Month: March 2012

Bill Maher Misfires On Free Speech

Posted by on March 22, 2012 at 1:14 pm. 12 Comments :

In an op-ed for the New York Times, Bill Maher addressed the ongoing controversy over civility (or the lack thereof) by public figures in broadcasting, entertainment, and politics. As might be expected, the comedian had a few prime punchlines dispersed throughout the piece that essentially argued in favor of offensive speech. For instance:

“The right side of America is mad at President Obama because he hugged the late Derrick Bell, a law professor who believed we live in a racist country, 22 years ago; the left side of America is mad at Rush Limbaugh for seemingly proving him right.”

The article began by correctly pointing out that a joke by Robert De Niro about whether the country was ready for a white first lady was wholly non-offensive and any umbrage taken was purposefully faked by people who “pretend to be outraged about nothing.” But, unfortunately, Maher went further to propose what he thinks would be an appropriate response to actual hate speech:

“If you see or hear something you don’t like in the media, just go on with your life. Turn the page or flip the dial or pick up your roll of quarters and leave the booth.”

Maher’s position seems to be that free speech is exercised only by the first person to speak. If that person says something that offends someone else, the obligation of the offendee is to clam up and walk away. I couldn’t disagree more.

Free speech is a right granted to everyone, and the exercise of it is not limited to whoever gets to the microphone first. Responding to the comments of others with whom you disagree is still protected speech and is a part of the great tradition of open discourse in America. If Rush Limbaugh calls a law student a slut, it is entirely appropriate for people offended by that to respond, criticize, and even engage in protests and boycotts. The same is true for those offended by Maher. That is not censorship – it is the complete realization of the meaning of the First Amendment.

In short, you have the right to speak freely. But you do not have the right to be free from criticism for anything stupid that comes out when doing so.

Maher closes his article by saying that he doesn’t “want to live in a country where no one ever says anything that offends anyone.” Neither do I. But I also don’t want to live in a country where no ever talks back when people incite racial division, or lie about important public policies, or insult civic-minded women and other citizens who only seek to participate in the affairs of their communities.

As usual, the pimply-faced editors at the Fox Nation continue to demonstrate their most juvenile tendencies by, once again, referring to Maher with an insulting epithet: Pig Maher Calls for Truce. First of all, Maher did not call for a truce. In fact, he called for continuing to use controversial language but advising people not to get upset about it. Secondly, isn’t it cute the way the Fox Nationalists use a story about toning down uncivil rhetoric by using uncivil rhetoric in their headline? And these people want to be regarded as legitimate “news.”

Fox Nation - Bill Maher

Not So Breitbart: Branding Sandra Fluke A Retroactive Public Figure

Posted by on March 22, 2012 at 4:25 am. 12 Comments :

The legacy of Andrew Breitbart is safe in the hands of those who have assumed control of his Internet enterprise. It’s that legacy of lies, defamation, and ignorance, that endures in articles like the one posted yesterday that asserts that Sandra Fluke was a public figure when Rush Limbaugh broadcast a vile commentary that referred to her as a slut and a prostitute. And thus, she is fair game for libelous attacks.

It is rather dumbfounding that even after Limbaugh made an (insincere and weak) expression of regret, even after his advertisers have abandoned him in droves, apologists like the Breitbrats are still defending his boorish misogyny.

The column by William Bigelow begins by mocking President Obama for advocating public discourse “that doesn’t involve you being demeaned and insulted. Particularly when you’re a private citizen.” Bigelow then makes the argument that there is a legal basis for Fluke to be considered a public figure. He cites a Supreme Court opinion in the case of Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., which addressed the standards of libel for defamatory statements. In refuting the representation of Fluke as a private citizen, Bigelow wrote…

“According to the Supreme Court in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974), public figures include those who ‘have thrust themselves into the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved … they invite attention and comment.'”

Consistent with the Breitbartian proclivity for misrepresentation and taking edited content out of context, Bigelow deliberately quoted a brief portion of the opinion that described a commonly held view of what might constitute a public figure, but he left out the conclusive language that found that the plaintiff was not, in fact, a public person:

“We would not lightly assume that a citizen’s participation in community and professional affairs rendered him a public figure for all purposes. Absent clear evidence of general fame or notoriety in the community, and pervasive involvement in the affairs of society, an individual should not be deemed a public personality for all aspects of his life.”

