Fox News vs Jon Stewart vs Politifact

Posted by on June 25, 2011 at 1:41 pm. 2 Comments :

Last week The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart appeared on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. The interview included a discussion of Fox’s well known conservative bias and disinformation. While noting that Fox’s Washington chief, Bill Sammon, dictated “marching orders” to the network’s anchors and reporters (a segment that Fox edited out of the television broadcast), Stewart remarked that “the most consistently misinformed? Fox. Fox viewers, consistently, every poll.”

Subsequently, the non-partisan fact-checkers at PolitiFact analyzed Stewart’s comment and concluded that it was false. This set off a flurry of activity in the blogosphere with lefties defending Stewart and righties hailing PolitiFact.

To be sure, there is room for debate on the matter of Stewart’s accuracy. Stewart himself accepted PolitiFact’s findings and apologized. But Media Matters made an excellent case refuting PolitiFact’s analysis and charging that they were making dissimilar comparisons. For instance, PolitiFact cited surveys that measured the civic knowledge of viewers. However, asking whether a viewer knows how many amendments there are to the Constitution is not the same asking whether the viewer believes that the health care bill contains “death panels.” The former is a civics lesson, the latter is misinformation.

One fact that is inarguable is that Fox is responsible for a great deal of misinformation. Politfact’s conclusion was strictly literal, holding Stewart accountable for saying specifically that “every poll” found Fox viewers the most misinformed. That may have been an exaggeration and, had Stewart said simply that many polls placed Fox viewers at or near the bottom of the pack, he would have been correct and PolitiFact would have agreed. On several points PolitiFact noted that…

  • Fox isn’t last on the list, although it’s close.
  • Once again, Fox News as a whole ranked fairly low among regularly used media outlets.
  • Fox clearly did the worst among the major news outlets.

After reporting PolitiFact’s findings, and apologizing, Stewart made a another attempt to illustrate the point he was originally making with Chris Wallace: that Fox misinforms their viewers, and they do so frequently. He used PolitiFact’s own research to make this point by enumerating some of the incidences where PolitiFact ruled against Fox News. It was a hilarious bit that itemized them in a rapid-fire fashion. As a public service I am reprinting them here, following the video, for those who wish to take their time to savor the irony:
  • Glenn Beck: “Less than 10 percent of Obama’s Cabinet appointees have worked in the private sector.” — False (December 2, 2009)
  • Steve Doocy: “White House Political Director once served as right-hand to ACORN chief.” — False (September 30, 2009)
  • Gretchen Carlson: “The Texas State Board of Education may eliminate references to Christmas and the Constitution in textbooks.” — A Pants on Fire! liar award (March 12, 2010)
  • PolitiFact’s 2010 Lie of the Year: “Health care reform is a government take-over of health care.” (December 16, 2010)
  • Glenn Beck: “The Muslim Brotherhood has openly stated they want to declare war on Israel.” — False (February 15, 2011)
  • Karl Rove: “American troops have never been under the formal control of another nation.” — False (March 29, 2011)
  • Brian Kilmeade: “Florida Gov. Rick Scott’s approval ratings are up.” — False (April 15, 2011)
  • Laura Ingraham: “The Massachusetts health care plan is wildly unpopular among state residents.” — False (May 16, 2011)
  • Sarah Palin: “There’s been more debt under Obama than all other presidents combined.” — False (June 1, 2011)
  • PolitiFact’s 2009 Lie of the Year: “Health care bill includes Death Panels” (December 18, 2009)
  • Kimberly Guilfoyle: “Cash for Clunkers will give government complete access to your home computer.” — False (August 3, 2009)
  • Sarah Palin: “Halting Gulf drilling costs $8 billion a day in imports.” — A “Pants on Fire!” liar award (June 3, 2011)
  • Sarah Palin: “Democrats plan largest tax increase in history.” — A “Pants on Fire!” liar award (August 4, 2010)
  • Bill O’Reilly: “Attorney General Eric Holder was involved in the dismissal of criminal charges against the New Black Panthers.” — False (July 23, 2010)
  • Sarah Palin: “Obama voted ‘present’ in the U.S. Senate quite often. ” — False (February 8, 2010)
  • Glenn Beck: “John Holdren proposed forced abortions and putting sterilants in drinking water.” — A “Pants on Fire!” liar award (July 29, 2009)
  • Glenn Beck: “Labor union president Andy Stern is the most frequent visitor at the White House.” — False (December 7, 2009)
  • Glenn Beck: “America is the only country without automatic citizenship upon birth.” — False (June 19, 2009)
  • Bill O’Reilly: “O’Reilly never called Dr. George Tiller a baby killer, only reporting what others called him.” — False (June 5, 2009)
  • Bill O’Reilly: “Only Fox News picked up that Anita Dunn said Mao was one of her favorite philosophers.” — False (October 27, 2009)
  • Bill O’Reilly: “Nobody at Fox News ever said you’re going to jail if you don’t buy health insurance.” — A “Pants on Fire!” liar award (April 27, 2010)

