Month: March 2012

Fox Nation vs. Reality: Global Warming And The Media

Posted by on March 31, 2012 at 4:10 am. 4 Comments :

The anti-science, faith-based zealots at Fox Nation examined the results of a Gallup poll on global warming and concluded that the headline revelation from the survey was that “42% Of Americans Feel The Media Exaggerates Global Warming.”

Fox Nation

Confident that their readers would never bother to look up the Gallup data themselves, the Fox Nationalists blatantly misrepresented the polls results. A full reading of the survey’s results would have revealed that 55% of respondents regard media coverage of the seriousness of global warming as either correct (24%) or underestimated (31%). That’s a clear majority that is 13 points higher than those who believe that the seriousness is exaggerated.

What’s more, the Gallup poll shows that those who regard the coverage as exaggerated are predominantly Republicans (67%), while a minority of both Independents (42%) and Democrats (20%) share that view. Additionally, a majority (53%) believe that global warming is caused by pollution resulting from human activities, and 58% correctly observe that most scientists affirm the existence of global warming. When asked how much they personally worry about global warming, 55% say a great deal/fair amount, four points higher than last year. And again, those numbers include majorities of Independents and Democrats with Republicans and conservatives bringing in the rear.

No wonder the source to which Fox Nation links to support their article is a trifling right-wing blog called Weasel Zippers, rather than to the Gallup poll itself. That’s consistent with their mission to keep their audience as ill-informed as possible.

It’s actually pretty encouraging that most Americans still recognize the risks association with global warming despite the massive campaign by right-wing media (led by Fox News) to belittle it. But it is nonetheless disheartening that any American buys into Fox’s lies. Every time it snows in Connecticut in the dead of winter, some Fox anchor uses that as evidence that global warming is a hoax, but they never report on significant heatwaves and droughts (as in Texas) or that the planet has been recording the hottest temperatures on record for the past decade.

If it weren’t for the concerted effort on the part of conservative media (and their corporate allies) to distort the truth about this issue, there would be an even bigger majority with rational positions on global warming that aligns with the consensus view of the worldwide scientific community. And then we might even be able to do something to resolve the problem, prevent predictable sickness and death, and preserve the viability of the planet as a habitat for life. But then is that really more important than oil company profits and the economic growth of multinational corporations?

Keith Olbermann And Current TV Part Ways: Statements By Current And Olbermann

Posted by on March 30, 2012 at 3:22 pm. 4 Comments :

Current TV’s founders, Al Gore and Joel Hyat, have released a letter to viewers announcing that their relationship with Keith Olbermann has come to a end. This news will be regarded by some as a shock and others as an affirmation of Olbermann’s volatile personality. Either way it is bound to have an impact on the cable news marketplace as the dust settles.

Current has already secured a replacement for Olbermann in former New York governor Eliot Spitzer who will be hosting a new program called “Viewpoint” beginning today. The letter by Gore and Hyatt follows:

To the Viewers of Current:

We created Current to give voice to those Americans who refuse to rely on corporate-controlled media and are seeking an authentic progressive outlet. We are more committed to those goals today than ever before.

Current was also founded on the values of respect, openness, collegiality, and loyalty to our viewers. Unfortunately these values are no longer reflected in our relationship with Keith Olbermann and we have ended it.

We are moving ahead by honoring Current’s values. Current has a fundamental obligation to deliver news programming with a progressive perspective that our viewers can count on being available daily — especially now, during the presidential election campaign. Current exists because our audience desires the kind of perspective, insight and commentary that is not easily found elsewhere in this time of big media consolidation.

As we move toward this summer’s political conventions and the general election in the fall, Current is making significant new additions to our broadcasts. We have just debuted six hours of new programming each weekday with Bill Press (“Full Court Press, at 6 am ET/3 am PT) and Stephanie Miller (“Talking Liberally,” at 9 am ET/6 pm PT).

We’re very excited to announce that beginning tonight, former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer will host “Viewpoint with Eliot Spitzer,” at 8 pm ET/5 pm PT. Eliot is a veteran public servant and an astute observer of the issues of the day. He has important opinions and insights and he relishes the kind of constructive discourse that our viewers will appreciate this election year. We are confident that our viewers will be able to count on Governor Spitzer to deliver critical information on a daily basis.