The court found definitively that Gertz, was not a public figure. Nevertheless, Bigelow cites this case to try to prove that Fluke, who was unknown to the public when she was prohibited from appearing before a congressional committee hearing that almost nobody would have seen anyway, was a public figure.

It is not the least bit surprising that Bigelow chose this particular case with which to deceive his readers. The plaintiff, Elmer Gertz, was an attorney who had represented the family of man who was murdered by a Chicago police officer. The respondent, Robert Welch, Inc., is better known as the John Birch Society, a virulently racist and McCarthyesque anti-communist organization. I’m sure that the Breitbrats have a great affinity for the Birchers.

Next Bigelow makes a bold attempt to assert that Sarah Palin is not a public figure. Seriously! Sarah Palin, who was governor of Alaska and a candidate for Vice-President of the United States. Sarah Palin who is currently a Fox News political analyst and still floats hints of running for office. Bigelow contends that “Palin was just as much a private citizen as Fluke,” because she is no longer a governor. Sometimes the addled logic of these cretins is physically painful.

What apparently set Bigelow off on all of this is a statement Fluke made at a forum in Washington, D.C., where she said…

“Numerous American women have actually written to me in the last few weeks saying that I should run for office, and maybe someday I will.”

To which Bigelow sarcastically added, “Sandra Fluke. Private citizen. Yeah, right.” So it was that statement on which Bigelow based the entire premise of his article, as well as his assertion that Fluke was a public figure, even at the time that Limbaugh broadcast his attack. And that was all that was necessary for him to jump to the absurd conclusion that Fluke was somehow retroactively a public figure because weeks afterwards she would speculate that “someday” she “might” run for office.

What is really amazing about this is that anyone actually regards the Breitbrats as having any credibility whatsoever. After their promotion of deceitfully edited videos about ACORN, Shirley Sherrod, etc.; after their embarrassing episode with Hug-Gate, the Derrick Bell non-scandal; and now this incoherent excuse to prop up their hero Rush Limbaugh despite nearly universal condemnation of his abhorrent behavior, the fact that there are still some people who pay any attention at all to the Breitbrats is a sad commentary on a certain sector of the human race.

Adventures In Right-Wing Gotcha Journalism Starring Faux Bono

Posted by on March 21, 2012 at 3:58 pm. 3 Comments :

Jason Mattera is the editor of the uber-conservative magazine Human Events. He is also the most ambitious aspirant to replace James O’Keefe as America’s most comically pathetic pseudo-journalist.

Yesterday Mattera posted another in his series of childish ambush videos, this one featuring the lead singer of U2, Bono. The video was quickly picked up by conservative web sites like Breitbart.com and Glenn Beck’s The Blaze. Mattera was convinced that he had the goods on a hypocritical rock star who talked a lot about charity while padding his own nest.

There was just one problem. The person Mattera ambushed was not Bono.


The video was promoted by Fox News for the Sean Hannity show, but it will probably not be making its premiere as scheduled. It has also been pulled from Breitbart and the Blaze.

Watching the video it is clear that the gentleman that Mattera was harassing was not Bono. In fact, he was being pretty obvious about that in the manner in which he was answering the questions. He could hardly be more explicit than to say that he had no control over anything the band did, which he said in an accent that didn’t have a hint of Irish. The faux Bono was later interviewed later by the Washinton Post.

For a little background on Mattera, take a look at some of his previous antics: Harassing Sen. Bernie Sanders and demonstrating his (Mattera’s) puerile ignorance; Badgering Sen. Al Franken and opposing child health and safety programs; and stalking Rep. Alan Grayson who immediately realized that Mattera was a kook, and put him in his place. In each case Mattera’s M.O. is same. He approaches his victim pretending to be a fan or supporter (a blatant violation of journalistic ethics), then launches incoherent attacks that misstate whatever issue he is trying to raise.

This guy is a serial screw up who seems to have a pretty high threshold for embarrassment. With an ability to endure such massive levels of shame, he would be an excellent partner for O’Keefe & Co.