Is that misinformed enough for y’all?

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Fox Nation: Obama Has A Big Problem With White Women

Posted by on June 23, 2011 at 4:07 pm. 11 Comments :

Conservatives have lately been escalating their umbrage at being called racist. I keep telling them that the best way to get people to stop calling you racist is to stop being racists. But do they listen?

Today on Fox Nation there is a featured story with the headline: “Obama Has A Big Problem With White Women.” Could they have come up with a more racially charged banner with which to introduce a story on a public opinion poll? This framing deliberately recalls the worst of a hate-filled era characterized by irrational fears of marauding black predators stalking innocent and vulnerable Caucasian virgins.

Fox Nation

What makes this even worse is that the article to which the Fox Nationalists linked was an Associated Press report on presidential approval polling that cited numerous reasons for recent declines. Among those were that support from women declined about 9%. However, support from independents declined 19%. The AP’s headline had nothing to do with women, reading: “Economic worries pose new snags for Obama.” The main focus of the article pointed to issues like jobs, housing, and gas prices, as the the primary factors contributing to weakening poll numbers. So Fox had to purposefully stretch the story to fit their predetermined racist theme.

They could have borrowed the economic angle that the AP used in their headline. They could have noted that independents were leaving the Obama camp, which would have been more correct because more of them were leaving. They could even have broadened the angle to attribute the polling slump to women generally. But, no. The issue was white women. I’m just a little surprised that Fox didn’t go with this headline: “Obama Polling: Where Da White Women At?”

Fox Nation, in citing the AP, also conveniently left out that…

“…16 months before the November 2012 elections, Obama also is perceived favorably by 56 percent of respondents and 52 percent approve of his job performance overall. Despite the overwhelming sentiment that the national economy is in poor shape, more than three of five of those polled rated the financial situation of their own households as good. And, echoing previous findings, about three-quarters of the survey participants said it is unrealistic to expect noticeable results on the economy in one term.”

These numbers are not particularly bad. And that last statistic is pretty remarkable. That’s about 75% who say that Obama should not be regarded negatively for not having repaired, in a single term, the titanic destruction done to our nation by the previous administration and GOP policies. And since Republicans have been throwing up obstacles to everything the President has proposed from Inauguration Day on, we’re lucky to see the progress that we have.

In light of this, the Fox Nationalists deemed it necessary to twist the story into something that would harm the President and stir up vile, anachronistic fears. And their implementation of that spin could not be more offensive. This is not the way to get open-minded, tolerant people to stop calling you racist.


Under God Or Under Government? GOP Senator Bullies TV Network

Posted by on June 23, 2011 at 10:05 am. 12 Comments :

Talk about your big government. Republican Senator Dan Coats of Indiana is applying strong-arm tactics to intimidate a television network for not being sufficiently deferential to God.