All of these additions to Current’s lineup are aimed at achieving one simple goal — the goal that has always been central to Current’s mission: To tell stories no one else will tell, to speak truth to power, and to influence the conversation of democracy on behalf of those whose voice is too seldom heard. We, and everyone at Current, want to thank our viewers for their continued steadfast support.

Sincerely,

Al Gore & Joel Hyatt
Current’s Founders

Olbermann’s response indicates that there will be some animosity and litigiousness between the parties before this is over. Here is what Olbermann had to say via extended Twittering:

My full statement:

I’d like to apologize to my viewers and my staff for the failure of Current TV.
Editorially, Countdown had never been better. But for more than a year I have been imploring Al Gore and Joel Hyatt to resolve our issues internally, while I’ve been not publicizing my complaints, and keeping the show alive for the sake of its loyal viewers and even more loyal staff. Nevertheless, Mr. Gore and Mr. Hyatt, instead of abiding by their promises and obligations and investing in a quality news program, finally thought it was more economical to try to get out of my contract.

It goes almost without saying that the claims against me implied in Current’s statement are untrue and will be proved so in the legal actions I will be filing against them presently. To understand Mr. Hyatt’s “values of respect, openness, collegiality and loyalty,” I encourage you to read of a previous occasion Mr. Hyatt found himself in court for having unjustly fired an employee. That employee’s name was Clarence B. Cain. http://nyti.ms/HueZsa

In due course, the truth of the ethics of Mr. Gore and Mr. Hyatt will come out. For now, it is important only to again acknowledge that joining them was a sincere and well-intentioned gesture on my part, but in retrospect a foolish one. That lack of judgment is mine and mine alone, and I apologize again for it.

I can’t begin to speculate as to what the core issues are that lead to this divorce, but there have been prior reports of tensions and Olbermann was frequently absent from the show for the past few months.

What this means for Current is unknown. Olbermann was an enormous force who put the network on the map when he signed up. But now the benefit of that have been realized and it is entirely possible that the remaining personalities can hold their own with viewers. The Young Turks have had their own loyal following since before Cenk Uyger’s promotion to television. And Spitzer and Jennifer Granholm, both ex-governors, have the inherent credibility and respect afforded to executive officeholders. In their new morning lineup Current recently debuted simulcasts of radio talkers Bill Press and Stephanie Miller. So even as Olbermann is fading out, the network is firming up.

In my view, Current’s biggest problem is not talent-related. They need to work their cable affiliates to get better placement on more systems. There are plenty of dynamic liberals who can be called upon for hosting chores, but if the channel is not easily available to viewers it doesn’t do much good.

Keith OlbermannIt will be interesting to see what happens to Olbermann. The publicity surrounding this departure, and his previous breakup with MSNBC, could make him appear to be a risky bet for other broadcasters. I hope that’s not the case. Somewhere there must be a good fit for him (perhaps the Internet), and his voice is well worth hearing. There’s one network where he almost certainly will not be turning up, however, I think it would be a marketing bonanza if the parties had the guts to actually do it. But don’t worry, they won’t.

So as they say in TV Land…stay tuned.

Breitbart Whitewashing Zimmerman, Blaming Obama For Trayvon Martin Crisis

Posted by on March 29, 2012 at 12:04 pm. 13 Comments :

The folks over at Breitbart’s joint are feverishly striving to exonerate Trayvon Martin’s shooter, George Zimmerman. Their web sites are plastered with stories that either defend Zimmerman or shift the discussion to other persons or subjects.

In one article, Breitbrat Dan Riehl makes the inane argument that ABC News was “reckless” in their decision to release a police videotape showing Zimmerman arriving at the police station for questioning. The video is significant in that it contradicts prior assertions that Zimmerman had been beaten and bloodied by Martin. There is no evidence of any injury to Zimmerman in the video.

Nevertheless, Riehl advances rebuttals that sound as if he is working for the Zimmerman legal defense team. He begins by suggesting that the video was too low quality to reveal anything conclusive. Then, contradicting himself, writes, “True, there appears to be no blood on Zimmerman’s shirt.” Then Riehl invents scenarios wherein Zimmerman was allowed by police to change his allegedly bloody clothes before arriving at the station, which would be a severe violation of procedure and ethics. What’s more, it makes no sense because a bloody shirt would be evidence of a struggle during which Zimmerman could claim to have felt threatened. Why would police suppress evidence that would have justified their decision to release Zimmerman?