BIRTHERS GONE WILD: New Obama Conspiracy Theory Tests The Limits Of Idiocy

Posted by on March 20, 2012 at 1:42 pm. 89 Comments :

If you thought that the psychotic lunacy of those who still believe that President Obama is not an American citizen had reached its peak, you have obviously underestimated just how severely demented this crowd is. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, these acutely fixated cretins cling to their fables and even expand on them ad absurdum.

Jerome CorsiThe latest addendum to the Birther Chronicles comes from (where else) Jerome Corsi of WorldNetDaily. Corsi is the loser whose book “Where’s the Birth Certificate?” was published just days after the White House released the long-form copy of his birth certificate for which the looney right had been clamoring. Corsi begins his WND article by asking…

“Did the parents of former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers help finance Barack Obama’s Harvard education? Did Ayers’ mother believe Obama was a foreign student? And was the young Obama convinced at the time – long before he even entered politics – that he was going to become president of the United States?”

All three of those questions were answered in the affirmative by a retired mail carrier that Corsi interviewed. Allen Hulton, claims to have had the route that serviced the home of Tom and Mary Ayers, the parents of former Weatherman, Bill Ayers. Hulton told Corsi…

“One day, Mary came to the door when I came up to the house with the mail,” he remembers. “After a greeting, she started enthusiastically talking to me about this young black student they were helping out, and she referred to him as a foreign student.”

Hulton went on to say that he recalled Mary telling him the name of the foreign student, which he later forgot, but said that it sounded African. So that pretty much settles it. A mail carrier remembers a customer on his route thirty years ago talking about a student with an African sounding name. If that isn’t conclusive evidence of Obama being supported by the parents of a domestic terrorist, what is?

Setting aside for the moment that none of this can be proven because Mary Ayers is deceased, it also makes little sense from even the most conspiratorial perspective. The implication is that there was some connection between Obama and Bill Ayers’ parents, and that the whole family was part of some anti-American cabal. However, Thomas Ayers, Bill’s father, was not exactly the model of a revolutionary extremist. In fact, he was CEO and chairman of Commonwealth Edison, the largest electric utility in Illinois. Ayers also served on the board of directors of Sears, G.D. Searle, Chicago Pacific Corp., Zenith Corp., Northwest Industries, General Dynamics Corp. of St. Louis, First National Bank of Chicago, the Chicago Cubs, and the Tribune Co. A socialist subversive if there ever was one. Hulton even described him as having “a Marxist viewpoint.” Of course, just like all the other board members of giant, capitalist corporations.

But this conspiracy theory is just getting started. Corsi continued his tale with an allegation that Obama had confessed to being complicit in a plot to usurp the presidency. When Hulton asked the student about his plans for the future, he was taken aback by the response:

“He looked right at me and told me he was going to be president of the United States,” Hulton says. “There was a little bit of a grin on his face when he said it – he sounded sure of himself, but not arrogant. I know how people will say things because they have an ambition, but it did not come across that way,” Hulton says. “It came across as if this young black male was telling me he was going to be president, almost as if it were the statement of a scientific fact that had already been determined, as if his being president had been already pre-arranged.”

Indeed. Who could dispute that account straight from the horse’s mouth? And it surely is not suspicious that Hulton is claiming that Obama casually disclosed the treasonous scheme of which he was an integral part. It is perfectly reasonable that Obama would spill the details of this conspiracy to a complete stranger. All of the attempts to overthrow the American government that I have clandestinely participated in always encouraged us to tell people we had never met before exactly what we were planning. (Oops. I may have said too much).

The Birther conspiracy has always been an exercise in idiocy. Despite having never had any basis in fact, it required its adherents to believe that the whole thing began as a plot to usurp the presidency of the United States. And now the Manchurian part of the scheme has been articulated out loud. They really do believe that Obama was created in a Kenyan petri dish, grown to adulthood in a communist laboratory funded by George Soros, handed a fictional resume and a pre-programmed Teleprompter, and escorted to the White House by some alien power that had the ability to hypnotize a majority of the American voters.

Seriously, these numbskulls are certifiable. I suppose the First Amendment protects their right to say astonishingly stupid things, but out of concern for public safety, they should not be allowed to operate heavy machinery, drive cars, or otherwise engage in activities that could bring harm to themselves and others. If they can’t be committed, I hope at least that they get the medical and pharmaceutical treatment they so desperately need.

