Sean Hannity’s Lies Exposed By Jon Stewart

Posted by on November 11, 2009 at 2:27 am. 7 Comments :

Jon Stewart is on fire. About two weeks ago, Stewart put together one of the best presentations illustrating perfectly why Fox News is NOT news. Just last week Stewart gave us an hysterical portrayal of Glenn Beck’s diseased psyche. And last night Stewart proved, once again, that he is a far better journalist than most of those who actually call themselves journalists.

Why does Sean Hannity even still have a job? Anyone else, on any other network, would be fired for this sort of deliberate fabrication. Apparently on Fox it is acceptable to show video footage from a rally two months ago and pretend it is from a rally a few days ago, in order to falsely inflate the size of the attending crowd.

The propagandists at Fox are well aware that the nation overwhelmingly supports heath care reform, so they resort to dishonesty in pursuit of their unpopular agenda. If they can’t get enough Tea Baggers to show up, Fox will just falsify the video record to make whatever point serves their venal interests. It is the same disrespect for the truth that compels Hannity to assert, without any evidence, that 20,000+ people turned out to the protest, although neutral sources say it was no more than 10,000. Hannity’s guest, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), put the crowd estimate as high as 45,000. She also said that the event was the result of spontaneous word of mouth. What she left out was that Fox News promoted the affair repeatedly and anti-health care lobbyists like Americans for Prosperity funded the organizing efforts, including some forty buses to deliver the AstroTurfers to the Capital.

What’s truly depressing about all of this (besides Hannity keeping his job) is that the rest of the media has failed to report any of it. When Dan Rather aired a true story that was marred by a few poorly vetted documents, it became a media frenzy that eventually cost Rather his job. But when Hannity blatantly manufactures a false story, the media shrugs its shoulders and turns away.

This is why Jon Stewart is such a treasure and a model of journalistic integrity, despite his objections to being cast in that role. We definitely need more like him. It would be great if they were just as funny, but I’d settle for just being responsible reporters.

Update: Hannity has responded to Stewart’s exposé in a typically smug manner, saying that he had “screwed up” but that it was “an inadvertent mistake.” Then he thanked Stewart and his writers for watching. That’s a little like a heroin trafficker thanking a DEA agent for listening in on his phone calls.

More to the point, Hannity’s apology doesn’t pass muster. It stretches credulity to assert that he had merely used “some incorrect video” along with some that was correct. The event he was discussing was current news, footage for which would be at hand in the newsroom. In order to buy his excuse you would have to believe that someone accidentally stumbled into the video archives facility, mistakenly retrieved footage from an event that took place two months prior, and unknowingly spliced it onto the correct footage. Then everyone on the staff – editors, directors, producers, and Hannity himself – failed to notice the mishap even after the multiple viewings that these prepackaged segments are subjected to prior to going on the air. Yeah, right.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Thank You Anita Dunn For Unmasking Fox News

Posted by on November 10, 2009 at 5:07 pm. 3 Comments :

Much of the press today is reporting the announcement that White House communications director, Anita Dunn, is leaving her post at the end of this month. And many of them are getting it wrong. This is a curious news item because it has been known since she accepted the position that it would be temporary. Nevertheless, right-wingers are falling all over themselves with delusional glee that Dunn has been “ousted.” It is just a matter of time before Glenn Beck takes credit and the Fox Nation claims victory.

On Fox News, anchor Jon Scott reported the non-event with added emphasis on her role as a Fox critic:

Anita Dunn is the person at the White House who decided it would be a good idea to try to freeze Fox News out of the White House operation, keep the president from doing interviews with Fox News personnel, keep high-level administration officials from doing interviews with Fox News personnel.

Actually, Dunn never tried to “freeze out” Fox or prevent anyone from doing interviews with them. I wish she had. The truth is that Dunn said explicitly that the President and others in his administration will engage with Fox. They will just do so with an awareness that Fox is “opinion masquerading as journalism.”

