Month: April 2009

BREAKING: Fox News Switches Parties

Posted by on April 28, 2009 at 4:39 pm. 2 Comments :

In a stunning and unexpected development, Fox News CEO Roger Ailes and the CEO of its parent corporation News Corp, Rupert Murdoch, appeared at a hastily assembled news conference this afternoon to announce that they are abandoning their long-time affiliation with the Republican Party in favor of a political organization that more closely reflects their conservative values.

“We are not leaving the Republican Party,” Ailes told the press. “The Republican Party left us. After more than a decade of dedicated service to right-wing propaganda, the Republicans, and their supporters have drifted away to the point that there are hardly enough of them left to justify their own network anymore.”

Murdoch elaborated that…

“Recent polling shows that a mere 21% of the nation identify themselves as Republican. I’ve got a bloody network and newspapers to run, mate. I can’t be bothered with struggling to gain a bit of market share from that measly bunch.”

Murdoch is already trying to recover from news that his New York Post lost more than 20% of its readers in the past year. Consequently he has been broadening his rhetoric to be more inclusive. For instance, as reported in his own Wall Street Journal this week…

“[Murdoch] said complete nationalization of the biggest banks might have been a good thing; it would have allowed the government to break up the banks’ businesses and sell them as smaller entities. That way, ‘there would be no more too big to fail firms,’ he said.”

That is quite a departure from the sermonizing of Glenn Beck who would likely argue that that way there would be Socialism. Apparently they still have some kinks to work out.

The switch comes on the heels of Sen. Arlen Specter’s surprise jump to the Democratic Party after serving five terms as a Republican senator from Pennsylvania. Some view Specter’s move as an embarrassment to Republicans as they seek to regain their footing after losing badly in the last two election cycles. Others view it as an inevitable result of of the shrinking ideological spectrum within the Republican Party. Still others regard it as the hysterical act of radical Socialist who has been masquerading as a Republican for 30 years while leading a sleeper cell of covert Marxist revolutionaries bent on the submission of free people throughout the world.

But while some say some stuff and others say other things, associates inside the Specter camp, who have asked for anonymity to keep from being pointed and laughed at by strangers on the street, are saying that the Senator is merely hoping to hang on to his senate seat regardless of any consideration for politics or principles. An independent analyst was quoted as saying, “Duh!”

As for News Corp and Fox News, the new relationship, that they are still in the process of finalizing, will serve their interests better than those they have cultivated in the past. First on the agenda is the acquisition by News Corp of the Christian Broadcasting Network. CBN’s chief, Pat Robertson will be brought along in the newly created post of Senior VP of Editorial and Evangilism. The remaining News Corp enterprises will be re-branded as Fox Christian Ministries.

Although Specter’s jolt may have expedited the move by Murdoch and company, the move might have been predicted by many observers. Fox News has been drifting to what might be called a sort of Tele-Conservangilism™. Its message has increasingly been disseminated as if from a pulpit, complete with saints (Bush, Palin, Gingrich, and Pope Reagan) and a long list of demons (ACORN, Soros, Gun regs, Abortion, Muslims, Communism, FEMA camps, Fairness Doctrine, Taxes, Global Warming, Evolution, and, of course, the “mainstream” media). The anointed preachers for the movement were, and will continue to be, familiar names like Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Hannity, and Beck.

Look for Ailes to unveil the new party insignia in the next few weeks. Reports are presently leaking out that suggest that the top contenders all have something to do with tea.

Justice Scalia Knows Foul-Mouthed Glitteratae

Posted by on April 28, 2009 at 11:32 am. 1 Comments :

The Supreme Court ruled today on a case pitting Fox Entertainment against the FCC and involving the use of naughty language on TV. The crux of the debate centered on “fleeting expletives” like when Bono of U2 appeared at an awards ceremony and used the phrase “fucking brilliant” in his acceptance speech.

The court’s ruling actually shied away from taking a position on the Constitutional question of free speech, preferring to decide narrowly on whether the FCC rules were “arbitrary and capricious.” In the end, with six justices writing separate opinions, the court overruled by 5 to 4 a 2nd Circuit decision in favor of Fox. The decision affirmed the FCC’s regulations regarding profanity, but sent the issue of free speech back to the 2nd Circuit for a reasoned analysis.

