MSNBC

GE And News Corp: The Saga Continues

Posted by on August 8, 2009 at 2:19 pm. 5 Comments :

As previously reported, executives at GE and News Corp have been attempting to broker a deal that would end the bickering between the networks and, mostly, Keith Olbermann and Bill O’Reilly. I continue to maintain that it would be a violation of journalistic ethics for the execs to interfere with the judgment of their commentators. But the brass at GE and News Corp don’t seem to agree with me.

The first attempt at a truce was broken within 48 hours by Olbermann who, on returning from vacation, skewered O’Reilly royally, just like the good old days. O’Reilly took up the gauntlet and, as per his routine, ignored Olbermann and went straight after his boss at GE, Jeffrey Immelt. The tactic of bypassing Olbermann and aiming at Immelt is said to have been personally suggested by Fox News CEO Roger Ailes. With the war on again, the combatants began to reveal some of their innermost thoughts – particularly Ailes who, according to the Washington Post, summarized the situation thusly:

Ailes offered a blunt, if slightly jocular, diagnosis of the problem. He could control his nutcases, Ailes said, but Immelt couldn’t control his.

That says so much. First, Ailes is acknowledging that his people are nutcases (as if we didn’t already know). And second, Ailes is admitting that he has the power to manipulate the content and views of the nutcases who host Fox programs.

GE has issued a statement saying that they haven’t “told anyone at NBC News or MSNBC how to report the news.” But the New York Times claims to have sources who said that, not only was there a deal that covered Olbermann and O’Reilly, but also…

“Employees of daytime programs on MSNBC were specifically told by executives not to mention Fox hosts in segments critical of conservative media figures.”

What I want to know is, how can you produce a segment critical of conservative media figures without mentioning Fox hosts?

Olbermann (and anyone in his position) deserves respect for standing up to interference from the suits in the suites. It is the ethical thing to do in the news business. You simply do not let them intrude on your news judgment, especially if your job is to provide analysis and opinion. Unless, of course, you’re Bill O’Reilly, who is a coward, and a puppet for Ailes, who has previously admitted that he has the ability to direct what is said by Murdoch-owned pundits on TV and in print (over which he has no executive authority):

“Ailes warned that if Olbermann didn’t stop such attacks against Fox, he would unleash O’Reilly against NBC and would use the New York Post as well.”

This was basically extortion on the part of Ailes who literally served notice on GE saying that, “If you stop, we’ll stop.” The objective by both the GE and News Corp executives has nothing to do with the pursuit of news. Rather, it is a self-serving plot to tamp down any criticism of the parent companies. They are looking after their corporate interest, not the public interest.

This whole affair is a near perfect illustration of why monolithic corporations, with vested interests in far flung business and government affairs, should not be permitted to own news enterprises.

GE And FOX Agree To Censor Their News Divisions

Posted by on August 1, 2009 at 2:58 pm. 7 Comments :

In a report in the New York Times, the corporate parents of NBC and Fox News were brought together at a summit for CEO’s in an attempt to settle a long-simmering feud. Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of GE, and Rupert Murdoch, CEO of News Corp, sat down to try to work things out.

What they were striving to resolve was the eternal and bitter competition between MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann and Fox’s Bill O’Reilly. This affair has been a rancorous, and often humorous, battle wherein Olbermann frequently awarded O’Reilly his “Worst Person in the World,” trophy, and O’Reilly countered by slandering NBC, GE, and Immelt personally (O’Reilly would never utter Olbermann’s name). According to the Times’ Brian Stelter…

“It was a media cage fight, televised every weeknight at 8 p.m. But the match was halted when the blood started to spray executives in the high-priced seats.”

There are two things that are immensely disturbing about this backroom handshake. First and foremost, the corporate parents of news enterprises ought not to be dictating the content of their news divisions, or the opinions of their commentators. That is especially true if the reason for the ivory tower interference is to dampen any blowback on the parent company’s business or executives resulting from controversial positions. This is about the best example of why it is unwise for corporations with vested interests in broader business and government affairs to own news publishers to begin with.

