Glenn Beck Fears The Rise Of Obama Cannibalism Or Something

Posted by on May 15, 2010 at 12:01 pm. 8 Comments :

In an attempt to deprive Jon Stewart the opportunity to mock Glenn Beck’s paranoidal delusions, and to prevent Stephen Colbert from further exploiting Bill O’Reilly’s egotistical sanctimony, Beck and O’Reilly came together to deliver their own satirical presentation of each others psychoses. And it’s comedy gold.

While discussing Miranda and terror policy, Beck veers off into his familiar frenzied hysterics over the Obama administration and Cass Sunstein – whom he has called the most dangerous man in America – but O’Reilly doesn’t care.

Glenn Beck: You should care.
Bill O’Reilly: Tell me the reason.
GB: Because they are setting up the American people.
BO: Setting us up for what?
GB: What do you think?
BO: I have no idea. What’s the conspiracy of the day?
GB: There is no conspiracy.
BO: What is he setting us up for?
GB: There is not a conspiracy here. They are already talking about silencing free speech.
BO: Silencing free speech?
GB: They are already doing it. They already are. Did you see the President’s speech on Saturday?
BO: I’m not buying it.
GB: Bill, you didn’t buy a year ago that the guy was a Marxist.
BO: And I’m still yapping, and so are you.

When O’Reilly asked Beck what we are being set up for and Beck answered with a suggestive “What do you think?” there was a knowing tone to his voice that invoked images of the Twilight Zone’s “To Serve Man.” It’s a cookbook! Beck never actually answered O’Reilly’s question, but he did assert that Obama has already begun unraveling freedom of speech. As evidence, Beck pointed to a commencement speech that Obama gave last weekend in which he warned students about being overcome by the information glut. Beck took this to mean that Obama wanted to suppress information, an interpretation that could only make sense to Beck and his devotees. And as a measure of how removed from reality Beck is, even O’Reilly didn’t think it made sense.

Equally funny was Beck’s response to O’Reilly not buying into his dementia. As proof of his predictive accuracy, Beck threw back in O’Reilly’s face the fact that O’Reilly never bought Beck’s accusations that Obama is a Marxist. The implication being that Obama’s Marxism has since been definitively confirmed. Once again, the confirmation for that exists only in Beck’s diseased head. However, O’Reilly didn’t bother to disassociate himself with that bit of nonsense.

O’Reilly hit the nail squarely on the diseased head by making the simple declaration that both he and Beck are “still yapping.” Yapping is a pretty good description of what they do and there has been no effort whatsoever to restrict them from continuing to do so. In the end, all this segment was was an extended infomercial for their Bold/Fresh tour that is currently in progress. Both O’Reilly and Beck stand to gain by hyping the melodrama in order to boost ticket sales. And they have ample airtime with which to promote their wingnut road trip. But the unintentional comedy they provide may be the best entertainment of all, despite how frustrating it must be to the folks at Comedy Central.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Glenn Beck Suffering From Nazi Tourette’s (Via Lewis Black)

Posted by on May 13, 2010 at 1:56 pm. 2 Comments :

On yesterday’s episode of the Glenn Beck Acute Paranoia Revue, Beck managed to squeeze in classic examples of several of his most venerated complexes: narcissism, persecution, paranoia, and conspiracy theory, all made the cut as Beck wove one of his most absurd and unintentionally funny rants to date. Now, comedian Lewis Black has disclosed a previously undiagnosed malady that is ravaging Beck’s brain: Nazi Tourette’s. More on that later.

Beck began yesterday’s program by displaying what he portrayed as an ominous quote from a dangerous person whose name he withheld:

“What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude that the principle risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? In order to save the planet the group decides: isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

That’s troubling, isn’t it? Who would say such a thing? And what position of influence does this person hold? Is it President Obama? Or maybe Van Jones? How far along is this plot to destroy industrialized civilizations? Beck will make his audience wait almost twenty minutes for the answer. When he finally gets back to it, Beck reveals that it was former United Nations environmental official, Maurice Strong. But here’s the funny part: Strong made these remarks twenty years ago in an interview wherein he was describing to the reporter an idea for a novel. It wasn’t a plot to bring down civilization at all. It wasn’t even an initiative that Strong advocated. It was fiction.