Riehl’s account is blatantly biased and incoherent. And he tops it off by blasting ABC for releasing the video saying that the network “should be ashamed of its reckless highlighting of a non-story.” So apparently Riehl is of the opinion that ABC should have kept the video a secret. That’s how Breitbart’s BigJournalism practices the craft of journalism.

Another article, this time by Joel Pollak, editor of Breitbart’s BigGovernment site, seeks to tie President Obama to the Martin story. Pollak’s theory is a nearly incomprehensible mashup of Martin, Obama, and Derrick Bell, the subject of Breitbart’s failed attempt to expose the President as a college radical.

Pollak’s article is titled, “Critical Race Theory and the Trayvon Martin Case.” Critical Race Theory (CRT) is a legal/academic concept that Bell had written about and studied. It holds that there is more to racism than just the attitudes held by individuals, that it is also ingrained in society via traditional economic and judicial hierarchies. Pollak simplistically and falsely begins his narrative by defining CRT as “characterized by white supremacy–an idea Obama invoked by insisting that Americans ‘examine the laws’ that supposedly led to Martin’s death.” To be clear, Pollak is referring to the comment Obama made in response to a reporter’s question:

“I think all of us have to do some soul searching to figure out how does something like this happen. And that means that we examine the laws and the context for what happened.

“And I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this, and that everybody pulls together — federal, state and local — to figure out exactly how this tragedy happened.”

I’m not sure how any fair person could object to that. Yet that’s the statement that Pollak regards as an evocation of white supremacy. If anything, the Martin tragedy supports CRT by demonstrating the flaws in the judicial system. This is a case where after an unarmed black teenager was shot and killed, his body was tagged as a “John Doe” and tested for drugs. The shooter, on the other hand, was never tested for drugs or alcohol and was released by police with his weapon and no plans to investigate or indict him for any crime. If that isn’t reason enough to examine the laws than what on earth would be?


Pollak continues saying that Obama “waded in, playing up the racial drama,” and then remarkably writes “Obama–the center of the crisis, and to some extent its intended beneficiary.” Obama is only the center of the controversy in the warped minds of extremist, right-wing provocateurs like Pollak. And where he gets the notion that Obama was the “intended” beneficiary is beyond comprehension. If Pollak actually believes that this crisis was conceived and executed to help the President, he is seriously in need of the psychiatric attention that is now available to him thanks to ObamaCare.

Pollak closes by saying that “To speculate that Zimmerman is guilty based on the available facts is one thing; to convict him based on his supposed race, and on Martin’s, is the classic definition of “prejudice.'” However, the people protesting the handling of this affair are not convicting Zimmerman of anything. They are merely demanding that the ordinary process of justice be observed.

Ordinarily after a shooting there is an arrest and an investigation, which could lead to a trial if the evidence warrants. But the Breitbrats are all fired up to whitewash this crime and sweep it under their racist rug. They load up their web sites with tangential stories about celebrity Tweets, and over-zealous protesters, and bogus accusations of media bias, and absurd connections to a conspiratorial White House that must have planned the whole thing.

All I can say is that it’s a damn good thing that Breitbart wasn’t around when Martin Luther King was assassinated. They would surely have defended James Earl Ray and blamed the whole thing on President Johnson.

Fox News Psycho Analyst Keith Ablow: Obama Has It In For America

Posted by on March 28, 2012 at 2:24 pm. 4 Comments :

Fox News’ resident psychiatrist, a member of the Fox News “A” Team, visited Lou Dobbs yesterday on the failing Fox Business Network. The two of them discussed the Trayvon Martin shooting in the unique manner that is typical of the leader in dishonest, uninformed, hyperbolic, right-wing media.

Much of the conversation focused on President Obama’s comments on the subject a few days ago in response to a question from a reporter. The crux of their criticism centered Obama’s personal reflection that “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.” Both Dobbs and Ablow were incensed that Obama expressed that personal reflection and accused him of turning the incident into a racial matter. They complained that the President should have sought to unite the country and address the shock that all Americans must feel after hearing about this tragedy. And, oddly enough, that’s exactly what Obama did. Preceding the personal part of his comments, Obama said…

Obama: I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this, and that everybody pulls together — federal, state and local — to figure out exactly how this tragedy happened.

