Zimmerman Verdict A Victory For Trayvon? Here’s Why.

This evening the jury in the trial of George Zimmerman returned a verdict of not guilty for the charge of murder in the second degree, and not guilty for the lesser included charge of manslaughter. Many will be surprised that the jury did not consider what occurred at least manslaughter given the fact that Zimmerman had pursued Trayvon Martin, who had done nothing wrong, and later shot and killed the teenager he had called a “fucking punk.” However, there is a reason to be grateful for the verdict and it is simply this: There was a verdict!

What people need to remember about this case is that there almost was no case. Immediately after the shooting, the Sanford, Florida police department abdicated their responsibility to conduct a proper investigation. They did not interrogate Zimmerman as a suspect. They did not interview witnesses. They did not collect evidence. They did not even test Zimmerman for drugs or alcohol. The police simply bought Zimmerman’s story, concluded that he had a right to shoot Martin under the “kill at will” law (aka “stand your ground”), and closed the case.

If there was any indication of racism, it was with law enforcement in Sanford. Their neglect of duty resulted in turning this local crime into a national drama. And eventually, justice was served when the people rose up to demand it, and the Republican governor of Florida agreed to appoint a special prosecutor who found that there was sufficient evidence to try Zimmerman. What’s sad is that it took a month for authorities to make an arrest.

Zimmerman - Martin
Be Sure To “LIKE” News Corpse On Facebook

That’s what this is all about. And now there has been a trial and the jury has spoken. It was not perfect by any means. The prosecutors failed on many levels to make a convincing case. The jury cannot be faulted for the shortcomings of counsel. But the very fact that a trial has been concluded when at the start of this whole affair it was not even considered, is a victory. Trayvon deserved to have his day in court, and while the decision is not the one his advocates had hoped, at least his killer was put before the bar of justice. That nearly didn’t happen.

And this is still not over. In a post-verdict press conference, the defense attorney said that Zimmerman would not have to see the inside of a courtroom again, but that is not true. There is a federal case pending for the violation of Martin’s civil rights. There will also likely be a civil suit for wrongful death on behalf of the Martin family. In the civil suit Zimmerman cannot decline to testify. There may be some interesting new evidence unveiled due to that alone. Also, a civil suit does not require a unanimous decision by the jury to find a defendant liable.

It should also be noted that the vile cretins who predicted race riots were, as usual, wrong in their presumption of bad behavior by disappointed citizens. Just the fact that scumbags like Rush Limbaugh entertained the notion is proof of their inherent racism. The unfounded fear mongering about violence, and even worse, the suggestion that everyone from civil rights activists, to liberals in the media, to President Obama, actually wanted an adverse verdict so that they would have an excuse to act out with wanton destruction, never panned out. But those who spewed such repulsive predictions will forever be stained as the bigots that they are.

I believe that Zimmerman should have been convicted of manslaughter, at least. I believe that the prosecutors dropped the ball in several instances, while the defense seemed more motivated and better prepared (except for that stomach-turning knock-knock joke). I believe that Trayvon deserved better than to have his killer acquitted and that justice failed him in that respect. But I also believe that, as Martin Luther King Jr. said, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” And the fact that the people demanded and got a trial, after the law had brushed it aside, is a profound victory that should not be dismissed in the midst of these other defeats.

While there is much to regret in this outcome, it is important to remember that Zimmerman was not found innocent. When members of the jury come forward for interviews I expect that they will tells us that the state did not overcome the legal burden of reasonable doubt. And given the state’s poor case construction, I can’t say that I blame them. Prosecutors allowed their own witnesses to advantage the defense. They unnecessarily conceded much of the defense’s version of events (i.e. that Martin was on top during the struggle). They failed to offer a compelling story that explained what happened the night of the shooting. Zimmerman’s acquittal was due more to the inadequacy of the prosecution than to the status of the facts. A more aggressive, competent prosecutor could have got a conviction, but the absence of that is still not innocence.