Beck eventually got around to admitting that Strong’s comments were not part of some evil scheme, but his admission was disingenuous and sarcastic. Employing air quotes, Beck said with a knowing wink that Strong was merely “fantasizing” about the plot of a novel. He followed up by noting that no novel was ever actually written. The implication was that the novel story was just a cover and that Strong was secretly pursuing this plot. In fact, it was more than an implication. Beck actually said it explicitly:

“He hasn’t had time to do it [the novel] because he’s involved in collapsing the global economies into the hands of a global government. Isn’t that interesting? It’s almost like his book.”

Actually it’s not particularly interesting. And Beck doesn’t bother to support his allegation that Strong is busy “collapsing the global economies.” But if Beck believes that a speculative storyline for a novel is need to worry about the prospective novelist’s real life intentions, then he needs to explain his own intentions as articulated in his upcoming novel The Overton Window. In his book he “fantasizes” about “A plan to destroy America, a hundred years in the making.” Hmm. What exactly is Beck plotting?

Beck then ups the ante by implicating the White House in Strong’s conspiracy. He beseeches his viewers to fan out across the Internet to scrounge up information about Strong. He literally tells them to drop what they’re doing (which is watching his show, so that might be good advice) and to commence their research because the President was working furiously – at this very moment – to expunge the evidence of the plot. Beck invokes his silly prop phone to the White House and urgently warns that…

“The reason why this phone is not ringing now is because there are phone calls being made and they are scouring the Internet. They are sanitizing and taking it all off. Find it now, before it’s gone.”

So the White House has abandoned its whole agenda, health care, financial reform, immigration, cap and trade, and two wars, to devote their time to scrubbing information about a former UN official’s twenty year old idea for a book. I can just picture the BeckPods pausing their DVRs and scurrying to their computers to scrutinize everything they can find on Strong. It’s like a scavenger hunt for Lex Luther’s blueprint for world domination. The Cheetos bag that flew off their lap can be recovered later. Right now they are needed to march into Google at their master’s command. This is a matter of life or death. And don’t dismiss the death part. Beck is still convinced that “they” are out to get him.

“This is why the Washington Post slash Huffington Post slash Jim Wallis slash Obama advisor have been dropping bags of hammers on me for months, smearing me. Why? Because I brought your attention to the lie of social justice.”

See? They’re all in it together. I’m quite sure that Arianna has Barack on speed dial so they can order more hammers as necessary. All of Beck’s conspiracies are perfect loops, and now he has come back around to social justice, which he once again equates to Marxism. Adding to the hilarity of this episode, Beck issues a challenge to find the words “social justice” in the bible or any of America’s founding documents. The implication is that if they are not there, then his characterization of them as evil is affirmed. What does that say about “free market,” “intelligent design,” or “family values,” none of which are mentioned in the bible or founding documents either (so far as I know). Yet I suspect that Beck is not preparing a program to renounce them.

As a counterpoint to Beck’s comedy routine, I offer this bit of brilliance from The Daily Show. Lewis Black is always funny, but this is off the charts. Black reveals Beck’s hypocrisy, plus a little known malady from which Beck suffers: Nazi Tourette’s.



Robin Hood vs. The Tea Baggers

Posted by on May 12, 2010 at 5:43 pm. 3 Comments :

When CNBC’s Rick Santelli roused his mob of commodities traders to indiscriminately oppose any sort of taxation (even though they have representation), he set off a campaign that hitched its identity to the revolutionary war era activists who came to be known as the tea party. Unfortunately, there was very little forethought to this aborning movement and the participants began referring to themselves as Tea Baggers. When they learned of some of the other less flattering connotations of the term, they tried to distance themselves from it. But it was too late and besides, some of their comrades decided to embrace it.

The progressive community never really countered this crowd with anything organized. There was an awkward attempt to launch a Coffee Party, but it, so far, has not gained much traction.

Well now we may have a far better branding opportunity, with a far more appealing image. And it is all thanks to the new movie Robin Hood, and its star Russell Crowe. At a press conference for the opening of the film at the Cannes Film Festival in France (oh no, not France), the discussion turned to what Robin Hood would be doing were he to be present and wandering in the woods today. Crowe offered a damn good theory that was aimed directly at the media audience he was addressing:

“Would he be political? Would he aim at certain figures and try to bring them down? Would his aim be economic? Would he be looking at Wall Street and the huge sums of money that people have been patting themselves on the back with, and the subprime mortgage collapse?