On Foxnews.com Andrea Tantaros went further, stating falsely that Dunn was leaving “earlier than planned,” and implying that she was forced out. That was not the only false statement in her column. She also said that comments Dunn made referencing Mao (which were taken thoroughly out of context) were made after her comments about Fox. In fact, they were excerpted from videos made months prior. Then Tantaros outright lies saying that…

“Liberal groups are already spinning Dunn’s announcement, insisting that her role as communications director ‘was always meant to be temporary.’“

Tantaros’ lies are revolving so fast she can’t see that it is she who is spinning. The truth is that Dunn was the President’s first choice for the position. She turned it down in November of 2008, to stay with her family and her job at a media consultancy. Obama’s second choice, Ellen Moran, took the job but later moved from that position to one in the Commerce Department. At that time Dunn agreed to come on board on an interim basis.

These facts were reported in real time when they occurred, as evident in the links above. They were not phony afterwords like those of Tantaros and countless more right-wing prevaricators.

A common argument against Dunn taking on Fox is that it backfired by helping Fox to increase its ratings. That’s a mistaken and irrelevant point. First of all, the ratings barely budged. Secondly, there is zero evidence that any change in the ratings was attributable to Dunn’s comments. Thirdly, and most importantly, the ratings don’t matter with regard to political advantage. Television ratings are a measure of a programs value to advertisers. They do not reflect public opinion on political matters. Nielsen does not have any way of knowing if a Fox viewer agrees with the content of a program. And if high ratings had anything to do with elections, then Democrats would not have trounced Republicans in 2006, nor would Obama have won in 2008. Fox was the ratings leader throughout that time period.

As Dunn returns to private life, she deserves a round of virtual applause. By daring to speak honestly about Fox, she initiated a dialogue that reverberated throughout the media. It got everyone into the debate as to the legitimacy of Fox News. That’s a discussion that produces positive results no matter which side of the fence you’re on. In fact, it is almost more enjoyable to hear Fox News advocates, and even their own anchors and commentators, batting the issue around. Every time someone poses the question of whether Fox is really news, it reminds everyone that Fox’s credentials are suspect at least. So let the debates continue.

And thank you, Anita. Thank you for your service to America. Thank you for your honesty and courage. And good luck in all your future endeavors. Be sure to check in once in a while to watch all the fun you set off.

Update: Anita is not done yet. At a Bloomberg conference, she once again took on Fox News. Her remarks covered recent incidents involving Jon Stewart (“That’s where you are getting fact-checking and investigative journalism these days.”), Karl Rove, MSNBC, and false reports from Fox about pending interviews with the President.


Bush Justice Department Harrassed Indymedia

Posted by on November 10, 2009 at 11:51 am. 2 Comments :

CBS News is reporting that the U.S. Department of Justice sent a formal request to an independent news site ordering it to provide details of all reader visits on a certain day. U.S. Attorney Tim Morrison in Indianapolis, issued subpoenas to Indymedia.us demanding information that included e-mail and IP addresses, Social Security numbers, bank account numbers, etc. There was also a demand that Indymedia not disclose to anyone that they had received the subpoenas.

This was an unprecedented affront to both freedom of the press and the right to privacy for citizens who happened to visit a particular web site. Indymedia sought advice from the Electronic Frontier Foundation who succeeded in getting the subpoenas withdrawn. However, many questions remain. There was never any disclosure as to the criminal case that was being investigated by Justice Department. The subpoenas themselves were improper, as was the gag order, but no one in the Justice Department is commenting on that.

An amusing side note to this is that rightist media groups are framing this as an abuse of power by the Obama administration. Although this is just now coming to light, they fail to note that the investigation began during the Bush administration, months before the election in 2008. The date specified in the subpoena for the information they were seeking was June 25, 2008. The subpoena itself was issued on January 22, 2009, just two days after Obama was inaugurated. Obviously the investigation had to precede the issuance of subpoenas.

As further evidence of Obama’s culpability, it was noted that subpoenas to the media have to be approved by the Attorney General. The right-wing leaped on this factoid to accuse Obama’s AG, Eric Holder, of complicity in this outrageous act. Unfortunately for that theory, Holder was not confirmed to the position until February 2, 2009, after the subpoenas had already been sent.