Hopefully what people take from this is a more conscientious perspective of conflict resolution. I suspect that George Zimmerman will not pull out his gun so easily in the future. And anyone else in a similar situation should also think more than twice. While Zimmerman was not convicted, he did endure 16 months of criminal litigation, and his trials are far from over. I doubt anyone would want to go through that, particularly when another jury in another case might arrive at a different verdict.

And that’s what makes this verdict a victory. The fact that there was a trial and a verdict may help to prevent another tragedy such as the one that befell Trayvon Martin. We could not have said that if the Sanford authorities, who originally chose to do nothing, had their way. But the people’s voice was louder and we got the trial we demanded. And if we stay united and committed there will more and fuller victories to come.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Fox News Editorial Calls Men “The New Second Class Citizens”

In the twisted universe that Fox News has been working so feverishly to construct, whites are the only victims of racism, education is hurting our children, there isn’t enough carbon in the atmosphere, and now, men are second class citizens who are oppressed by a society that inhibits their freedom and disparages their character.

War on WomenNever mind that men control virtually every powerful institution in America. In the Forbes 500 list of top corporations there are only 18 women CEOs. Women hold only 18.3% of the 535 seats in Congress. Of the 772 full-time judges in the U.S. District Court and Courts of Appeal, just 30.4% are women. A mere 25% of colleges have female presidents. Women continue to get less pay for the same work as men. And predominately male politicians are legislating decisions that ought to be left to women, their families, and their doctors.

Yet somehow Suzanne Venker of Fox News has concluded that it is men who are being short-changed by society. This is an opinion that she has articulated many times before in Fox News editorials and in books published by the Wingnut Supremos at WorldNetDaily. Her first article for Fox was titled “The War On Men,” where she argued that the battle of the sexes was all the woman’s fault. Then she wrote that “‘Submission’ Is Not A Dirty Word,” it only demonstrates that you trust your partner. Her article “What Men Want,” lamented the decline in women who took pride in taking care of their man. The persistent theme in her views is that women ought to be happy to be subservient to men.

In her latest column Venker continues to berate society for its conspicuous favoritism towards women and prejudice against men. She begins by asserting that…

“The most obvious proof is male bashing in the media. It is rampant and irrefutable. From sit-coms and commercials that portray dad as an idiot to biased news reports about the state of American men.”

Venker doesn’t offer any documentation of her claim that male bashing in the media is irrefutable, mainly because there isn’t any. Sure, there are a few representations of dads in sit-coms who are less than competent. But it doesn’t come any near the way that media portrays women as sex objects, bimbos, screw-ups, and bitches. What’s more, who are the media honchos who are producing these characterizations? Overwhelmingly men. So even to the minimal extent that men endure unflattering images, it is men who are providing them. It is also men who are providing the much more common unflattering images of women. But worse, Venker complains that the media makes too big a deal out of the mistreatment of women.

“[The media] would rather feed off stories that paint women as victims. And in so doing, they’ve convinced America there’s a war on women.”

Aside from her disturbing dismissal of the very real problems women face as victims of both discrimination and violence, Venker has utterly misconstrued the notion of the “war on women.” It has nothing to do with a literal war that involves casualties. It is a reference to the social and legal assaults on women’s rights in the workplace, in the courts, in the home, and particularly with regard to making personal decisions about their own bodies. These are concepts that seem foreign to Venker who seriously contends that it is men whose welfare is in jeopardy. This was expressed explicitly when she said…

“Yet it is males who suffer in our society. From boyhood through adulthood, the White American Male must fight his way through a litany of taunts, assumptions and grievances about his very existence. His oppression is unlike anything American women have faced.”

I’m going to just let that hang there and sink in. It is so steeped in delusion that it needs no response. Venker’s perverse sympathy for the beleaguered “White American Male” says so much more about her, and her detachment from reality, than anything I could muster.

And isn’t it appropriate that Fox News provided Venker with this platform? It’s a network that features notably misogynistic male anchors and contributors, balanced by an army of blondes with no journalism credentials. In fact, just this week Fox promoted one sexy blonde with no reporting background to primetime, and replaced her in the daytime slot with a former Miss America. As for misogyny, Fox’s Erick Erickson just tweeted this after the nation’s most severely anti-choice bill was passed in Texas: “Dear liberals, go bookmark this site now.” The link he posted was to a site where you can buy coat hangers. That reference to the tragic past when women died during illegal abortions is about as disgusting as it gets.


