Fox News’ Neil Cavuto Exposes GOP Camapign Ad Lie

Posted by on March 2, 2012 at 12:33 pm. 9 Comments :

A new campaign ad for Rhode Island congressional hopeful Barry Hinckley employs Hinckley’s adorable five year old son, Hudson, delivering a lecture on America’s debt crisis.

As it turns out, Hudson is just another GOP hack fronting for the ultra-wealthy power brokers of the right. There is obviously something unsavory in Hudson’s past because his Google history prior to 2006 has been completely scrubbed from the Internet.

Thank goodness for Fox News and Neil Cavuto. In a contentious interview, Cavuto got the devious toddler to admit that the positions he took in the ad were nothing but political hokum designed expressly for the purpose of advancing the electoral prospects of a member of his family (his father).

It remains to be seen what the impact will be to Hinckley’s campaign now that his primary spokesman has confessed publicly that he does not believe the debt crisis assertions in his fathers ad. Equally damaging to the campaign may be Hinckley’s answer to Cavuto asking whether or not Hudson knew what he was doing. Hinckley responded that “He sure did. We talked about it for a long time.” This suggests that Hinckley’s budget policy is so simplistic that a five year old can understand it. No one wonder Hinckley is running as a Republican.

Further evidence of Hinkley’s strong GOP credentials is that, when asked what he wants to do when he grows up, Hudson said that he “wants to be in a war and save the country.” What better answer for a future representative of the hawkish GOP that is presently trying to make little Hudson’s dream come true by inciting a new with Iran? Here’s hoping, for Hudson’s sake, that they fail.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Rush Limbaugh Calls Out The Bomb Squad

Posted by on March 2, 2012 at 9:44 am. 2 Comments :

Reporting from the deepest trenches of elitist One-Percent-Land, local news sources have disclosed that the bomb squad was dispatched to rescue Rush Limbaugh from a lighted plaque of Abraham Lincoln.

Threats against public figures really ought not to be made light of. There are very real and troubling risks very dangerous and disturbed individuals. However, the interesting part of this story was not so much that a suspicious box was delivered to the Limbaugh lair as this revelation:

“After being delivered Thursday afternoon it was X-rayed by staff at Limbaugh’s home — as is procedure for all mail delivered to the residence.”

So Rush has an X-ray machine at his home and uses it to scan all the mail he receives. That’s funny because there has been some attention paid lately to the alleged paranoia of Democrats and progressive citizens. Apparently that is a mockable character flaw when the left is accused of it, but nobody on the right thinks twice when one of their own is found to be scanning everything the mailman delivers.

I don’t really have a problem with Rush taking every precaution to insure his safety. After all, his rhetorical bomb-throwing often incites harsh responses from the innocent people he vilifies. For instance, in the past few days Rush has been castigating a student, Sandra Fluke, for speaking out about the Republican attempts to deny women necessary health care coverage. He has referred to her as a “slut” and a “prostitute” just because she was exercising her First Amendment rights. When she took offense to his remarks, on behalf of all women, Rush went ballistic, as did his pals at Fox News who posted this article on the Fox Nation web site with a recording of Rush’s harangue: Limbaugh Takes Blowtorch To Fluke ‘Slut’ Controversy.

Rush’s retort was a spittle-flecked tirade that affirmed his original insults and repeatedly misrepresented Fluke’s position on the issue. He deliberately lied to his listeners saying that Fluke was advocating that the government pay for her contraceptives. In fact, she is only asking that private insurance companies offer coverage, pretty much the same way they do for Limbaugh’s Viagra.

The tone that the debate has taken on the right is decidedly hostile. Yet conservatives are the ones making a big deal out of phony threats and calling out the actual bomb squads. These rightist chicken-littles should adjust their attitudes. And they should also lay off of people like David Brock of Media Matters for hiring a security guard. No doubt he has received his share of threats from people who object to documenting the actual repulsive things they say – like this latest screed from El Rushbo.


BigBeyond: Andrew Breitbart Dead At 43

Posted by on March 1, 2012 at 10:06 am. 11 Comments :


The pugnacious proprietor of the conservative collection of “Big” blogs (BigGovernment, BigJournalism, etc.), Andrew Breitbart, passed away last night while walking near his home in Los Angeles. At 43 years old this can be described as nothing less than shocking and a tragic blow to his family, including four young children.