[Update:] A follow up at WND, with no byline, was posted alleging that there is now a “full-blown media cover-up” of this ludicrous story. As evidence they cite this article, so get ready for some incoherent rightist rhetoric in the comments (they’ve already begun).

WND chief, Joseph Farah writes that this story was “deliberately spiked” by the mainstream media and even that “Big time talk-radio was tipped off on the story, as well – in advance. They didn’t bite, either.” Gee, I wonder why. Could it be because it’s insane? Farah, however, consoles himself with the fantasy that…

“…millions got the first-person, eyewitness evidence that Barack Obama was helped through Harvard by the family of domestic terrorist Bill Ayers back in the late 1980s.”

Farah obviously has a very low threshold for what constitutes evidence. In this case it’s a thirty year old memory of a brief and trivial conversation that is uncorroborated and didn’t even affirm what the source alleges. But that’s enough for the dimwits that read WND.

Michelle Obama’s Anti-Whitey Activism Finally Exposed

Posted by on March 18, 2012 at 4:08 pm. 4 Comments :

Ever since Glenn Beck announced that Barack Obama has “a deep-seated hatred of white people,” the conservative media has searched for conclusive proof that would unambiguously affirm that the President has a long standing racial bias against his own mother and her familial heritage.

Having failed to uncover any credible evidence, the race-obsessed right-wingers have proffered wildly delusional theories to advance their contention that Obama is fundamentally prejudiced against whites. The latest attempt at this characterization is the effort to smear his Harvard law professor, Derrick Bell, as a some sort of black supremacist merely because he advocated a more diverse faculty at Harvard Law School where he was the first black professor to receive tenure.

Continuing with this venture into the college history of the President, these rightist investigators have now expanded their inquiries into the past of the First Lady, Michelle Obama, who also attended Harvard. What they found is sure to blow the roof off of the White House. Apparently there is video documentation of someone that may or may not be Ms. Obama participating in a demonstration at the office of the law school’s Dean.

The video comes from the archives of WGBH, who covered the demonstration in May of 1988. It shows some students engaging in a peaceful protest to get the school to hire more minority teachers.

The discovery of this video is attributed to J. Christian Adams, a notorious race-baiter who has accused Obama of promoting a racially divisive America. Adams published his findings back on May 7, in his column at Pajamas Media where he wrote…

“A treasure trove of information is coming out regarding Barack Obama’s time in college. Over at the Breitbart sites, we are learning how Obama inserted himself into a fight to implement hiring on the basis of race at Harvard Law School. The Obama tapes also seem to show the other Obama – Michelle. […] In May 1988, Harvard Law students, borrowing from Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, and foreshadowing the Occupy movement of 2011, occupied the Harvard Law School’s dean’s office.”

Isn’t it interesting that Adams employs buzzwords like “Alinsky” and “Occupy” to describe what everyone else would recognize as garden variety protests? Adams goes on to state that one of the students in the video “appears to be Michelle Obama.” That’s right, he has no confirmation that the woman seen briefly from a distance in a 22 year old video is actually the future First Lady. Yet that doesn’t prevent him from publishing an article that not only alleges her participation, but infers that it has some meaning beyond the sort of standard campus activism that is a part of college life and a cherished freedom granted by the Constitution.

The Adams article was later picked up by the ultra-conservative DailyCaller, where they repeated the assertion that the “footage shows a young woman who appears to be Michelle Obama.” This is how the Right-Wing Noise Machine operates as they attempt to spread their derisive propaganda out to the racist audience they have so carefully cultivated. The next step should be an appearance on Fox News to discuss this bombshell.

The fact that these pseudo-journalists have no shame in disseminating false stories with nakedly prejudiced inferences should not surprise anybody. Recently the Breitbrats published an allegation that Derrick Bell had visited the White House twice in 2010 without first checking to ascertain whether it was the Harvard law professor (it wasn’t). And the right has been asserting for years that there is a mystery video of Ms. Obama using the term “whitey,” but it has never materialized.