The controversy stems from an NBC Sports opening sequence to the U.S. Open Golf Championship. The segment, intended to be a moment of patriotism, included parts of the Pledge of Allegiance. As is routine with television promos, editing of the segment was performed due to time constraints. As a result the words “under God” were omitted from the segment.

Bear in mind that this was not a religious program. It was not a news program. It was not an educational program. It was not a socially significant drama or even a “very special episode” of an otherwise vapid sitcom. This was a short slice of promotional tripe introducing a sporting event. Nevertheless, the martinets of virtue on the right were aghast at this affront to their Lord.

The outrage exhibited by the religious zealots is not really a matter of much concern. They are entitled to express their opinions and advance their view of how religious issues are presented in the media. The problem here is that now a United States Senator has injected himself, and consequently the weight of the government, into this debate in a wholly inappropriate and offensive manner.

Senator Coats, in a flurry of self-righteous indignation, has dashed off a letter to the president and CEO of NBC, Stephen Burke. The tone of the letter is repugnant and intimidating, as Coats seeks to pressure the network into compliance with his religious views. Coats writes…

“I am writing to express my serious concern, and the concerns of the Hoosiers I represent, regarding NBC’s decision to air an edited version of the national Pledge of Allegiance not once but twice during the June 19, 2011 broadcast of the U.S. Open golf tournament. In the opening of this broadcast, NBC aired video showing schoolchildren reciting the Pledge, but omitted the words ‘under God, indivisible’ during the segment. Moments later, NBC again aired an edited version of the Pledge, this time omitting the words ‘one nation, under God, indivisible.'”
[…]
“I am disturbed with NBC’s decision to modify the Pledge for this broadcast. I understand that NBC acknowledged its error at a later point in Sunday’s broadcast, and has since stated that this action was a ‘bad decision’ made by a small group of individuals. Nonetheless, I remain concerned that such a decision to selectively edit the Pledge could be made in the first place. As a result, I would like to request that NBC provide me with a full written account of its decision-making process in this matter, including an explanation of why these specific words were omitted, and what actions NBC intends to take to prevent such inappropriate edits from occurring in the future.”

It’s bad enough that NBC was cowed into making an unnecessary apology, but under what authority is Coats requesting that NBC be prevailed upon to provide him with a written account of their decision-making process? What business is it of his, or the U.S. government, how a private business decides to edit a program for entertainment purposes? Perhaps he would also like an explanation for why “American Idol” is elevating secular pop singers to deity status? Has he not heard the commandment that “you shall not make for yourself an idol?” Maybe he would like to force CBS to develop a new show called “Creationism” to counter the blasphemous effects of “The Big Bang Theory?”

And where does Coats get off demanding that NBC tell him what actions they intend to take to “prevent such inappropriate edits from occurring in the future?” Who is he to decide that the edits were inappropriate? Isn’t that the job of the producers, writers, and marketers of the private enterprise making the program? Is Coats implying that there is some government imposed prohibition to airing this, or some similar segment, in the future?

This is government intrusion on media of the most heinous sort. It is trampling on the feet of the First Amendment. This over-reach should be denounced by everyone from religious freedom advocates to Tea Party proponents of “getting government off our backs.” (Although I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for the Tea Party to demonstrate their moral consistency).

To see a person in a position of power abusing it like this is a chilling spectacle. Sen. Coates needs to study the Constitution and refrain from imposing his religious beliefs on private enterprise. The Pledge of Allegiance is not mandated by law to be recited on any television program and there is no legal stipulation that it never be edited – Thank God!


Apple Seeks Patent For Censorship Device

Posted by on June 22, 2011 at 7:51 pm. 4 Comments :

Do you want to prevent cell phones from recording video at concerts or birthday parties or public protests? There’s an app for that (almost). From Tim Karr at FreePress:

Late last week reports uncovered a plan by Apple, manufacturer of the iPhone, to patent technology that can detect when people are using their phone cameras and shut them down.

Really? They can do that?