Nevertheless, Dobbs and Ablow only heard the part of the remarks that they could misconstrue as racial. It is still mind-boggling how rightists can so cavalierly assert that Obama is hell-bent on disparaging white people – like his mother. And it’s rather disingenuous for conservatives like Dobbs and Ablow to portray the Martin incident as a tragedy that ought not to be limited by race, when the other half of the time they are discussing it, they don’t regard it as tragic at all, but simply a case of self defense from an aggressive black teenager.

As usual, Ablow distinguishes himself by making an absurdly remote diagnosis of the President, a man he’s never examined or even met. That is an explicit violation of the standards of ethics of the American Psychiatric Association, which Ablow need not worry about since he was forced to separate himself from the APA due to “ethical differences.” Ablow’s conclusion, on the basis of information he gleaned from a paranoid hallucination, is that Obama is an anti-American zealot on a mission to bring the empire to ruin.

Ablow: As a psychiatrist, there is a certain point, when you get a diagnosis, you say, OK look, absent something that refutes this, this is the diagnosis. A president who hangs around with Rev. Wright – whose wife said that she was never proud of this country – has an edge. He’s got it in for this country. And at moments when there’s an opportunity to fracture the unity, he does.

Setting aside the fact that Ablow is lying about Obama’s relationship with Wright and Michelle’s comments on pride, his assertion that Obama has “got it in for this country” is just plain lunacy. Does he really think that Obama raised himself up from a struggling single-parent home, worked through schooling to achieve honors from one the nation’s most demanding universities, applied his skills to both public and private enterprises, and put himself before a grueling campaign that resulted in his being elected president of the United States, all because he has a hankering to tear it all down?

Where do these nutjobs get these unfathomably ludicrous theories? Do all Fox analysts have to have lobotomies prior to going on the air? Any reputable news enterprise would be embarrassed by having someone like Ablow on their payroll. So it’s a good thing for Ablow that Fox News exists.

Glenn Beck Has Another Attack Of Nazi Tourettes Syndrome

Posted by on March 26, 2012 at 6:55 pm. 3 Comments :

Today on his radio show, Glenn Beck discussed Barack Obama’s campaign video, “The Road We’ve Traveled,” with his Kindergarten Krew (did you know that Beck still has a radio show?). It will surprise no one that Beck & Company didn’t think much of it. But it is sad to learn that he is still suffering from a severe case of Nazi Tourettes Syndrome.

It seems that Beck can’t go for more than a few minutes without accusing someone of being a Nazi. The unfortunate victim today was that inscrutable villain, Tom Hanks. Most Americans are already familiar with the evil character of Hanks, a man who is known widely as a philanthropist and supporter of military families. What a brilliant cover for his ghastly abominations.

Beck singled out Hanks for his work as the narrator of the Obama film (posted below). Apparently that act alone has earned Hanks the enmity of Beck who now regards Hanks as the moral equivalent of Nazi propagandist, Leni Riefenstahl.

Beck: Tom Hanks, you should be proud of the work you’ve done in this propaganda film. What was the name of that propaganda artist for Hitler? […] Her name is Leni Riefenstahl. Tom…seriously, you made a great movie and it will go down in history much like Riefenstahl’s work did, and I think that’s great, and congratulations on that and best of luck to you in the future. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

That’s all it takes for Beck to associate someone with a regime of genocidal murderers. Just because Hanks supports a Democratic president for reelection, he is now, in Beck’s view, in league with Hitler’s generals. And if merely doing the voice-over for a campaign video earns this sort of condemnation, just imagine what Beck must think of the hundreds of campaign staffers who are actually working everyday to advance the electoral prospects of the President. And of course the millions of Americans who are planning on voting for Obama are no better than the violently brainwashed Germans of the 1930’s and 1940’s. As for Obama himself, is Anti-Christ too strong a word?

We don’t hear too much about Beck since he was unceremoniously dumped by Fox News because no advertiser would permit their ads to be shown during his program. Apparently he hasn’t changed a bit. It’s good to know that his repulsive ramblings are now being heard by only a fraction of his previous television audience, and only by those who are deluded enough to pay for it. Although he still has a sizable radio audience, his influence has shrunk to near invisibility. Yet he thinks that Tom Hanks is on the way out.