I never met Breitbart but, in some distant respect, I knew him via his work and my study of his consuming mission to assault and/or reform the American media. We have that in common. However, it is a shallow connection as we probably would disagree on every matter of media and politics that might arise. Breitbart wrote in his autobiography, “Righteous Indignation” (See my review here), that…

“The biggest point I wanted to make was one I’m still making: Hollywood is more important than Washington. It can’t be overstated how important this message is: the pop culture matters.”

That was a view that he carried into almost every aspect of his work. He was a fierce practitioner of publicity stunts and relished opportunities to perform a sort of media jiu jitsu wherein the force of the press was deviously turned against itself. Who can forget the hijacking of the press conference that was called by former congressman Anthony Weiner by Breitbart, who commandeered the podium prior to Weiner’s arrival? Breitbart took questions from the assembled reporters as if it were his own press conference.


I originally created this image to portray Breitbart negatively, but today let it stand for what the character ultimately represented: Courage.

There is no cause of death being reported at this time, however, Breitbart was known to have heart problems. If true, there is a lesson here in that Breitbart was also well known for his hard-drinking lifestyle, which is not recommended for people with bad hearts. Our health is a treasure that we should all take care to preserve because our lives belong to more than just ourselves. Ask Breitbart’s widow, Susie. If you drink excessively, or smoke tobacco, or subsist on junk food, this would be a good time to reassess your priorities. You owe it to every person that loves you.

On days like this the animus of adversaries is subordinate to the reflection on a broader fate that all of us share. Breitbart’s passing is a deeply personal and somber event for those who cared about him, and their grief is deserving of respect. There will always be another day to lock horns in the battles we wage over the issues we mortals regard as significant, but significance, as it turns out, can be relative. For now I send my condolences and best wishes to his family, and hope that they can soon manage to find more gratitude for the time they had together than grief in their loss.

[Update] Michelle Malkin (among others) is making a fuss about some random “lefty” Tweets that are less than civil about the news of Breitbart’s passing. It is unfortunate (and disgusting) that she is exploiting this family’s tragedy for her political agenda. I don’t want to get into a debate with her, but when 99% of the left has been respectful, including Shirley Sherrod, David Shuster, Josh Marshall (TPM), Eric Boehlert (MMfA), and more, Malkin’s grousing is just plain sick. And besides, she might want to look back and see how Breitbart dealt with the death of another public figure, Ted Kennedy:

And he later Tweeted “Why do you grant a BULLY special status upon his death?” Breitbart is fortunate that his critics have more grace than he did. And Malkin, and the other rightist tools trying to turn this into a partisan brawl, should STFU. At least for a day or two.


Is ACORN Pimp James O’Keefe A Felon And A Rapist?

Posted by on March 1, 2012 at 3:33 am. 5 Comments :

James O'KeefeThere is a news report today that is raising the question of whether or not crocumentary videographer James O’Keefe is a felon and a rapist. The question has risen from the announcement by O’Keefe that he is suing the CurrentTV network, Keith Olbermann, and David Shuster over remarks allegedly made about allegations that he is a felon and a rapist.

What we already know about O’Keefe is that he is a liar and a convicted criminal. The videos he has produced over the past couple of years have invariably been proven to have been deceptively edited to reflect negatively on his victims.

He misrepresented himself in his ACORN videos as having entered ACORN offices dressed outlandishly as a pimp. It was later revealed that he never did so. He also cut out segments of his videos that showed his victims challenging him and he failed to disclose that some of his victims had even reported him to the police.

His NPR sting was so incompetently constructed that Glenn Beck’s web site (yes, that Glenn Beck) took it apart. The altered video was again selectively edited and this time even included replacing audio in parts with audio from other parts.

Then there is affair where O’Keefe attempted to lure a CNN reporter into a juvenile and salacious prank aboard his “love boat” that was designed to embarrass the reporter and the network. This stunt was so misguided that his own accomplice blew the whistle because she couldn’t go through with it.

His most recent escapade involved an attempt to demonstrate the ease with which one can cast a fraudulent vote. However, the only fraudulent activity he revealed was that of his own activities. He utterly failed to show that any voting fraud had or could occur using the methods he employed. But the use of those methods as captured in his video may have been illegal.

