Who Says Glenn Beck Isn’t Funny?

Posted by on March 25, 2011 at 3:38 pm. 2 Comments :

Glenn BeckOn his TV program yesterday, Glenn Beck launched into a hilarious routine that simply has to be shared with the world. It concerned his paranoid perception that an army of George Soros soldiers are advancing on him and his motley crew.

Beck: And please, enough, George Soros. He’s got 86 people now on staff at Media Matters. Eighty-six! And the CEO of Media Matters said, “Oh, we need to hire some more.” He was fundraising. “We need to hire some more because it takes a lot of people to correct Glenn Beck’s nonsense.” There are ten people. Ten that work on this program. Ten that put it together. TEN! It takes 86 to try to tear us down.

That’s hilarious. I could hardly…oh wait. He was serious. Beck actually thinks that every employee at Media Matters is assigned to watching and fact-checking his program. That includes the accountants and receptionists. And who does that leave to monitor Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly and Megyn Kelly and, well, everybody else at Fox? Not to mention Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin and Andrew Breitbart and everybody at every other television or radio station, or newspaper or Internet site.

Nope. Beck believes that all of Media Matters is wholly dedicated to bringing him, and only him, to ruin, and that George Soros is personally staked out in front of a wall of TVs directing the effort.

I don’t know how many people are actually monitoring Beck’s program, but I can safely assume that it takes at least a few focused researchers to run down the actual facts associated with his wild proclamations, because I do it myself with some frequency.

The advantage Beck has over those of us who rely on facts is that it takes considerable time and effort to confirm or negate information with documentary evidence of your conclusions. However, all it takes is a good imagination if you’re going to make stuff up.

For instance, it takes only a few seconds for me to claim that Beck once hired Monica Lewinsky as an intern on his old Morning Zoo radio show, and that the show’s producer admitted that they sent Lewinsky to Washington as a prank. It would take a legitimate researcher much longer to look into this assertion, acquire documents, compare dates, seek statements from witnesses, etc.

That’s why it only takes ten people to put together Beck’s show. They really don’t have much to do other than keeping the blackboard clean. And they aren’t distracted with pesky little concerns about honesty or proof. In fact, ten people seems a little high to produce the garbage that Beck puts on the air every day. I could probably do myself with an intern and a box of chalk.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Jon Stewart Skewers Bret Baier Of Fox News

Posted by on March 25, 2011 at 12:41 pm. 8 Comments :

In a rollicking discussion of Fox News and its obvious agenda-driven editorial slant, Jon Stewart leaves anchor Bret Baier literally speechless on a number of occasions. Baier is frequently held up as the example (or “human shield” as Stewart quips) of straight-forward reporting on the network. But that just makes him the proverbial “thinnest kid at fat camp.” Any honest appraisal of Fox has to concede that there is an inherent institutional bias. Stewart tries valiantly to elicit such an appraisal from Baier with little success, but much hilarity.

Stewart: I would not say that Fox’s main thrust is objective news gathering. I would say that their main thrust is…it is somewhat of a cover for a more political operation that exists underneath.
Baier: Come on Jon, really?
Stewart: I don’t think I’m alone in that, by the way. I think that there are other people.
Baier: Why then are we, Jon, the best rated news show?
Stewart: That’s a very interesting point. I wasn’t aware that ratings equals quality. But now that I know that I’m gonna reassess my feelings about the show Three’s Company. But you know that the two are not related. I’m suggesting not that it’s not popular or powerful, so is crack.

Baier is regurgitating what his boss, Rupert Murdoch says, on this subject:

“If we weren’t fair and balanced, we wouldn’t have the number one network in news – by a very wide margin. People believe we’re fair and balanced, and they love us.”

Actually, people watch Fox because it validates their preconceptions. If Fox were balanced their partisan viewers would change the channel. For years I have been making the point that ratings only measure viewership, not content. After all, McDonald’s is the #1 restaurant in America. I don’t think that anyone interprets that to mean that they have the best food. What they have is the cheapest crap that is loaded with filler and seasoning to appeal to the largest number of consumers with the least sophisticated taste. And that’s a pretty good description of Fox.