Apple says this technology was intended to stop people from recording video at live concerts, which should worry the creative commons crowd. But a remote “kill switch” has far more sinister applications in the hands of repressive governments. And it further raises concerns about the power new media companies hold over our right to connect and communicate.

No kidding! Karr goes on to list examples of the kind of potential abuses that could be imposed. He notes how this technology would have prevented many of the now iconic episodes of citizen journalism from around the world: Tehran, Tahrir Square, Madison, Wisconsin, etc.

But the best way to illustrate the chilling ramifications of this abhorrent technology is to imagine how you would feel if you pointed your camera at something and, through the viewfinder, read a message that said “Sorry, you may not photograph this.” Imagine extending this technology to other devices in order to prohibit phone conversations, DVD players, and even Internet connections.

This opens the door to censorship on a scale never before contemplated. If corporations like Apple, and their co-conspirators, are ever able to control the means by which people can document the world around them, we are in BIG trouble – as citizens, as activists, and as artists.

FreePress has a petition calling on Steve Jobs to Stop The Kill Switch. Please add your name to it.


Sarah Palin Quits Bus Tour (?) And Slams Fox News

Posted by on June 22, 2011 at 4:31 pm. 2 Comments :

Who was it who said that Sarah Palin is an idiot? Oh yeah, everybody! Including her boss Roger Ailes, the CEO of Fox News. And I don’t think that Palin’s latest tweet is going to change Ailes’ mind. Responding to media reports that she had bailed out of her bus tour early, Palin tweeted:


The never-ceasing-to-amaze media to which she is referring is her own employer, Fox News. She even links to the story as reported on the Fox News web site under the headline: “Report: Palin Ends ‘One Nation’ Bus Tour of America.”

“As Republicans breathlessly await a decision by Sarah Palin on whether she will throw her hat into the 2012 presidential race, the former Alaska governor appears to be taking some downtime.”

Since she works for Fox you would think that they could just call her and ask if the bus trip is still in progress or if, like her governorship, she quit this halfway through as well. It is easy to assume that Palin has abandoned the adventure since her SarahPAC website, where she had been chronicling the trip, hasn’t had an update for two weeks and she hightailed it back to Alaska.

Palin could have directed her ire at RealClearPolitics, who appear to be the first to report on the trip’s stalling. And while Fox cited itself in their byline, they did reference reporting from RCP. But Palin hauled off on Fox News itself for some reason. Is it because they have had a falling out? Is it because she is fair and balanced? Or is it because she is an idiot? We report, you decide.


Keith Olbermann’s New Countdown Premieres to Strong Ratings

Posted by on June 22, 2011 at 3:42 pm. 9 Comments :

Monday night marked the return of Keith Olbermann to television. His new program on Current TV was closely modeled on the old MSNBC version. What everybody has been waiting to find out is whether or not his previous audience would find him farther up the dial.

Well, they did. The new Countdown pulled in 179,000 viewers in the key 25-54 demographic. Of course that is not as much as he was drawing at MSNBC, but Current is in only about two-thirds the number of homes (60 million vs. 95 million). Nevertheless, Olbermann drew in excess of two-thirds of his prior viewers. And he handily beat CNN’s “In the Arena” with Eliot Spitzer (89,000).

More importantly, Olbermann increased Current’s average audience for the time period by 600%. That’s significant because the move to Current has always recognized the need to build the network’s audience and distribution. It is interesting to note that when Olbermann began on MSNBC they were in roughly the same number of homes as Current is in now. Olbermann was a key factor in putting MSNBC on the map, and Current is hoping that he will do the same for them.

It’s important, however, to keep these numbers in perspective. They represent a single day of programming – the premiere day. That could mean that subsequent days may fall off. Or it could mean that fans who haven’t yet found the homestead may do so and the numbers will rise. The only numbers that will have any real meaning are those released after the first year so that a longer-term trend can be observed. And in that time Current promises other schedule changes that will have an impact on future performance.