In this matter I would actually line up with Fox inasmuch I don’t like the FCC setting moral boundaries for expression. But Justice Antonin Scalia had to go and make such an asinine statement in his opinion that I just can’t let it stand:

“We doubt, to begin with, that small-town broadcasters run a heightened risk of liability for indecent utterances. In programming that they originate, their down-home local guests probably employ vulgarity less than big-city folks; and small-town stations generally cannot afford or cannot attract foul-mouthed glitteratae from Hollywood.”

What a complete and utterly idiotic remark. Brooklyn-bred Scalia obviously doesn’t know a fucking thing about down-home folks or small towns. He is a big-city, elitist asshole whose only acquaintance with Hollywood glitteratae is via his perverse imagination and insulting stereotypes.

It is embarrassing beyond description that someone this stupid remains a sitting Justice on America’s highest court.

News Blights: The SPINCOM Edition

Posted by on April 27, 2009 at 6:20 pm. NO Comments :

Item 1: The Fox Network has announced that it will not carry President Obama’s press conference on Wednesday, the 100th day of his presidency. ABC, CBS, and NBC have all committed to carrying it. Note that this is the Fox broadcast entertainment network, not the cable news channel, which has declined to air the presser. Still, there is some irony in that Fox has chosen to air an episode of the series “Lie To Me” instead. That’s something with which Fox should be familiar. Note also that the Fox News network has previously declined to air several Obama press affairs, even when the other cable news nets carried them.

Item 2: Newspaper circulation data for the six months ending March 2009, shows that Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post suffered the worst decline (-20.55%) of all of the top 25 papers measured by the Audit Bureau of Circulation. That does not compare well to the New York Times that declined only 3.55%. The New York Daily News fared worse (-14.26), but still not as bad as the Post. The Wall Street Journal was up a fraction.

Item 3: A study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs found the nightly newscasts devoting nearly 28 hours to Obama’s presidency in the first 50 days, about twice as much as Bush and Clinton. Of course, they weren’t facing the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression when they entered office. The study went on to report that 58% of the Obama stories on ABC, CBS and NBC, contained some positive elements. That’s a little more than half, so it could be regarded as fair and balanced. But the network that turned that phrase into a logo had only 13% positive analysis. Slanted much?

Item 4: Speaking at the Milken Global Institute Conference, Rupert Murdoch articulated a position that may come as a surprise to many, including the clowns on his news network. As reported in his own Wall Street Journal: “He said complete nationalization of the biggest banks might have been a good thing; it would have allowed the government to break up the banks’ businesses and sell them as smaller entities. That way, ‘there would be no more too big to fail firms,’ he said.” But Glenn Beck said that that way there would be Socialism!?! Rupert’s in big trouble now.

Item 5: Last year the New York Times published a story about the media using retired military analysts that were provided and trained by the Pentagon to speak approvingly about the war in Iraq and other war on terror operations. In addition, some of these allegedly neutral analysts were also on the payroll of defense contractors with vested interests in the war effort. None of these associations were disclosed by the media. Subsequent to the story in the Times, the same media virtually blacked out any reporting on the controversy. Last week the author, David Barstow, won a Pulitzer prize for the article. Guess what? The media somehow failed to report on Barstow’s award, even when reporting on the Pulitzer’s announcement of other winners.

Fox News Confidential: The Truth Behind Its Secret Mission

Posted by on April 24, 2009 at 3:29 pm. 9 Comments :

Ever since October of 1996, Fox News has been regarded by serious media analysts as a somewhat less than objective mouthpiece for conservative propaganda. From the start they adopted a posture that appeared to be bent on shilling for Republicans by drenching their reports with partisan disinformation.


[Purchase FreakShow stickers at Crass Commerce]

The intent couldn’t have been more transparent. This was a network birthed by the planet’s most notorious practitioner of tabloid piffle, Rupert Murdoch, who adorned it with a spritz of soft-core porn, and masqueraded it across America’s TV screens as if it were actually news. Murdoch plucked Richard Nixon’s former media advisor, and Rush Limbaugh producer, Roger Ailes, to run the network. He then set out to populate the incipient Fox News schedule with devout rightists like Cal Thomas, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Rita Cosby, and Matt Drudge.