Stewart continues to search for some sliver of integrity from Baier, noting that even Fox’s hard news is “framed through a prism of this more conservative ideology.” When Stewart points out that by watching Fox “you would think the greatest threat to the country is ACORN, the Black Panthers, and Fannie Mae,” all that Baeir can must is a whimpering
“That’s not fair.” But later Stewart lands a blow that staples Baeir’s lips shut completely:

Stewart: A guy gets fired from NPR for being taped undercover saying “I think the Tea Baggers are,” blah, blah, blah. He said a bunch of terrible things. Roger Ailes said, on the record, NPR are Nazis. Doesn’t that strike you as odd?
Baier: {crickets}

Exactly! The hypocrisy at Fox is legendary. Baeir responded the only way he could. He certainly couldn’t defend the retention of an executive who called his peers Nazis. But neither could he criticize his tyrannical employer and expect to live through the night.

More often than not the interview segment on the Daily Show is my least favorite. Stewart has a tendency to be exceedingly deferential to conservative guests in order to ensure that they continue to take his calls (IMHO). But this segment was classic. Stewart was aggressive yet respectful, and importantly, funny. That’s a tricky routine with a high degree of difficulty.


Fox News And Glenn Beck: Pro Genocide?

Posted by on March 25, 2011 at 1:48 am. 8 Comments :

The latest demonstration of right-wing dementia is actually just a variation on an old theme: Whatever Obama does, they’re against it. In this instance they are coupling that with a perennial conservative favorite: Whatever it is, George Soros is behind it.

From the moment the crisis in Libya began there was an outcry from rightists that the President should intervene on behalf of the rebellious citizens whom Qaddafi was slaughtering. That is until the President did just that, at which point they were outraged by his reckless imperialism.

Now the attacks on the administration are escalating to accuse Obama of conspiring with a shadowy organization that they allege is tied to terrorists and aspires to invade Israel. The organization is the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. This ghastly, UN-backed backed group lists barbarians like former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and Bishop Desmond Tutu amongst their patrons. Their mission is to enlist the international community’s cooperation to prevent genocide, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, and war crimes. What a dastardly plot!

Glenn Beck took up this argument this morning on his radio program. He was alerted to it by a caller and could barely contain his glee. For him it was another piece of the conspiratorial stew that mashed together many of his favorite demons including Soros, Muslims, and Cass Sunstein whom he calls “the most dangerous man in America.”. And somehow by becoming even more conspiratorial he insisted that this puts an end to criticism of him as a conspiracy theorist. Apparently the conspiracy theory that he is a conspiracy theorist is a conspiracy theory itself. And least that’s Beck’s theory.

It’s clear, however, that Beck’s caller got his information from either WorldNetDaily, who published an item claiming to have found “Soros’ Fingerprints on Libya Bombing,” or from one of their many conservative repeaters, including Fox Nation. The WND article was written by notorious Birther Aaron Klein and declared that…

“Philanthropist billionaire George Soros is a primary funder and key proponent of the global organization that promotes the military doctrine used by the Obama administration to justify the recent airstrikes targeting the regime of Moammar Gadhafi in Libya.”

Klein is a long-time Obama basher who wrote a book titled, “The Manchurian President,” that questioned Obama’s citizenship and patriotism. He has been working tirelessly to taint the President’s policy toward Libya. Just two days ago he posted an article on WND that asked…

“Could President Obama’s decision to sidestep Congress and strike Libya as part of an international coalition put the U.S. on a military collision course with Israel?”

There’s that Israel invasion thing again. You have to wonder whether these guys actually believe what they are spewing or are they just so infected with Obama Derangement Syndrome that they’ve lost the ability to process coherent thoughts?

The policy they are so feverishly flagellating is known as “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P). It was adapted from the 1948 United Nations “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,” which was a response to the atrocities witnessed during the Holocaust. There was worldwide condemnation of genocide and war crimes, and agreement that it must never be permitted to happen again – even if that meant using force to defend civilians being victimized by their own government. In 2001, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) published a report that refined the policy and it was formally adopted by the UN in 2005.

That’s the policy cited by the right as justification for restraining Qaddafi. And that’s the policy that Fox News and Glenn Beck are opposing. By extension, it must be concluded that they are in favor of ethnic cleansing and other crimes against humanity that the policy prohibits. Beck even conceded that the mission of R2P sounded good until he discovered its wicked roots. He began by expanding on the U.S. plot to invade Israel on his television show today. Not surprisingly he got everything wrong. He attributed the policy to a National Security aide, explicitly asserting that it “came from Samantha Power,” not the UN.