So the whole affair was conducted by the Bush Department of Justice, with a Bush-appointed U.S. Attorney (Morrison), and an acting AG who was also left over from Bush’s administration. This is typical of the Bush regime’s disrespect for freedom of the press. And the response from the right is typical of their embrace of disinformation and propaganda.

Behavior like this by officials in law enforcement is unconscionable, and should not be tolerated by any administration. It appears that the Obama administration did the right thing when it was brought to their attention by withdrawing the subpoenas, but they need to go further and reveal the nature of the investigation that led to this action, and the role of Bush officials in the affair. And it would also be nice if they would make a statement disapproving of such behavior and declaring it outside the policy of this administration.


Rupert Murdoch: Glenn Beck Is Right. Obama Is A Racist

Posted by on November 9, 2009 at 2:18 pm. 7 Comments :

News Corp. Chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch gave a wide-ranging interview to his own Sky News Australia. He is apparently not in a very good mood.

The interview touched on the so-called “war” between Fox News and the White House. Murdoch was asked a question about assertions that Fox is “an arm of the Republican Party.” Murdoch responded saying, “Everyone knows that’s nonsense” and charging that White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, is “a very young, inexperienced guy.” Of course, it was White House communications director, Anita Dunn, who made the comment, not Gibbs. Murdoch continued his defense of the fairness of Fox by bashing President Obama. When asked how the President was doing, Murdoch glibly replied with one word: “Badly.” He then claimed that only a couple of commentators on the network were presenting opinions. However, we know that isn’t true. Nevertheless, he falsely asserted that…

“We have on Republicans and we have on Democrats and we have them debate. The other networks only have Democrats, or something to the left of them.”

The truth, however, is that Fox does not have now, nor ever has had, a program hosted solely by a Democrat/liberal. CNN has Lou Dobbs, Nancy Grace, and until a few months ago, Glenn Beck. MSNBC currently has a three hour morning show hosted by conservative former Republican congressman Joe Scarborough. They have also employed Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham, and Michael Savage. Despite the evident dishonesty by Murdoch, he still defends his network’s balance. When the interviewer inquired as to characterizations of the President as Stalinist, Murdoch firmly objected saying,

“No no, not Stalin I don’t think. I don’t know who that is. Not one of our people.”

Oh really?

This screenshot is from the Glenn Beck show wherein Beck displayed pictures of Hitler, Stalin, and Lenin, and asked, “Is this where we’re headed?” But perhaps the most shocking moment in the interview was when Murdoch was asked about Beck calling the President a racist. Despite the widespread condemnation of Beck, the loss of eighty advertisers, and even Murdoch’s qualification that the comment may not have been proper, Murdoch openly and unequivocally declared that he agrees with Beck.

“He [Obama] did make a very racist comment about blacks and whites and so on. Which he said in his campaign he would be completely above. And it was something that, perhaps, shouldn’t have been said about the President, but if you actually assess what he [Beck] was talking about, he was right.”

So now we have an unadulterated admission from Murdoch that he believes the President is a racist. If there was ever a time to make Murdoch pay for the blatant bias and hostility for which he and his enterprise are responsible, it is now. If Beck can lose eighty advertisers for calling Obama a racist, what penalty should Murdoch pay?

Two organizations have already embarked on protest activities aimed at Fox News. Color of Change is the group that successfully persuaded advertisers to shun Beck. MoveOn has a petition requesting that Democratic representatives avoid fox News. Both of the groups should now escalate the actions to include all Fox programs and all Democratic and progressive politicians, advisors, consultants, etc.

Fox News, and the rest of the Murdoch empire, has absolutely no credibility or integrity. They do not deserve to be regarded as a news enterprise. They have demonstrated their overt prejudice and their intent on being rightist advocates, not journalists. Murdoch says that he wants to be remembered as…

“…someone who has contributed to the world and has tried to make the world more interesting and better. And used the media to good effect.”

