Month: June 2009

Al Franken Wins Senate – Fox Nation Throws Tantrum

Posted by on June 30, 2009 at 3:35 pm. 5 Comments :

The Minnesota Supreme Court finally handed down its ruling today that Al Franken was the winner in last November’s senate election. The court’s decision was unanimous with all five justices ruling in Franken’s favor:

“…we affirm the decision of the trial court that Al Franken received the highest number of votes legally cast and is entitled under [state law] to receive the certificate of election as United States Senator from the State of Minnesota.”

Norm Coleman has conceded and all that’s left now is for Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty to sign the certificate and send Franken on his way to Washington. Pawlenty has been hinting that he is prepared to sign the certificate, but with Republican governors you never know until it’s done. Pawlenty might decide to go for a hike in the Appalachians.

So leave it to Fox to bring this news down to the level of a whining toddler who can’t understand why he isn’t getting his way:

The Fox Nation reacted to this breaking news by quickly posting a photo of Franken’s Stuart Smalley character from his days on Saturday Night Live – ten years ago. Fox Nation’s childish behavior is nothing new. They simply can’t bring themselves to refer to Franken by his real name (a shortcoming they share with Bill O’Reilly). Every article I was able to find on Fox Nation about Franken used Smalley in the headline.

  • 1) Obama team strikes ‘Stuart Smalley’ diplomacy.
  • 2) GOP vows WWIII over Stuart Smalley.
  • 3) Stuart Smalley closer to US senate.
  • 4) Stuart Smalley Widens Lead.
  • 5) Did Stuart Smalley Steal the Election?
  • And now: No Joke! Stuart Smalley Headed to Senate!

[Update] More Smalley references since Franken was seated:

  • 7) Minister Confronts Stuart Smalley for Christian-Bashing.
  • 8) Did ACORN Elect Stuart Smalley?.
  • 9) Stuart Smalley’s Radio Buddies Turn on Him!.
  • 10) Shirtless Stuart Smalley Video Surfaces.
  • 11) Sen. Smalley Delivers Opening Statement at Sotomayor Hearing.
  • 12) Sen. Smalley Unleashes First Bill.

I suppose that, in order for Fox Nation (and Fox News) to be successful, they have to cater to the diminished mental capacity of their audience. And after reading some of the comments posted on their site, I’d say they still have some ways down to go. Remember, this is a community that reveres ignorance, as illustrated by their adoration of Sarah Palin, and college dropout Glenn Beck. They proudly display their overt disdain for people with demonstrated intelligence, like President Obama and … well, Al Franken, who graduated cum laude from Harvard with a bachelor of arts degree in political science (and you thought he was just a comedian).

I wonder if the fair folks at Fox would have trumpeted Ronald Reagan’s election like this:

It is really too bad that Fox is so committed to acting like a spoiled crybaby. They were amongst the first to complain if someone didn’t show the proper respect to former President Bush. In fact, any demonstration of dissent was regarded as treasonous. But now they are the first to call for treason. Last week Glenn Beck expressly advocated for secession (again) and lamented that there were too few opportunities to threaten the federal government:

“The Constitution, somehow or another, has become a suicide pact, where you can’t get out of it. Once you join the Union, you can’t get out, which leaves no place for threat to the federal government. You know, once you’re in, you’re always in. That’s you know – that’s ‘Hotel California.’ No thanks.”

The real fun is going to come later when the Fox News primetime circus hits the air. It has been reported that the doctor attending to Michael Jackson has moved in with Bill O’Reilly and vans from local pharmacies have been in and out of the estate all afternoon. O’Reilly may try to feign indifference in that way he does, wherein he insists that he’s always been fair to so-and-so. But just as a reminder, here is what he’s had to say about Franken in the past:

  • “You don’t get any lower than that man, Franken.”
  • “That’s the worst thing I’ve ever seen in American politics – is this man maybe becoming a senator.”
  • “It’s personal with me. He’s lied about me. He’s slandered me.
  • “The fact that he was even competitive […] depresses me about America.”

If you can’t get any lower than Franken, where does O’Reilly place Hitler or Bin Laden? If Franken becoming a senator is the worst thing he’s ever seen, how much higher on his list is Watergate or the Kennedy assassinations? And if he’s really depressed about America, perhaps he should find a pleasant rest home with a nice garden where he can knit and scream at the mosquitoes.