No it didn’t. It came from the UN commissioned ICISS report while John Bolton was ambassador, and it was supported by conservatives in the Bush administration including Secretary of State, Colin Powell. Beck asserted that the UN got the idea from Soros who got it from Power’s book, “A Problem from Hell.” The only problem with that theory is that Power’s book (which, by the way, won the Pulitzer Prize) came out the year following the publication of the ICISS report so could not possibly have been the inspiration for it. Typical Beckian disinformation that can’t even make the ends meet. But that doesn’t stop him from filling his gullible disciples weakened brains with hogwash.

Now Beck and the right is closing ranks to attack this humane policy that is illustrated by sentiments like this:

“True sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments. If governments abuse the authority entrusted to them and citizens have no opportunity to correct such abuses, outside interference is justified.”

While that sounds like it could have been uttered by anyone from Reagan to Clinton, or even to Beck, that quote was in fact from (you Tea Baggers may want to sit down), George Soros. It epitomizes the Open Society philosophy of people-powered democracy that Beck distorts as being a version of a New World Order.

I find it more and more depressing that there are people who actually buy into the fiction that Beck and Fox News promote. Granted those numbers are in decline, but it’s still a concern. It is the most delusional faction that still adheres to these lies and they can be a dangerous lot. That’s why it remains so important to continue to counter the disinformation with the truth. At least it may be possible to mitigate the damage they do.


Glenn Beck Has A Bright Future – In Infomercials

Posted by on March 23, 2011 at 9:34 am. 2 Comments :

With his ratings in a steep downward spiral and advertisers rushing for the exits, the speculation surrounding Glenn Beck’s future at Fox News is reaching a fever pitch.

A few weeks ago David Carr of the New York Times reported that Fox insiders have begun “contemplating life without Mr. Beck.” More recently reports say that Joel Cheatwood, Fox’s dedicated executive nursemaid for Beck, is leaving Fox to join Beck’s production company Mercury Radio Arts. That’s perhaps the strongest indicator that the Beck program has no future at Fox. And now Brian Stelter of the New York Times says that Beck is considering launching his own cable channel.

Beck has called President Obama a racist. He has lectured on the socialist artwork hidden in Manhattan landmarks. He believes that radical Muslims are conspiring with American progressives and Google executives to reinstate a global Islamic caliphate. He has predicted Armageddon too many times to track. But now we finally have irrefutable confirmation that Glenn Beck is certifiably insane.

Where would Beck get the idea that he could anchor such a network? Not only is his popularity in freefall, but even at its height it wasn’t enough to support such a venture. For comparison consider Oprah Winfrey who recently launched a cable channel of her own. Oprah has an international fan base that dwarfs Beck’s. Her audience is much more advertiser-friendly. She has been a beloved American icon for decades. The notion that Beck could pull this off with a couple of million mostly geriatric Tea Baggers who would have troubling finding his new channel is ludicrous.

Pope Glenn BeckWhat sort of cable network would Beck produce? He certainly couldn’t persuade anyone that he could run a news network. So would he settle for an entertainment net with reruns of Touched By An Angel supplementing his daily sermons?

A far better option for Beck would be to embrace his inner televangelist. He has been preaching his demented gospel for some time now and wouldn’t have to change much from his current program. He could acquire a struggling religious cablecaster and install himself as Pope.

Another option would be an infomercial channel where his experience as a huckster would come in handy. And the advertisers that he has managed to hang on to are just the sort that would benefit from this style of programming. Gold coins, survivalist gear, and various medical and insurance products would be easy to peddle to his gullible disciples along side limited edition Tea Party serving sets and commemorative plates depicting America’s Apocalypse.

Ideally, he could combine the two to form the first ever “evange-mercial” channel. Imagine the possibilities of merging Beck’s smarmy Jimmy Swaggert impersonation with the marketing zing of a ShamWow prayer cloth. It’s a natural for Beck and we at News Corpse can’t wait to see him peddling the Lord’s swag on late night TV.


Stop Federal Funding Of Fox News

Posted by on March 21, 2011 at 1:44 pm. 24 Comments :

Defund Fox NewsA few weeks ago video pimp and propagandist, James O’Keefe, released a heavily edited and deliberately deceptive video that purported to expose an institutional bias at National Public Radio. It was quickly debunked and denounced as a fraud by analysts across the political spectrum, including those at Glenn Beck’s web site, The Blaze.