So now O’Keefe has filed a lawsuit alleging that he was been defamed by CurrentTV, Olbermann, and Shuster. The complaint cites instances of his having allegedly been referred to as a felon and a rapist.

The felon charge stems from his conviction in Louisiana for shenanigans in the office of Senator Mary Landrieu. O’Keefe and his cohorts entered the office dressed as telephone repairmen and asked to inspect the Senator’s phones. They were subsequently arrested and O’Keefe pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor of entering a federal building under false pretenses. So technically he is not a felon, which Shuster acknowledged and corrected. But he is still a convicted criminal and only avoided a felony record by pleading to a lesser crime.

The rape charge is a misstatement of events wherein O’Keefe was accused by a colleague of harassment in a case that included allegations of possible drugging. The case was dismissed due to jurisdictional issues, but could be reinstated in another court.

So was O’Keefe facing a rape charge? No, he was facing harassment charges. Was he a convicted felon? Not quite, but almost. And for this he is filing a defamation lawsuit. The man who has taken defamation to new levels of repulsiveness is so incensed at these affronts that he is willing to drag himself through the mud and remind everyone of his disgusting behavior.

Can you just picture his testimony? Can you see him on the stand asserting that he is not a felon because he was only convicted of a misdemeanor in a federal office? Can you hear his defense saying that he never faced rape charges, just charges that he held a woman against her will, possibly drugged her, and then threatened her and disparaged her in words and video?

The documents filed with the court go into lurid detail of his encounter with a female colleague and his criminal activity in Sen. Landrieu’s office. If anything, reading the entire complaint proves to me that there could not have been any defamation that was injurious to his reputation because his reputation is that of a scoundrel. To this day, the only persons ever convicted of any wrongdoing as a result of any of the video pranks O’Keefe has conducted are O’Keefe and his accomplices. And there is still other litigation against him pending.

Does O’Keefe really think that he has any chance of prevailing in court where he has to prove that the allegedly injurious statements were made with actual malice? Some of his complaints are merely misstatements, such as the charge that he was on parole. In fact, he was (and is) on probation, and it is highly unlikely that O’Keefe can prove that the use of the word “parole” was deliberate and intended to due him harm. Yet he is taking an aggressive stance in response to these trivialities despite the fact that doing so only exposes him to more bad publicity and coverage of his disgraceful antics and tawdry character. In a statement to his pals at Andrew Breitbart’s BigJournalism blog, O’Keefe said…

“I welcome criticism and even misguided hatred. But, if they call me a felon, if they call me a rapist, or any other disgusting, libelous, ridiculous thing, I will bring them into a courtroom, I will depose them, I will get access to their e-mails. I don’t care how many golden statues they have, I don’t care how many Emmies, Pulitzers they have. We will bring them to justice.”

That’s a fair amount of pseudo-bravado for someone who couldn’t even measure up to Glenn Beck’s ethical standards. But the material revelation in his statement is that he actually welcomes all of this, misguided hatred and all. He clearly enjoys being called a felon and a rapist. And he doesn’t even care if you’re Tom Hanks or Meryl Streep. The orgasmic thrill he gets just thinking about depositions and access to your email is palpable. So go ahead and call O’Keefe a felon and a rapist. It’s what he yearns for. And although he may not be a felon and a rapist now, I have every confidence that he will someday achieve his life’s ambition.


Fox Nation vs. Reality: America’s Founding Principles

Posted by on February 29, 2012 at 1:38 pm. 4 Comments :

What is it with conservatives who purport to revere American history but have virtually no knowledge or understanding of it? From GOP candidates who think that the Revolutionary War began in New Hampshire, to Republicans who reject marriage equality, to Supreme Court justices who think corporations are people. The right has fetishized the Constitution and canonized its authors, but they repeatedly show disdain for both through their ignorance.

The Fox Nationalists routinely abuse the American legacy by misrepresenting it and twisting its meaning in pursuit of their partisan agenda. This morning they ran an item that unfairly hammers President Obama with an accusatory headline saying “Obama Attacks America’s Founding Principles in Detroit.”

