Day: 5/25/2008

Stuttering Karl Rove Won’t Deny Siegelman Allegations

Posted by on May 25, 2008 at 4:26 pm. NO Comments :

Last week the House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed Karl Rove, who has refused to appear before the Committee to answer questions regarding the investigation and prosecution of the former Democratic governor of Alabama, Don Siegelman. Rove is alleged to have improperly directed the Justice Department to pursue the Siegelman case for political purposes. Rove, who still appears on Fox News as Senior Political Contributor, despite his position as an “informal” adviser to John McCain (which Fox does not disclose to their viewers), was interviewed today by George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s This Week. At the end of the interview, Stephanopoulos asks Rove about the Siegelman case and illicits this guilt-ridden response:

Stephanopoulos: To be clear, you did not contact the Justice department about this case?
Rove: Uh, I read about … I’m going to simply say what I’ve said about this before, which is I found out about Don Siegleman’s investigation and indictment by reading about it in the newspaper.
Stephanopoulos: But that’s not a denial.
Rove: Uh … I … I … I’ve … I’ve … uh … uh … I … you know … heh … I read about it … I’ve heard about it, read about it, learned about it for the first time by reading about it in the newspaper.

Stephanopoulos never actually asked Rove where he heard about the case. He asked if Rove had ever contacted the Justice Department about it. Not only did Rove evade answering the question, he couldn’t even spit out the lies his attorney had obviously coached him on. Watch for yourself:

It remains to seen if Rove will ever be brought to justice. The Congress has not been particularly assertive in these matters. And Rove is famous for squirming out of tough situations like this. In fact, that is how he got the nickname “Turd Blossom” bestowed by none other than George W. Bush.

Liz Trotta Of Fox News Jokes About Knocking Off Obama

Posted by on May 25, 2008 at 3:01 pm. 11 Comments :

It doesn’t get much worse than this. Liz Trotta is a Fox News contributor and former New York bureau chief of The Washington [Moonie] Times.

As if it isn’t enough to conflate Osama and Obama by mixing up the names (as many have done before her), she goes on to assert with giddy laughter…

“and now we have what some are reading as a suggestion that somebody knock off Osama …uh… Obama … well, both if we could.”

The Fox anchor, Eric Shawn, merely laughed along saying, “Talk about how you really feel.” This is, sadly, not the first call for violence from Fox News personalities. Bill O’Reilly told listeners that he didn’t want to lynch Michelle Obama unless there was “evidence.” Sean Hannity said that keeping Nancy Pelosi from becoming Speaker of the House was “worth fighting and dying for.” Non-Foxie Rush Limbaugh has been inciting his dittoheads to “riot in Denver” at the Democratic National Convention.

I suppose this just validates O’Reilly’s warning that “before this presidential election year is over somebody is going to get hurt.” And it makes me wonder what he, and the rest of the Fox terrorists, know that we don’t.

Update: In some quarters of the InterTubes™ there is grumbling that the video above was deceptively edited. For anyone interested, here is a longer clip. I don’t see how the context changes with regard to Obama, but it does include Trotta disparaging Clinton as an evasive, lying, pandering, race-baiter. So much for objectivity.

Update II: Trotta apologized this morning:

“I am so sorry about what happened yesterday and the lame attempt at humor. I feel all over myself, making it appear that I wished Barack Obama harm or any other candidate, for that matter, and I sincerely regret it and apologize to anybody I have offended. It is a very colorful political season, and many of us are making mistakes and saying things we wish we had not said.”

I’m glad she apologized, but did she have to tack on the qualifier at the end that implies an excuse because, “Hey, everybody’s doing it.”?

The Truth About Fox News And Pravda

Posted by on May 25, 2008 at 1:47 pm. 1 Comments :

Ordinarily the viewpoint of a biased, journalistic extension of state propaganda would hardly seem noteworthy. The tendency of such an enterprise to weight its coverage with rosy scenarios penned by government scribes would render the reporting suspect at best. But enough about Fox News…

In an article analyzing the ratings competition between American cable news networks, it is Pravda that provides the clear-eyed view of American media. Reporting that CNN beat Fox News for the first time in seven years, Pravda opined that “TV viewers preferred the ‘objective’ CNN to Fox News that justifies George Bush’s policy. The article went on to quote the views of Joe Cuthbert, whom they identify as a Columbia University journalism professor:

“Fox News, a part of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, engaged in one-sided advocacy of the stance of the current US administration, instead of providing all-round objective reports of election campaigns. Economists proved that George Bush would have never won the 2000 election but for the support from Fox News. The TV channel definitely backs up right-wing Republicans, Cuthbert considers. ‘Fox is rather the advocate of Bush’s government than a news TV channel. Now the political ship is sinking, and so is Fox.'”

This astute analysis from Pravda (which means “truth”), while accurate, needs to be taken with a bucket of salt. The article’s headline reads, “Most Americans do not even think about getting information from alternative news sources.” Few could argue with that, but there is nothing in the article that addresses that point other than the headline. And it’s obvious that the Russian version of Fox News is just as likely to propound views favorable to their political benefactors as Fox would be. In that respect they are comrades.

However, it was interesting to note their reference to economists and the 2000 election. They appear to be referring to a study (pdf), prepared by UC Berkeley and Stockholm University, that showed that Fox News may have had a discernible impact on the election that is rarely reported in the U.S.:

“We find a significant effect of the introduction of Fox News on the vote share in Presidential elections between 1996 and 2000. Republicans gained 0.4 to 0.7 percentage points in the towns which broadcast Fox News.”

In an election as close as the one in 2000, those numbers could easily have altered the outcome.

While Pravda may have hit the mark as regards Fox News and Rupert Murdoch, I would not rush to associate myself with their conclusions. They are still an arm of the political hierarchy that is more interested in manipulating the public than in informing them. Which is exactly why pseudo-journalistic organizations that are really just fronts for government propaganda are so dangerous to free societies. But as I said above, enough about Fox News…