Nevertheless, partisans in Congress and agenda-driven conservatives in the press continue to behave as if the video were legitimate. The House of Representatives, on a party-line vote, passed a resolution to defund NPR – a purely symbolic gesture as the Senate is not likely to concur.

The latest attack comes from former NPR correspondent, and confessed bigot, Juan Williams, in an op-ed for The Hill. After first conceding that “NPR is an important platform for journalism,” Williams joins his conservative comrades in calling for federal defunding of NPR. But he also reveals his self-serving and vengeful motivation by slandering NPR in saying that…

“They’re willing to do anything in service of any liberal with money. This includes firing me and skewing the editorial content of their programming.”

Nowhere in the article did Williams support his contention that “liberal money” was behind either his termination or any of its reporting. This is nothing more than a personal vendetta on Williams’ part. He is merely using the funding debate to strike his own blows against a former employer for whom he obviously bears a deep resentment.

However, if the right wants to introduce the issue of federal funding of the media into the public debate, they should be prepared to see their own Fox gored. Fox News has been the beneficiary of government largess for years and it is time to stop it and make Fox pay its own way. As far back as 1999, there have been reports documenting how News Corp, Fox’s parent company, exploited loopholes in tax laws that permitted them to avoid levies that all other citizens have to pay. From The Economist:

“…News Corporation and its subsidiaries paid only A$325m ($238m) in corporate taxes worldwide. In the same period, its consolidated pre-tax profits were A$5.4 billion. So News Corporation has paid an effective tax rate of only around 6%. By comparison, Disney, one of the world’s other media empires, paid 31%. Basic corporate-tax rates in Australia, America and Britain, the three main countries in which News Corporation operates, are 36%, 35% and 30% respectively.”

The article goes on to describe how News Corp used a complex network of accounting dodges including as many as 60 shell companies that were incorporated in such tax havens as the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, the Netherlands Antilles and the British Virgin Islands. More recently, an investigation by the New York Times revealed that…

“By taking advantage of a provision in the law that allows expanding companies like Mr. Murdoch’s to defer taxes to future years, the News Corporation paid no federal taxes in two of the last four years, and in the other two it paid only a fraction of what it otherwise would have owed. During that time, Securities and Exchange Commission records show, the News Corporation’s domestic pretax profits topped $9.4 billion.”

When giant, prosperous, multinational corporations weasel out of their tax obligations, ordinary citizens are the ones who are forced to make up the shortfall. That is effectively a tax subsidy for the corporations funded by you and me and all of the indignant Tea Partiers who claim to oppose special interest favors for the elite.

What’s more, federal bailouts to corporations like General Motors and Citigroup provided them with billions of taxpayer dollars, some of which are eventually spent on advertising that appears on Fox News, in the Wall Street Journal, and other Murdoch assets. Additionally, financial institutions that receive bailout funds use some that money to acquire shares of News Corp and to finance and insure News Corp activities including billion dollar motion picture projects like Avatar and capitalizing mergers and expansions.

USUncut is mounting a campaign to expose this sort of corporate welfare. They should add News Corp/Fox News to their list. But why aren’t there more voices objecting to these handouts? Why aren’t Democrats in Congress drafting legislation to prohibit bailout and stimulus funds from being used to enrich partisan political operations like Fox News by funneling cash into their accounts disguised as advertising expenditures. Every time you see a commercial on the Fox News Channel for a Chevy Tahoe or a Citibank Visa you are watching your tax dollars flow into the pockets of Rupert Murdoch and his wealthy associates.

The right wants to defund NPR despite the fact that they have utterly failed to demonstrate any journalistic bias on the part of NPR. On the other hand, Fox News has been documented to be brazenly one-sided over and over again, yet they receive hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer financed subsidies. Well, no more.

Stand Up! Fight Back! It is time to end the federal funding of Fox News NOW!

[Update 3/28/11:] And finally there is some media attention on the fact that there are many U.S. corporations brazenly shortchanging the country. MSNBC via Daily Beast.


How To Build A Fox News Narrative

Posted by on March 20, 2011 at 6:53 pm. 8 Comments :

For much of the past week Fox News has been complaining that President Obama has not done enough for the people of Libya. Most of these stories castigated the President as a weak leader who was ignoring massive suffering on the part of people who are fighting for their freedom against a brutal tyrant. As the story unfolded Fox Nation posted items with headlines that constructed a dramatic story of incompetence and neglect.