Secondly, the result of this inter-cable warfare is precisely what Fox News wanted. MSNBC is caving in to a deliberate tactic designed to halt criticism of Fox and its personnel. It is a one-sided victory for Fox that comes at the expense of MSNBC’s best interests and dignity. It was less than four months ago that Fox News CEO, Roger Ailes, laid down the threat from which they are now reaping the harvest. Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post reported the tantrum Ailes threw in response to the escalating on-air debate:

“Ailes warned that if Olbermann didn’t stop such attacks against Fox, he would unleash O’Reilly against NBC and would use the New York Post as well.”

That’s precisely what happened, and it didn’t even take two weeks for Fox to follow through on its threat. Now we see this truce in effect at least partly because Immelt doesn’t like being called “a despicable human being” by O’Reilly. And the worst part is that Fox’s blatant bullying is being rewarded with a complete capitulation by MSNBC.

For these networks to enforce this agreement is nothing short of censorship. Olbermann responded with an email that said that he was not a party to any agreement, but he also seems to have halted his once routine attacks on O’Reilly and Fox News. As for Fox, their position now is that it is appropriate to direct their commentators to steer clear of certain topics. But that appears to apply only to topics that negatively impact the company brass. Just last week, after Glenn Beck called President Obama a racist, Fox released a statement that said that beck had merely…

“…expressed a personal opinion which represented his own views, not those of the Fox News Channel. And as with all commentators in the cable news arena, he is given the freedom to express his opinions.”

That freedom, of course, has limitations. From the Fox News point of view, it is alright for one of their hosts to comment disparagingly on the President of the United States, but it is not OK to comment on the president of the company. The company, after all, is sacrosanct and its interests are superior to those of the nation.

It is disheartening to see this sort of corporate thuggery imposed on what should be independent news divisions. One can only hope that the truce will fail and free expression will prevail.

Update: Olbermann returned from vacation and struck down any notion that the network brass would dictate the content of his program. To prove it, he returned Bill O’Reilly to the “World’s Worst” list and reprised his old “Bill-O the Clown” routine. Apparently, news of a network truce were exaggerated. That’s good news.

Emmy News: Nominations – PBS 41 / Fox News 0

Posted by on July 14, 2009 at 5:57 pm. 1 Comments :

The Emmy nominations for News and Documentaries were released today by the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences. PBS scored the lion’s share with 41 nominations, including two more for Bill Moyers, who has won more than 30 Emmys already. CBS was a distant second with 23. One notable name missing from the list of honorees is the #1 cable news network in the country, Fox News. There are two principle reasons for the absence of Fox News.

First, Fox claims to have declined to participate because they believe that the Emmys are biased against them. That’s a rather piddling complaint that, more than anything, exposes their self-centered pettiness with an attitude that recalls a school child taking the ball and going home.

The more likely reason for their Emmy snub is that Fox is not actually a news network and, knowing this, they are acknowledging that nominations will not be forthcoming. I suspect that they are preparing to submit their programming for Emmys in the drama and, perhaps, comedy categories, where they have a better chance of being recognized. Of course then their other fictional fare, like “24” and “The Simpsons” will have to compete against the far more flagrant fiction produced by Fox News. Whatever will they do?

Well, we can expect Bill O’Reilly to issue a blistering condemnation of the Academy shortly. He did the same thing when the Peabodys snubbed him (again), despite honoring Moyers and Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert on multiple occasions. What does it say when a comedy network’s fake news programs receive more plaudits from their journalism “peers” than a network that pretends to be a bona fide news enterprise? And furthermore, what does it say about the viewers of a so-called news network that is held in such ill repute by other news professionals?

Amongst the Emmy hopefuls is David Barstow, the New York Times reporter who wrote Message Machine. This article, which has already won a Pulitzer Prize and the New York Press Club’s Golden Keyboard, described how the Pentagon in the Bush administration conspired to train and deploy former military personnel to spread propaganda in support of the war in Iraq. And if that weren’t bad enough, the program also permitted them to use their high profile media platform to enrich themselves and the defense contractors to whom they were attached.

Despite the acclaim the article has received, Barstow has still yet to be invited to tell this important story in any conventional media venue. The only in-depth broadcast interview was conducted by Amy Goodman of Democracy Now. This may be the most egregious example of a heralded, Pulitzer caliber investigation being so brazenly suppressed. The obvious explanation is that the media organizations that have actively blackballed the story are also the subjects of it. They are the news enterprises employing the compromised Pentagon Pundits, and they have a vested interest in preventing the truth from getting out.