And therein lies the harm. The object of these rightist rags is not to be accurate or honest. It is to plant seeds of hatred that they know will take root even after they have been exposed as false. There are people who currently believe that the “whitey” tapes have already been released. And as much as 30% of the Republican electorate thinks that the President is a Muslim. These distortions of reality exist because they were deliberately planned out with the knowledge that any subsequent fact-checking would not hinder their infestation into the right-wing community that is already predisposed to believe these racist lies.

Clearly there is a measure of desperation setting in amongst the right. These slanderous assertions are almost comical in their ineptness. They harken back to the Sarah Palin pronouncements that Obama was “pallin around with terrorists.” Those wild allegations came near the end of a campaign that they likely knew they were about to lose. And these new allegations are popping up now for the same reason: The right is increasingly fearful that their incompetent and unpopular candidates are headed for defeat. They also realize that their policy platform, consisting mostly of propping up oil companies and pushing down women, is alienating the electorate in a big way.

The sad thing is that we are still seven months from the election and these sort of nauseating and divisive attacks are probably going to get worse. Our only hope is for the public to express themselves and to make sure that there is a price to pay for spreading hate and lies. November cannot come soon enough.

Not So Breitbart: Daily Show vs. Cartoon Network vs. Fox News

Posted by on March 17, 2012 at 3:23 pm. 3 Comments :

The geniuses at Breitbart.com have published another of their astounding revelations that illustrate just how mentally deficient right-wingers can be due to their fixation on bashing anything and everything they regard as liberal.

In a posting that takes obvious pleasure in their analysis of television ratings, the Breitbrats report that Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are not the highest rated programs in the universe.

Breitbrat John Nolte: Just a friendly reminder that less than 1% of the population watch Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. If it wasn’t for the elite media — the same elite media desperate to convince us these two are some sort of national treasures — hardly anyone would watch them at all.

Via TV By the Numbers:

  • TOTAL VIEWERS
    Comedy Central, 11-11:30 p.m. “The Daily Show,” 1.6 million
    Comedy Central, 11:30 p.m.-midnight ET, “The Colbert Report,” 1.3 million
    TBS, 11 p.m.-midnight, “Conan,” 1.0 million
    Adult Swim, 11:30 p.m.-12:30 a.m. ET, 2.1 million
    Adult Swim, 12:30-1:30 a.m. ET, 1.4 million

Whatever influence Stewart and Colbert have does not come from the people; it comes from the elite. This dynamic duo of left-wing free speech oppressors are about as populist as caviar.

Wow. What a couple of losers. The Comedy Central pair of media satirists can’t even rate higher than Cartoon Network programs. And it serves them right for all that free speech oppressing they are doing [Note to Nolte: Can you provide an example of this?].

What the Breitbrats failed to notice is that their pet network, Fox News, rates even lower than the Comedy Central late night lineup. For the month of February 2012, “In total day FNC placed fifth (vs. news programming) with 1.093 million viewers.”

Ergo: Whatever influence Fox News has does not come from the people; it comes from the slack-jawed yokels. These bombastic right-wing free speech oppressors are about as populist as roadkill.

Do the Breitbrats really think that they are scoring points by attacking Stewart and Colbert, even though those shows have more viewers than Fox News? How stupid do they think their readers are? (Don’t answer that). I reported long ago that Fox had fewer viewers than SpongeBob SquarePants in an effort to demonstrate how the perception of their influence was overly inflated. I also reported that the highest rated program on Fox (O’Reilly) has about half the viewers of the lowest rated broadcast news program (CBS Evening News). But my comparing a news network to a cartoon network actually makes a point due to the contrast. Comparing a comedy network to a cartoon network is really not indicative of anything. Stewart is the first person to say that his program is not a news program and he is not a journalist.

The Breitbrats seem so ecstatic about this that I hate to spoil their fun. But the next time they attempt to characterize a program as irrelevant, they had better check to see if their own TV pals aren’t even less relevant. It is Fox News that is struggling to have an impact on society, and despite their best efforts, they were unable to prevent a socialist Muslim with no birth certificate from getting elected to the presidency in 2008. They aren’t having much better luck in 2012. This is partly due to idiots like the Breitbrats who continue to embarrass what’s left of the reasonable wing of conservatism.