Well he certainly has made a contribution. He has contributed Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity and more division and hatred than any media organization before him. And he has used the media to good effect. Well…it’s good if you like people shouting down free speech at town hall meetings and carrying posters of the President with Hitler mustaches. So it is our duty to treat them the same way we would treat partisans like the National Review, the Weekly Standard, WorldNetDaily, the Drudge Report, or any other avowed opponent. It is time to make a stand.

Stay the HELL off of Fox News: Starve The Beast!

Update: Media Matters has started an online petition calling on Murdoch to apologize. I don’t think that he will do so, but I do think it helps to send a message to him and the rest of the media that his remarks are objectionable and inappropriate. So go sign the petition.

Update II: Gary Ginsberg, a spokesman for Murdoch told Politico that Murdoch “does not at all, for a minute, think the president is a racist.” Sort of makes you wonder what he meant when he said that Glenn Beck was right when he called Obama a racist. But Ginsberg refused any further comment.


New York Post: Next Stop FAIL

Posted by on November 9, 2009 at 1:25 pm. NO Comments :

The New York Times is reporting some bad news for Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post:

“Three years ago Col Allan, the editor of The New York Post, pumped his fist and waded into a cheering crowd at a Midtown restaurant, celebrating The Post’s overtaking its rival, The Daily News, in weekday circulation. The Post trumpeted the news on a Times Square billboard and in its pages.” […] “Mr. Allan, who called it ‘a joyous occasion’ when The Post took the lead, now takes a more subdued view of the competition, saying in an e-mail exchange that ‘whether we are a little in front or a little behind has no impact on our forward business plan.'”

This turnaround in attitude is the result of a 30% drop in circulation for the Post in the past two and a half years. That is a bigger and faster decline than most of his competitors in a time of difficulty for the entire industry. This loss of readers comes on top of the paper losing approximately $50 million a year for the past ten years. Sources for the Times put the figure this year at $70 million. One must wonder how long Murdoch will tolerate such losses. He has shown in the past great patience for money-losing operations. He deficit financed Fox News for five years. He has been losing money on both MySpace and the Fox Business Network for two years. He doesn’t seemed to be the least bit phased by Glenn Beck’s loss of some 80 advertisers.

What this demonstrates is that Murdoch is not just the greedy media baron some think. He obviously is committed to his ideologies and the “news” enterprises that disseminate them. And if it costs him a few tens of millions of dollars, so be it.


Rupert Murdoch Sneers At Google – Google Shrugs

Posted by on November 9, 2009 at 1:01 pm. 3 Comments :

Rupert Murdoch has been whining for months about Google and other Internet search sites “stealing” his content. His complaint is that web users seeking information will search on sites like Google and then be directed to News Corp pages like Fox News and the Wall Street Journal. This is apparently something to which he objects.

It is hard to find any logic in his complaints. If traffic is directed to his web sites it increases his page views, which permits him to charge more for advertising. It also presents an opportunity to convert those readers into loyal customers from whom he can solicit subscription fees. It is difficult to grasp what he is so upset about. Particularly since he can put an end to it all by simply placing a line or two of code in a file (robots.txt) that will restrict Google and others from indexing his sites and sending them more traffic.

Murdoch’s lament has evolved into a threat to remove his sites from Google. Of course, Google has long made known that he could do that at any time. What really makes this impotent threat even more perplexing is that he is now saying that he will carry it out in conjunction with his intent to make his sites accessible only to paying customers. Perhaps he doesn’t realize that once he constructs his pay wall, the content would not be available to Google’s users anyway. In effect he is saying that he will withhold his content from people who already can’t access it. That’ll show ’em.

During the interview Murdoch demonstrated his ignorance of the Internet and his own businesses. He asserted that the Wall Street Journal already did bar non-subscribers. That isn’t entirely true. If you search for an article on the WSJ site, you will only be able to view a paragraph without signing up. But you can search for the same article on Google and read the whole thing. Once again, that’s under Murdoch’s control, not Google’s.

Murdoch also demonstrated his hypocrisy. While he is slamming Google and other content aggregators for linking to his properties, he is doing the very same thing with his Fox Nation web site. Fox Nation is nothing more than a hub for news items from other sources. So Murdoch, by his own definition is “stealing” their content.