Now that the report has been awarded another honor, will Barstow’s phone start to ring? Will the media pay attention to what may be the worst instance of propaganda executed by the U.S. government against its own people? At the very least, MSNBC has a special obligation to pursue this story. They have a contractual relationship with the New York Times, and their own John Harwood is a frequent guest on both MSNBC and CNBC. Why on earth wouldn’t the Times be lobbying to promote a story by their own Pulitzer award winning reporter who has now been nominated for an Emmy?

Contact MSNBC and tell them to book David Barstow:
MSNBC General
Keith Olbermann
Rachel Maddow
Ed Schultz
David Shuster
Chris Matthews

Chuck Todd Is A Political Analyst?

Posted by on July 8, 2009 at 12:34 pm. 3 Comments :

Chuck Todd is the NBC News Political Director and Chief White House Correspondent. I wonder what qualifications were required for those posts. Listening to Todd’s comments today on Morning Joe suggest that not much actual research or knowledge of current political events were deemed a prerequisite in landing his job:

The key portion of his remarks reveals some sort of tunnel vision on his part as he struggles to explain left-wing criticism of Obama’s healthcare initiatives:

“I think we’ve all been wondering at what point…you know…what would it take for the left to start actually criticizing the White House […] Would there be something that they would get upset about from the White House, and this is the first time we’re seeing that.”

The first time? Apparently Todd doesn’t read Paul Krugman, who has been blasting the President on his economic proposals. Todd hasn’t been watching Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow who have been fiercely critical of Obama’s timidity with regard to torture and the prosecution of those responsible for it. Todd must be oblivious to the attacks from advocates of civil liberties and same-sex marriage. And Todd must have missed the free press activists who are hammering the White House for not living up to their promises on transparency.

The left may be many things, but it is not above circling the wagons and firing away at itself. Todd has bought the right-wing fallacy that the media is liberal and that the Obama administration is enjoying special treatment. That has never been true, but that doesn’t stop the rightist propaganda machine from alleging it. One thing they never acknowledge is that Fox News is the #1 national cable news network, and they are notoriously, and viciously, critical of Obama, democrats, and liberals in general.

How the right can assert that the media is liberal while Fox, most newspapers, and virtually all of talk radio, are firmly in the conservative camp, is unfortunate but understandable given their self-serving agenda. What I don’t understand is how professional journalists, who aspire to practice their craft ethically, can be so taken in by the dishonest representations of partisan operatives and, as a result, disseminate the sort of nonsense that Todd is dispensing here.

[Update] Todd responded to an emailer (thanks, ecostar) saying:

“I love getting attacked on things like this. There’s a difference between venting and deciding to act upon the anger and what I was point out was the specific acting out by moveon on rahm and health care. Sounds like some blogger decided to either misrepresent what I said or somehow didn’t understand the context. But thanks for being a ranter in your attack.”

So Todd doesn’t think that all of the advocacy groups connected to the issues addressed above are acting on their complaints? MoveOn is just the latest to act. He should check with the ACLU, the Human Rights Campaign, FreePress.net, Brave New Films/Foundation, etc. His answer is a complete dodge that only further engulfs him in disinformation.

Feel free to let Todd know that this is NOT the first time that the left has been critical of Obama, and it is NOT the first time that media mainstays like him have misrepresented that fact:

Email:
Chuck Todd
Letters @ MSNBC

Don’t Believe The Hype About Fox News Ratings

Posted by on July 1, 2009 at 3:49 pm. 12 Comments :

As the numbers come in for the second quarter, cable news networks are all putting on their best spin to wrangle positive stories that promote how much better they are than their competition. It’s an age-old ritual that pits marketing flacks against one another as they jostle for position and advertising bucks. And nobody does this more relentlessly than Fox News.