“Or would he be looking at what you guys do for a living and realizing that the true wealth lies in the dissemination of information? And my theory would be, if Robin Hood was alive today, he would be looking at the monopolization of media as the greatest enemy.”

Exactly! If there is any authority in the 21st century that is brazenly exploiting the masses for its own benefit; if there is any institution that considers itself to be above the peasants and entitled to the power and money they hoard, it is the media. They travel in elite circles and cover for one another. Once in the club you can never be ejected. That’s why so many pundits are still given airtime despite how often they are wrong. And the Sheriff of Nottingham, known to his friends as Rupert Murdoch, keeps a tight reign on the fiefdom he rules.

Crowe’s insight is not merely recognizing the threat that media consolidation and monopolization represents, but he explicitly rejected the easy analogy of Robin Hood being a Tea Bagger himself due to his opposition to the then-current administration. No, Robin is much more likely to be a liberal as evidenced by his distaste for the opulently wealthy who have no concern for working people. Robin’s policy of taking from the rich and giving to the poor made him an early practitioner of “redistribution of wealth.” He certainly would have battled the Wall Street barons, the environmental abusers, and he would have demanded that all subjects of the realm receive adequate health care, food, and housing.

Tea CrusadesSo get ready for the Tea Crusaders to mount up in opposition to Robin and his Merry Men and Women. Brace yourselves for the 9/12ers and Glenn Beck’s Army of the Delusional. Be vigilant as Fox News amasses the troops on the border of Sanity. Robin Hood, the movie and the legend, will soon come under attack because the Dark Ageists won’t abide this champion of social justice and enemy of free market greed. And if you think they won’t go after a beloved cultural icon like Robin Hood, remember, the Tea Baggers already denounced Captain America.

The progressive movement, however, would be wise to embrace Robin Hood and build our future on the philosophy he represents. It is an ethical and moral philosophy, and an appealing and inspirational tale of heroism and beneficence. And it’s way better than Tea Bagging.


Fox News: Obama Hates The iPad

Posted by on May 12, 2010 at 1:00 pm. 2 Comments :

Last weekend President Obama gave a commencement speech at the historically African-American Hampton College in Virginia. But, as has become routine, any utterances of the President are merely new opportunities for the rightist deception machine to misconstrue his remarks. This speech was no exception.

Much of the right-wing media eagerly ignored 95% of Obama’s speech to focus on a short passage that was partly humorous and entirely true. The President told the graduating students that…

>”…you’re coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don’t rank all that high on the truth meter. And with iPods and iPads; and Xboxes and PlayStations – none of which I know how to work – information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation. So all of this is not only putting pressure on you; it’s putting new pressure on our country and on our democracy.”

“With so many voices clamoring for attention on blogs, and on cable, on talk radio, it can be difficult, at times, to sift through it all; to know what to believe; to figure out who’s telling the truth and who’s not. Let’s face it, even some of the craziest claims can quickly gain traction. I’ve had some experience in that regard.”

This common sense observation of modern media has stirred up the wingnut faction from one end to the other. Everyone from David Horowitz to the John Birch Society to BigGovernment to RedState, and on and on, set about picking apart this soundbite to accuse Obama of being anti-technology. And to no one’s surprise, Fox News was all over it.

The consensus amongst these psycho-Chicken Littles is that Obama was warning students that all technology is dangerous and evil, and that information is bad. They start by registering shock that the President would assert that not everything on the Internet is true (oh my). Glenn Beck went down this path, staring incredulously into the camera after playing Obama’s remark about the “truth meter.” Beck couldn’t believe what he was hearing. In his response he accused the President of advocating censorship and the banning of information.

Beck: Name the president in the history of America that has said, “information is a…it’s a diversion. It’s distracting. There can be too much information out there. Some information is…we’ve gotta stop it.”

Then Beck said that he has never before heard a president say these things. Well, he hasn’t seen this president say them either. Obama never even implied that any information should be stopped. He simply said that there’s a lot of it and information consumers need to be discriminating. The funny thing is that Beck says the same thing almost every day. Beck is constantly criticizing the media as a purveyor of lies, and warning his disciples to pay close attention so that they don’t get duped. But if Obama says it, he is somehow crossing over into suppression of free speech. Beck even compared it to book burning.