The Eyes Of Texas Are All Up In Your Vajayjay

Just when you think that Texas has gone so far over the edge of decency and sanity, they surprise you by pulling a stunt like this:

Texas Senate Tampons
Be Sure To “LIKE” News Corpse On Facebook

You’re Allowed To Carry A Gun Into The Texas Senate Gallery, But Not A Tampon
According to Jessica Luther, a freelance writer and pro-choice activist who has been coordinating much of the push-back to the proposed abortion restrictions over the past few weeks, Senate officials are confiscating any objects they believe may cause a similar disruption in the gallery during Friday’s vote. Protesters aren’t allowed to carry water bottles or even feminine hygiene products, just in case they might throw them at lawmakers.

Despite banning tampons, it is still legal to enter the Texas senate gallery with a loaded handgun. So while Texas senators are afraid of tampons coming at them from enraged protesters, these brave souls have no fear of bullets coming at them from the muzzle of a Colt 45.

However this presents a delicate problem for security personal who must ascertain whether any protester is trying to transport a contraband tampon into the building in some secret hiding place. It also gives new and disturbing meaning to the lyrics of this iconic anthem of the great state of Texas.


Riot Promoter Rush Limbaugh Frets About Post-Zimmerman Unrest

[Update The verdict is in: Not guilty on all counts.
And the verdict is in on Limbaugh as well: Not right about anything, as usual. But then he offered the best appraisal of himself last November:]

Rush Limbaugh

With the fate of George Zimmerman now in the hands of the jury, many on the right are openly speculating as to whether African-Americans have enough self-control to keep from turning into hostile animals. It is an obvious insult to the dignity of people who have been insulted by right-wingers for decades.

At the head of the classless, of course, is Rush Limbaugh. On his radio program today he opened with an offensive presumption that people disappointed with a potential Zimmerman acquittal were already preparing to engage in organized riots.

Limbaugh: They’d rather have the verdict on Monday so they can use the whole week to trash the country. Plus the riots are scheduled for Monday. They probably don’t have the rioters ready to go today. […] I think the DOJ’s probably already done the organizational aspect of the riots.

There is no support for this sort of vile speculation. There are no rallies being planned. There are no protest groups forming. There has never been any threat of violence associated with the outcome of this trial. No authoritative person in the civil rights community ever prejudged Zimmerman’s guilt. The only point of contention was that law enforcement had initially declined to conduct a proper investigation or make a serious effort to ascertain liability.

Nevertheless, Limbaugh went on to make repulsive assertions that advocates for justice were plotting indiscriminate violence. He even said that they would “trash” their hotels when they arrived in Florida to embark on this imaginary rampage. The rant that Limbaugh delivered could not have been more disgusting and filled with blatant racism and hatred for people he apparently considers to be less than human.

And if that weren’t enough, Limbaugh’s tirade barely made sense. In one passage he sought to portray the non-existent protesters, who include the media and the White House, as “totally invested in a guilty verdict.” But his argument in support of that opinion was absurd:

Limbaugh: The media is desperate for a guilty verdict so that they can once again proceed on the assumption that this is a racist, biased, unfair country that refuses to allow blacks to have the slightest chance to get ahead. The civil rights movement wants much the same thing. The White House wants a guilty verdict.

That’s just asinine. If the civil rights movement, the media, the White House, et al, were looking to affirm society’s racism, they would not want a guilty verdict as Limbaugh says. A conviction, after all, would demonstrate that justice was fair and colorblind. How would that achieve the goal that Limbaugh asserts? What’s more, Limbaugh is contradicting his whole premise. From the outset of his program he insisted that there was a constituency that was preparing to riot following the acquittal they anticipated. But now Limbaugh says that they actually want a conviction, after which there would be no reason to riot and all their planning would have been for naught.