Today Olbermann and his fans can enjoy this morsel, but the main course has not yet been served. So be patient and stay hungry.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

How To Be A Media Magnet: Cutting Through The Clutter

Posted by on June 22, 2011 at 11:11 am. 4 Comments :

The state of contemporary journalism is widely regarded as defective by consumers and critics representing a broad diversity of opinion. It seems that the media has no constituency defending its professional lethargy and its reliance on sensationalism and melodrama.

The past few weeks have provided comprehensive instructions on how to be an utterly frivolous and ineffective news industry. When Americans are desperate for information about pressing issues concerning jobs, the economy, health and Medicare, and national security, they are left wanting as the major news enterprises dump loads of salacious gossip, celebrity gaffes, and lurid tales of criminal miscreants. Just trying to be heard over the caterwaul of crapola that passes for news is an Olympian feat. If it isn’t a lewd lawmaker (Anthony Weiner) flooding the airwaves, it’s a murderous mom (Casey Anthony), one of thousands of murderers, but the only one that seems to garner any attention.

Recent surveys have shown that the media is not covering the issues that the people are most interested in. The audience has made its preference clear: they want substance, not sleaze. But the media tone-deafness was demonstrated exquisitely when all three cable news networks cut away from Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic Leader of the House of Representatives, after she informed them that she would only be addressing questions regarding jobs and the economy, and not Rep. Weiner. As is becoming routine, a non-news personality summed it up best by playing a video clip of CNN’s Wolf Blitzer expressing his reluctance to cover the titillating trivialities of the day:

Wolf Blitzer: We’ve covered these kinds of stories, It’s not a pleasure for us. It’s not something we look forward to. I’d much rather be discussing economic issues, jobs, the future of Medicare, national security issues, than talking about this.

Jon Stewart: [Incredulously] What’s stopping you?!

In an effort to enhance the public’s access to the stories that actually impact their lives, I am offering this tutorial on how to get appropriate coverage of the critical matters that face our nation. It is not enough to be brilliantly articulate about a position or to make a coherent case for a policy. You must grab the attention away from the media whores and their enablers in the press corps. Here is how to do just that in a handy shareable infographic guide:


Now get out there and make some news.


Van Jones To Fox News: Cease And Desist!

Posted by on June 20, 2011 at 11:18 pm. 7 Comments :

Lawyers for Van Jones have taken a step that ought to have been taken long ago – by numerous people, for hundreds of offenses. Jones’ representatives have notified Fox News that that he will no longer tolerate the lies and defamation that they have engaged in for the past couple of years. They have sent Fox a cease and desist letter and they appear to mean business:

“For nearly two years, on programs broadcast on and by the Fox News Network, a series of sensational and inflammatory charges have been made against Mr. Jones. Each of these statements is demonstrably, unequivocally, and absolutely false, and each is clearly defamatory as set forth below.”

The letter then proceeds to enumerate some of the instances wherein Fox maligned Jones by falsely asserting that he is a communist, a Marxist, etc. Additionally, Jones was accused of being a revolutionary, a convicted felon, a 9/11 Truther, a cop killer, and a racist. Just this morning, in a response to Jones’ challenge to debate, Glenn Beck portrayed Jones as anti-American and an advocate of “The violent overthrow for a Marxist government.”

All of these charges are false and injurious, and the letter gives Fox until June 24, to indicate their intention to “cease and desist from further dissemination” and to broadcast a retraction. Despite the documentary evidence to support an action against Fox, I do not expect them to comply. That’s not their style. They will dodge and weave and resort to histrionic counterattacks.

In February of 2010, Jones assumed a forgiving stance, telling Beck that “I love you brother.” I wrote at the time that I didn’t approve because all Beck would do is continue to harass and lie about him. Now Jones knows what I knew then. He told Ed Schultz today that he has tried to be a “turn the other cheek” kind of guy, but that he only has four cheeks and he’s running out. He noted that Beck has continued to stalk him even two years after he left the White House, and that he’s had enough.