Beck might want to consult Dr. Keith Ablow, a psychiatrist and a frequent guest on his show. Ablow wrote a column on the Fox News web site that agreed with Obama:

“President Obama has apparently had a moment of epiphany and realized that new media and new technology can cleave young people from the truth and render them addicted to gadgets and entertainment. He said as much – attacking the iPod and iPad – at a speech to graduates of a college in Virginia last week.

The president is doubly correct. First of all, he is right (as I have written a number of times) that the Internet, Facebook and, yes, the new iPad and many other devices can interfere with people becoming wise and knowledgeable, rather than simply deluged with facts. They can also become estranged from real relationships and from themselves as they become obsessed with pretending to be stars on YouTube or worthy of ‘followers’ on Twitter or popular with thousands of ‘friends’ on Facebook.”

Of course, Obama didn’t actually “attack” any gadgets. He simply noted that they should be used sensibly. Then, because he is a Fox News contributor, Ablow went on to make some rather predictable criticisms of Obama that had no relevance to the topic before conceding that “None of this discounts Obama’s astute observations.”

It is remarkable how determined Obama’s critics are, that they can find so many straws on which to grasp. And now that they have declared Obama a foe of iPads and other technology, perhaps they will stop accusing him of using technology to thrust decent, patriotic citizens into slavery. That is another of the current falsehoods that the right is spewing with regard to Network Neutrality. And they have just launched a $1.4 million campaign to convince people that giant corporations should be able to decide what you can and cannot access online.

Feel free to visit FreePress.net and help them in their efforts to keep the Internet open, free and independent of the crushing influence of government and business. And don’t forget the iPad burning tonight that will start at 8:00pm in front of Rockefeller Center.


Sarah Palin: America By Heart?

Posted by on May 11, 2010 at 4:29 pm. 5 Comments :

HarperCollins (a Rupert Murdoch company) just announced details about Sarah Palin’s next book, America By Heart, Reflections on Family, Faith and Flag. It is scheduled to be release November 23. This is the followup to her previous literary achievement, Going Rogue, An American Life. I suppose that she will have “America” in the title of all of her books. She wouldn’t want to confuse her fans who might think it’s some foreign Sarah Palin.

The first question on most people’s minds will be who is going to write this one. The first book attributed to Palin, a biography, was actually ghost written by conservative scribe, Lynn Vincent. This time it should be even easier to outsource due to the subject matter that the Associated Press describes as…

“…selections from classic and contemporary readings that have moved her,” according to HarperCollins, along with “the nation’s founding documents to great speeches, sermons, letters, literature and poetry, biography, and even some of her favorite songs and movies.”

In other words, the book writes itself. In fact, most of it has already been written by other people. HarperCollins adds that the book will feature…

“…portraits of some of the extraordinary men and women she admires and who embody her deep love of country, her strong rootedness in faith, and her profound love and appreciation of family.”

She’s really going out on limb with this subject matter. It immediately rules out any Democrats or liberals who are, of course, all treasonous atheists from broken homes. But I really have to wonder about the title, America By Heart. Does she mean America memorized? Or the song “America” by the band Heart? Heart really does have a song called America, and it’s about the dying off of a generation that clung to old ideas like racism. The song includes these lyrics:

America, America
Are you losing your mind
America, America
Don’t leave me behind

I also wonder why Palin keeps having serendipitous affiliations with this band. She was also called Sarah Barracuda in high school (and in the 2008 campaign). The lyrics of that song included…

If the real thing don’t do the trick
You better make up something quick

Appropriate on so many levels. And since the book will include some of her favorite songs, perhaps these will be amongst them. Even better, maybe she will favor us with her own rendition as she embarks on another book tour (sponsored by Fox News). This will be her second book tour, which makes it two more than the number of press conferences she’s ever held (or books she’s read). As for me, I’m still waiting for the definitive Palin Book, Going Reggae.



UPDATE: Fox News, Nielsen Ratings, And Trust In The Media

Posted by on May 10, 2010 at 1:23 pm. 4 Comments :

Last month I wrote an article detailing some suspicious activities and histories of Rupert Murdoch and his News Corporation, and their relationship to the monopolistic survey group, Nielsen Media Research. The article was titled, Fox News Caught In Massive Nielsen Ratings Fraud. It should be noted that the publish date for the article was April 1, 2010. It is important to recognize the traditional significance of that date when evaluating the content of the article.