So the list of character flaws evident in the Fox mentality just keeps growing. They won’t be honest; they won’t be respectful; they won’t be faithful; they won’t be patriotic; they won’t be either fair or balanced.

Is it really too much to ask that they just grow up?

Fox Pimps Fake Rasmussen Poll Index

Posted by on June 30, 2009 at 10:39 am. 2 Comments :
Be sure to see Rasmussen’s previous fake index wherein he invents new classes of “Mainstream Americans” and “Political Elitists.”

Last week I wrote about the latest index invented by the notoriously deceptive Rasmussen polling firm. Rasmussen’s Presidential Approval Index actually distorts the President’s approval by leaving out huge chunks of the poll’s respondents. He does this by counting only those who express a “strong” opinion. As I said last week…

The problem with this method is that it ignores all of those who approve or disapprove, albeit not strongly. In his own survey, the Presidential Approval Index is a negative 1 (-1), which he then releases to the media as demonstrating that the Obama honeymoon is over. However, his results including all respondents show that Obama is regarded favorably by a healthy majority of 54%, compared to 45% who disapprove (+7).

At the end of that article I concluded that “Rasmussen has emerged as the number one most likely pollster to be interviewed on Fox News.” That has been true for some time, but now Fox is tightening their embrace of the partisan pollster by misrepresenting the already skewed results. Here is their story from The Fox Nation announcing that “Obama Job Approval Index Dips Negative for First Time” :

In addition to the statistical flaws in the poll itself, Fox has incorrectly reported that the index dipped into negative territory for the first time. In fact, the first time was a week ago when I originally reported the phony index. This is the third time that the index has been negative. Even so, the index wavers in a narrow range that barely brushes its own margin of error.

You really have to wonder how Fox manages to screw up stories even when they originate from their own partners in propaganda. The lesson is to never underestimate Fox’s ability to slant a story in favor of their rightist prejudice.

Murdoch Newspapers Fall For Fake Email

Posted by on June 27, 2009 at 2:26 pm. NO Comments :

I have little to add to this example of another attempt by Rupert Murdoch’s factory of falsehoods to fabricate stories designed to either advance his interests or harm those of his adversaries.

In this case Murdoch’s newspapers in Australia hyped a suspicious email that cast Prime Minister Kevin Rudd as a corrupt politician. This was intended to benefit the conservative opposition leader, Malcolm Turnbull. [Note: In Australia, Turnbull’s Liberal Party is farther to the right than Rudd’s Labor Party]

The same day [Murdoch-owned] News Limited published its story in the two thirds of newspapers it owns in Australia, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd called for an Australian Federal Police investigation to examine the authenticity of the email.

By Monday the AFP had established the email was a forgery. Turnbull came under pressure throughout this week for relying on a fake email, and promoting it. The whole matter was a hoax and even members of Turnbull’s own party criticised his naivety.

Nowhere was there any criticism of the Murdoch newspapers for not authenticating the email before engaging in a mass publication of its content. It seems News was taken in, hook, line and sinker, and did far more to promote what turned out to be a fake email than Turnbull.

This journalistic atrocity comes on the heels of a fake scandal publicized by Murdoch’s papers a couple of months ago. In that affair, a nude photo allegedly of a candidate for senate was published. The candidate, Pauline Hanson, offered ample evidence that the photo could not have been of her, but the papers would not retract the story.

Typical. Anyone who thinks that this isn’t going on here in the U.S. is terminally naive.

Bill O’Reilly Supports Abolishing Freedom Of The Press

Posted by on June 27, 2009 at 11:01 am. 3 Comments :

Once again, Bill O’Reilly has proven that what he said two years ago regarding his lack of journalistic standards is still true:

In his most recent editorial, O’Reilly has exposed both his ignorance and his appreciation for officially-sanctioned speech. It should come as no surprise that the top “personality” on the Fox Propaganda Network would harbor such notions given their reputation as the media mouthpiece for the Republican Party.