As outwardly obvious as it appeared that Murdoch was building a megaphone with which to shout directions at what he perceived as a malleable population, there may have been another purpose entirely. While promulgating a self-serving, corporatist doctrine, steeped in imperialistic adventurism, is undoubtedly an attractive bonus for Murdoch and company, the prospect of reshaping the media is a much juicier plum. However, the new shape that Murdoch had in mind was more focused on creating negative perceptions of media than on advancing its quality.

The real mission of Fox News is [cue trumpets] to so thoroughly tarnish the practice of journalism that majorities of the public would recoil in disgust at all of it. Murdoch and Ailes knew that the introduction of a single cable network would have a difficult time enshrouding the whole of the mediasphere in their veil of lies. So rather than try to change people’s minds, they would endeavor to poison the relationship that people have with the press.

Consider this: If it were really the primary goal of Fox News to have an influence on political discourse, they could have launched the channel with a proudly partisan theme that celebrated their conservative outlook. They could have honestly put their views on the table and fought it out in the public square. That is how a sincere enterprise with faith in their convictions would behave. Instead, they chose to dress themselves up as “fair and balanced,” an objective they never intended to pursue. Then, while swimming in a swamp of their own bias, they aggressively attack their competitors as biased. At some point the community of news consumers will throw up their hands and surrender, convinced that the baby is just as contaminated as the bathwater. And that is precisely what Fox intends.

Ailes brought two operating philosophies to his post at Fox. First was the conviction that he could reproduce the structured chaos of talk radio populism on television. He had previously attempted to do this with America’s Talking, an NBC cable network that later became MSNBC. Secondly, he sought to make extensive use of the tricks he learned in the political realm – a craft that appreciated the value of packaging.

One of the lessons Ailes learned in politics was the potency of negative campaigning. He produced the infamous Revolving Door ad that attacked Michael Dukakis. And while he did not make the Willie Horton ad, he did take up the issue in the campaign and exhibited the ruthlessness of his character by stating that…

“The only question is whether we depict Willie Horton with a knife in his hand or without it.”

What most outsiders don’t know is that negative campaigns are not engaged in solely to damage the prospects of an opponent. Its underlying purpose is to discourage voters overall. A good campaign manager knows that his opponent will fire back and the race will eventually be perceived as dirty and unworthy of the voter’s consideration. By shrinking the voter pool, it makes the campaign’s job easier as there are fewer people to persuade and they can direct their efforts to getting their own supporters to the polls.

Sound familiar? That’s what I am proposing Ailes and Fox News are doing by dirtying up journalism and shrinking the audience for news. Since they can’t badger every other network, newspaper and Internet site to bend to their Paleolithic version of reality, they will throw metaphorical feces at everyone, including themselves, to prove that no one can be trusted. The result is that broad swaths of the public opt for ignorance over what they’ve been convinced is garbage. And as an ancillary benefit, Fox is left with a congregation of right-wing zealots who will happily sing from the network’s hymnal.

The initiative to discredit the press, as executed by Fox, goes far beyond the insertion of partisan viewpoints. To be successful they need to to utterly demolish the institution and rip off every last shred of dignity. To that end, they wrapped their programming in a superhero, comic book theme, complete with bright, primary colors, clanging bells, and incessant visual and aural sirens going off for no apparent reason. The omnipresent “Fox News Alert” will trigger at the first sighting of a missing white girl or an alleged violation of presidential body language. All that’s missing is the exploding thought bubble with the word “BLAM” in large block letters zooming the screen.

Delivering this cartoonish caterwaul is a collection of media misfits that hardly instill confidence in their presentation of the news. And I’m not talking about obvious clowns like Hannity, O’Reilly and Beck. I’m not even talking about beauty pageant winners (Gretchen Carlson, Miss America, 1989), O.J. Simpson groupies (Geraldo Rivera, Greta Van Susteren), or organ-grinder monkeys (Steve Doocy), although these characters do play significant roles in this commedia. I’m referring to the managers of Fox’s news production.

Bill Sammon, the Washington managing editor, is an overt partisan who came to Fox from the Washington (Moonie) Times. Besides his daily spew of slanted stories, he has written books like, “Strategery: How George W. Bush Is Defeating Terrorists, Outwitting Democrats, and Confounding the Mainstream Media.” That book was published in February of 2006, just nine months before Republicans were witted straight out of both houses of Congress.