Everywhere you look you can see the effect of Fox’s PR blitz. They proudly boast that they have increased viewership in the 25-54 demographic 50% over Q2 of 2008 (Monday-Sunday, primetime). Simultaneously, they taunt MSNBC and CNN for falling off 2.6% and 19.2% respectively. The core of their message is that, along with continuing their leading position in cable news, they are also outpacing their rivals in growth. That’s an argument that requires a little further exploration.

Fox News has typically been the slowest growing cable news network. Up until about a year ago, they were the only network that regularly posted declines, which they did for a couple of years running. So what happened in the last year that appears to have interrupted that trend?

Recall that during the second quarter of 2008, the Democratic Party was still embroiled in a fiercely contested primary for president. The Republican primary had been effectively over since February. So interest in campaign news tilted away from the GOP network (aka Fox). What’s more, Democrats had forsworn appearing in debates sponsored by Fox News. The result was that MSNBC and CNN benefited noticeably by their coverage of the most compelling news events of the season, while Fox had to be satisfied with interviewing themselves and squawking from the bleachers. Consequently, Fox’s ratings for Q2 of 2008 were 2.3% lower than the same period in 2007. By comparison, MSNBC was up 46.9% and CNN was higher by 21.7%.

By outperforming Fox so spectacularly, from a growth perspective, in 2008, it makes for difficult comparisons in 2009. So a far more interesting analysis would be to remove the unique circumstances of the 2008 presidential campaign year, and compare performance from 2007 to 2009. In that race, Fox still did pretty well gaining 47.2% over the two year span. However, MSNBC was close behind with a 42.7% gain. CNN, while not keeping stride with the others, was still not as far behind as represented in the single year comparison. They were basically flat (-1.7%).

None of this diminishes the fact that Fox is still the runaway leader according to Nielsen, an increasingly unreliable source that even Bill O’Reilly considers to be less than honest. And although he pretends to be opposed to big-government interference and regulation, he hypocritically declares that…

“The bottom line on this is there may be some big-time cheating going on in the ratings system, and we hope the feds will investigate. Any fraud in the television rating system affects all Americans.”

Fox’s ratings success is more likely due to the cult-like brand loyalty of the rightist, delusional demographic. But it is still disheartening because their ratings dominance rewards them financially for lying and advocating terrorism. However, on a positive note, MSNBC was the number one cable news network among 18-34 year-olds. This continues a trend that suggests that the next generation of news consumers will be rejecting Fox News and its ilk.

In the meantime, we’ll just have to tolerate Fox’s bragging while putting it into perspective. They still have fewer viewers than SpongeBob SquarePants. Their highest rated show (O’Reilly) still has about a third of the viewers of broadcast TV’s lowest rated news program (CBS Nightly News). And there is real consolation in knowing that, while they win on the Idiot Box, they are losing at the ballot box.

Rothenberg Dunks Hardball

Posted by on June 8, 2009 at 2:44 am. 4 Comments :

Stuart Rothenberg is the very model of a modern major political pundit. He has his own newsletter and contributes to Roll Call, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and is a regular commentator on television news programs. He has a reputation as an astute analyst. Which makes me wonder why it took him so long to come to this realization:

“America’s cable ‘news’ networks have concluded – on the basis of considerable research and evidence, I’m sure – that most viewers don’t want straight news and analysis as much as they want to hear what they already think or to watch predictable partisan attacks.

“The three big cable ‘news’ networks don’t exist to provide a public service, after all. They have corporate officers and stockholders to answer to, which means they need more and more eyeballs to generate more advertising dollars.

“Their answer: talk radio on TV. Forget about the serious implications and political fallout that follow an event or policy, and instead attack your opponents repeatedly using half-truths, glittering generalities and inapplicable analogies.”

With that, Rothernberg announced that he will no longer be a guest on MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews. Very little of what Rothenberg says should surprise anyone who has been paying attention. So either he is not as astute as he pretends to be, or he just preferred picking up his paycheck and indulging in denial. Rothenberg complains that Hardball has evolved into “a partisan, heavily ideological sledgehammer” and he is upset that Matthews made reference to some Republicans as crackpots. But that seems like a pretty petty reason to pound on a news culture that has plenty of legitimate flaws.