The Sky interview also covered Murdoch’s views about the BBC, which he called a “scandal.” Clearly he is disturbed by a publicly supported news enterprise that is committed to providing news and information for free, while he is anxiously plotting to close off his content to anyone unwilling to feather his nest. He has even threatened to sue other news providers for copyright infringement. Someone might want to inform him that, unless you overtly plagiarize an article, the news does not belong to anyone. If Fox reports on a shooting in Texas, they cannot prevent me from reporting the same thing, so long as I don’t cut and paste their story verbatim.

I can’t wait until Murdoch comes through on his threats to cut off Google and to bar access to his web sites. Reducing the amount of garbage that Murdoch showers on the world will be a big contribution to journalism and the advancement of knowledge.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

A Warning To Democratic Consultants

Posted by on November 7, 2009 at 10:23 am. 3 Comments :

The Los Angeles Times is reporting that the White House has threatened Democratic consultants that they could face consequences if they continue to appear on Fox News:

“At least one Democratic political strategist has gotten a blunt warning from the White House to never appear on Fox News Channel, an outlet that presidential aides have depicted as not so much a news-gathering operation as a political opponent bent on damaging the Obama administration.”

If this actually occurred it would be a positive step in support of ethical journalism. Fox is indeed a political opponent and an overtly partisan enterprise. It makes no more sense for Democrats and their colleagues to submit to the open hostility of Fox than it would to sit down with “reporters” from the Republican National Committee.

However, this article by Times staffer Peter Nicholas is somewhat less than edifying. In the very first sentence Nicholas veers from responsible reporting by saying, “At least one Democratic political strategist has gotten a blunt warning from the White House…” At least one? Then how many at most? Nicholas doesn’t say. Neither does he reveal the identity of the single strategist. In short, Nicholas hasn’t told us anything at all that he can support. This is just an anonymous source who may have an unstated agenda and who doesn’t even bother to identify the White House aide who allegedly issued the warning.

Further casting doubt on this story is that it later quotes former Democratic consultant, Pat Caddell, who has gone on to become a Fox News contributor and frequent guest of Glenn Beck. This suggests that the anonymous source may be from the same school of phony pundits that gave us Caddell and fellow Fox mouthpiece, Dick Morris. In typical Fox fashion, Caddell expanded on the assertion that the White House is intimidating consultants, and went further to allege censorship.

“I have heard that they’ve done that to others in not-too-subtle ways. I find it appalling. When the White House gets in the business of suppressing dissent and comment, particularly from its own party, it hurts itself.”

Caddell joins with Nicholas here to plant unsupported allegations about things that he has “heard.” And Nicholas accepts Caddell’s refusal to offer anything more substantive. But what’s truly appalling is his claim that dissent is somehow being suppressed. Even if there were a warning to avoid Fox, that doesn’t suppress dissent in the least. The consultant can still go to any other news enterprise and complain to their heart’s content. The only thing the admonition as to Fox concerns is the desire to prevent Democratic operatives from being exploited by a right-wing propaganda outfit.

Nicholas does include a response from the White House communications director, Anita Dunn. She told him that, not only has there been no edict to avoid Fox, “On the contrary, they had urged people to appear on the network.” Nicholas also points out that President Obama’s campaign manager, David Plouffe, is scheduled to appear on Fox Monday with Greta Van Susteren. While it is comendable that Nicholas offers this balance, it doesn’t change the tone of the article that explicitly criticizes the administration for anonymously sourced behavior that is not proven and which is directly denied by named White House sources.

Personally, I would welcome an official policy to embargo Fox News and to punish Democrats who cooperate with them. That is not likely to happen in any public way. So in the interim, it would be nice if reporters like Nicholas would at least report stories about this matter honestly and accurately. Is that too much to ask?


