“I stand by that message, and I think it’s important for both people on the left and people on the right to hear.”

The thing is, I have no problem with her message. My problem is with the platform she chose to dispense it. I still admire Jane and her commitment to changing this country for the better, but appearing on Fox does not serve that end. And for the record, I have also criticized others who appeared on Fox, including Obama:

Obama Capitulates To Fox News Barack Obama Falls Into Fox News Sunday Trap