It just goes to show you what a good case of hallucinatory psychosis will do for the ego of a former morning zoo DJ that nobody pays attention to anymore.

Breitbatty: Obama To ‘Surrender America’ To The Russians

Posted by on March 26, 2012 at 2:40 pm. 4 Comments :

In a meeting with Russian President Medvedev this morning, President Obama had an unfortunate ‘hot mic’ incident that will surely cause a few headaches in the West Wing for a day or two. The following exchange was recorded by reporters:

Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.

Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…

Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.

There really isn’t anything controversial about that statement. In fact, it would be regarded as an obvious truism by anyone with knowledge of American politics. Election year negotiations, whether foreign or domestic, are always impacted by concerns that weigh more heavily on campaigning than on substance.

Nevertheless, it was an inconvenient soundbite that can easily be misconstrued by the President’s opponents. While the only message Obama was conveying was that difficult concessions by both sides would become more plausible without electoral concerns hanging over their heads, Republicans were quick to jump on the gaffe as having more sinister implications. But nobody went to further extremes than the hyper-conspiracy freaks over at Breitbart’s place where they headlined their story: Obama to Putin: I’ll Surrender America After Re-election.

Really? Breitbrat Joel Pollak seems to actually believe that Obama has a secret agenda to make America subservient to Russia. I’m not sure I can explain what purpose would be served by such an agenda, but the Breitbrats probably think that it’s just part of an overall plot to destroy America by the Kenyan-born socialist usurper in the White House. One question that remains is why Obama would surrender to the Russians rather than to the Iranians with whom he allegedly shares a belief in Islam. But trying to find logic in the delusional schemes of these right-wing extremists is not a recommended exercise. It will almost always lead to failure and probably a bad migraine.

Fox News Asks: Can the Chevy Volt Help Win the War on Terror?

Posted by on March 26, 2012 at 12:30 pm. 3 Comments :

For the past year or so, Fox News has been mercilessly bashing Chevrolet’s new electric vehicle, the Volt. They have derided it as an unsafe, unpopular, taxpayer-funded boondoggle, that was foisted on the auto industry and the public by President Obama as part of his socialist agenda.

This well-coordinate media assault encompassed conservative television, radio, newspapers, and Internet, and was an unprecedented effort aimed squarely at an American made product. They disparaged the company, the car, and the American workers who produced it. This vilification of the Volt has been most prominently featured on Fox News properties, where it has been the subject of withering criticism, despite the fact that it is also the North American Car of the Year and the European Car of the Year for 2011, the first time a car has won both honors.

This makes this morning’s segment on Fox & Friends, with media consultant Lee Spieckerman, all the more curious. Host Steve Doocy introduced his guest for a segment titled “Can the Chevy Volt Help Win the War on Terror?” by saying that, “It’s a great car that’s gotten a bad rap, all because of President Obama’s record, perhaps.”

Fox News - Volt

For Doocy to suggest that the Volt has gotten a bad rap because of Obama’s record is absurd. It has gotten a bad rap because people like Doocy, and his comrades at Fox, have endeavored to malign the car because President Obama has expressed support for it. It has less to do with Obama’s record than with the Obama Derangement Syndrome that results in right-wingers hating anything that Obama likes. If Doocy wonders where the hostility toward the Volt comes from, he might trying looking at the Fox Nation web site, whose recent headlines illustrate just how committed they are to trashing the Volt and tying it to Obama:

  • Obama’s Chevy Volt Gets ‘Worst Product’ Award
  • Obama’s Chevy Volt Recalled
  • Obama Hikes Failing Chevy Volt Subsidies
  • Obama Still Supporting Chevy Volt
  • Obama’s Favorite Car, Chevy Volt, Under Investigation
  • More Problems For The Chevy Volt
  • Forbes: Maybe It Should Be Called the Chevrolet ‘Vote’
  • GM Suspends Volt Production, Lays Off 1300 Workers
  • Chevy Dealers Reject Volt
  • Each Chevy Volt Costs Taxpayers $250000
  • Newt: ‘You Can’t Put a Gun Rack In a Volt’
  • More Ridiculous Leftist Propaganda: The Chevy Volt Song
  • Chevy Volt Sales Fail
  • Two Chevy Volts Catch Fire in One Week!
  • Chevy Volt is Automotive Version of Solyndra
  • Taxpayers Getting Scammed by Chevy Volt?
  • Gov’t Motors’ Chevy Volt Battery Fire Sparks Probe
  • Sales of Chevy Volt Plummet
  • FAIL: Sweater, Gloves Required When Driving Volt in Cold
  • The Chevy Volt is a Disaster

Hmm. I wonder how the Chevy Volt got such a bad rap.