The purpose of this update is to respond to ongoing interest in the subject matter. The article has been circulating the Internet via links from prominent media players, including Roger Ebert and Alan Colmes’ LiberalLand. So I thought I would take this opportunity to clarify a couple of points and to offer some analysis of the response.

First of all, despite the “first day of April” publication, the article’s primary factual assertions are true and documented. Fox News did object to early iterations of Nielsen’s then-new People Meter technology. News Corp did have a prior business relationship with the manufacturers of Nielsen’s set-top ratings collection devices. News Corp was connected to corporate espionage and sabotage, which was reported by Wired Magazine. News Corp did make payoffs to certain parties to suppress a scandal involving email hacking and other violations of privacy of public figures, which was reported by the Guardian. And Rupert Murdoch is enmeshed in a tangled web with businesses and government agencies and leaders in communist China, as reported in Esquire.

The foregoing factual basis for my column notwithstanding, the headline and conclusions were squarely in the grand tradition of the day upon which April begins. Nevertheless, many readers approached the whole of the article with a seriousness that was only partly intended. To me this illustrates an inherent distrust of ratings data, as well as an eagerness on the part of the public to accept any plausible allegation of deceit or misconduct on the part of the media. I would have to concur on both points. Indeed, those points were the primary motivation for my writing the article in the first place.

The very real problems with Nielsen data are well-known and ongoing. They employ a methodology that is archaic and unreliable. It’s so bad that their biggest customers repeatedly attempt to fund alternative data providers. The latest effort is the Coalition for Innovative Media Measurement. This group was formed last August by 14 big media enterprises including NBC Universal, Time Warner, News Corp, Viacom, CBS, Discovery and Walt Disney. At the time of the announcement I expressed skepticism that it would yield any positive results. Every other attempt to undermine Nielsen’s supremacy has ended badly for the new venture. The failures were due primarily to infighting amongst the coalition members and their self-serving pursuit of parochial concerns.

The CIMM does not appear to be faring any better than their predecessors. While it may be too soon to write them off, there does not seem to be any substantive progress outside of an initiative to agree on common definitions of research terms. The creation of an industry lexicon is hardly forward progress. And the companies that have some of the best data aggregation technology (i.e. cable operators, TIVO, etc.) have so far declined to participate. The CIMM is months away from producing any tangible results, and when they do you can expect sparks to fly as member companies find fault with what the coalition delivers.

As for Fox News, their recent ratings performance has not supported any conspiracy theory alleging cheating on their behalf. Their most recent quarterly numbers showed a harrowing 20% viewer exodus. Their star attraction, Glenn Beck, lost a third of his audience since January, along with many of his advertisers. But maybe this is just a ruse to calm the suspicions that are swirling around them. If their ratings decline temporarily, everyone will assume that they aren’t tampering with them. Then, when the heat’s off, they goose them right back up on demand. What a devious plot they are contriving. No one wonder no one trusts them.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Glenn Beck Calls Rupert Murdoch An Enemy Of The Free Market System

Posted by on May 6, 2010 at 12:54 pm. 3 Comments :

In another of his patented rants, Glenn Beck has taken aim at a new target that you would think might cause some blowback. Beck was merrily castigating Al Gore and Global Warming, as he often does, and tying it to some sort of criminal conspiracy that will eventually topple free enterprise. He never really explains how that will happen, but he does have pictures on a blackboard that have arrows pointing to each other, so there you have it.

On this occasion, however, Beck was stepping on some pretty big feet. In the course of his rambling he had this to say about some of the media complicity with what he believes is an environmental scam:

“Do you ever wonder why there’s green week every other week on NBC? Do you ever wonder why NBC is such a shill for this White House? President Obama, and anybody who falls in line with him, will get more control and more power over business and whatever else they decide to gobble up.”

I wonder if Beck knows that his own network also participates in green week campaigns. They have even displayed specially designed green-tinged logos in tribute to the movement during his own program

What’s more, Beck’s boss Rupert Murdoch might be one of those people who has fallen in line with Obama on this issue. Perhaps he is seeking more power to gobble up stuff. In an interview a few years ago, Murdoch made it quite clear where he stands on Climate Change:

“We want to help solve the climate problem. We’ll squeeze our own energy use down as much as we can. We’ll become carbon neutral for our own emissions within three years, and be entirely transparent throughout the process, publicly reporting our reductions and offsets. But that’s just a start. Our audience’s carbon footprint is 10,000 times bigger than ours, so clearly that’s where we can have the most influence.”