Major Garrett, the senior White House correspondent for Fox News, is another Moonie Times alum and an author as well. His February 2006 book (that must have been a desperate time for the right-wing hype machine), “The Enduring Revolution: The Inside Story of the Republican Ascendancy and Why It Will Continue,” also presaged a Republican revolution that was something less than enduring, hardly ascending, and most definitely not continuing.

Neil Cavuto, the VP of business news for Fox News and the Senior VP and managing editor of the Fox Business Network, is a master of spin. When the market goes down, it’s because Obama flashed covert gang signals to ACORN volunteers who relayed the distress call to George Soros who exercised his omnipotent power to force everyone on Wall Street to sell. When the market goes up, it’s a bear market rally, unless Obama had a hangnail and stayed in his room all day, in which case the advance is due to traders relieved that the President was AWOL. Cavuto’s most distinctive skill as a TV anchor is his ability to interrupt any guest with whom he disagrees before they can express a complete thought. He is also credited with inventing the punctuation named for him, the Cavuto Mark. It is something like a question mark, but it permits you to make ludicrous assertions without assuming any responsibility. For instance: Do Democrats cause cancer? Or: President Obama…the Anti-Christ? You see, he’s not really asserting anything – he’s just asking.

To complete the picture, Fox has to employ a supporting cast that is as destructive to the news medium as their standard bearers. That’s why folks like Dick Morris, Bernie Goldberg, Ann Coulter, and Karl Rove, are booked repeatedly. It’s why ambush interviews by Stuttering Jesse Watters are regular features. And it’s why they turn to experts like Samuel “Joe the Plumber” Wurzlebacher, Ted Nugent, and Hooters waitresses, for analysis on everything from tax policy to Constitutional law.

The notion that Fox News would deliberately sully the noble calling of the fourth estate, of which they are allegedly a member, may seem speculative, paranoid, even Beckish. After all, where would they have gotten such an outlandish idea? Perhaps it came from observation of the government theory practiced in Republican bureaucracies. For instance, the dreadful performance of FEMA’s hurricane response that let thousands suffer and die in New Orleans; or the failure of the SEC to oversee and forestall fiscal calamities like AIG or Bernie Madoff; or billion dollar overruns in Defense Department procurements; or intelligence mishaps that lead to jets crashing into skyscrapers and unjustifiable invasions of foreign countries. The list goes on and on.

It is these sort of examples of government negligence and/or incompetence that lead to the inescapable conclusion that they are also intentional. That’s not to say that anyone in public service had a specific desire to cause harm. It is simply the recognition that certain schools of political thought embrace a philosophy that maintains that “government is the problem”, as Ronald Reagan famously declared, and that the best way to illustrate that is to allow bureaucracies to devolve to the point where they can only fail in their missions. Thereafter, advocates of this philosophy can argue that government’s inherent flaws require that it be curtailed, and even “reduce[d] to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub,” as colorfully articulated by Grover Norquist.

Roger Ailes is not only a practitioner of this school of thought, he is one of its architects. He served as a consultant to Reagan in the eighties and worked closely with Norquist as well, in the Reagan administration and as a lobbyist on behalf of the tobacco industry. Consequently, it should surprise no one that Ailes would seek to apply these methods, honed in politics, to his current profession.

So, if Ailes, Murdoch, et al, do indeed have an interest in besmirching the reputation of the press, they clearly have the background for it. Murdoch has already contributed to disillusionment with media via his sensationalistic tabloids. And Ailes has put theory into practice by demonstrating that the public can be persuaded to oppose institutions they see as deficient, even if they were purposefully fashioned as such. Although, it needs to be said that they didn’t have a particularly tough job, as the media has long been held in ill repute. But they can, and did, move it along quite nicely. Despite the media’s shortcomings, the responsible position would be to strive to reform and improve it, not to kick it while it’s down.

In the end, it can only be detrimental to the health of our society if we cannot shape the media into an honest, independent observer of our institutions and the people managing them. That’s hard enough to do under any circumstances, and it doesn’t make it any easier when self-serving, politically-vested corporations conspire to inflame distrust and disaffection for the media in order suppress the emergence of an informed citizenry.

At this point, Fox is having a fair measure of success. By this I am not referring to their Nielsen victories. Topping the list of cable news channels is still a rather inconsequential achievement relative to the TV universe (not to mention the national electorate that has roundly rejected the Fox “Nation”). Their success comes in their prime directive: Driving Americans away from even reputable sources of news. The hard-core partisans are lining up along traditional battle lines, and everyone else is tuning out.