The basis for their assertion is an article that misquotes the President’s remarks to the UAW in Detroit yesterday. The article was originally published by CNS News, a subsidiary of the ultra-rightist Media Research Center, and slams Obama for allegedly saying that “trying to climb to the very top” is only about “greed.” But the President’s message was more than that. What he actually said was…

“America’s not just looking out for yourself, it’s not just about greed, it’s not just about trying to climb to the very top and keep everybody else down. When our assembly lines grind to a halt, we work together and we get them going again. When somebody else falters, we try to give them a hand up, because we know we’re all in it together.”

That part about not “keep[ing] everybody else down” was a significant omission. As is the part where Obama says that “we’re all in it together.” The notion of collective destiny is something that conservatives have profound trouble grasping. It’s why they hate unions and community organizing. However, another great American had something to say in this vein, and he knew a thing or two about America’s founding principles:

Ben Franklin

How long will it be before Newt Gingrich or Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh rips Benjamin Franklin apart for being a socialist Alinskyite?


Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Koch Brothers Whine About Obama Fund Raising Letter

Posted by on February 28, 2012 at 1:03 pm. 9 Comments :

For a couple of multi-billionaires with virtually unlimited resources who vigorously engage in hardball political activity, the Koch brothers are an awfully lily-livered pair of wusses.

The Koch brothers created and bankrolled the Tea Party, an AstroTurf, corporate funded, pseudo-movement, that incessantly disparages President Obama as a communist, a Nazi, a Muslim, an atheist, a Kenyan, and a Manchurian agent whose mission is to deliver America to its enemies and/or Satan. The Kochs are also the money behind numerous think tanks and organizations whose purpose is to destroy the presidency through propaganda or outright manipulation and suppression of the vote (such as the American Legislative Exchange Council).

Despite their prominent role in attacking the President, the Kochs are wetting their britches because the Obama reelection team mentions them in a fund raising letter. The exchange looks something like this:

Obama Fund Raising Letter: In just about 24 hours, Mitt Romney is headed to a hotel ballroom to give a speech sponsored by Americans for Prosperity, a front group founded and funded by the Koch brothers. Those are the same Koch brothers whose business model is to make millions by jacking up prices at the pump, and who have bankrolled Tea Party extremism and committed $200 million to try to destroy President Obama before Election Day.

Koch Response: [I]t is an abuse of the President’s position and does a disservice to our nation for the President and his campaign to criticize private citizens simply for the act of engaging in their constitutional right of free speech about important matters of public policy. The implication in that sort of attack is obvious: dare to criticize the President’s policies and you will be singled out and personally maligned by the President and his campaign in an effort to chill free speech and squelch dissent. […] the inference is that you would prefer that citizens who disagree with the President and his policies refrain from voicing their own viewpoint. Clearly, that’s not the way a free society should operate.

Apparently the way a free society should operate, according to the Kochs, is that critics of the administration are permitted vast leeway to spew any and all slander that they like, but if the other side seeks to respond they are guilty of squelching dissent. That’s not debate. That’s a one-sided harangue. And it becomes media propaganda when the right-wing press links arms with the Kochs to take their side and whine about free speech. Seriously? Fox News is grumbling about free speech?

The Koch brothers have absolutely no case when they are actively orchestrating nasty campaigns against the White House and other Democrats, but expect their targets to stay silent. They have recruited Fox News, who spent six minutes on this topic this morning with Megyn Kelly and Laura Ingraham, but no opposing view. They recruited Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal a couple of weeks ago by planting an article written by the Kochs’ attorney on their editorial page. Fox Nation joined in with a featured item that linked back to the Kelly/Ingraham segment on Fox News. Kelly even plugged the Wall Street Journal article to bring the noise machine gears around full-circle.

The Kochs need to quit crying like toddlers lost in a Wal-Mart. They are not merely private citizens engaging in free speech. They are political powerhouses who have committed more than $200 million dollars to defeating the President. The Bush administration was quite vocal in denouncing their critics, including Cindy Sheehan, who was not a billionaire, but the mother of a slain soldier in Iraq. Vice-President Cheney actually did seek to chill free speech by explicitly warning people to “watch what you say.” But we never responded by whimpering about the White House being mean to us. We continued to press our case, get our message out, and speak truth to power.

If the Koch brothers think that they can persuade people that they are sympathetic waifs being put upon by a mean president, they are out of their minds. They are only embarrassing themselves by appearing to be wealthy weaklings who want to dish it out but run away weeping if the victim of their vitriol raises his voice.