Murdoch was adamant about the role his company would play in persuading his viewers to do their part. [He has since launched an energy initiative encompassing the whole corporate enterprise.] He spoke explicitly about how he would incorporate climate science information into his programming, both on the news and entertainment side of his operations. And he was confident that these efforts would be productive.

“I think when people see that 99 percent of scientists agree about the serious extent of global warming, it’s going to become a fact of life.”

Murdoch even said that he would support a mandatory emissions cap (i.e. cap and trade) and that having a pro-environment platform would be a litmus test for his future campaign contributions. These are positions that place Murdoch squarely in the enemy camp so far as Beck is concerned. It makes Murdoch just another big media mogul seeking power and favor from the Obama administration.

Of course, Murdoch’s position may just be a public relations move to cast himself as a concerned citizen. He has also said that having a green corporate program is an effective employee motivator. So we need to take his words with a healthy sprinkling of salt. It is difficult to buy into his rhetoric when almost everyone on Fox News fiercely contends that Global Warming is a hoax.

What makes this even more surreal is that Beck himself could be his own enemy. In an interview earlier this year with USA Today, Beck said that he believes in Global Warming:

“You’d be an idiot not to notice the temperature change,” he says. He also says there’s a legit case that global warming has, at least in part, been caused by mankind. He has tried to do his part by buying a home with a “green” design and using energy saving products.

It’s hard to find a more potent example of disingenuousness and hypocrisy. But if anyone can top it, it will be Beck. I just have to wonder if Murdoch knows that Beck considers him to be the enemy of the free market. And will Murdoch still want to carry this dead weight, who has lost more than a hundred advertisers and a third of his audience, now that he knows what Beck thinks of him? In fact, considering Beck’s collapsing program performance, canceling him would be a recognition of the free market.


Fox News Is Afraid Of Confusing Their Viewers

Posted by on May 5, 2010 at 5:52 pm. 2 Comments :

An advertisement from VoteVets that promotes clean energy was rejected by Fox News, although it is currently running on CNN and MSNBC. The reason given for the rejection was that the ad is “too confusing.” What do you think?

I don’t think I’ve ever heard the confusion standard for declining ads before. There are standards for profanity, violence, libel, nudity, and even factual accuracy. But confusing? That’s a new one.

Idiot FoxI think that what Fox may be concerned about is that this ad is from an organization of American veterans. It advocates enhancing domestic security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil. It features unflattering pictures of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. These are three of the top bullet points right-wingers harp on in pursuit of their pseudo-patriotic Americism. The confusion that Fox is worried about is that their carefully trained viewers might wind up agreeing with these vets that our security is threatened by enriching our enemies in Iran and other unfriendly oil oligarchs. This ad could undo so much of Fox’s painstakingly hypnotic propagandizing.

So Fox’s solution is to censor the ad and protect their gullible audience from hearing any argument that might conflict with the Fox News world view. Fox undoubtedly regards this as their obligation to shield their viewers from the anxiety of having to think for themselves. Heaven knows that’s often confusing and so does Fox’s standards and practices department.

What Fox didn’t say is that Saudi oil tycoon, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, owns 7 percent of News Corp. He is the largest shareholder outside the Murdoch family. That wouldn’t have anything to do with Fox’s reluctance to air an ad proposing to reduce expenditures on Middle-East oil, would it? Or is this just confusing the matter?


Neil Cavuto Romances Rupert Mudoch, Investors Get Screwed

Posted by on May 5, 2010 at 10:13 am. 3 Comments :

The News Corporation released their quarterly earnings yesterday after the market closed. On the surface there was good news as News Corp beat the estimates of analysts. So Rupert Murdoch visited his own studio to be interviewed by his employee, Neil Cavuto.

Cavuto introduced the segment with a bootlicking recitation of the financial powerhouse that is News Corp. It was a gloating exercise that portrayed News Corp as the savior of the economy and even attempted to recruit viewers to some sort of News Corp pep squad, suggesting that they…

“…count yourself maybe a News Corp booster. The parent company of this fine network, 20th Century Fox, HarperCollins, and on and on, reporting much, much, much, better than expected earnings in the latest period that dwarf well past some of the estimates in there.”