The Fox Nationalists painted a picture of a “President Gone AWOL” who “Bows the the UN” that “Authorizes No-Fly Zone” so that allies “Declare Military Action” while “Obama Outsources the War to the French.” So obviously the story climaxes with…


“Serious Doubts Raised About Obama’s War In Libya.” That’s right – it’s now Obama’s war. A military action that Obama was supposedly to indecisive to start, and too much a follower to lead, is now declared to be a full-fledged war that belongs solely to Obama. When did Obama return from being AWOL? When did he assume ownership from the French? When did it become a war?

In truth, there are legitimate reasons to raise doubts about this affair. While the Libyans are certainly in dire need, and the action was supported by the UN as well as the Arab League, the United States is not particularly well situated for sinking into another potential mid-east quagmire. But that’s exactly why this action should not be led by the U.S. Ceding a more prominent role to the French, the British, and regional players not only prevents the U.S. from bearing the bulk of the military and financial responsibility, it weakens the inevitable accusation that this is just another imperialistic adventure on the part of the United States.

However, for Fox to mischaracterize the course of events so deceitfully is – well, actually it’s just the way Fox operates. Before the military action Obama was indecisive and compassionless. In the formative stages he was weak and lacked leadership. Now, during the assault, when we and our troops are at the most risk, Fox chooses to focus on doubts expressed by the President’s political opponents.

It’s safe to predict that after the action is completed and Qaddafi is awaiting trial in the Hague for crimes against humanity, Fox will lead with “Obama Bows to the Netherlands in Qaddafi prosecution.” Or maybe “Kenyan President of U.S. Hands Libyan Dictator Over to Dutch Dope Smokers.”

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

James O’Keefe Invokes The Punk’d Defense

Posted by on March 17, 2011 at 10:37 am. 6 Comments :

James O'KeefeSerial liar and video manipulator, James O’Keefe, is taking an odd approach to his his defense on charges of making unlawful, recordings. The charges were filed in California in a case involving former ACORN employee Juan Carlos Vera, who was falsely portrayed in a heavily edited videotape as assisting O’Keefe’s phony prostitution ring when, in fact, Vera was skeptical from the start and notified the police immediately after O’Keefe left his office.

Now O’Keefe’s lawyers are claiming that he was within his rights to surreptitiously record the conversations citing MTV’s Punk’d as a precedent. This is so stupid that I have to wonder if Ashton Kutcher is providing O’Keefe’s legal defense team.

A team of four lawyers is defending O’Keefe on a pro bono basis in the suit filed by one of O’Keefe’s targets, and they’re citing everything from the writings of James Madison to Ashton Kutcher’s MTV show ‘Punk’d’ to a Woody Allen segment on ‘Candid Camera’ to claim O’Keefe’s ACORN sting is protected by the First Amendment.

Do O’Keefe’s lawyers know that Punk’d was an entertainment program that deliberately misled its victims with the intent of embarrassing them for the shock value? Perhaps they do because that’s a pretty good description of what O’Keefe’s Project Veritas does.

There are, however, a couple of significant differences between Punk’d and Project Veritas. For one, there was no malice or harm intended on the part of Kutcher & Co. They even included friends and family of the subjects in the ruse. Also, Punk’d always obtained signed releases from their subjects giving permission to release the videos prior to broadcasting anything. That’s a step O’Keefe conspicuously neglected.

Perhaps the most notable assertion in this line of defense is that it is an admission that O’Keefe is not a journalist, as he likes to portray himself. That is, not unless he thinks Ashton Kutcher is following in the footsteps of Edward R. Murrow. By aligning himself in sworn legal documents with a comedy show that features purposeful deceit, O’Keefe is undercutting any claim he may have had to First Amendment protections for the press.

Nice work punk.


FOR SALE: Republican National Committee

Posted by on March 17, 2011 at 2:16 am. 6 Comments :

If you’re in the market for an antique political party that, despite having a great deal of wear, has had millions of dollars invested in it by its previous owners, you’re in luck:

“The Republican National Committee is considering sanctioning the GOP presidential primary debates and then selling the broadcast rights to news outlets.”

This is wrong on so many levels. First of all, it reduces the electoral process to a consumer product. If you thought that campaigning was like selling soap before, you aint seen nothin’ yet.

This repulsively misguided proposal turns the debates into profit centers for the party. How exactly do they market them? Do they sell exclusive rights to media organizations they favor? Do they license the program to all takers who will pay the fee? Do they post it on eBay and sell to the highest bidder? Perhaps they could go the infomercial route and partner with retailers who can sell campaign buttons, t-shirts, and commemorative plates during the breaks.