Nevertheless, this morning Doocy’s tone had changed. He spent the entirety of the segment agreeing with his guest who sought to dispel the myths associated with the Volt. Spieckerman’s enthusiasm sounded like it could have come from an ardent environmentalist, which is why he had to keep qualifying his comments with affirmations of his conservative credentials.

Spieckerman: You know, I’m a Texan. I’m a “drill baby drill” guy. And, unfortunately, I love Fox News and I feel like I’m kind of attacking my own family because I love O’Reilly, I love Neil Cavuto, I love Eric Bolling, but like a lot of my fellow conservatives, they seem to have kind of a fetish for demonizing the Volt. And they’re perpetuating this myth that the Volt was some kind of Obama administration green energy fantasy that was forced on General Motors during the bailout. It had been in development two years before Obama was elected. It had been championed by one of the greatest car executives in American history, Bob Lutz, who is a conservative and a climate change skeptic. So it’s a myth. You know the tax break for buying the Volt was implemented by the Bush administration. That was not something that occurred under the Obama administration.

Spieckerman described the Volt as “an anti-terrorist weapon” because of its potential to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. He pointed out that in ten years we could be saving almost 700 billion barrels of oil a year. He called it the iPhone of the automobile industry. And all the while Doocy was grinning and nodding and even called the Volt “a cool vehicle.”

Something obviously occurred to shift the direction of Fox’s perspective on the Volt. It is a 180 degree turnaround that was sprung without explanation or any acknowledgement of their previous position (“We have always been in love with the Volt.” ~ Paraphrasing Orwell). Perhaps they recognized that bashing American workers was not a particularly good idea in an election year. Perhaps they were worried about whether it might impact GM’s advertising expenditures on Fox. Or maybe it was just an anomaly and they will return to assailing the car and its builders tomorrow.

There is one thing for which we can be certain, if they continue with their new found admiration for the Volt, they will soon be publishing stories about how Obama never liked it and has been working to kill it ever since he came into office. For Fox News, Orwell’s 1984 was not cautionary fiction – it was a handbook.

Unfair And Unbalanced: Fox News Ad Sales Veep Lets The Truth Slip Out

Posted by on March 25, 2012 at 9:38 am. 4 Comments :

Paul Rittenberg is the Executive Vice-President of Advertising Sales for Fox News. He recently spoke with Ad Age Magazine and revealed some interesting details about the ad sales strategy of the network.

Rittenberg told Ad Age that election year advertising for national spots is not significantly better than other years because the campaigns focus on local markets and have gotten better at targeting ads to regions where they can influence swing voters. That’s nothing new, and it’s why states like California and Texas, where one party dominates state politics, are often neglected in national campaigns. But he did note that the Romney campaign had spent generously on Fox and that his SuperPAC, Restore our Future, had placed over a million dollars in ads.

Also notable is his revelation that “the real money out of Washington in an election year is issue advertising, places like the American Petroleum Institute.” Rittenberg’s example illustrates a serious problem with news enterprises that get revenue from lobbying organizations while at the same time they are expected to report on their activities. Fox News, in particular, has been a staunch defender of oil interests, which makes their profiteering from the same people ethically suspect.

For all of Rittenberg’s candor, on the economics of election year media, his remarks about the more ideological aspects of ad buying were even more revealing. When asked about who his customers are, he said…

[W]e’ve talked to Obama’s ad agency. As you would probably guess, we’re not their go-to channel … [but] they’ve got a lot of money to spend. My argument to their media guys is, look, this could be the best money you spend. If you spend a couple million dollars and you convince people who wouldn’t have given you a second look, isn’t that a smarter media buy than running it someplace where they already are going to vote for you anyway?

OK, first of all, Rittenberg is being deliberately disingenuous in suggesting that it isn’t smart to promote yourself in places where you already have support. Elections are won (and lost) on how efficiently a campaign insures that their supporters actually make it to the polls. Arguably, solidifying your base and getting out the vote is even more important than flipping uncommitted voters.