The problem is that, in this eleven minute interview (25% of his program), Cavuto and Murdoch glossed over the most important part of the earnings announcement, so far as investors are concerned – the outlook going forward. As it turns out, News Corp actually issued a warning that they would fail to meet earnings expectations in the next quarter. This information was divulged in the conference call with analysts, but Fox News viewers wouldn’t hear it. Consequently, if you were relying Fox for accurate reporting on the News Corp earnings, you would have lost a pile of money this morning as their stock plummeted six percent.

Watching this spectacle of Cavuto and Murdoch grinning and lying to viewers about the prospects for News Corp’s stock you can’t help but wonder if they crossed a line into deliberately misleading shareholders. Why wouldn’t they? Misleading their viewers is their core competency. If it isn’t weapons of mass destruction or death panels, it’s their stock performance. And when Cavuto got around to asking Murdoch what was driving the company’s unparalleled “success,” Murdoch detoured entirely away from economics to his political obsession:

“Well, as far as Fox News goes it’s very simple. It’s very powerful, it’s very good, and it’s very balanced. And everybody else, every newspaper other than ours, it may be an over-generalization, but by far the most newspapers, and certainly the other television networks, are sort of all on one side, the liberal side of anything. I think the population of this country is pretty worried about its direction and, you know, they turn to Fox News.”

See that? News Corp is successful because of the liberal media. Not because they gouged cable operators for higher subscriber fees and favorable channel placement. Not because of the one-time phenomenon of a little movie called Avatar. Not because of the monopolistic domination they enforce in media markets around the world. But I will agree with Murdoch on his last point, that the population of this country is pretty worried. However, that isn’t why they turn to Fox News, it’s BECAUSE they turned to Fox News. Anyone who watches Fox, and is foolish enough to believe what the see, is a prime candidate for an anxiety attack or an aneurysm.

It is also interesting that Murdoch conducted his interview with Cavuto on the Fox News Channel. Cavuto is also the anchor and Senior VP for Murdoch’s struggling Fox Business Network. But when Murdoch decided to make a television appearance to discuss his company’s earnings, he chose not to visit his own financial news network. Cavuto was reduced to playing the FNC tape on his FBN show. Does that say something about Murdoch’s commitment to FBN?


More Proof That No One Pays Attention To Fox News

Posted by on May 5, 2010 at 12:20 am. 1 Comments :

For several years now, Fox News has been trying to vilify the word “progressive” by using it disparagingly and associating it with people or policies they regard negatively.

It started with Bill O’Reilly making repeated references to what he called secular progressives. These were the folks he accused of waging a war on Christmas and weakening family values. They are the reason he became a Culture Warrior.

More recently, Glenn Beck has mounted a full-on assault against progressives, whom he has called a cancer on America. Virtually every episode of his Acute Paranoia Revue makes reference to one or another of his imaginary progressive bogeymen – from the classics like Woodrow Wilson, to the modern like SEIU and, of course, President Obama himself.

Pew WordsDespite all the firepower that Fox has devoted to this progressive bashing, America isn’t buying it. The Pew Research Center just released a study that asked respondents to say whether they had a positive or negative view of a variety of terms. About two thirds (68%) said that they have a positive reaction to the term “progressive.” That’s 16 percentage points higher than those who reacted positively to “capitalism.” Even a majority of Republicans (56%) have a positive impression of the curse of progress.

I wonder what Beck and O’Reilly would say if they were honest enough to even acknowledge that the survey exists. It would also be interesting to hear their response to the fact that 29% of Americans view “socialism” positively. On the not-particularly-surprising scale, 36% of Republican men like militias. That’s the highest favorable of any of the groups surveyed. It compares to just 21% of all respondents.

The bottom line is that Fox News may be exhausting themselves in their campaign to denigrate progressives and liberals and Democrats, but they are failing miserably as the nation proves to be smarter than the idiots at Fox had assumed. This is just their latest failure having previously been unable to thwart Democrats from taking control of Congress, winning the presidency, or passing health reform. So while they may make a lot of noise as they pump their propaganda into the atmosphere, they aren’t changing any minds. It’s rather comforting to know that instead of being effective and persuasive, they are just being annoying as hell. I can live with that.