The truth is that it doesn’t matter whether Limbaugh has any idea what he’s talking about or not, so long as he says it with a deep animosity for liberals, minorities, and any other of his perceived enemies. And as for his new found aversion to rioting, here is a reminder of what he was saying a few years ago when he openly advocated such behavior by his dittoheads at the Democratic National Convention:

Rush Limbaugh Riot

Rush Limbaugh: Screw the World! Riot in Denver!
I’m dreaming of riots in Denver. Remember 1968? […] I mean, if people say what’s your exit strategery, the dream end of this is that this keeps up to the convention and that we have a replay of Chicago 1968, with burning cars, protests, fires, literal riots, and all of that. That’s the objective here.

That’s the objective here. He could not have been more explicit in his desire for violence and destruction. And now this scumbag thinks he can characterize others as having the sub-human traits that he harbors himself. Psychiatrists call this “projection.” I’ll just call it hypocritical bullshit.


Zombie Journalism: Fox News Must Be Running Out Of Fake Scandals

Imagine how frustrating it must be for the folks at Fox News who have been struggling so furiously to tar President Obama with one atrocity or another, but are having no success due to their total lack of evidence. Fox, and their cohorts in the Republican Party, have dedicated themselves to inventing phony crimes, and attempting to pin them on the President, to the exclusion of every other activity. But whether it was “Fast and Furious,” the IRS, Benghazi, gun confiscation, or the global warming hoax, not a single allegation has had any effect on the President or the White House. It has been a total loss for Fox, having expended enormous energy and resources, but getting no return whatsoever. On the air, in print, online, including their Lie Factory Fox Nation – a total bust.

The visceral pain and disappointment of Fox has visibly manifested itself on the air with increasingly ludicrous rhetoric and even more far-fetched charges. But what can Fox do when all of their best efforts to smear Obama have fallen short of their goal? Well, they can dredge up some past bit of melodrama and present it as if it is breaking news:

Fox News

The zombie story that Fox is reincarnating here is one from October of 2009, after Anita Dunn, then the White House Communications Director, correctly noted that

“The reality of it is that Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party. And it is not ideological… what I think is fair to say about Fox, and the way we view it, is that it is more of a wing of the Republican Party.”

This is not a follow-up story. There is nothing new added. It isn’t even a new posting. It is a link to an old, irrelevant article that is as out of place as a pet rock.

Why would Fox post this four year old item in their list of current news stories? Besides being ancient, it is unrelated to anything else that is going on in on today’s news cycle. It seems to be merely a wild swing at the President and an awkward reminder of Fox’s paranoia and persecution complex. But overall, it’s simply another example of the way Fox does business. They have no ethical rudder and are running a self-serving, partisan public relations agency for right-wing propaganda. Up next on Fox: Obama “palling around with terrorists.”

[Update 7/14/2003] Two days later, the breaking political stories on Fox News have changed several times with one exception: the zombie “War of Words” story remains in firmly planted on their home page.


Memo To Fox News: Trayvon Martin Won’t Be Testifying Because He’s DEAD!

Throughout the trial of George Zimmerman for his role in the death of seventeen year old Trayvon Martin, Fox News has been conspicuously prejudiced in favor of the defendant. The theme most prominent on Fox has been a regurgitation of Zimmerman’s legal team that portrays their client as a hapless victim and Martin as a violent thug. Today Fox went further down that path to pass judgment on Martin with an editorial titled: “Trayvon Martin’s testimony wouldn’t have changed anything in Zimmerman trial.”

That is one of the most disgusting expressions of disrespect for a crime victim you’re likely to ever hear. Because there is one change that would be glaringly obvious were Martin’s testimony to be available. It would mean that he was alive. For Fox to publish an editorial dismissing out of hand what a dead kid might have said about the man who shot and killed him is astonishingly cruel and insensitive.

The author of the column was not an authority on crime or civil rights, it was the notorious gun nut John Lott, who has made a career of advocating for the most extreme deregulation of guns, including the “kill at will” laws that were at the center of the Zimmerman case from the start. Lott has been taking Zimmerman’s side of this debate since it first became public last year. More recently, he published an editorial on Fox News last week saying flatly that “The Zimmerman trial is already over,” and that it should never have been brought to trial. That’s been the position of Fox News for months, and their community web site, Fox Nation (aka Factory of Lies) has posted numerous articles pleading on behalf of Zimmerman-as-victim.