The column began by thoroughly misrepresenting the philosophy of Founding Father Thomas Jefferson. While any free-thinking observer of the press would keep a watchful eye on the media and retain their right to criticize it, O’Reilly flatly states that Jefferson “didn’t much like the press.” However, the truth is that Jefferson regarded the press as an essential component of a free society. He said:

“…were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”

With that disinformational kickoff, O’Reilly set about to discredit a poll by the New York Times that found that a majority of Americans would prefer healthcare reform that covers everyone, even if it means paying more in taxes. Never mind that most polls reveal the same preference, O’Reilly’s only real purpose was to dispute the validity of a poll with which he disagreed.

The gist of O’Reilly’s complaint was that the Times oversampled Obama voters, producing a skewed result. The problem with his typically shallow analysis is that 50% of Republicans in the poll expressed the same preference as Democrats. What’s more, as a pollster testing the mood of the nation, the goal is not to balance respondents by political affiliation. The goal is to have a representative sample of the public at large. By that standard, the sampling of the Times poll was accurate.

Nevertheless, O’Reilly can’t contain his disdain for anyone who disagrees with him. His outrage is so intense that it led him to say this:

“The most frustrating part about this is that nothing can be done. The Times has an ombudsman, but he’s a joke, and no outside agency has any power over the paper. It can pretty much do what it wants, and does.”

Stop the presses! You mean to say that a newspaper can do whatever it wants? How the heck did that happen? Why isn’t there an outside agency that has power over these papers? No wonder O’Reilly is tee’d off. He would be much happier if journalists all had to have their work approved by editorial boards that could certify the conservative purity of the message before being disseminated to the people. You know, like the way Fox News does it.

This is a man whose daily delusions can’t be summed up simply by describing them as paranoid. A new word must be coined to encompass the naked madness he embodies (Paranoxious?). His perception of enemies lurking in every shadow is enough to warrant institutionalization. Yet, instead, this is a man who has his own TV show and millions of viewers to whom he can peddle dangerous ideas like “outside agencies” that have power over the press.

This isn’t the first time that O’Reilly has expressed a desire to control the press. He frequently rails against it and ferociously attacks it. It is nearly impossible to go a day without hearing him besmirch the media as a bastion of hate that poses a very real risk to society:

“Knowing that partisan hostility is boiling over in America, the Secret Service is tense because the candidates are exposed when they campaign in public. Hatred is definitely in the air and the media is partially to blame.“

You have to give O’Reilly credit for his superhuman capacity for denial, in that he doesn’t recognize himself in that statement. He even refutes it entirely in his recent defense of his provocative comments regarding the murdered doctor, George Tiller. In that case it is not, to him, the least bit inflammatory to refer to someone as a “baby killer” who “has blood on his hands”.

This is also a man who has a severe fear and hatred of the media – that’s right – the media that he works so hard to demolish despite his prominent role in it. Take, for example, this brazen threat to journalists everywhere:

“[T]here is a huge problem in this country and I’m going to attack that problem. I’m going to attack it. These people aren’t getting away with this. I’m going to go right where they live. Every corrupt media person in this country is on notice, right now. I’m coming after you…I’m going to hunt you down […] if I could strangle these people and not go to hell and get executed…I would.“

That’s what we’re up against. That’s the sort of mindless hostility that is being spread throughout the mediasphere. And it isn’t just O’Reilly. It is Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, etc. It would be tempting to ask what can be done about these freaks. But that would just be adopting their response that promotes censorship and suppression. The real question is how do we educate the people who watch and listen to this garbage? How do we replace those sensationalistic rantings with honest and deliberative discourse? And how do we do it before it erupts into (more) violence?

That’s a difficult assignment, as snarling shoutfests seem to make for more popular viewing than rational dialogue. But it’s an assignment that we need to complete for the sake of our country, if not for our mental health.

Rush Limbaugh Blames Obama For Sanford’s Sins

Posted by on June 25, 2009 at 11:43 pm. 4 Comments :

Just when you think you’ve heard everything…when you think that the rightist blowhards couldn’t possibly make bigger fools of themselves…from out of nowhere someone steps forward to accept the challenge. Today that someone was Rush Limbaugh.