Secondly, Rittenberg is implying that networks other than Fox are watched only by Obama supporters who are going to vote him anyway. That’s a notion that is demonstrably false to the point of absurdity.

Third, Rittenberg seems to think that spending a couple of million dollars on Fox has the potential to sway a significant number of viewers to support the President. Even if that were partially true, there is no way that he could argue that there were enough persuadable viewers to justify the expense. A study by the Mellman Group in 2007 that evaluated voting patterns during the Bush reelection showed that “No demographic segment, other than Republicans, was as united in supporting Bush,” as Fox News viewers.
Rasmussen PollThe survey reported that “Conservatives, white evangelical Christians, gun owners, and supporters of the Iraq war all gave Bush fewer votes than did regular Fox News viewers.” That partisan disparity was reinforced in 2008 by a Rasmussen poll that showed Fox Viewers voting for McCain by a lopsided factor of nine to one. Since then Fox has only become more rabidly partisan and as Rittenberg says in a feat of understatement, it is not the “go-to channel” for Democrats.

Finally, the most interesting part of Rittenberg’s remarks is the one part he got right. Fox News is viewed predominantly by “people who wouldn’t [give Obama] a second look.” That’s about as honest and candid an assessment of the partisan composition of the Fox News audience as you’re likely to hear. And the fact that it comes from an executive whose job is selling ad time to media buyers, it is an extraordinary admission, and one that is rooted in the pure, unvarnished judgment of business priorities. And to top it off, Rittenberg closed the interview with this exchange:

Ad Age: Just like there is a perception that MSNBC caters to liberals, there’s a perception that Fox is for conservatives. When you are selling ads, does that come up? How do you deal with it?

Mr. Rittenberg: It does. … I used to have more hair before Glenn Beck was on the air [he is no longer on Fox News]. … I have no problem with people not wanting to run in any show on the channel. People wanted to pull out of Beck, not a problem — we took well over 200 advertisers out of that show.

Not only does Rittenberg agree to the question’s premise that “Fox is for conservatives” (something Fox employees usually take great pains to deny), he also confirms that the ad embargo of Glenn Beck’s program was every bit as successful as organizers claimed (another fact that Fox stubbornly refuses to acknowledge). Those are two articles of Fox Faith for which Rittenberg has committed a sort of blasphemy. Kinda makes you wonder if Rittenberg will have job by Monday morning.

Every neutral observer of the media knows that Fox has an unmistakable preference for Republican and conservative positions. Nevertheless, Fox officially rejects what the whole media world knows is true. But every now and then a Fox insider spills the beans, such as when Fox CEO Roger Ailes said that “Anybody who says bias does not exist is either lying or stupid,” or when Fox anchor Chris Wallace said that Fox News “is a healthy development if only because it creates another view point.”

These cracks in the Fox wall of deceit are now joined by Rittenberg’s comments. At what point will Fox abandon the charade of neutrality and embrace their obvious political leanings? Don’t hold your breath. The Fox facade of fairness and balance was built for a reason. As long as they believe they can effectively mislead the American people, they will continue to pretend they are unbiased even as they endeavor to turn their audience into mindless receptacles of disinformation.

Geraldo Rivera: The Hoodie Was Responsible For Trayvon Martin’s Death

Posted by on March 23, 2012 at 1:01 pm. 6 Comments :

In another example of how Fox News will turn a story on its head if it doesn’t fit into the network’s mission of division, bias, and anti-liberalism, Geraldo Rivera appeared on Fox & Friends to divert the Trayvon Martin murder story into an indictment of fashion and an exercise in blaming the victim.

Rivera: I am urging the parents of black and Latino youngsters particularly to not let their children go out wearing hoodies. I think the hoodie is as much responsible for Trayvon Martin’s death as George Zimmerman was.

So it was Trayvon’s fault (or his parents) for wearing an article of clothing that exudes some inherent threat and justifies violent reactions against the wearer. I suppose that if Trayvon had been wearing a short skirt that would have been an invitation for Zimmerman to rape him.

Geraldo went on to assert that hoodies are exclusively associated with criminals and asked “What’s the instant identification?” He answered his own question by saying that wearing a hoodie will cause you to be perceived as a gangster and a menace. Uh huh. You mean like these degenerate hoodlums?