Lott’s arguments in his new column were just as repulsive as the heinous headline. He begins by asking a leading question: “Is there even one piece of convincing evidence that Zimmerman did not act to defend himself from a threat of ‘imminent death or great bodily harm’?”

The answer to any objective person is “Yes.” In fact there is a great deal of evidence that Zimmerman was the aggressor. He was stalking Martin, who had done nothing wrong. He left his car to follow him after the 911 officer advised him not to. The ensuing confrontation occurred only because of these facts, which are not in dispute. You cannot claim self-defense if you are the aggressor, even if you end up on the losing side of the battle.

Lott further reveals the bias in his argument when he sets up a hypothetical scenario to make a point: “If both Zimmerman and Martin had both been white or if Zimmerman had been darker skinned, this case would never have gotten to court.”

Of course, there is no way for anyone to know whether that is true. But the telling thing about Lott’s selection of scenarios is the one that he left out. The scenario that Lott wants his readers to ignore is: What if Zimmerman were black and Martin were white? Were that the case, it would almost certainly have resulted in the arrest of the shooter.

Zimmerman/Martin

Most of the rest of the column was Lott’s misreading of the evidence presented in court and his one-sided analysis of his own slanted version of events. But the most egregious overstepping of decency was his assertion that were Martin alive to give testimony it would have meant nothing. For some reason, Lott thinks that Martin’s word is worthless. He thinks that if Martin had described a confrontation wherein Zimmerman had assaulted him after having followed him, and then shot him only after he was unable to subdue him, that none of that would have been relevant to the jury or the administration of justice. What is it about Martin that makes Lott regard his testimony as absent of any value? Would Lott apply that same standard to any other victim?

There has been much debate over the apparent racial aspects of this case. Lott himself raises it at the end of his article by declaring that the episode “has left lasting damage to race relations in the U.S.” But there is an undercurrent in these events that may be even more significant than race. There is a reason that a prominent gun advocate is taking such a visible role in Zimmerman’s defense, and that Fox News is providing him the platform. The gun lobby has taken a strong interest in this case as it impacts their long held beliefs that everyone be allowed to carry weapons at all times, in all places, and be excused if they use them to kill other people.

The commencement of this trial was deeply rooted in racial politics when the local Florida police never bothered to arrest Zimmerman or make reasonable efforts to ascertain what happened, to preserve evidence, or to conduct a legitimate investigation. But the outcome of this case may revolve more around guns and their place in a civilized society. And the evidence of that is apparent when gun nuts like John Lott are leading the parade for murder defendants, rather than experts on race or crime.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Here We Go Again: Sarah Palin Pretends To Run For Alaska Senate Seat

The election gods may be smiling on Democrats next year. During an interview on Sean Hannity’s radio program yesterday, he asked Sarah Palin whether she would consider running for the senate in Alaska. Palin, in her version of run-on, word-salad English, mumbled something about Washington needing new blood. As usual, there is no better way to convey Palin’s message than to let her speak for herself:

“I’ve considered it because people have requested me considering it. But I’m still waiting to see what the lineup will be and hoping, there again, that there will be some new blood, new energy, not just picking from the same old politicians in the states that come from the same political families that have reigned up there for so many years because too many of them have been part of the problem.

“Any American with a heart for service has to always have in the back of their mind that they would do anything, everything that they could to help the cause, even if it’s something that doesn’t look necessarily appealing, or necessarily fitting in with the conventional plan that they would try to orchestrate for themselves and their families, I along with anybody would have to say that I would do whatever I could to help, and if that was part of that help it would have to be considered.”

And who can forget how devoted Palin was to helping when she quit her job as governor barely half way through her first term so that she could pound fish and shoot caribou on cable TV? Clearly she has demonstrated that she is an American with a heart for service, so long as that service involves lining her pockets and doesn’t require any actual work.