It took you long enough, Van. In the meantime, Jones can use this legal maneuver, and his debate challenge, to draw attention to his new American Dream Movement, details of which will be released at an event in New York on Thursday, June 23. So stay tuned. And hopefully this will inspire others who have been disparaged by Fox to step up and seek legal remedies.


Glenn Beck Is Afraid To Debate Van Jones

Posted by on June 20, 2011 at 12:09 pm. 2 Comments :

On Saturday at the Netroots Nation conference, keynote speaker Van Jones
spoke about the new movement to Rebuild the American Dream. In the course of his remarks he had a message for his old adversary, Glenn Beck:

Jones: “I issue a personal challenge to my beloved brother Glenn Beck. I will debate you anytime, anywhere, at any point. I’ll give you an hour, you give me five minutes … you got one week left before your show goes off. My phone is ringing. Call me! Call me, Glenn Beck!”

I hope Van is not waiting by the phone. There is about as much chance of this happening as there is of Michele Bachmann french kissing Rachel Maddow. Even though Beck is a relentless self-promoter and this debate could earn millions as a cable on-demand premium feature, Beck will decline. In fact, he already has:

Beck: “There’s really not anything to talk about until you’re honest and you say you want the overthrow of the government as you have in the past. The violent overthrow for a Marxist government. When you’re honest, then people can have a debate.”

That’s like me saying that I won’t debate Beck until he is honest and admits that he is a racist who would like to assassinate that ni**er in the White House. It’s simply a dodge to insure that he will never debate Jones. It has nothing to do with whether Jones is honest (he is) or whether he’s a communist (he’s not). Beck’s sole reason for dodging a debate is because he has a mortal fear of anyone who might engage him with intelligence, passion, and facts. That is Van Jones. And Beck is a quivering lump of cowardice who knows he would be taken apart were he to accept the challenge.

Jones is now escalating the challenge he delivered at Netroots. With the help of MoveOn.org, Jones has produced a commercial that he plans to place during Beck’s show on Fox News.

I’m a little conflicted about whether he should actually pay Fox to air this ad. Ordinarily I would not even entertain the notion of contributing to Fox by purchasing ad time from them. However, in this case the ad would be placed on a show that has already been canceled, so it wouldn’t be helping to advance the show’s future prospects. And this might be the only way that Beck’s viewers would ever learn that such a challenge has been issued, and that their frightened Messiah turned tail and ran away. Is this what Beck means by Restoring Courage?


Has Chris Wallace Ever Watched Jon Stewart?

Posted by on June 19, 2011 at 4:11 pm. 29 Comments :

Consider this article the flip side of my November 2010 article titled: Has Jon Stewart Ever Watched Chris Wallace? At that time I criticized Stewart for praising Wallace as a credible journalist despite the evidence to the contrary, which I enumerated in the article.

In this interview of Stewart on Wallace’s Fox News Sunday, Stewart continued to extol Wallace’s credibility even as Wallace demonstrated that he had none. However, Stewart was somewhat more on point distinguishing the rabid partisanship of Fox News from other media. Wallace opened the interview with a relevant and insightful quote by Stewart describing Fox News as…

“…a relentless agenda-driven 24 hour news opinion propaganda delivery system.”

So far so good. Then Wallace asked…

“Are you willing to say the same thing about the mainstream media – about ABC, CBS, NBC, Washington Post, New York Times?”

To this Stewart responded with an unequivocal “No.” He later elaborated saying that the bias of much of the media is toward “sensationalism, conflict, and laziness,” rather than liberalism. That was certainly borne out by the recent coverage that fixated on a liberal congressman’s adventures in sexting. Wallace is as oblivious to the mainstream media’s frequent bias against liberals as he is to Stewart’s regular satirizing of them.

When Wallace suggested that Stewart’s comparison of the editing techniques used in a Sarah Palin video and an advertisement for a Herpes medication was political, Stewart pointedly told Wallace, “You’re insane!” But Wallace was utterly incapable of comprehending the difference between the mockery of a person or a practice. It is the same distinction that many people miss with regard to The Daily Show. It is not, in fact, a program of political satire. It is media satire, and to the extent that it addresses politics, it is almost always with respect to how it is covered in the press.