Fox Nation vs. Reality: Taking Candy From Children

Posted by on February 28, 2012 at 9:53 am. 4 Comments :

Fox Nation is reporting the results of a new study that reveals some of the character differentials between the rich and the poor. As reported in the Huffington Post:

“The report contradicts the notion that poor people are more likely to act unethically out of financial necessity. Instead, the researchers wrote the ‘relative independence’ and ‘increased privacy’ of the wealthy make them more likely to act unethically. They also share ‘feelings of entitlement and inattention to the consequences of one’s actions on others’ that may play into their moral decisions.”

The study conducted experiments that showed that rich participants took twice as many candies as poorer participants from a jar that had been designated for children. The study also found that nearly half of all drivers of expensive cars cut off pedestrians at crosswalks, while no drivers of the cheapest cars did so (and only about 30% of drivers of less expensive cars). In addition, the study found that the rich were more likely to cheat in a game and lie to potential job applicants.

But the interesting part of the coverage by the Fox Nationalists is how they framed the study: LIB STUDY: Rich People More Likely to Take Candy from Children.

Fox Nation

The “LIB STUDY” prefix was attached by Fox in an obvious attempt to disparage the research and to bias readers against it before they even read the article. So who is this liberal institution that is poisoning the minds of America with their phony studies that bash our nation’s patriotic millionaires? Well, it’s that bastion of secular-progressive propaganda, the National Academy of Sciences.

This is just more evidence of the right’s knee-jerk reaction to science, education and higher learning. They have an involuntary motor response that causes them to shake uncontrollably whenever learned people present documented research. It just cuts against the grain of the conservative mind that favors religious fables over science and faith over proof.

This study is only a part of the body of research on human behavior. It may or may not be conclusive of anything as there are likely to be other studies that either affirm or negate its results. That isn’t important here. What’s important is that, regardless of what you might think of this study, the representation by Fox that the National Academy of Sciences is just some liberal operation and therefore undeserving of consideration, further defines them as anti-science, pseudo-news hacks who champion illiteracy and ignorance.


Soros Envy: Why Does Fox News Hate Rich People?

Posted by on February 27, 2012 at 7:59 pm. 15 Comments :

Ordinarily Fox News is the strongest advocate on behalf of the Greedy One Percent (GOP). They fiercely defend the the privileged class that they have endearingly tagged “job creators” (although that is far from true). They relentlessly oppose efforts to reform the tax code into something more equitable. And even though billionaires like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates agree that people like themselves are not paying a fair share, Fox News shouts nonsense about a class war that they invented.

But nothing comes as close to psychotic derangement as the right’s obsessive hatred of George Soros (except maybe Saul Alinsky and President Obama). In today’s FoxNews.com opinion section is an editorial titled: George Soros — the rich man who is hated around the world. What’s really interesting about this column is that the author, Dan Gainor of the uber-conservative Media Research Center, is actually correct.

Gainor has done his research and discovered that there are many nations in the world where Soros has cultivated a profound dislike. Gainor even provides a list of some of them. They include: Slovakia, Croatia, Hungary, Romania, and the Soviet Union. The thing that most of these places have in common is that they all suffered under oppressive regimes prior to Soros coming to the aid of the people.

So what we have here is Fox News complaining bitterly that the dictators and communists who were deposed by the freedom-loving citizens of their countries, with help from Soros, do not now regard Soros affectionately. Fox is literally taking the side of the former tyrants who, not surprisingly, are somewhat upset with Soros. By extension we must assume that Gainor would prefer that Soros had minded his own business and let the tyrants continue their rule and their reign of terror.

This is the same sort of deranged thinking that resulted in Fox finding fault with the Seal Team assault on Osama Bin Laden. If Obama had anything to do with it, it must be bad – no matter how good it is. And the same goes for George Soros. So even though Soros helped to defeat the bad guys, the only thing Fox notices is that now all the bad guys hate him, and somehow that make Soros a bad guy.

This twisted criticism, however, is not the only point that Gainor sought to make with his article. He is also emphatically opposed to Soros’ philanthropic activities. Gainor complains that Soros has committed $8 billion to his Open Society Foundation that aids a diverse variety of international charitable organizations. But Gainor sees no irony in the fact that he is the Boone Pickens Fellow at the Media Research Center. That means that his position was endowed by another billionaire who bankrolls international charitable causes. What’s more, the Media Research Center is the beneficiary of millions of dollars from the John Birch Society, the Koch brothers, and the Scaife family foundations – all wealthy philanthropists with designs on influencing the direction of certain nations, particularly the United States. And we can add Rupert Murdoch to that group as his news enterprises are among the biggest customers of the Media Research Center.