Sarah Palin
Be Sure To “LIKE” News Corpse On Facebook

If the people of Alaska would seriously consider voting for someone who previously betrayed her promise to work on their behalf after begging for their support, then Alaskans will deserve the ineffectiveness and incompetence they would get from Sarah Palin. But the nation’s comedians would get a goldmine of new material that could help to reduce our political satire deficit.

Not to worry, though. There is virtually no chance that Palin will throw her tea bag festooned hat in the ring. In a poll earlier this year Alaskans voiced their deep disapproval of Palin. She would lose by a 16 point margin to Democratic incumbent Mark Begich (54-38), and her appeal in the state is dismal with only 34% of voters viewing her positively to 59% who have a negative opinion her.

Furthermore, Palin is famously averse to doing any real work when sponging off of her deluded followers will net her more income. It’s much easier to peddle ghost-written books and make a fool of yourself on cable reality shows than to actually study the law and build the legislative coalitions required to get a bill passed in congress.

What’s more, Palin just signed a new contract with Fox News and they are not likely to appreciate it if she were to bail out after they were kind enough to rescue her from obscurity. Even though Fox has a history of employing Republicans who are actively running for office, Palin’s pattern is to pretend that she is a candidate for something in order to keep people talking about her. Without such speculation there is really no reason to pay her any attention. It isn’t like she has anything newsworthy to say about any subject. So if she can keep pundits tongues wagging with phony hints of candidacies that never materialize, that’s what she’ll do. But why anyone cares about that is also a mystery.


Fox News Promotes Rush Limbaugh’s Attack On Fox News

For the second time today, Fox News has attacked itself. Earlier this morning Fox Nation posted an article meant to disparage MSNBC, but also included a quote saying that Fox News is “ridiculously fact-free.” But apparently they weren’t through self-flagellating because this afternoon they decided to heap more punishment on themselves.

Rush Limbaugh
Be Sure To “LIKE” News Corpse On Facebook

The incident began when Rush Limbaugh took a call from a particularly incensed dittohead who was in a frenzy over something he heard on Fox News. The caller whined furiously for several minutes about the “Alinskyite Obama Democrats” who are “steeped in Leninism with their Global Warming.” Amongst those to whom he was referring were Fox contributors Bob Beckel, Geraldo Rivera, Juan Williams, Alan Colmes, and Julie Roginsky. Limbaugh didn’t know who Roginsky was, and when told that she was on Neil Cavuto’s program Limbaugh said…

“Oh, somewhere on Fox. You know, you need to stop watching these people. Because they’re not gonna change. […] Your blood pressure is gonna suffer if you keep watching these people. They’re designed to get you ticked off. They’re designed to make you question your sanity. You’re gonna watch these people and you’re gonna say ‘How in the world can we have such idiotic people?'”

Let’s set aside for the moment the ironic projection that Limbaugh is engaging in by portraying others as idiotic people designed to tick you off. That may be the best description of Limbaugh I’ve ever heard. But the real point here is that Limbaugh has just told his listeners to stop watching Fox News. That bit of unintentionally worthwhile advice led to a swarm of media stories noting this brazen blasphemy.

It didn’t take long for Limbaugh to lash out at these reports and to deny that he was telling people not to watch Fox. Read the quote again and decide for yourself.

However, an even more absurd development occurred when Fox News itself took up Limbaugh’s retort saying that “Rush Limbaugh squashes claims he told listener to tune out Fox News.” The problem with this is that Limbaugh didn’t squash anything. In fact, by getting Fox to comment on it, the whole affair just escalates. And even if you buy Limbaugh’s explanation, the best you could say is that he only told people to stop watching the alleged “liberals” on Fox. That would be an interesting thing to observe. Would they have to sit there with the remote and mute the TV anytime Alan Colmes came on?

In the end, Fox came to Limbaugh’s defense in a matter that blasted their own pundits as idiots. So Fox is now on record as advising their viewers not to watch certain members of their staff. Sean Hannity? OK. Juan Williams? No way. Hand me the remote. You really have to wonder what those lefties on Fox must be thinking to continue to appear on the network. If fake liberals like Beckel and Roginsky serve out their contracts, they are admitting that they are idiots. And this begs the question, why would any self-respecting liberal ever go on Fox News in the first place?