Delusional Bravado: James O’Keefe Dodges Imaginary Bullets

Posted by on March 17, 2012 at 1:08 pm. 4 Comments :

James O'KeefIf there is a more pathetic representative of the cartoon-brained right than video con artist James O’Keefe, I cannot think of who it might be. Despite the fact that he is a convicted criminal who is best known for producing deliberately falsified videos and a sleazy attempt to seduce a CNN reporter on his “Love Boat,” O’Keefe continues to make himself the subject of news reports that exacerbate his already tawdry reputation.

O’Keefe was recently accused of harassing a female colleague, Nadia Naffe, by holding her against her will in a barn at his home in New Jersey, possibly drugging her, and later disparaging her publicly. Naffe has now published her own account of her encounters with O’Keefe in the first part of a series on her blog. That posting resulted in an exchange between O’Keefe and Tommy Christopher of Mediaite.

Christopher sought a response from O’Keefe about the allegations made by Naffe, but characteristic of a narcissistic bully, O’Keefe responded by continuing to smear Naffe:

O’Keefe: The outcome of the probable cause hearing speaks for itself.

If you refuse to publish the fact this person was arrest for domestic violence in 2001 — public record, and you refuse to publish the fact this person sued the Bush/Cheney campaign in 2004, you will be acting in willful disregard for the truth.

Christopher obliged O’Keefe by noting the events O’Keefe mentioned, as well as noting that there were no findings of any wrongdoing by Naffe and that O’Keefe was merely evading the issue by bringing up unrelated matters that have no relevance to the allegations pending against him. To which O’Keefe responded:

“No, informing you about the existence of public court records — that speak to possible motive — was not my only comment to you. For the record, I break a huge story about dead people getting ballots in Vermont. You ignore this and two days later you bring up this issue which was dismissed months ago. You journalists cleary (sic) want my scalp by running lies and fabrications. This is a blatant smear, But it’ll take a bullet to stop me. My price is my life.”

First, the easy part: If his price is his life, that gives us an idea of just how cheap this SOB is. What’s more, I don’t know of anyone who would consider wasting a bullet on this rapidly disappearing media fluke. He’s nearly invisible now with nobody paying attention to his griping but rightist blogheads and smartasses like me who do it for the joy of mockery.

More to the point, O’Keefe is suggesting that Naffe’s motive for her allegations of harassment had something to do with events that occurred many years ago before she ever met him. That makes no sense whatsoever. Then he whines about people ignoring his non-story about dead voters in Vermont where he proved that the only perpetrator of voter fraud was himself. That’s his idea of a “huge story.” Finally, he completes his evasion of the issue that he had originally agreed to discuss with Christopher by declaring it moot because it was dismissed (due to a jurisdictional technicality). I wouldn’t get too cocky if I were him because the judge also informed Naffe that she could bring the matter up again in a different court with the proper jurisdictional authority.

Clearly O’Keefe has an acutely inflated view of himself as some sort of heroic citizen journalist. That impression clashes with reality in that his brand of journalism is nothing more than a childish impersonation of Borat (minus the humor), combined with the delusional notion that anybody cares about his carnival side show antics. That said, I’m still looking forward to the next chapter in his “Adventures of the Asinine,” because I’m beginning to believe that he’s about to reveal his true identity. And when he does we will know that the reports of Andy Kaufman’s death were a hoax.

[Update 3/22/12] Part two of Nadia’s story has been posted. It goes into greater detail about the incident in the barn, but the real juicy material is contained in legal documents that Naffe posted.

Fox News: In Touch With America – Of The 1940’s

Posted by on March 17, 2012 at 10:55 am. 1 Comments :

Conservatives have been clamoring for the past three years or so that they want to “take America back.” The problem is that they want to take America back 50 years – or more. Evidence of their fixation on yesteryear was poignantly exhibited this morning on Fox and Friends when the hosts featured a segment about a fundraiser for President Obama.

Male Host: We’ve heard a lot about civility recently , and that’s why we maintain only the highest standards of civility on this program. But there’s a kind of a crazy moment at one of these Obama fundraisers. An entertainer named Cee Lo Green I believe, who must be very popular and hip because I’ve never heard of him ever before.
[…]
Female Host: It makes you long for the days of Sinatra, doesn’t it?