In order to counteract the Fox offensive, the conscientious caucus of the press needs to step up. They need to defend their own integrity. They need to initiate reforms that make them worthy of such defense. Then they need to hold a giant mirror up to Fox to reflect back the noxious rays of ignorance. There needs to be a concerted effort to report honestly on the state of the media itself and Fox’s role in it. And they need to be specific. There is simply no reason why ABC News or the Washington Post cannot come right out and say that Fox News is a fraud. There’s plenty of documentary evidence to support it and, besides, Fox says it about them every day.

If we don’t want people to opt out, they need to be shown the value in remaining engaged. They need to have their faith in the press restored. The alternative for most people would be to disconnect, focus on their narrow, parochial concerns, and wallow in ignorance of the world around them. And given the choice of that or the fantastical perversion of reality peddled on Fox, they would be making the right decision.

Addendum: In the past few days, I have been questioned as to why Fox would engage in a plot that might harm its own business – particularly when Murdoch is such a well-known greedy opportunist.

First of all, I don’t buy the portrayal of Murdoch as someone who is only interested in money. If that were true, he would not be taking $50 million dollar annual losses on the New York Post for the past ten years. And he would not have started a business news network from scratch, and purchased the Wall Street Journal when newspapers are suffering an historic decline. Yes, he loves his wealth, but no, that’s not all he loves. He is a confirmed conservative ideologue, and his business decisions reflect that.

Secondly, I don’t think he sees this plan as being detrimental to his affairs. How would harming the news industry hurt him if that isn’t the business he’s in? He is in the entertainment business, and as long as Fox News continues to schedule programming that is more fiction than fact, more drama than data, he believes that he’ll do just fine.

Jesse Watters Crashes GE Shareholders Meeting

Posted by on April 23, 2009 at 12:50 pm. 16 Comments :

The reigning weasel of news hackery, Stuttering Jesse Watters, is striving mightily to surpass his personal worst. At the GE shareholders meeting, Watters, who did not identify himself as Bill O’Reilly’s attack troll, or even as an employee of Fox News, commandeered the microphone and began lobbing antagonistic questions at GE brass.

Paul Bond’s column in the Hollywood Reporter reports that Watters asked GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt about Janeane Garofalo’s recent appearance on Countdown. There were reportedly several other “shareholders” who rose to ask questions regarding MSNBC’s alleged editorial slant to the left.

It seems somewhat suspicious that a spontaneous collection of objectivity-conscious investors would arise to complain about one of GE’s most successful assets – and one whose success can be directly tied to the work of Countdown’s Keith Olbermann. Would these shareholders prefer that the network had not increased its audience and revenue by record margins over the past couple of years? One complaint focused on Olbermann’s failure to challenge Garofalo’s remarks. Bond then recounts that…

“Immelt told the assembled he takes a hands-off approach to what is reported on the company’s news networks, which prompted a shareholder to criticize him for not managing NBC Uni more effectively.”

That’s a rather curious complaint. Would they prefer that Immelt intervene in the editorial decisions made by NBC’s news production teams? Were he to do so, they would probably complain that he doesn’t permit the journalists to do their jobs impartially. On the other hand, they may indeed have a preference for corporate executives who dictate the editorial content for their networks. Witness their affection for Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes, who run a tightly partisan operation at Fox News.

Needless to say, this affair will likely end up on the O’Reilly Factor soon, and O’Reilly will use it in yet another attempt to bash GE (his proxy for Olbermann) and assert that Immelt should be fired for his poor performance. As usual he won’t acknowledge that both News Corp and GE’s stocks have declined about 60% in the past year. And he won’t call for Rupert Murdoch’s resignation either.

Update: As I predicted, O’Reilly spent the first ten minutes of his show tonight on Watters’ adventure in Orlando. Most of it was the typical tripe O’Reilly is famous for, but there was one moment in his Talking Points that was priceless:

“This is obviously a major story. When a powerful corporation which controls a major part of the American media may be using its power and the airwaves to influence politics in order to make money from government contracts.”

He is talking about Fox News, isn’t he?

Shepard Smith Doesn’t Give A Rat’s Ass

Posted by on April 23, 2009 at 11:58 am. 4 Comments :

I just can’t let this go by…

Shepard Smith is the Fox anchor most hated by entrenched Fox viewers. This video is a good example of why. Smith takes a principled stand against torture and in favor of living up to our national values when he says:

“We are America. I don’t give a rat’s ass if it helps. We. Are. America. We do not fucking torture. We don’t do it.”

This is video from Fox’s Strategy Room, which is a webcast that takes place when the network goes to commercial. So this was never on the air. I think the most embarrassing part has nothing to do with Shep’s language. It is when Trace Gallagher says that he is not saying that torture is right or wrong. That doesn’t seem like something that a moral person would be ambiguous about.

All Of A Sudden Fox News Cares About Privacy Rights

Posted by on April 21, 2009 at 5:20 pm. 4 Comments :

For the past eight years, there have been so many intrusions to the civil liberties that Americans are promised by the Constitution that it’s hard to recount them all. Amongst the most significant are the Patriot Act, the removal of Habeas Corpus protections, and Wireless Wiretapping.

Now there is a bill in Congress that poses a new threat to privacy and to the independence of the Internet. The Cybersecurity Act of 2009, introduced by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, seeks to create a new federal authority to respond to threats that may emanate online. It gives the President the power to shut down critical systems in an emergency. It also gives the Commerce Secretary authority to access any and all data it chooses from public and private networks.

While there is a real need to shield our electronic networks from lurking villains, this bill is written far to broadly and it gives the government too much discretion for defining when it would be invoked.

Here’s the funny part: James Osborne of Fox News has written an article that takes the administration and the Congress to task for stepping on the privacy rights of citizens. They never seemed to be too interested in the Bush administration’s incursions into privacy as enumerated above. But now such moves are viewed as power grabs that are on assault on civil liberties. Osbourne’s article doesn’t include any historical context on the liberties Americans have already been forced to forgo, but he does warn that…

“…the proposal to give the U.S. government the authority to regulate the Internet is sounding alarms among critics who say it’s another case of big government getting bigger and more intrusive.”

One of those critics cited in Osbourne’s article is Lee Tien of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. I have to give Osbourne credit for including a response from the EFF, a veteran of Internet rights advocacy. On the other hand, Osbourne leans far more heavily on the views of the Business Software Alliance, an industry lobbying firm that, not surprisingly, thinks that business should play the dominant role in efforts to secure the Internet and protect citizens privacy. Presumably that is because they have done such a great job of it in the past (yes, that’s sarcastic).

The last thing we need now is for an industry that is motivated solely by profit to be responsible for systems that impact our national security and personal privacy. The solution can only lie in a cooperative effort that includes business, government, and the public. There is a even a place for Fox News in so far as they are inclined to provide information on this serious matter. It would just be nice if they weren’t so weighted to a tyranny of the corporation. It would also be nice if they could demonstrate some consistency by exhibiting a little concern for privacy violations incurred by the previous administration.

Rasmussen’s Guide To The Political Class

Posted by on April 21, 2009 at 2:05 am. 7 Comments :

Scott Rasmussen is to polling what Rush Limbaugh is to objective reporting. That is to say he has no scruples other than to serve up a pre-mashed helping of right-wing propaganda. Whenever the Democratic agenda gains favor, or Obama’s popularity is rising, you can count on Rasmussen to deliver a survey that reports precisely the opposite. For this reason, he is a frequent guest on Fox News. They surely appreciate that when he walks into the studio he brings with him a version of reality that conveniently skews to their prejudices.

Now Rasmussen has introduced an innovative new index that tracks the variances between what he calls the Mainstream public and the Political Elite. In a recent example of this breakthrough, he reports that the Tax Day Tea Parties were viewed favorably by 51% of “Americans” but only 13% of the Political Class shared that view.

So you may be wondering how Rasmussen determines who is an Elitist and who is a Mainstream American. He does this by conducting a comprehensive psychological regimen of inquiry to create a detailed profile of a respondent’s subjective tendencies. I am including here the questions that make up his comprehensive study – all three of them:

  • Generally speaking, when it comes to important national issues, whose judgment do you trust more – the American people or America’s political leaders?
  • Some people believe that the federal government has become a special interest group that looks out primarily for its own interests. Has the federal government become a special interest group?
  • Do government and big business often work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors?

Answer two of more of those questions affirmatively and you are a Mainstream American. Answer two or more in the negative and you are a Political Elitist. What could be simpler? Or more simple minded?

The good news is that, despite the fact that I am one of the most politically oriented people you could ever hope to meet, according to Rasmussen I am a Mainstream American. I would answer both the second and third questions with a firm “aye.” As for the first question, I do not so much disagree with it as I am confused by it. I don’t know how to compare the judgment of America’s political leaders to that of the American people. Is there an authority to whom I can refer to ascertain the American people’s judgment on any issue? And aren’t America’s political leaders a reflection of the people’s judgment? No matter – I am still squarely Mainstream as measured by Rasmussen’s index.

The problem here is that Rasmussen is using this index to draw distinctions between the two groups and characterize them as significant. Never mind that the Political Class he defines occupies a mere 7% of respondents. With this gimmick he can report nonsense like the Tea Party numbers above. After all, who really cares if 13% of the 7% of Elitists don’t like tea? If he surveyed 1,000 people, then we’re talking about 9 who fall into that category. That’s 9 out of 1,000, or less than 1%.

This has absolutely no statistical value whatsoever. The only purpose it can possibly serve is to create an imaginary group against which to compare other results whose significance you wish to artificially enhance. This permits Rasmussen to imply that an invented class of people have decidedly different values than the rest of us. And since his test for what constitutes a Mainstream American is so broad, the whole process is worthless, and worse, it’s phony. He may as well have asked…

  • Generally speaking, when it comes to important national issues, whose judgment do you trust more – Mr. Rogers or the KKK?
  • Some people believe that the federal government has become a special interest group that tortures kittens and feeds their remains to crocodiles. Would you oppose the federal government feeding dead kittens to swamp beasts?
  • Do government and big business often work together in ways that pad the campaign accounts of politicians and deregulate the affairs of corporations?

Those that do not answer in the affirmative are Poopyheads and may not play with the rest of us Americans. We all owe Rasmussen a debt of gratitude for revealing to us the stark differences that are hidden amongst our nation’s people. He is a master at exposing the vast, make-believe divides that were meant by divine providence to keep us apart and at each others throats. Heaven forbid we might all be more alike than we assumed.

The Case Against White House Press Briefings

Posted by on April 20, 2009 at 2:48 pm. NO Comments :

Ana Marie Cox posted a brief item today about the reportorial brain power that’s wasted at White House press briefings:

“It’s not that the reporters covering the president are bad at their jobs. Most are experienced journalists at the top of their game — and they’re wasted at the White House, where scoops are doled out, not uncovered. The day of a typical White House correspondent consists, literally, of waiting to be told things.”

That’s an excellent point. Why would news organizations want to assign their top talent to staged briefings where they would have almost no opportunity to break a significant story? The only problem with Cox’s article is that it is at least two years too late.

In May of 2006, I posted an item based on the musings of NYU journalism professor, Jay Rosen. The article addressed comments made by Bush Chief of Staff, Josh Bolton, who seemed to be considering ending the White House briefings. Rosen pointed out that ending the briefings was a two way street that could just as easily be exercised by the press. All they would have to do is stop showing up. Rosen went further to propose what is still an appealing alternative.

“Send interns instead to occupy the seats without asking questions or filing reports. That means no correspondents at the two daily briefings, none on the President’s plane, none at his public appearances. (Except for foreign trips where other heads of state might speak.) Let the White House publicize itself.”

If not interns, junior reporters would certainly be able to perform the stenographic services required in the briefing room. They could even ask pretty decent follow-up questions when necessary. In the meantime, the newsroom all-stars could be out raking up muck like they are supposed to be doing; like they were trained to do; like we, the news consumers, want them to do. Should anything of consequence occur (i.e. the President introduces his new puppy), it could be texted to a more experienced hand without even leaving the chair. But when was the last time something important was divulged in one of these gatherings?

Certainly the White House manipulates these briefings for their own purposes, but in a sense, that’s their job. They are political by definition. The press, however, have a thoroughly different job – to coax transparency from government officials who are usually adverse to volunteering it. But rather than fulfilling that mission, much of the White House press corps is more concerned with scoring invites to cocktail parties and dinners with the same officials they are supposed to be covering.