Hoodie Hoodlums

Geraldo and his enablers at Fox News need to stop fretting over superficial trivialities and put the blame where it belongs. Firstly on the guy with the gun who shot an innocent teenager in cold blood without provocation. Then on the barbaric “Stand your Ground” laws that permit people to commit murder with impunity. And finally on the media that rushes to divert responsibility from the guilty and place it on the victims. To paraphrase Geraldo, I think it would be more correct to say that “Fox News is as much responsible for Trayvon Martin’s death as George Zimmerman was.” Still not correct, but closer to it than what Geraldo said.

[Update:] Geraldo thinks that if someone is murdered while wearing a hoodie, that law abiding people should alter their behavior to satisfy the murderers, rather than making the murderers stop killing people. It makes you wonder how he would have viewed some other historical events.

Fox News

Fox News Heralds Anti-Obama Marine

Posted by on March 22, 2012 at 8:36 pm. 14 Comments :

Let’s face it, Fox News is unabashedly opposed to Barack Obama and everything his administration represents. The network has virtually conceded that it is nothing more than a promotional vehicle for conservative Republican politics and politicians.

Now Fox News has stepped even further across the line of objectivity by taking up the case of a Marine sergeant whose adventures in social media are blatantly disrespectful to his superiors and teeter toward insubordination or worse.

Sergeant Gary Stein is the founder of a Facebook page called “Armed Forces Tea Party.” According to reports from the Associated Press, Stein had been informed that he was in violation of Pentagon policy prohibiting political activities. The policy specifically forbids military personnel from using contemptuous words against senior officials, including the defense secretary or the president. At first Stein cooperated with his commanders by taking down the Facebook page, but he later restored it based on his own conclusion that he was not in violation of any code. As a result, he is now the subject of an administrative action that could result in a discharge.

Stein is adamant that he is innocent of any infraction. he contends that he was exercising his free speech rights by posting messages in which he declared that he would refuse to follow any order issued by the President, his commander-in-chief, that he deemed unlawful.

“I’m completely shocked that this is happening,” Stein said. “I’ve done nothing wrong. I’ve only stated what our oath states that I will defend the constitution and that I will not follow unlawful orders. If that’s a crime, what is America coming to?”

Technically, I agree with Stein on the matter of a soldier’s obligation to refuse to follow an unlawful order. That is a standard set after World War II that resulted in the inadmissibility of the defense that “I was just following orders.” But Stein had better have a damn good basis (and an opinion from a legal expert) before he engages in what might constitute mutiny. Stein had no such basis when he chose to ignore the orders of his commanders or to declare that he would refuse to follow orders from the President if those orders included detaining or disarming U.S. citizens. That overly broad standard would mean that Stein would not act against Adam Gadahn, the American who is presently the media adviser for Al Qaeda.

Stein’s story was broadcast on Fox News’ America Live with Megyn Kelly. Fox News also featured the story on both the Fox News web site and Fox Nation, where Stein has been treated as a hero for standing up to President Obama. However, he has a pretty thin case to make for his patriotism when he posts comments like this: “I say screw Obama. I will not follow orders given by him to me.” That comment has since been deleted and Stein says that he later qualified his comment to reflect that he would only disobey unlawful orders. But you can still find this comment on his Facebook page without qualification: “Obama is the “Domestic Enemy” our oath speaks about.”

Armed Forces Tea Party

That goes far beyond Stein’s assertion that he was merely stating what the military code says about following unlawful orders. It is an exhibition of overt disloyalty that the military ought not to abide. In fact, it designates the President as an enemy of the state, which would make him a suitable target, in Stein’s warped view, for hostile action or assassination. And that is exactly the view that Fox News, and their audience of pseudo-patriots, are applauding. Disgusting, isn’t it?

[Update] On April 6, a military board recommended that Stein be dismissed from service with “other than an honorable discharge” (i.e. dishonorable).

“The three-member Marine Corps administrative board at Camp Pendleton found that Sgt. Gary Stein had committed misconduct by posting anti-Obama comments on a Facebook page, calling the comments ‘contemptuous.’ […] The final decision on Stein’s status will be made by the commanding general of the Marine Corp Recruit Depot San Diego.”

[Update II] On April 25, 2012, the Marines formally discharged Stein as the commanding general of the base accepted the administrative board’s recommendation for discharge.