Cee Lo Green, of course, is a Grammy-winning artist whose novelty song “Fuck You” was a huge hit. It’s hard to grasp how anyone not living in an underground bunker waiting for Armageddon could have never heard of him. And why Frank Sinatra, a known pal of Mafia kingpins, is morally preferable to a guy who harmlessly and humorously cusses, is not readily apparent.

Nevertheless, Fox is intent on demonstrating the highest moral standards by featuring this story at the top of their Fox Nation web site, as if it were the most important news item of the day. And in their coverage they seem to have no problem with posting, uncensored, the very language that they are condemning:

“Donors at one of President Barack Obama’s fundraisers in Atlanta on Friday received at least one message loud and clear from the Obama campaign: ‘Fuck you.’ Singer Cee Lo Green, best known for his solo career and his work in the musical duo Gnarles Barkley, was entertaining guests at the $500-per-ticket event at Tyler Perry Studios when he prepared to launch into a performance of his song ‘Forget You.’

There was only one problem. Green decided, apparently at the last minute, to sing the uncensored and decidedly unpresidential version of the song — titled ‘Fuck You’ — instead.”

Note to Fox News: The song is not called “Forget You.” That was a sanitized version that Green recorded after the song unexpectedly raced up the charts. And if you’re so incensed by the use of foul language, why did you subject your hypersensitive readers to it – twice?

Thank goodness we have Fox News monitoring the moral fitness of society’s art and entertainment. We know that they can be relied upon to uphold the values that all Americans share (because we all think alike), while keeping up with contemporary culture (as long as it stops at 1950).

The Fox Nation Is Suffering Full Blown Obama Derangement Syndrome

Posted by on March 16, 2012 at 3:48 am. 5 Comments :

In my ongoing series “Fox Nation vs. Reality” I have endeavored to expose some of the more brazen departures from truthful reporting that so often make their way onto the pages of the Fox Nation web site. But today the Fox Nationalists have ventured beyond even their typical separation from the facts by posting as their headline story this sensationalistic declaration: White House ‘Panicked’ Over Gas Prices, President Becoming ‘Incoherent’

Fox Nation

The associated article said nothing about the White House being panicked. It said nothing about the President being incoherent. Despite those words being put in quotes in the headline, they were not referencing any citation by any person. In fact, they were not a part of the story in any respect – not directly, indirectly, insinuated, implied, hypothetical, allegorical, or…well you get the idea. The entire piece consisted of a video of a Fox News report on the presidential campaign, an excerpt of results from a Fox News poll, and one paragraph that briefly abstracted part of the content of the video.

Where the Fox Nation editors got the idea that the president was panicked and incoherent is a mystery. The only explanation is that they are so infected with Obama Derangement Syndrome that they were in the throes of a hallucinatory seizure. Either that or their determination to slander the President is so overpowering that they could not resist the urge to invent derogatory adjectives to attach to his name.

It’s bad enough when the Fox Nationalists post stories with pejorative quotes from the likes of Hannity or Limbaugh as if it were news, but when they don’t even have a source and they still put their insults in quotes, they have crossed a line that could only be acceptable to the most untrustworthy purveyors of schlock journalism – aka Fox News.

Update: The Fox Nationalists edited the article this morning. They swapped out the video for one that consists of a panel discussion with Jonah Goldberg, who made the following statement in response to a question from anchor Bret Baier:

Baier: The president is out almost every other day, it seems, talking about gas prices. Is it a sign that this White House is concerned about this issue? What does it tell us?

Goldberg: I think it tells us they’re in something of a panic over it. We’ve seen his poll numbers drop precipitously. And you can’t prove it, but most people think the gas thing is a major driver of it. And the problem is that he basically beyond doubling down, he’s tripling down on the same stuff he was saying three years ago, and it’s fundamentally incoherent.

So now they have the basis for their quotes – a highly partisan right-winger with an agenda to peddle. However, from the same segment they completely ignored the statements by panelist Kirsten Powers who called it hypocritical:

Powers: This is a real exercise in hypocrisy because when George Bush was being blamed for high prices by Democrats, Republicans were saying the president doesn’t have any control over that and now we have the exact reverse.