Dan Gainor is a profoundly inept critic. He once condemned an imagined conspiracy by Soros and, in the process, implicated himself. He further embarrassed himself recently by declaring that Arianna Huffington is “the most powerful propagandist since a guy named Goebbels.” Then he penned a column upbraiding Rachel Maddow for a mistake made during her program, apparently unfamiliar with the cornucopia of on-air gaffes that Fox News seems to add to daily.

Fox News has made preaching the divinity of capitalism a staple of its programming. And they love nothing more than a wealthy individual who they can promote as proof of their Randian orthodoxy. But whatever you do, do not become a liberal billionaire. Fox has an entirely different standard for those practitioners Satanism. In fact, Fox hates them. What is it that Fox hates about rich people that actually care about people who are not rich?


The Fox Effect: The Book That Terrifies Roger Ailes And Fox News

Posted by on February 27, 2012 at 9:55 am. 4 Comments :

A new book from Media Matters was just released that chronicles the history of Fox News and explains how a small group of wealthy, politically connected conservative partisans conspired to build a pseudo-news network with the intent of advancing the right-wing agenda of the Republican Party. And that network, known for its drooling anti-liberalism, is scared spitless.

The Fox Effect: How Roger Ailes Turned a Network into a Propaganda Machine, was written by David Brock and Ari Rabin-Havt (and others) of Media Matters. It begins by looking back at the early career of Fox News CEO Roger Ailes and his role as a media consultant for Republican politicians, including former president Richard Nixon. From the start Ailes was a brash, creative proponent of the power of television to influence a mass audience. He guided the media-challenged Nixon through a treacherous new era of news and political PR, and his experiences formed the basis for what would become his life’s grand achievement: a “news” network devoted to a political party, its candidates, and its platform.

When Ailes partnered with international newspaper mogul Rupert Murdoch to launch a new 24 hour cable news channel, he was given an unprecedented measure of control to shape the network’s business and ideology. The Fox Effect examines the underpinnings of the philosophy that Ailes brought to the venture. His earliest observations exhibit an appreciation for the tabloid-style sensationalism that would become a hallmark of Fox’s reporting. Ailes summed it up in an interview in 1988 as something he called his “orchestra pit theory” of politics:

“If you have two guys on stage and one guy says ‘I have a solution to the Middle East problem,’ and the other guy falls into the orchestra pit, who do you think is going to be on the evening news?”

That’s the sort of thinking that produced Fox’s promotion of hollering town hall protesters during the health care debate and their focus on lurid but phony issues like death panels. It is a flavor of journalism that elevates melodrama over factual discourse.

This article also appears on Alternet.org.

The book exposes how Fox was more of a participant in the news than a reporter of it. Through interviews with Fox insiders and leaked internal communications, The Fox Effect documents the depths to which the network collaborated with political partisans to invent stories with the intent of manipulating public opinion. The authors reveal memos from the Washington managing editor of Fox News, Bill Sammon, directing anchors and reporters on how to present certain subjects. For instance, he ordered them never to use the term “public option” when referring to health insurance reform. Focus group testing by Fox pollster Frank Luntz had found that the phrase “government option” left a more negative impression, and they were instructed to use that instead.

There is a chapter on the Tea Party that describes how integral Fox was to its inception and development. The network literally branded the fledgling movement as FNC Tea Parties and dispatched its top anchors to host live broadcasts from rallies. The Fox Effect also details the extensive coverage devoted to the deceitfully edited videos that brought down ACORN. Fox was instrumental in promoting the story and stirring up a public backlash that resulted in congressional investigations and loss of funding. The book followed the story from Andrew Breitbart’s new and little known BigGovernment blog to Glenn Beck’s conspiracy factory to the wall-to-wall coverage it enjoyed on Fox’s primetime. This chapter is where the authors introduce what they call “The Six Steps” that Fox employs to create national controversies:

  • STEP 1: Conservative activists introduce the lie.
  • STEP 2: Fox News devotes massive coverage to the story.
  • STEP 3: Fox attacks other outlets for ignoring the controversy.
  • STEP 4: Mainstream outlets begin reporting on the story.
  • STEP 5: Media critics, pundits praise Fox News’s coverage.
  • STEP 6: The story falls apart once the damage has been done.

This is a pattern that has played out with varying degrees of success. Fox used this blueprint to engineer the career-ending slander of presidential adviser Van Jones and Department of Agriculture official Shirley Sherrod. But the strategy was less effective when used against Attorney General Eric Holder and Planned Parenthood, although not for lack of effort.

These, and other examples of deliberate bias, illustrate why most neutral observers regard Fox News as the PR arm of the Republican Party. The Fox Effect makes a convincing case to affirm that view and even offers admissions to that effect by Fox insiders. It is a damning exposé of how a political operative and a right-wing billionaire built a propaganda machine thinly disguised as a news network. The research and documentation are extensive and compelling.

For that reason, Fox News has mounted an unprecedented attack on Media Matters in advance of the book’s release. [Note: Actually it’s not so unprecedented. Fox set the precedent itself last year with a sustained campaign to do tangible harm by tacking an article to the top of the Fox Nation web site with a headline that read “Want to File an IRS Complaint Against Media Matters? Click Here…”] In the week prior to publication of The Fox Effect, Fox News broadcast no fewer than a dozen derogatory segments across all dayparts and on their most popular programs, including The O’Reilly Factor, Hannity, Fox & Friends, etc. It was the sort of blanket coverage usually reserved for a natural disaster, a declaration of war, or a lewd TwitPic of a politician. The attacks never contained any substantive argument or even example of error on the part of Media Matters. However, they are brimming with the most nasty form of personal invective imaginable.

The basis for the Fox News broadcasts was a series of articles by the Daily Caller (TDC), the conservative web site of Tucker Carlson, who just happens to also be on the Fox News payroll. The gist of the story, as described by TDC, is that Media Matters is manipulating news organizations, coordinating messaging with the White House, and struggling to cope with the “volatile and erratic behavior” of Brock, whom TDC alleges is mentally ill. TDC never reveals from where they got their psychiatric credentials, nor when they had an opportunity to examine and diagnose Brock. Likewise, they never reveal where they got any of the other information for the allegations they make against Media Matters as every source is anonymous.

Media analysts have universally condemned TDC’s reporting. Howard Kurtz interviewed author Vince Coglianese on CNN’s Reliable Sources and assailed the absence of any evidence to corroborate the allegations of his anonymous sources. Coglianese could not even confirm that events alleged in the article ever occurred. He laughably argued that the absence of a denial from Brock was evidence of guilt, rather than a simple disinclination to raise the profile of a poorly written article. Jack Shafer wrote for Reuters that “the Daily Caller is attacking Media Matters with bad journalism and lame propaganda.”

Media Matters was created to document conservative media bias and work to implement reforms that would produce more balanced reporting. Yet, Fox is confused by the fact that Media Matters’ research is cited by progressive organizations and publishers. The grunt work of aggregating video and other reporting is appreciated by those who use Media Matters materials. Much of it is provided without any editorializing. The right has always been fearful of any entity that would simply record their disinformation, nonsense, and hostility, and then hold them accountable for it. But they have yet to criticize NewsBusters or their parent organization, the Media Research Center, despite the cozy relationship they have with Fox News. Brit Hume, the former managing editor of Fox News, however, was abundantly grateful:

Hume: I want to say a word, however, of thanks to Brent [Bozell] and the team at the Media Research Center […] for the tremendous amount of material that the Media Research Center provided me for so many years when I was anchoring Special Report, I don’t know what we would’ve done without them. It was a daily buffet of material to work from, and we certainly made tremendous use of it.

Joining in on the assault is the Fox Nation web site that is engaged in a relentless barrage of critical articles with disturbingly insulting and hyperbolic headlines. For instance:

  • Is Media Matters’ David Brock A ‘Dangerous’ Man?
  • Were Media Matters Donors Duped?
  • Inside Media Matters: Founder Believed to be Regularly Using Illegal Drugs, Including Cocaine.

But even those paled in comparison to what Fox News was posting on the screen graphics that accompanied their broadcasts:

  • MEDIA MATTERS’ MONEY: David Brock is an admitted drug user
  • THE MONEY BEHIND THE MACHINE: David Brock committed to a quiet room
  • A LIBERAL INFLUENCE: Brock spent time in a mental ward

Fox News - Media Matters

Note that the subjects of the broadcasts were financial in nature. Fox was reporting on TDC’s discovery that Media Matters donors were largely progressive individuals and foundations (not exactly what one would call a scoop). However, Fox News appended assertions as to the mental stability of Brock, which had nothing to do with their topic. It was merely an opportunity for them to take swipes at a perceived enemy. And this mud-slinging occurred during what Fox regards as their “news” programming, not the evening hours that they designate as the opinion portion of their schedule.

In order to cement the impression that David Brock is a mental defective, unfit to lead any organization or to be given serious consideration, Fox News brought in their resident psycho analyst, “Dr” Keith Ablow. As a part of the Fox News Medical “A” Team, Ablow appeared on the air in a segment that painted Brock as seriously disturbed and even dangerous:

“If you are filled with self-loathing you will see demons on every street corner because you project that self-hatred. […] He’s a dangerous man because having followers and waging war, as he says, or previously being a right-wing hitman, this isn’t accidental language. It’s about violence, destruction, and he feels destroyed in himself.”

This diagnosis was an invention by Ablow who has never examined Brock, or even met him. That in itself is a violation of the American Psychiatric Association’s Principles of Medical Ethics, something Ablow does not need to concern himself with because last year he was compelled to separate himself from the APA due to ethical “differences.”

This is actually the second time Ablow has appeared on Fox News with his absurd fantasies (or projections) about Brock. And Brock isn’t his only pretend patient. A few weeks ago he published an op-ed on FoxNews.com that praised Newt Gingrich’s serial infidelity as evidence of traits that would help him to make America stronger were he president. Seriously! And who could forget his deranged psycho analysis of President Obama?

If Fox News wants to engage in “remote” psychiatry they ought to at least be fair and balanced about it. However they pointedly make no mention of the reported paranoia of Fox News CEO Roger Ailes. No mention that he was cited as the reason that the NYPD provided police protection for the Fox headquarters at a cost of $500,000 a year to the people of New York. No mention of the obsessive fears described by Tim Dickinson in a Rolling Stone profile:

“Ailes is also deeply paranoid. Convinced that he has personally been targeted by Al Qaeda for assassination, he surrounds himself with an aggressive security detail and is licensed to carry a concealed handgun. […] Murdoch installed Ailes in the corner office on Fox’s second floor at 1211 Avenue of the Americas in Manhattan. The location made Ailes queasy: It was close to the street, and he lived in fear that gay activists would try to attack him in retaliation over his hostility to gay rights. (In 1989, Ailes had broken up a protest of a Rudy Giuliani speech by gay activists, grabbing demonstrator by the throat and shoving him out the door.) Barricading himself behind a massive mahogany desk, Ailes insisted on having ‘bombproof glass’ installed in the windows – even going so far as to personally inspect samples of high-tech plexiglass, as though he were picking out new carpet.”

I really have to wonder if even the Fox News audience is so intellectually comatose that they wouldn’t recognize the feverish anxiety gushing from Fox in advance of the Media Matters book. A tree stump would notice that they are laying it on awfully thick. So the obvious question is what are they so afraid of? And the answer is that Fox News can no longer hide from their reputation as a dishonest purveyor of slanted propaganda and tabloid trash on behalf of a right-wing agenda and the political operatives who advance it and benefit from it.

The Fox Effect is a thoroughly documented investigation into the inner workings of both the organization and its principle managers and backers. It peels away the layers of the conservative cabal that has so effectively poisoned the public discourse on many significant issues. And like the fraudulent Wizard in the city of Oz, Fox wants us all to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain (Roger Ailes), or to the curtain (Fox News), or the corporation that controls it all (News Corp). And to that end Fox has embarked on a massive smear campaign to destroy the credibility of the book, its authors, and the organization that produced it. But Media Matters has already succeeded. As noted in the book’s epilogue:

“Fox News will no longer be able to conduct its campaign under the false pretense that the network is a journalistic institution. There is heightened awareness in the progressive community and in the general public of the damage Fox causes.”

And that is exactly what Fox is afraid of.