Would the fee include the right to designate debate moderators? Would the licensee be able to write the questions for the candidates? What other privileges come with the broadcast rights? Could the they compel the candidates to do promotions? Could they program the debate as the lead-in to a their new Shelley Long sitcom or CSI: DC?

How would the party and the broadcaster account for the payment? Would it be considered a political donation? If so, there are Federal Election Commission limits as to how much can be exchanged. And what’s to stop a partisan media conglomerate from offering to pay a license fee for multiple stations, papers, and Internet sites, in an effort to funnel cash into the party?

What’s next? How about “naming rights” like sports arenas? Maybe the “Citibank Republican Party” or the “GO ‘Daddy’ P.” Perhaps they could sell product placements or get the candidates to make testimonials. Burger King could give away tickets to the debate with every Whopper in a cross-promotion with what Republicans fill their stump speeches with.

Even better, why not just sell the party outright? I’m sure Rupert Murdoch would love to add it to his corporate empire that already owns notable Republican businesses like Fox News and the Wall Street Journal. Although based on their current business relationship, that may just be redundant. After all, Murdoch already employs multiple prospective GOP presidential hopefuls, as well as former House Speakers and Cabinet secretaries.

If the RNC goes through with this they will be affirming their distaste for ethics and their affinity for corruption. They will be ending once and for all any argument that they are not shills for corporate cronyism and greed. Only today’s modern, tea-stained, Republican Party could even contemplate such an asinine plan. I can’t wait to see what they come up with next.


IDIOT ALERT: Dick Morris Predicts Obama Loss In 2012

Posted by on March 16, 2011 at 4:54 pm. 5 Comments :

It is simply mind-boggling how some people continue to get attention from the media despite being consistently wrong about everything they discuss. Prostitute toe-sucker, Dick Morris, is the epitome of just such a loser. For reasons that are incomprehensible, The Hill has published an incoherent screed by Morris wherein he asks…

“Will Obama get reelected? No way! In the teeth of the economic catastrophe that is shaping up, his chances are doomed.”

Doooomed, he portends. To lead off his logic-deprived argument, Morris describes how a “consumer confidence scale,” invented by the ultra-partisan Scott Rasmussen, fluctuated from 81.7 in December, to 88.3 in January, to 84.5 in February, to 73.1 in March. According to Morris, this wild ride in a brief four month period is evidence that Obama cannot be reelected 20 months from now.

What a dolt! His own data illustrates that those numbers are unreliable projections of events far off into the future. Next month the index could be 63 or 91. And that says nothing about what it will be in six months – or twenty. He isn’t asserting a trend or taking into consideration current events now or later. Yet he still concludes that Obama is toast. Then he really goes off the rails:

“The tsunami in Japan, perhaps the greatest tragedy since 9/11, will further impede any prospect for economic growth. There will be a demand for spending to repair the devastation of the quake. But Japan is tied with China as the world’s second largest economy, generating 12 percent of the global GDP. With Japan neither producing nor buying for the foreseeable future, the drag on the global economy will be profound.”

Let’s begin with his assertion that the tsunami in Japan, with estimates of up to 10,000 casualties, is the greatest tragedy since 9/11. It is, without question, a horrific occurrence. But Morris’ diseased brain must have already forgotten the tsunami in Indonesia in 2004 (230,000 dead), the cyclone in Myanmar in 2008 (138,000 dead), and the earthquake in Haiti just last year (316,000 dead). Or maybe he thinks those weren’t great tragedies.

Then Morris, in the space of one short paragraph, contradicts his main point. He says that Japan will neither be producing nor buying, despite having said in the previous sentence that there will be a demand for spending to repair the devastation of the quake. So Japan will, in fact, be buying, and to a lesser extent producing, as they seek to rebuild. It is a sad reality that disasters can produce opportunities in reconstruction efforts. And because of the devastation at home, Japan is going to have to rely on foreign developers, including those in the U.S. So how exactly will that hurt the U.S. economy and Obama’s reelection prospects? Morris doesn’t say.

Next Morris offers his solution to America’s woes. But all it is is a reiteration of the Bush era policies that produced the financial calamities we are presently experiencing. For instance: rolling back regulations, canceling tax increases on the wealthy, reducing federal spending, repeal of ObamaCare, and of course, drill, baby, drill. Morris believes that…

“…the true legacy of the Obama years is likely to be stagflation and an entire decade wiped out by his policies, budget and programs. Long after he is gone in 2013, we will still be repairing the damage of his terrible decisions.”