For much of the interview Wallace attempted to portray Stewart as a “political player,” while Stewart maintained that he was, first and foremost, a comedian. In Wallace’s view there is no difference between what Stewart does and what Wallace himself does. I would say that at least one difference is that, while people are laughing with Stewart, they are laughing at Wallace. And when Wallace said that he thinks Stewart is an idealistic, partisan, activist, Stewart responded that “That’s the soup you swim in,” implying that Wallace simply can’t see it differently because of the partisanship that envelops Wallace’s perspective.

So far so good. Then Stewart referenced “ideological regimes” that get “marching orders” and Wallace asked…

“Then how do you explain me? Do you think I get marching orders?”

And here is where Stewart stumbled saying…

“I think that you are here, in some respects, to bring a credibility and an integrity to an organization that might not otherwise have it without your presence.”

Stewart is right, of course, about Fox’s lack of credibility, but he completely missed the fact that Fox is well known for issuing marching orders to their reporters. Former Fox News VP John Moody used to do so in his “Morning Memos,” and current Fox Washington Bureau chief, Bill Sammon, has repeatedly issued directives to cover stories with a specific bias. For example, he told his staff to use the phrase “government-run health care” instead of “Public Option” after establishing that public option tested better among voters. Likewise, he prohibited talk of global warming without disclaimers that there was disagreement about the theory, despite the fact that every legitimate climate scientist agrees that climate change is occurring and it is caused by humans.

Stewart should have been able to counter Wallace’s query on marching orders. Instead he gave Wallace a wholly undeserved compliment. How can Stewart regard Wallace as fair and balanced when Wallace is on record saying that, on the whole, he agrees with Sean Hannity? And where is Wallace’s integrity when he responds to Stewart’s assertion that news consumers are disappointed by saying that…

“I don’t think our viewers are the least bit disappointed with us. I think our viewers think, “Finally!” they are getting somebody who tells the other side of the story.”

That is a brazen admission that Fox’s purpose is to be biased and take sides on the way news stories are told. That quote should be chiseled into the facade of the Fox News headquarters building in New York, and it should settle, once and for all, the argument as to whether Fox News is biased.

But Stewart did get in a final dig that really sums up the role Fox plays in modern media when he noted that Fox has “the most consistently misinformed viewers.” That was a pretty gutsy thing to say to the Fox viewers who will be watching this. [Note: Stewart must have forgotten that his own viewers were rated the most knowledgeable]. Wallace didn’t even bother to rebut the point, instead he showed a vulgar and unrelated clip from a celebrity roast on Comedy Central and implied that Stewart had something to do with it. That was just a cheap shot that landed with a thud. More to the point is the fact that Stewart’s Daily Show is more popular than Fox News. Let Wallace deal with that.

[Update] I just swapped in the video above. This video contains portions of the interview that were cut out of the on-air version. Some notable segments that didn’t make it to air include Stewart asking Wallace if he “think[s] that Fox News is exactly the ideological equivalent of NBC News?” In response, Wallace said that “I think we’re the counterweight. I think they have a liberal agenda, and I think that we tell the other side of the story.” That’s another confession by Wallace that Fox is deliberately biased in a partisan way.

Also cut out was Stewart mentioning Bill Sammon’s emails, and the incident when all three networks cut away from Nancy Pelosi after she said she would be commenting on jobs and Medicare, but not Weiner. I wonder why Fox didn’t want their viewers to hear these segments.

[Update II] Jon Stewart has addressed the concerns of critics (and some commenters here) regarding the PolitiFact assessment of his remarks on Fox’s proclivity for misinformation. He notes that Fox has earned PolitiFact’s “Lie of the Year” award for two years running. But that aint all. Here is his informative and hilarious smackdown: