Today’s The Day John Edwards Grabs The Gold

Posted by on January 18, 2008 at 1:01 am. 10 Comments :

A little less than a week ago, it occurred to me that something was wrong. Something was wrong with the veneration of pundits best known for their failure to deduce anything correctly. Something was wrong with the media deciding who is a viable candidate and when an election is over. Something was wrong with voters being treated like afterthoughts whose participation was merely incidental. And consequent to these observations, it also occurred to me that there was something wrong with the fact that Ron Paul held the record for the most money raised in one day.

I concluded that one way to stuff the spin of the know-nothing punditocracy back down their arrogant throats was to demonstrate the narrowness of their vision. They needed to be knocked down a peg or two by circumstances over which they had no control. I knew that if the people stepped up to thumb their noses at the press, the press would have to pay attention. And since their noses were already so firmly planted in the back end of the horse race schema, a competition for cash was just the ticket. I thought that if Ron Paul could raise six million dollars in one day, John Edwards ought to be able to raise seven.

Despite his relative success and obvious contributions, John Edwards was being edited out of the electoral picture by a pack of myopic politicos. He had beaten Hillary Clinton in Iowa and finished in double digits in New Hampshire. The popularity of his platform was forcing his opponents to adjust their own positions to be more in line with his. With a base of support from progressive Democrats that went back to his campaign in 2004, Edwards had a realistic opportunity to compete in the upper tier of candidates. But the media wouldn’t let him. Edwards himself has taken note this orchestrated media blackout. They marginalized him; they disparaged him; they mocked him. And through it all, he continued to garner support and respect. So they had to resort to ignoring him.

nullThe Project for Excellence in Journalism recently completed a study of the amount of time the media allotted to the presidential candidates. Edwards came in last amongst the Democrats, and next to last amongst all major candidates. The survey was conducted in the days following the Iowa primary in which he finished a surprise second. But that apparently wasn’t enough to persuade editors that Edwards deserved to be covered.

So I wrote a little diary that I posted at DailyKos proposing a grassroots effort to help Edwards set a new fundraising record. In all truth, it was more of an academic suggestion to ponder the possibilities of such an endeavor. Possibilities, being what they are, exceeded my wildest expectations.

The proposal picked up steam at DailyKos getting elevated to its “Recommended List.” This was followed by a steady stream of follow-up diaries by other authors acting on their own initiative. Then it began to spread to other blogs. At the Democratic Underground I found multiple instances of the proposal. Some added creative touches to expand on the theme. One member pledged to donate an amount equal to the number of recommendations the posting received (it was over 300 last I checked). I saw postings on the Edwards Blog site. I saw comments at various news sites, including one at Fox News.

I have no idea what will happen today. I have no clue how much the campaign will raise. If they break the record the media will have to take notice. But no matter the final tally, this has been an exhilarating experience. I have had so many well wishers and expressions of support. Literally hundreds of blog commenters pledged to contribute. And that is only those in the small bloggerhood in which I reside.

People are also becoming more aware of the toxic influence of a media that seeks to shape the news rather than report it. When Edwards talks about the harm being done to our country by greedy corporations he knows that chief amongst the members of that club are the giant media conglomerates. So regardless of how this unfolds, we must continue to fight for reform. Because if we don’t succeed in reining in the power of these monopolies they will forever dictate to us how we should feel, what we should buy, who we should hate, and what our choices are in our formerly free democracy.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Bill O’Reilly’s Homeless Helpline

Posted by on January 16, 2008 at 4:08 pm. NO Comments :

In his speech thanking supporters for a second place finish in Iowa, John Edwards raised a sensitive subject that is rarely discussed in contemporary politics.

“…tonight, 200,000 men and women who wore our uniform proudly and served this country courageously as veterans will go to sleep under bridges and on grates. We’re better than this.”

The next day, Bill O’Reilly mocked Edwards saying:

“As for John Edwards…good grief… this guy as no clue […] The only thing sleeping under a bridge is that guy’s brain.”

What a callous dismissal of the plight of citizens who deserve something more for their sacrifices. Homelessness amongst veterans is not an emerging crisis that might have caught O’Reilly by surprise. It is an enduring and heartbreaking reality that is well documented. The National Coalition for Homeless Veterans was founded 18 years ago to seek solutions and promote awareness of the problem. The National Alliance to End Homelessness released a study last year on Ending Homelessness Among Veterans. Among their findings:

  • In 2006, approximately 195,827 veterans were homeless on a given night-an increase of 0.8 percent from 194,254 in 2005. More veterans experience homeless over the course of the year. We estimate that 336,627 were homeless in 2006.
  • Veterans make up a disproportionate share of homeless people. They represent roughly 26 percent of homeless people, but only 11 percent of the civilian population 18 years and older. This is true despite the fact that veterans are better educated, more likely to be employed, and have a lower poverty rate than the general population.

But O’Reilly, not content to be merely an ignorant and insensitive jerk, he expands on his dearth of compassion a week later by sarcastically designating himself as a lifeline for troubled vets, saying:

“They may be out there, but there are not many of them out there, OK. So if you know where there is a veteran sleeping under a bridge, you call me immediately, and we will make sure that man does not do it.”

I imagine that O’Reilly would respond to the situation exactly as he says. He would send Stuttering Jesse Watters, or some other Fox Security goons, to forcefully remove any recalcitrant bridge squatters from the area, making sure that nobody blocked the shot of his ambush camera crew.

I say we call him on his offer and direct as many homeless vets as we can to The Fester and to Fox News and see what they do. I expect they will find the problem a bit more complex than presumed by their small-minded preconceptions. While O’Reilly doesn’t believe the problem exists, to the extent that it might, he believes he can resolve it by himself. I would like nothing better than to see this problem show up on his doorstep and watch him squirm.

This is the same guy who fashions himself an advocate for children and writes books on the subject, but claims that kidnap victims prefer life with their captors rather than with their parents. This the same guy who complains that not enough celebrities visit the troops in war zones, even though many have gone multiple times to entertain them. O’Reilly only seems to go when he has a new book to promote.

This is a man who says that John Edwards is a phony and who disputes the all too sad reality that many veterans and their families are struggling through. Yet he also seeks to fortify his dimwitted position by saying that…

“My determination is based upon what is real and what is hype. I believe John Edwards is hype.”

This is a man who raises hypocrisy to a new level. Let’s show him what is real and what is hype. There are thousands of pictures of homeless vets online – Flickr, Google Images, etc. Find one and send it to O’Reilly with a request that he make good on his pledge.

O’Reilly’s email: oreilly@foxnews.com

[Update] Edwards responds to O’Reilly:

“And the fact that this talk show host, Bill O’Reilly, is willing to speak out that blatantly, when he has no idea what he’s talking about, is an example of how America doesn’t understand the problem, doesn’t understand how serious this issue is.”


Favorite TV Personalities of 2007

Posted by on January 15, 2008 at 7:15 pm. NO Comments :

Harris Interactive has just released their survey of America’s Favorite TV Personalities. The list was topped by Ellen DeGeneres in a surprise win over Oprah Winfrey. The remainder of list contains some characters who are familiar faces in the news media.

1 Ellen DeGeneres
2 Oprah Winfrey
3 Jay Leno
4 Hugh Laurie
5 Jon Stewart
*6 Stephen Colbert
*6 David Letterman
8 Bill O’Reilly
*9 Homer Simpson
*9 Ray Romano
* = Tie

I am happy to congratulate Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert on their honors.

As for O’Reilly, I would just like to note a few salient facts. First of all, he dropped 5 places this year, from #3 to #8. That may be partly because his fan base is dying off. The evidence of that is illustrated by his support amongst those over 62 for whom he was the #1 choice. It’s also notable that O’Reilly finished just one spot above Homer Simpson (D’oh!), who is making his first appearance in the top 10. My money says Simpson overtakes O’Reilly next year (Woo hoo!)


Bully Bill O’Reilly’s Contact Journalism

Posted by on January 15, 2008 at 3:55 pm. NO Comments :

“I’m coming after you…I’m going to hunt you down […] if I could strangle these people and not go to hell and get executed…I would.”

Bill O’Reilly directed that threat toward figures in the press whom he considered his enemies. In light of the obvious hostile intent O’Reilly harbors, the statements in his recent column sound even more ominous:

“There is a chance that before this presidential election year is over somebody is going to get hurt.”

The chance of that increases the more O’Reilly is involved. By now most people have heard about O’Reilly’s assault on an aide to Barack Obama at a recent campaign event. O’Reilly’s column goes on to say…

“Knowing that partisan hostility is boiling over in America, the Secret Service is tense because the candidates are exposed when they campaign in public. Hatred is definitely in the air and the media is partially to blame.”

The Secret Service has cause to be tense with boorish media demagogues like O’Reilly fomenting partisan hostility and hatred. And yes, he is partially to blame.

But the column sinks even deeper into disinformation as O’Reilly seeks to exalt himself and his delusional view of the world. He brags about the success of Fox News as if that’s an affirmation of their credibility. Quality is not measured by sales receipts. If that were true, then McDonald’s serves the highest quality food in America. But that doesn’t stop O’Reilly from making misleading statements such as his inane analysis of GE’s stock price:

“General Electric, which owns NBC, has seen its stock price remain stagnant for the past six years, a humbling fact for the corporate giant.”

First of all, NBC represents about 10% of GE’s revenue, and that includes properties like Universal’s movies and theme parks that have nothing to do with television or news. So the suggestion that NBC is responsible for GE’s fiscal woes is ridiculous. Secondly, O’Reilly arbitrarily picks a six year time frame for his analysis. Obviously he did this to manufacture the results he desired. 2002 was the year of the first Bush recession and GE, along with just about every other stock, declined significantly. Had O’Reilly used a five year span, he would have had to report a 40% increase in GE’s stock. Would NBC get the credit for that?

O’Reilly spends much of the rest of the column making excuses for Fox News’ failure to garner respect as a news provider. He laments the disinclination that some Democrats have to appear on Fox or participate in their debates (note: the more he complains about this, the more proof that it is working). He heaps the majority of the blame for this on the all-powerful Internet lefties:

“The reason the Democratic candidates boycotted Fox News was that the far-left Internet crazies told them to do it. Websites like the Daily Kos and Media Matters, which spit out anti-conservative hatred every day, made it clear to the Democrats that anyone dealing with Fox would be punished. The creepy radical-left organization MoveOn, which raises serious money for liberal candidates, seconded the motion.”

Isn’t it quaint how O’Reilly condemns hatred by calling those with whom he disagrees “crazies” and “creepy” and characterizes them as spitting radicals? However, I would agree with the warning that “anyone dealing with Fox would be punished.” By Fox! Any Democrat appearing on Fox News can expect to be treated with disrespect and disdain. Sometimes not until after they have left the studio so that they cannot respond (note to Dems: Stay the HELL off of Fox News).

O’Reilly is still tormented with the affair in New Hampshire where, in defense of the Constitution, he had to “remove” an Obama staffer. Only now he is complaining that nobody is on his side:

“In the subsequent coverage of the story, not one media outlet criticized the Obama staffer, not one.”

Presumably that includes conservative media outlets like the Washington Times, the Weekly Standard, the New York Post, etc. It never occurs to O’Reilly that if no one else sees the incident as he does, perhaps he is the one who is not seeing it correctly. But asking O’Reilly to see things from a perspective other than from his natural state of egomaniacal paranoia may be expecting too much. The results from a poll on his own website asking whether he was right to shove Obama’s aide were 57% Yes / 43% No. That wasn’t good enough for O’Reilly who dismissed the results as having been tainted by (again) thousands of far-left loons who were “instructed” to vote “No.” And if the research by NewsHounds is accurate, the loons received their instructions from ME! Tremble in awe of my omnipotence, I command thee.

It is mind-boggling how a man so filled with rage and hate can ascribe these traits so cavalierly to others; how a man so predisposed to lying can accuse others of it so blindly; how a such a partisan ideologue can complain about the partisanship of others. He seems to have no self-awareness whatsoever, save for self-importance. In some respects, his conjured up enemies and his overtly threatening tone make him an easy target for ridicule. On the other hand, it’s hard to find humor knowing how potentially dangerous he can be. I hope he gets the help for which he is so clearly crying out. Maybe a room next to Britney’s at the asylum (humor…I found some).


$7 Million Dollars In One Day For John Edwards

Posted by on January 14, 2008 at 11:42 am. 10 Comments :

Last night I posted a diary on DailyKos that proposed a campaign to raise $7 million dollars in one day for John Edwards: John Edwards: $7 Million Dollars In One Day – Make It Happen

The point of the diary was not just to fill Edwards’ campaign coffers, but to jerk the media into paying some attention to a candidate that is still viable but is being shut out of the process. Some pollsters and news organizations have stopped including Edwards in their surveys. This is way too early for the press to be making irresponsible proclamations about the race. They have plenty of time to be irresponsible in March or April.

Ron Paul has managed to stir up respectable levels of exposure despite his low standings in most polls. After being excluded from a Fox News-sponsored debate in New Hampshire, he has now been invited to participate in a Fox debate in South Carolina. That reversal on the part of Fox didn’t occur due to some crisis of conscience on the part of Fox editors. It occurred partly because Paul’s supporters were pissed and they let it be known, and partly because Paul had validated himself in terms the media can understand – fund raising. Having drawn in a record $6 million dollars in one day went a long ways toward forcing the press to pay attention.

Edwards has far more support than Paul in the electorate and within his party, but the press won’t cover him based on rational criteria like that. So if Edwards wants to receive the coverage to which he ought to be entitled, he could either engage in a high speed police chase with Britney’s kids on his lap and a missing white girl in the trunk, or he could set a new record by raising $7 million dollars in one day.

When I posted the diary at DailyKos it received some modest support and good wishes, then scrolled off the page into oblivion. Or so I thought. This morning I awoke to find it featured on the DailyKos “Recommended List” with almost 200 comments attached. So maybe this idea has legs after all.

I believe this is an ambitious but achievable goal and hope that everyone who reads this will participate in the effort. Feel free to use the the graphic above to get the word out. Post it on your blog, MySpace, Facebook, etc. Send it emails to all your friends and family. To embed it on another site, copy and paste this code:

$7 million dollars is a lot of money to raise online, and 5 days is not a lot of time to organize. But if Ron Paul can do it, fer gawds sake, we ought to be able to.


Six Years Of Shame: Close Guantanamo Now

Posted by on January 11, 2008 at 10:05 am. 3 Comments :

News Corpse is wearing orange today to mark the sad persistence of the stain on American justice and morality that is Guantanamo Bay. This detention facility is an unprecedented departure from the Constitutional principles upon which our nation was founded. Six years is too long to tolerate this unlawful, unproductive and unethical policy.

The ACLU has initiated a campaign to remind all Americans what it means to be American. They are asking everyone to wear orange today and to help educate their family, friends, and others about this issue. I am asking that everyone contact local and national media today (and for as many more days as it takes) and advise them that we will not sit back any longer and pretend that we’re not responsible for the atrocities being done in our name. Read the fact sheet below and go to the Close Guantanamo web site for more information and opportunities to take action.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Fox’s Major Garrett In Sex Romp With Senator Craig

Posted by on January 10, 2008 at 1:59 am. 2 Comments :

In the fog of hard-fought political wars, the foot soldiers are exposed to stimulating sensations as the campaigns heat up and swirl with emotion. The ups and downs pound furiously as sweaty staffers strain to satisfy insatiable supporters and reporters.

One such reporter appears to have succumbed to the siren call of amour on the campaign trail. Sources have revealed that the fittingly macho-named Major Garrett is tied romantically with the disgraced “non-gay” senator from Idaho, Larry Craig. While there has been no confirmation at this time, the sourcing is “strong, very strong.” Garrett is the reporter who covered the Craig affair for Fox News. And while the photo at the left may not be considered conclusive evidence, it raises the temperature of the scandal significantly.

This revelation comes on the heels of the New Hampshire primary where Garrett reported with titillating excitement that Hillary Clinton’s campaign was floundering and that a staff shake-up was imminent.

“…some of the top advisers to former President Clinton are set to join to Hillary’s faltering campaign as early as tomorrow…Carville and Begala’s strategic advise will now carry greater weight than that of the original team that devised a strategy that has led to a defeat in the Iowa caucuses and a likely defeat in tonight’s New Hampshire primary.”

Garret was only one of many whose prescient observations presumed the fall of the house of Clinton. But he alone swept away the veil that barely hid the forms of Carville, Begala and their naked ambitions.

As it turns out, Carville vehemently denied that he was becoming entwined with the Clinton campaign:

“Fox was, is and will continue to be an asinine and ignorant network. I have not spoken to anyone in the Clinton campaign about this.”

And Begala uttered similar protestations:

“…whoever told you I am joining Hillary’s campaign fed you some bum info. It’s just not true […] I’m not coming in as a volunteer, or as an adviser, or as a strategist or anything else.”

Undeterred, Garrett continued to report the personnel changes and insisted that his sources were impeccable. He told Begala that he would “take it under advisement.” Just to be clear, he was telling Begala that what his sources were saying about Begala was better than what Begala was saying about himself. He then gave Begala this assurance:

“I am not trying to screw you […] I’m careful and don’t have a reputation for pulling stories out of my ass. I’m not now. The sourcing is strong, very strong, or I wouldn’t go with it.”

You can almost hear the strength oozing from Garrett’s baneful wale. Perhaps he is lamenting having promised not to screw Begala. But it is notable that he made no such promise to Sen. Craig.

In the end, it is not possible to provide skin-tight confirmation of Garrett’s dalliance with Craig. Though the evidence at this time is somewhat less than circumstantial, I have confidence in the faithfulness of my sources. But should this flare into a climax of reportorial passion, I vow to treat Garrett with uninhibited fairness. When I receive his call denying that there is any truth to the scandalous allegations herein, I will gladly take it under advisement.


Obama Capitulates To Fox News

Posted by on January 9, 2008 at 4:03 pm. NO Comments :

On the morning after his second place finish in the New Hampshire primary, Barack Obama apparently feels he needs the solace of a hostile new network to salve his wounds. By appearing on the infantile Fox & Friends morning show, Obama has gilded Fox’s credibility as a news provider and simultaneously damaged the cause of all Democrats and progressives.

What a bitterly disappointing turn of events from a candidate who had previously snubbed the hacks at Fox News for nearly a year. What could have prompted him to make such a foolish and pointless decision? Surely it couldn’t have anything to do with his aide’s recent altercation with Bill O’Reilly. The last thing that Fox should get for their top personality behaving like a thug is a reward!

Was Obama intimidated by Chris Wallace calling Democrats “fools“ for not appearing on Fox? Has he forgotten what Fox spokespeople said when he pulled out of a Fox-sponsored debate in Nevada last year?

“Obama and his staff are in for a rude awakening if they think they can write off Fox News. If a candidate is serious about running for president, he or she is going to need a network like Fox to reach out to all those voters in the red and purple states.”

And…

“If true, perhaps Mr. [Robert] Gibbs [an Obama campaign manager] should reconsider that ill-advised strategy given his candidate is trailing by 20 points in the polls.”

Obama has proven all of them wrong, and he did it without any help from them – despite their self-important threats that they are indispensable. Nothing has changed since then. There has been no apology or even an acknowledgment of slack reporting. Fox spent the rest of the year smearing Obama and his Democratic colleagues. Here’s a reminder, Senator…

Just stay the HELL off of Fox News! Is that so damn hard? And read Starve The Beast for more reasons why.

Update: Hillary Clinton was on the same episode of Fox & Friends as Obama. While it is just as bad that Clinton appeared on Fox as Obama, Clinton has appeared on Fox in the past, so it is not exactly news that she did so today. Additionally, she has never articulated an intention to not appear on Fox as Obama and Edwards have. To the contrary, she has been rather chummy with Murdoch who is a contributor and fundraiser for her campaigns.


TV Pundit Jeopardy

Posted by on January 9, 2008 at 1:49 pm. NO Comments :

Full disclosure: Of the top three Democratic presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton is my third choice. But seriously…

Coverage of this campaign has been laughably bad. In New Hampshire, Clinton was predicted to lose to Obama by double digits. Her “emotional moment” torpedoed any chance she had of winning. Her staff was about to undergo a major upheaval. Fox’s Major Garrett even announced that Clinton vets James Carville and Paul Begala were about to take over her campaign. He continued to report this after both publicly denied it, and Begala told him personally that it wasn’t true. Speculation then turned to when Clinton would drop out of the race.

There is a sad irony to this since not too long ago all the press could talk about was Clinton’s “inevitability.” Then Obama’s win in Iowa made him inevitable and Clinton a has-been.

Coverage of every Democrat has fallen far short of any standard of professionalism. Edwards, when not being outright ignored, was ganged up on for trivialities like haircuts and homestead. Obama was slandered as a potential Muslim extremist who was schooled in a Madrassa. But Clinton has suffered some of the most vile attacks based on the misogynistic tendencies of the male-dominated press corps. Among the most frequent criticisms is the myth that she starts off with higher negatives than other candidates. Here’s the truth:

Dec 2007 Favorable Unfavorable
McCain 53% 27%
Edwards 49% 42%
Clinton 48% 50%
Obama 43% 51%
Thompson 42% 42%
Giuliani 40% 55%
Huckabee 40% 47%
Romney 38% 51%

Both Giuliani and Romney score lower in favorability and higher in unfavorability than Clinton. But do we ever hear reporters talking about how devastatingly unpopular they are?

So the pundits, as usual got it all wrong. They’ve been wrong every step of the way. And when they are shown to be wrong, they simply shift their weight and devise a new theory that will later be shown to be wrong as well. The big problem with that is that they will be on the air tomorrow (and many more tomorrows) to get it wrong some more.

Why does it have to be that way? Wouldn’t it be great if punditry worked more like Jeopardy? Whoever has scored the highest by the end of the day gets to come back and play the next day. Those who got more of their answers wrong are never heard from again. This simple modification of the rules of the game would vastly improve the media’s political analysis.


America Is Uniting – Against Fox News

Posted by on January 8, 2008 at 5:19 pm. 2 Comments :

Any fair-minded observer of American media is well aware of the intrinsic bias of Fox News. It is a bias that is recognized by journalists and scholars, analysts and amateurs. Even Fox no longer tries to pawn the euphemistic “fair and balanced” nonsense off on their viewers. They now cast themselves as “the most powerful name in news.” That slogan should provoke an obvious question: Is “power” something that is desirable in a news network?

Many divergent camps in politics and media are answering that question with a resounding “NO!” Those camps may now be coalescing into a united front that shares a healthy disrespect for Fox News.

It hardly needs mentioning that progressives view Fox as a festering boil that serves only to stain the otherwise honorable pursuit of journalism. Democrats like John Edwards and Barack Obama decline to appear on the network. As a result, the network has escalated their already derogatory coverage, going so far as to refer to them as “fools“ for having the temerity to steer clear of Fox’s venom.

Having alienated the Left, Fox has now set its sights on estranging their natural allies on the Right. This approach began with the exclusion of Ron Paul from a Fox debate co-sponsored by the New Hampshire Republican Party. Not surprisingly, Paul’s supporters were aghast, along with others who saw the blatantly prejudicial intent on the part of Fox News. Paul commented on the affair saying…

“They are scared of me and don’t want my message to get out, but it will. They are propagandists for this war and I challenge them on the notion that they are conservative.”

Paul may have something there. While it is plain that everything Rupert Murdoch touches reeks of rightist propaganda, Fox viewers actually appear to be more loyal to Fox than to Republicans or conservatism (see The Cult Of Foxonalityâ„¢). The New Hampshire debate went on without Paul and without the state Republican Party who withdrew their sponsorship in protest of Fox’s candidate exclusions.

Long-time conservative icon, Richard Viguerie had this to say about Fox:

“While Fox has ended the Democratic monopoly in TV news, it is becoming disturbingly clear that it is perpetuating the pro-Big Government monopoly in TV news.”

Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson is peeved at Fox’s coverage of him which he thinks is excessively negative:

“This has been a constant mantra of Fox, to tell you the truth. […] for you to highlight nothing but the negatives in terms of the polls and then put on your own guys who have been predicting for four months, really, that I couldn’t do it, kind of skew things a little bit. There’s a lot of other opinion out there.”

NewsBusters (the right’s lame answer to MediaMatters) doesn’t think Fox’s conservative bona fides are worth much:

“Even the allegedly “conservative” Fox News gave the New York Senator a softball interview.”

The freakin’ John Birch Society is weighing in with criticism of Fox and their in-house pollster (and serial dissembler) Frank Luntz:

“Whatever Luntz is doing on Fox with his ‘focus groups,’ its not science and its not even social science. Instead, it is an example of yellow journalism and nearly undisguised political propaganda designed to be misleading and manipulative.”

So Ron Paul, Richard Viguerie, Fred Thompson, NewsBusters, the Republican Party, and the John Birch Society have come together in recognition that, whatever it is that Fox does, it isn’t news. They are now in an uneasy harmony with most of the progressive end of the political spectrum. Perhaps now they will join us in shunning the network that is more focused on its own welfare than on the ethical practice of their craft.

A network consumed with bias, that revels in its own “power,” is dangerous to all of its potential subjects and to democracy itself. The state of journalism, and of the union, is greatly enhanced by this unity against media corruption. And our nation could only benefit if we can all get together and expel Fox News from the body politic. On that count we may owe Fox a debt of gratitude for uniting such far flung elements of society behind a frothing opposition to Fox itself. Thanks.