On his radio show today, Limbaugh engaged in his routine whining and ranting until he was inspired to address the pathetic affairs of South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford. Then Limbaugh embarks on a fantastical journey that imagines Sanford a victim who was merely trying to escape the Hell that Obama has made of America:

First: “[Sanford] knows that somebody knows what’s going on. He knows his wife knows. So he ups and leaves for five days. He doesn’t leave anybody in charge of the state in case there’s an emergency. This is almost like: ‘I don’t give a damn. The country is going to hell in a handbasket and I just want out of here.’ He had just tried to fight the stimulus money coming to South Carolina. He didn’t want any part of it. He lost the battle.”

~~~

Later: “My first thought was he said: ‘To hell with this. The Democrats are destroying the country. We can’t do anything to stop it. I gave everything I had to stop it here in South Carolina. My wife’s left me, the hell with it. I’m going to enjoy life what little time I’ve got left.’ Folks, there are a lot of people that are looking at life, they’re saying screw it.”

Limbaugh’s “theory” is that Sanford just couldn’t take it anymore. He cracked. The pressure of having the federal government give his state and his constituents billions of dollars for jobs and economic renewal was too much for him handle.

So what did he do? He went back in time a whole year and commenced an adulterous affair with a woman in Argentina. Limbaugh seems to think the affair began a few days ago when Sanford went missing. He also thinks that Sanford’s wife just found out and left him. The truth is, she has known for five months, and I’m not sure it is accurate to assert that she left him. After all, he was the one that cheated on her and ran for the border.

Nevertheless, Limbaugh believes that Sanford was so overwhelmed by Obama’s governance that he would abandon his family and his responsibilities as governor. For he no longer gave a damn about anything but his own sexual gratification. What’s more, Limbaugh is actually sympathetic to that irresponsible behavior. He even thinks that many more Americans are on the verge of doing the same thing. They are just a bailout away from saying “screw it” and running off to find love in an exotic tropical hideaway.

And it’s all because the Democrats are destroying the country. Limbaugh, the symbol of the conservative movement, defends Sanford for quitting and hightailing it to Buenos Aires. Limbaugh, the thrice-divorced voice of family values, justifies infidelity and fornication. Limbaugh, the icon of Republican faith in personal responsibility lays the blame for Sanford’s indiscretions on political policies in Washington, D.C.

It’s nice to know that there are still some consistent arbiters of morality self-righteously imposing their warped and hypocritical convictions on the rest of us.

Farrah Fawcett’s Legacy Will Be The Beauty Of Her Courage

Posted by on June 25, 2009 at 1:38 pm. NO Comments :

With the passing of Farrah Fawcett, there will be endless references to her beauty, to her smile and hair and the figure so famously captured in a poster. But there is much more to this woman than the surface assets that fueled her celebrity.

After her star-making role in Charlie’s Angels, Farrah was cast as a victim of domestic abuse in the television drama, “The Burning Bed.” It was a role that required her to challenge the critics who, at the time, dismissed her as eye candy. It was a role that called for her to set aside her most bankable qualities and portray a character that was often grotesquely beaten and painful to look at. And it was a role that was controversial in its day, not just for addressing a subject about which few people spoke, but for the assertive, defiant, and aggressive response of the character she played.

The Burning Bed was directed by Robert Greenwald who now runs Brave New Films, a progressive production company and Internet enterprise. The TV movie was nominated for eight Emmys, including Outstanding Directing and Outstanding Lead Actress. Amongst Greenwald’s more recent projects is the brilliant “Outfoxed.”

While Greenwald has gone on to be a profound spokesman for progressive causes, Farrah became a featured guest at conservative events. Yet they never lost their affection or respect for one another. The Huffington Post has just published Greenwald’s account of his last meeting with Farrah a month ago. He recalled their working together:

“I was directing her for the first time and her fearless commitment to going to the darkest places emotionally never wavered. She never hesitated when I took her to battered women’s shelters. To interview women with painful stories.

And she never flinched when I described how we needed to take away her wonderful beauty and life force to make the film and role authentic.”

In her final months, Farrah demonstrated her unique courage by being uncommonly public about the dire state of her health. She appeared in a gut wrenching documentary, “Farrah’s Story,” that chronicled her search for a cure. The ultimate result of her generous accessibility will be to empower others to face and fight the misfortunes in life that most of us will encounter at some point. The same is true for her contribution to the fate and strength of women in destructive relationships that she brought to the forefront of the national dialogue more than twenty years ago.