All too often, White House press events are exploited by ego-driven reporters who like to see their mugs on TV. For this reason they frequently pose questions that are artificially provocative in order to raise their buzz quotient. At the other end of the spectrum are the partisan hacks that seek to make a name for themselves by embarrassing the press secretary or the President. Just last week, this guy asked a question with a comically false premise that was dripping with derision:

“Tomorrow is tax day and a number of conservative groups are organizing these so called “tea parties” across the country; there are going to be grassroots uprising revolts against the administration’s policies so far. Is the President aware that these are going on and do you have any reaction to this?”

[By the way, if anyone knows who this guy is, please leave his name in comments. I have been unable to identify this Jeff Gannon wannabe] … [Update: This may be Jim Geraghty of the National Review]

As for the notion of reassigning cub reporters to the briefings, it’s still a good idea, but not one likely to be implemented any time soon. Too bad. It’s shame we have to watch the people who ostensibly earned the top positions in their field, sitting in rows like school children being lectured by the teacher. And if they really are the best, then who does that leave to do the real work of pounding the pavement and looking under rocks? It’s a system that rewards mediocrity.

Fox News Calls Market Gains A Tea Party Rally

Posted by on April 19, 2009 at 1:19 am. 1 Comments :

As the economy sputters along, trying to find it’s way out of the ditch dug by George W. Bush and his Republican allies in Congress, Fox News is trying to find new ways to blame Obama for our hardships and to deny him any credit for good news. And just when you thought that it couldn’t get any more blatantly biased, Fox News rises to the occasion.

For several weeks, Fox has used the phrase “Obama Bear” to describe the stock market when it heads down. At the same time they refer to it as a bear market rally when it goes up. So it should come as no surprise that on the April 18, broadcast of Fox’s “Bulls & Bears,” the host, Brenda Buckner, ups the ante by opening the show with this:

“Call it a tea party rally. Wall Street’s sure partying, up six weeks in a row. The bulls came out about the same time these guys started to shout, saying no to big government, big taxes, and big bailouts. Will that keep investors saying yes to stocks?”

In an absurd flight from logic, Buttner is asserting that the Fox-sponsored, Republican rallies last Wednesday played a role in the market’s performance for six weeks prior to their even being held. Buttner then asks guest Eric Bolling whether it is a coincidence that “the market comes back the same time Americans fight back against big government.” Of course, he obligingly agrees that’s the case, despite the absence of any shred of evidence that Wall Street gives a damn about the plaintive wailing of a bunch of tea bag waving, anti-tax, gun-toting, evangelical, Glenn Beck disciples, who still can’t accept that they lost last November. So Buttner continues with her obsequious line of questioning with this one for Gary B. Smith:

“I mean, part of the tea party was having voices heard. For so long, all we were hearing about was nationalizing banks and socialism and all that. Just having this out there, does that help Wall Street? Does that help the bulls?”

Once again Smith exuberantly concurs, without foundation, that the very existence of the tea parties is what is helping to steer us clear of “this socialist path” that America is on in his twisted imagination. Whereupon Buttner turns to her third guest, Ron Ianieri, to inquire as to whether the voters will kick the bums in Washington out when the next elections roll along. Considering the sustained positive polling for Obama, and the concomitant collapse of support for the right, this question seems to be rooted more in her fervent yearning for such an end, than in reality. And this is where it gets dicey. In answering the question, Ianieri wandered off the reservation:

“My only problem is, is that although I’m very happy to be an American, and I really am touched by this patriotism, it’s got absolutely nothing to do with the market rally — nothing.”

Uh oh.

At this point you might think that someone didn’t get the morning memo. And you would be right. In fact, as Ianieri was completing his comments, he was interrupted by Tobin Smith who frantically asked…

“Did you get the name of the post here we’re doing?”

Ianieri replied that he did, but it was too late. The cat was already out of the bag and halfway up the neighbor’s tree, chewing on a nestfull of baby robins. The day’s proscribed message had been muddled. The directive to switch from branding upticks on Wall Street as bear market flukes to Tea Party rallies had been thrown off track for a revelatory moment.

The rest of the segment was more of the same and Media Matters has the video. I only wish someone could come up with the “name of the post” that Smith was talking about. I’m sure it would be enlightening. Not that we didn’t already know that Fox News distributes talking points to their hosts and commentators. But we rarely see them admit it so openly on the air.