Self-Inflicted Truth: Fox Nation Bashes Fox News As ‘Ridiculously Fact-Free’

Just how determined is Fox Nation, the lie-riddled Fox News community web site, in its mission to slander anything and everything connected to liberal politics and media? Apparently they are so determined that they don’t care if they publish devastatingly negative representations of their pals down the hall at Fox News.

Fox Nation

In a posting that must have given them goose bumps, the Fox Nationalists linked to an article at the uber-rightist NewsBusters that itself linked to an article at Alternet (Fox would never link directly to a liberal source). The Alternet piece was written by long-time media reformer Jeff Cohen and addressed the failure of the mainstream progressive media, and specifically MSNBC, to criticize President Obama for his actions taken against whistleblowers like Edward Snowden.

Capturing Cohen disparaging the network for which he used to work, was simply to compelling of a story to pass up. So Fox Nation slapped together a couple of paragraphs and topped it off with a headline that extracted the juiciest snippet in the column: Former MSNBC Producer: MSNBC Is ‘Official Network of the Obama White House.’ But in their haste (or more likely their ineptitude), they must have failed to notice that the passage they quoted was far more damaging to Fox News than it was to their intended target, MSNBC. Here is what Fox Nation posted about Fox News:

“…with Obama in power, a number of MSNBC talking heads have reacted to the Snowden disclosures like Fox News hosts did when they were in hysterical damage control mode for Bush – complete with ridiculously fact-free claims and national chauvinism that we’ve long come to expect from the ‘fair & balanced’ channel.”

Sweet! Fox Nation actually published an analysis of Fox News that noted its “hysterical damage control mode for Bush,” its “ridiculously fact-free claims,” and belittled their ever-mockable slogan asserting fairness and balance.

It’s heartening to know that Fox’s audience will read that evaluation and, perhaps, have some of it stick in their Silly Putty brians. The intended swipe at MSNBC is rather mild in comparison. In fact, Cohen’s critique really just demonstrates that progressives are not as cultishly attached to MSNBC as wingnuts are to Fox – a fact recently documented by Gallup.


SURPRISE! Fox News Audience Overwhelmingly Anti-Obama Republicans

Gallup just released the results of a new survey on where Americans get the their news. Not much about the findings are particularly earth-shattering, however, a couple of points reveal something notable about the Fox News audience.

Gallup reports that 55% of respondents cite television as their main source for news. As usual, the breakdown of that data reveals that a fair chunk of the viewers selected Fox News as their go-to network (8%), with the remainder of the legitimate news networks dividing the majority of the audience who are not blinded by the right. In fact, more than twice as many respondents chose sources other than Fox.

Somehow, these results have produced a flurry of stories proclaiming that Fox is the most popular news network. The shallowness of that conclusion is typical of media analysts who can’t see past a simple list of possible responses.

The method Gallup used for their inquiry was to ask an open-ended question that leaves it up to the respondent to choose how much specificity to apply. The answer with by far the most mentions was simply the generic “Television,” which received 26%, and is more than three times the mentions of Fox. The only thing that this tells us about Fox is that their viewers are more cultishly attached to the network and will recite its name upon command.

The most revealing part of the Gallup survey was the question that broke down the responses by political views. In this category, Fox News registered some astronomically high numbers for bias. Fully 94% of respondents identified as Republican or leaning Republican said that Fox News is their main source for news. Conservatives chimed in at 79%. And a whopping 97% of those who do not approve of President Obama pledged their allegiance to Fox. None of the respondents on the left came within 30 points of that level of extreme partisanship.

Fox News - Gallup

For more Fox-aganda bias, get the acclaimed ebook:
Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Fox News Community’s Assault on Truth

Surely Fox is aware of the character profile of their audience. And just as surely, their editors react to such market research by tailoring their programming to viewer preferences. Consequently, it should surprise no one that a network where more than 90% of its audience are conservative Republicans who hate President Obama spins every story in favor of the right and virulently against Democrats or anything remotely liberal. At this point, anyone denying the reality of this is desperately in need of intensive therapy and high doses of medication.