Rest In Peace, Farrah.

Barney Frank Falling Into Bill O’Reilly’s Trap

Posted by on June 24, 2009 at 1:48 pm. 3 Comments :

Will these people never learn?

So soon after Joan Walsh’s education about the purposeful abuse that is doled out to guests of Bill O’Reilly, Barney Frank is now scheduled to appear later today.

What could he possibly hope to achieve? There is simply no point to submitting oneself to a dishonest and sensationalistic pundit with psychotic tendencies.

You can’t win if your opponent is intent on humiliating you, and he has complete control of the environment – the audio, the visual, the editing, and any access to supporting material that he can display for the audience, but you can’t see or respond to in kind.

You can’t win if your opponent is unethical, and has no misgivings about lying or raising tangential issues with the goal of catching you off-guard and making you appear foolish.

You can’t win if your opponent’s strategy is to yell louder than you, and to goad you into a shouting match that makes you look insane, but doesn’t impact him negatively because it is just a part of his persona that his audience loves, and upon which he trades.

The only thing that can explain why people like Frank would lend O’Reilly their credibility is that they have egos so large that they believe that they can overcome a fixed fight and come out on top. They can’t! It has nothing to do with their ability or intelligence. It’s just an unfair forum.

What’s more, they are only validating O’Reilly and Fox News and, like lambs to slaughter, they permit him to boast about another victory which he will hype for weeks. He is still cashing in on Frank’s last embarrassing performance.

After her ill-advised appearance, Joan Walsh wrote that she, “was sandbagged, but that’s the O’Reilly game plan.” It is about time that these people recognize that there is nothing to gain by accommodating O’Reilly and Fox News. Even in the unlikely event that you achieve some relative success, you still come away empty handed because the audience couldn’t care less about you or your positions.

Stop it already. Now I’m going to have to follow this up tomorrow with a column about how miserable Frank was made to look. Would you people just Stay the HELL off of Fox News!

[Followup] As I expected, the interview was a complete waste of time. While it didn’t devolve into a verbal mosh pit as the last episode did, it was nonetheless pointless because O’Reilly’s audience isn’t going to be persuaded by anything that Frank says.

One notable exchange occurred wherein O’Reilly revealed the true nature of his programming philosophy:

Frank: Can we have a rational discussion without interruptions?
O’Reilly: No, no, there’s always going to be interruptions. You’ve seen the program.
Frank: No. I don’t accept that. I don’t accept that. This is more complicated than your yelling would make it look like.

At least O’Reilly is honest about his blatant trivialization and sensationalism of the issues he pretends to discuss. Frank seems to be aware of O’Reilly’s strategy, but still subjects himself to it. That is collaboration, as far as I’m concerned. It only helps O’Reilly and the effort to dumb down public discourse.

The Fox Frame: Gov. Sanford Not At A Tea Party

Posted by on June 24, 2009 at 12:48 pm. 2 Comments :

The mysterious disappearance of South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford has now been resolved. To absolutely no one’s surprise, Sanford was not hiking the Appalachian Trail. The truth is he was trailing his Republican colleague, Sen. John Ensign, down the path of infidelity.

Fox News, however, has stayed faithful to their deceptive mission by identifying Sanford as a Democrat in their on-screen graphics (h/t Media Matters). At what point can we agree that this is deliberate? Fox seems to have a tough time delineating between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. And, remember, Sanford was also a big advocate of last April’s Tea Parties. His backing won him the admiration of Teabagger Supreme, Glenn Beck. Beck came to Sanford’s defense yesterday, asserting that the hoopla over his disappearance was just a partisan attack:

GLENN: I mean, this is what happens when ‑‑ I mean, look. This guy’s a threat. He’s standing up. What do they do? Let’s smear him.

I wonder what Beck will say today. [Beck must be off hiking today]

Proof That Media Matters Is Working

Posted by on June 24, 2009 at 10:33 am. 9 Comments :

For an organization that does nothing more than document the words and images disseminated by the press, Media Matters has accumulated some of the most odious critics and criticisms. And they wear it as a badge of honor, and an affirmation of their efforts to expose the dishonesty of the right-wing media.

Who would have thought that just playing back their own words would push these conservative ranters so far over the edge? Despite their complaints, Media Matters is meticulous about providing the full context of the comments featured on the web site.

If the characters featured in the video below object so much to their remarks being recorded and replayed, maybe they shouldn’t say such stupid and repulsive things. As professional communicators, they can hardly argue that they were taken advantage of.