Jon Stewart Channels Glenn Beck – And News Corpse

Posted by on November 6, 2009 at 2:54 pm. 11 Comments :

In another brilliantly conceived and executed parody, the Daily Show’s Jon Stewart has perfectly captured the dementia that is Glenn Beck. The wonder, the shock, the outrage, the tears, the megalomania, the obsession with impending doom. It’s all there in a hilarious send up of Beck’s traitorous appendix.

Everyday it gets harder and harder to satirize Beck. The patented Beck hysteria is so hysterical all on its own, that it takes a real comedy genius to expand on it. Stewart fits the bill. The only thing missing was a phone on his desk so Beck could call him to deny everything.

It was nice to see Stewart get out the blackboard. It makes everything so clear. It would have been nice if he had given me some credit. He must have seen my Glenn Beck Blackboard Challenge:

Glenn Beck Blackboard Challenge

And it was also nice to see him raise the specter of Beck’s favorite political philosopher:

In other news, Beck’s appendix may not be the only thing that is threatening his life. It appears that the nurses attending Beck were probably members of the Service Employees International Union or (cue scary music) SEIU. As Beck watchers know, the SEIU is an organization that Beck regards as thugs and communists bent on destroying American civilization. They are one and the same as ACORN. They are traitors and defilers of virtue. And they are the union that represents the nurses of every major hospital in the vicinity of where Beck was when his appendix declared independence. I’m not sure I would want to be cared for by people whom I had frequently slandered as Mao loving deviants. Luckily for Beck, these nurses are professional and ethical and wouldn’t think of carrying out a vendetta on a patient who hates them.


Rupert Murdoch: We Did Not Start This Abuse

Posted by on November 5, 2009 at 8:52 am. 7 Comments :

When News Corp released their quarterly earnings yesterday, analysts took the opportunity to address some issues that have plagued the company’s cable news division, Fox News. News Corp Chairman and CEO, Rupert Murdoch, was characteristically combative – and dishonest.

The key question was from Brian Stelter of the New York Times:

“There was much talk in the past three months about an agreement between News Corporation and General Electric to limit the attacks between Fox and MSNBC. Is News Corporation continuing to seek to limit those attacks?”

Let’s just ignore the prejudicial framing of the question that implies that Fox has already been seeking to limit attacks. There has been absolutely no evidence of that, so it makes no sense to ask if it will continue. Murdoch, however, wasn’t going to complain about a such a propitiously delivered inquiry. He responded by whining that “they started it.”

“We did not start this abuse, which we thought went way beyond – it was personal and went way beyond – not on me, but on others, and it was finally we had to allow people to retaliate. And the moment they stop, we’ll stop.”

The truth, however, is a quite different from Murdoch’s representation. The hostility between Fox and it’s cable news colleagues was initiated by Fox from the day they launched in 1996. The utterly cynical “fair and balanced” slogan was an intentional slap at the other networks, whom they were accusing of bias. The meaning of the slogan was not that Fox would present the news with fairness or balance, but that they would serve to counter what they delusionally viewed as the imbalance of the rest of the media.

Since the ideological battle between the networks began on the day Fox debuted, Murdoch can hardly accuse the other networks of starting the abuse. But it didn’t stop there. In January of 2007, Fox ran an on-air promo that said they were “The only cable news channel that does not bring you the usual left wing bias.”

And that wasn’t all. They subsequently ran ads that accused CNN of being partisan and the Fox Nation promos declared that it was “time to say no to biased media.” More recently, they falsely claimed in a trade ad that CNN had failed to cover the Tea Bagger events that Fox itself was sponsoring. So much for fairness and balance. Murdoch himself admitted that his network’s slogan was a fraud in April of 2008 when he said…

“It’s very hard to be neutral. People laugh at us because we call ourselves ‘Fair and Balanced.’ Fact is, CNN, who’s always been extremely liberal, never had a Republican or conservative voice on it.”

People are laughing at you because you make such hysterically inane remarks like that one. Just a reminder – CNN’s lineup of conservatives: Robert Novak, Pat Buchanan, Mary Matalin, Tucker Carlson, Lynne Cheney, Lou Dobbs, etc. Fox’s lineup of liberals: Alan Colmes.