So Morris is seeding the notion that even if a Republican president is elected in 2012, he will be hobbled by Obama’s mistakes for eight more years. But Morris is the same jerk who derides Obama for ever suggesting that we are still feeling the effects of Bush’s mistakes just two years hence. He accuses Obama of shifting blame to the past administration, but Morris is preemptively blaming Obama for imaginary economic troubles in 2020. He’s playing the blame game on steroids. Plus, he’s giving his prospective Republican president a pass for failing over two complete terms.

For the record, Morris also predicted that Obama would never be elected to begin with. His 2006 book, “Condi vs. Hillary,” contained his astute analysis of the upcoming election in the title. That didn’t exactly pan out for him, did it? From the introduction to the book:

[T]here is no doubt that Hillary Clinton is on a virtually uncontested trajectory to win the Democratic nomination and, very likely, the 2008 presidential election. She has no serious opposition in her party […]

The stakes are high. In 2008, no ordinary white male Republican candidate will do. Forget Bill Frist, George Allen, and George Pataki. Hillary would easily beat any of them. Rudy Giuliani and John McCain? Either of them could probably win, but neither will ever be nominated by the Republican Party.

So Morris got the Democratic nominee wrong, despite his conviction that there was “no doubt.” He also got the Republican nominee wrong, and the Republican who Morris said could win if he were nominated actually lost. Is there any way he could have been more wrong?

It is on the strength of this sort of analysis that Morris gets asked back to provide additional “insights.” That is just astonishing, and so very sad. Why would The Hill publish his irrepressibly misguided prognostications given his record? Why does Fox News feature him almost nightly? How often do you have to get things ridiculously wrong before people in the media decide to stop asking for your worthless opinions?

Unfortunately, we do not seem to have reached that threshold yet, because Morris is still getting invitations to opine on subjects about which he knows little to nothing. And the worst part is that he isn’t the only one. Isn’t anyone keeping score?


Why Does Fox News Keep Glenn Beck Around?

Posted by on March 16, 2011 at 10:43 am. 10 Comments :

In a discussion on the fairness and balance of Fox News, the network’s CEO Roger Ailes famously told Barbara Walters that, “I’m not in politics. I’m in ratings. We’re winning.”

If we are to take Ailes at his word, then we have to wonder why he keeps Glenn Beck on the schedule. The program has been shedding viewers like a mongrel with a scalp condition for months. His year-to-year numbers dropped 40% in January and another 32% in February. He is sinking faster than any other program on cable news. A couple of weeks ago Rachel Maddow drew more viewers than Beck for the the first time ever. Over 300 companies have declined to advertise on his program due to offensive content like his anti-Semitic rants against George Soros and his bloodthirsty allusions to having to “shoot them [radicals] in the head.”

Last week Beck was on vacation and Fox Business host Andrew Napolitano filled in for him. The result was the ratings barely budged. And on Tuesday Rachel again drew more viewers than Beck’s program with its guest host. This is fairly conclusive evidence that the audience for that time period is constant regardless of who is on the air. Consequently, Fox could replace Beck at any time (as some speculation suggests is under consideration) without suffering any ill effects in the ratings.

So why don’t they? They could certainly fill that hour with another conservative mouthpiece that would cost them far less to employ. They could make much more money by recovering the A-List advertisers who have previously abandoned the program. And they would not have to endure the embarrassment of being associated with Beck’s delusional conspiracy theories that are lately drawing criticism from even the most stalwart advocates of conservatism.

The only reason that a so-called “news” network would continue to employ someone whose analyses and assertions are so distant from any sane definition of journalism, and so reviled by more rational observers, is because the network approves of, and agrees with, his inane proclamations of doom and his determination to transform political discourse into a feast of demonization and personal destruction.


The lesson from Beck’s absence last week is profound. If after learning that their ratings would remain constant in a post-Beck world, Fox News elects to keep him in the lineup anyway, we must conclude that Ailes and his boss Rupert Murdoch, are on board Beck’s crazy train. That’s the answer to the question in the headline. Ailes and Murdoch cannot disassociate themselves from the Beck Doctrine. They obviously regard Beck’s contribution to their mission as more important than either money or respect. So the next question is: What the hell is their mission?