The problem they face is that, prior to Media Matters, they had the luxury of being able to lie, insult, and threaten, their perceived enemies without consequence. Now they are confronted with their own bestial behavior, and they don’t like it much. All that is left for them is to viciously, and without foundation, attack the folks who are merely keeping the records.

Watch and cringe – and donate to help them continue this important work.

[Update:] Media Matters is now reporting that Michael Savage has threatened to retaliate against them by posting personal information, including photos and addresses, and urging his listeners to ….. well, he doesn’t say exactly what.

Republicans Yearning For Fairness Doctrine At Healthcare Forum

Posted by on June 23, 2009 at 11:31 am. 2 Comments :

For at least the past six months, conservative pundits and politicians have fashioned their fear of the Fairness Doctrine into an obsession. Despite the fact that liberals and Democrats, including the President, have expressly stated that they do not favor the Doctrine’s reinstatement, Republicans continue to scamper like frightened ducklings in the shadow of an enemy that doesn’t exist.

How ironic then, that it is the Republican Party and their media mouthpieces who are now crying foul and demanding fair treatment. The object of their scorn is the upcoming ABC News broadcast of a healthcare themed town hall held in the White House. The cry has gone out from the right that this is nothing more than an infomercial for Obamacare and further evidence that the media is “in the tank” for Obama.

There is good reason to maintain a general skepticism with regard to how the press will cover any event, but common sense demands that assessments be made based on what actually occurs and not on imaginary prognostications. How these critics can claim that they know what is going take place before the forum is held, I don’t know. But that is exactly what they are doing.

Immediately after ABC announced the program, the Republican National Committee fired off an indignant letter complaining that they were…

“…deeply concerned and disappointed with ABC’s astonishing decision to exclude opposing voices on this critical issue”

However, there was no such decision made by ABC. To the contrary, they clearly stated that multiple views would be represented and that the President’s policy proposals would be challenged. The RNC’s position went even further saying that…

“Today, the Republican National Committee requested an opportunity to add our Party’s views to those of the President’s to ensure that all sides of the health care reform debate are presented.”

How cute that the RNC now wants to ensure that all sides are presented, and that they believe the media has an obligation to provide this balance. That view has been parroted by everyone in the right-wing mediasphere. All of the usual suspects: Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Drudge, Hot Air, Human Events, and, of course, Fox News, have weighed in on this perceived violation of journalistic ethics. They have all agreed with the RNC’s demand that ABC provide equal time for their views and their spokespeople.

Setting aside for the moment that ABC has promised that there will be multiple views represented, why is this Republican demand not seen as an endorsement of the Fairness Doctrine? How do they reconcile their past abhorrence of fairness with their new found affinity for it?

The truth is, Republicans are only interested in fairness when they feel that they are the aggrieved party. They never mentioned it when Fox News presented infomercials for George Bush. It isn’t an issue when Dick Cheney gets wall-to-wall coverage to bash Obama. And it is wholly irrelevant in the context of the right’s domination of talk radio. But if a TV network should propose to question the President on one of the most important issues of the day, Republicans believe that the media should guarantee them a seat at the inquisitors table.

To illustrate the absurdity of their claims, try to imagine how Fox News would have handled this program. Would they have refused to come to the White House for such an event? Of course not. Any news enterprise would have jumped at this opportunity. Would they have invited Howard Dean to join their panel of reporters? Yeah, sure they would, and Hugo Chavez too. Would they have altered their programming plans to facilitate critics? Well, they never have before, so…..

The hypocrisy of Republicans pretending care about fairness is really only part of the story. In all likelihood, they are just attempting to work the refs. By complaining about bias they hope to influence ABC reporters to overcompensate by taking a harder line against the President’s policies. That’s a pretty good tactic that usually works, given the mushiness of the mainstream media. The RNC is also exploiting this issue to raise money, and have already sent out fund raising appeals tied to the ABC broadcast.

When this is all over, it will be interesting to see how the right-wing opponents of the Fairness Doctrine continue to justify their opposition. Scratch that. It won’t be the least bit interesting. They will just ignore this episode and act as if nothing has changed. That’s how hypocrites operate.