Obviously somebody at Fox Nation wasn’t paying attention when they first posted this item. But what’s worse is that the correction includes a clip of Fox’s chief news anchor, citing a Fox News poll, saying that “the majority said the president is to blame for gas prices.” Except that the majority in the Fox poll said exactly the opposite. The majority (52%) said the President is not to blame, and only 40% said that he is. So Fox News compounds their erroneous reporting even as they attempt to correct it.

Fox News Poll: Obama Beating All GOP Challengers

Posted by on March 15, 2012 at 1:59 pm. 3 Comments :

A new Fox News poll reports that President Obama is in pretty decent electoral shape despite the concerted efforts of Fox News to sabotage the administration.

The poll puts Obama’s job rating in favorable territory with 47% approving and 45% not approving. On Obama’s personal favorability, Fox finds him doing even better at 50-47. That exceeds the favorability of the GOP contenders who are all underwater: Romney (39-49), Santorum (35-47), and Gingrich (23-67).

Given those numbers, it is not surprising that the head-to-head match ups between Obama and the Republicans also favor the President: vs. Romney (46-42), Santorum (51-39), and Gingrich (53-35). The survey included an additional question that inquired whether respondents were voting “for” Obama or “against” Romney. On that measure Obama creamed Romney with 73% indicating that they were affirmatively voting for Obama, but only 40% said the same of Romney.

On a number of general attitude questions, Obama also fared well. When asked whether they thought that there were signs the economy was turning around, 58% said yes. When asked if the Obama administration had made the economy better or worse, 44% said better, 42% said worse. Even when asked about whether Obama was responsible for the increase in gas prices, 52% said that he was not, and only 40% said that he was. Again, this despite the incessant propagandizing by virtually everybody on Fox News.

The poll also included a rather peculiarly phrased question that inquired as to whether Obama was “happy” about increasing gas prices “because it will encourage the United States to find alternative energy sources.” In the article Fox published about the poll they included only the number of respondents who answered affirmatively (31%), but omitted the number who disagreed, which happened to be a majority (50%). There was no question as to whether Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum were happy about rising gas prices because it would benefit their electoral prospects. And, let’s face it, the notion that an incumbent president would welcome higher gas prices in an election year is just plain madness.

A couple of other curious notes: Fox had a breakout of responses by liberals, but not by conservatives. Also, they asked whether Obama had taken responsibility for the economy or was blaming others (38-47). But they didn’t ask to whom they thought responsibility belonged (Obama, Bush, congress, Wall Street, etc.), as most other polls do.

Some of the most interesting results in this survey concerned the Tea Party (remember them?). The Fox News article about the poll left them out entirely – not a single mention, as if they ceased to exist. However, the full listing of results may explain why. It confirms that the Tea Party is wildly out of touch with the public at large, and even with their fellow Republicans. On questions about Obama, health care, the economy, foreign policy, and gas prices, the Tea Party exhibits an extreme hostility. Their opposition to the president and his policies was often 20 percentage points worse than the GOP. For example, when asked if Obama is qualified to be commander-in-chief, 63% of Republicans said no, compared to 82% of Tea Partiers. The total of all respondents was 64% qualified, 34% not qualified.


This disparity may also explain why the Tea Party, according to this Fox News poll, was viewed favorably by 30% of respondents and unfavorably by a 51% majority. However, it does not explain why anybody in Washington or the media continue to pay attention to them. They are a widely despised extremist minority who contribute nothing but obstruction and division to the political discourse. It’s no wonder that even Fox is avoiding them.

Fox is also avoiding promoting the results of their own poll. Too much good news for the President? There has been little coverage of it on Fox News. The Fox Nation web site has ignored it completely, while publishing a competing poll from CBS News that showed the President’s numbers lower. One segment on Fox was on the O’Reilly Factor and had Bill O’Reilly interviewing that well known expert economist, comedian Dennis Miller, about the Fox poll results. Miller summed up his opinion with the usual substance and intellect of a Fox News contributor:

“I’m shocked he [Obama] has any approval rating. You know why? Because this is crap what’s going on. It’s crap right now. Everybody knows it’s crap. […] Everybody is telling them it’s great and this is exactly what they hoped for. But everybody knows it’s crap. […] They’re going to tell you it’s going great, but most people know it’s crap right now. And that’s why his numbers are going down. Because it’s coming to the end of his first term, and it looks like crap to people.”

How can you argue with crap-filled logic like that?