Not only was Murdoch wrong about who started this war, he also improperly asserted that it was made personal by his rivals. That doesn’t really square with the facts. How would he characterize this comment from Bill O’Reilly:

“[T]here is a huge problem in this country and I’m going to attack that problem. I’m going to attack it. These people aren’t getting away with this. I’m going to go right where they live. Every corrupt media person in this country is on notice, right now. 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.”

Nah, that aint personal. And then there was the time that Roger Ailes threatened that he would “unleash O’Reilly against NBC and would use the New York Post as well.” That was just after O’Reilly called GE chairman Jeffrey Immelt “a despicable human being” who was responsible for the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq. And Ailes kept his promise about unleashing the New York Post who published hit pieces on Keith Olbermann that included his home address. No, not personal at all.

Now Murdoch is misrepresenting the entire affair. It is demonstrably evident that Fox started the name-calling and bullying long before this current imbroglio began. And it was Fox who escalated it to bitter and personal insults. Now Murdoch says that “the moment they stop, we’ll stop.” That is almost exactly what Fox said in May of last year. But since then, Fox has only become more adversarial, showing no interest in anything but conflict and confrontation.

So contrary to Murdoch’s assertion, Fox not only started the abuse, they raised it to unprecedented levels. Now Murdoch complains that he doesn’t like it. Well, he’s saddled with it now. He invented it and promoted it. It is his legacy. Along with giving the world nutcases like Glenn Beck. That is how we remember Rupert Murdoch.


Glenn Beck’s Appendix Makes A Break For It

Posted by on November 4, 2009 at 9:08 pm. 20 Comments :

This morning, during his radio show, Glenn Beck suffered a mutiny staged by the only internal organ he has that exhibits any signs of intelligence. Beck’s appendix took the opportunity to escape while his brain was preoccupied with manufacturing excuses for why his candidate for Congress in New York’s 23rd District, Doug Hoffman, failed to stop Bill Owens from becoming the first Democrat to win the district in over 100 years. The best efforts of Beck, Sean Hannity, and Sarah Palin, fell short of persuading voters that an inexperienced, ill-informed, tea bagger, who didn’t even live in the district, ought to be their representative in Washington.

The strain of having to face his impotence was the perfect opening for his appendix to skip town. Beck was consoled by the fact that his wealth provides him with the best health care that money can buy, a benefit that he is fiercely opposed to for his fellow Americans. In a statement released late today, Beck accused his appendix of being a Mao-loving communist.

In other news, Thomas Frank writes in the Wall Street Journal that the red phone Beck keeps on his desk to receive calls from the White House is just another meaningless prop. The people to whom Beck said he had sent the number told Frank that they were never contacted by Beck and do not know the number. Yet on a daily basis Beck repeatedly holds up the phone and wonders aloud why those he has slandered as commies haven’t called him. Of course there was never any expectation that anyone from the White House would patronize Beck’s dementia by calling, but now we know that it was all a charade and (surprise) a lie. For the record, Beck has still not called me to deny that he idolizes Adolf Hitler as he says in this linked video.

Finally, as if further evidence were required, Beck has once again revealed his overt racism in a comment on yesterday’s program. He was teasing a segment scheduled for Friday’s show (which he will not be hosting now because he will still be recovering from surgery), when he visits Harlem with a Fox News pal.

“If you’re Glenn Beck and you’re in Harlem and somebody taps you on the shoulder and says, ‘Mr. Beck, excuse me.’ You tend to maybe think, ‘Uh oh, I might be in trouble here.’“

So Glenn Beck goes to Harlem and someone taps him on the shoulder – not grabs his arm or shoves him against the wall – but merely taps him on the shoulder. Then the stranger respectfully addresses him as “Mr.” and uses his surname – not “hey you” or “yo asshole.” Finally he courteously requests that he be excused for interjecting himself. And after all of that, Beck considers himself to be in danger, solely because he’s north of 110th Street in Manhattan. What sort of person would arrive at that conclusion? A racist, maybe?

No wonder his appendix would risk it all, even being discarded as bio-waste, just to get away from Beck.