I’m not sure what his objection is to the crackpot remark. With characters like Michele “Let’s investigate Congress for Socialists” Bachmann, and Michael “It’s a Hip-Hop GOP, Baby” Steele, crackpot seems like a rather reserved assessment. And as for being a partisan sledgehammer, I can’t think of any other program that regularly hosts the disgraced former Republican leader, Tom DeLay, and treats him with such deference and respect.

Rothenberg’s assertion that viewers aren’t interested in straight news is really a form of attacking the victim. There is surely a segment of the market that prefers to only hear those things that validate their preconceptions, but part of the problem is that they haven’t been given a real choice in the first place. If the audience currently has no place to find neutral reporting, how can we conclude that they would not watch it if it were available? The truth is that viewers are drawn to programming that provides either information or drama. Since there is presently no compelling source of informational programming, viewers are stuck with the dramatic variety.

Rothenberg’s observation that the media has abandoned public service in favor of profit is irrefutable, but hardly a revelation. And while he describes the corporate response to conditions in the marketplace (talk radio on TV), he doesn’t bother to offer any suggestions for reversing the trend and restoring a commitment to quality and public service in cable studios and newsrooms. He seems to lack the courage to declare that it is the iron grip of the monolithic media conglomerates that is responsible for the greed-driven state of today’s news providers.

While Rothenberg comes down pretty hard on Hardball, he says that Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, and Ed Schultz, are even worse. To his credit, he attempts to seek some balance by making a couple of obvious, yet still notable (for a mainstream pundit) comments about the Fox News all-stars, including…

“O’Reilly’s obsession with General Electric and that company’s CEO is bizarre, though any program that treats Dick Morris seriously as an independent analyst obviously has major problems.”

So Rothenberg’s epiphany has led him to eschew Hardball for good. He doesn’t say whether he will do likewise for the rest of the cable asylum. That would certainly make a dent in his wallet. However, he does suggest that his fellow pundits reconsider their own fraternization with the compromised world of cable news. He regards it as a matter of integrity in the name of journalistic ethics and says that…

“Trying to be an unbiased reporter or neutral analyst on a heavily biased television program is incredibly awkward and uncomfortable. Either you end up fighting the host’s premises and rephrasing loaded questions, or you are tacitly accepting the way the host defines a situation, making yourself an accomplice to a political mugging.”

That’s about the truest thing I have ever heard a member of the political mugging class admit to. On one hand, I admire Rothenberg’s honest appraisal, though I still can’t imagine what took him so long to arrive at it. On the other hand, he isn’t exactly an innocent bystander. He’s more like the stoolie who’s giving up his pals to save his own skin. Time will tell whether this is a genuine revelation or merely a tantrum for some perceived slight in the Hardball green room – or retaliation for Matthews calling his Republican buddiess crackpots.

SPINCOM: Still A Deafening Silence

Posted by on May 20, 2009 at 2:50 pm. NO Comments :

A couple of weeks ago, I posted this story on David Barstow, the author of Message Machine for the New York Times. Yesterday, the New York Press Club awarded Barstow it’s Golden Keyboard Award. Barstow had previously won a Pulitzer for the story.

Message Machine described how the Pentagon in the Bush administration conspired to train and deploy former military personnel to spread propaganda in support of the war in Iraq. And if that weren’t bad enough, the program also permitted them to use their high profile media platform to enrich themselves and the defense contractors to whom they were attached.

To date, Barstow has still not been invited to appear on any of the major news networks to discuss his article. The allegations have been investigated by Congress and by the Inspector General of the Pentagon. The Department of Defense halted the programs exposed by Barstow. He is continuing to receive accolades from his peers, but none of this is enough to persuade television news editors to book him.

We can eliminate Fox News as a potential host for a discussion with Barstow. But at the very least we ought to be able to get MSNBC to schedule a segment or two. Feel free to give them some encouragement.

Contact MSNBC:
MSNBC General
Keith Olbermann
Rachel Maddow
Ed Schultz
David Shuster
Chris Matthews

Rush Limbaugh To MSNBC: Leave Me Alone

Posted by on May 20, 2009 at 10:26 am. 1 Comments :

The towering ego that is Rush Limbaugh is tottering on its foundation. On his radio rant yesterday, Limbaugh lashed out at what he perceives to be a vicious cabal, led by MSNBC, dedicated to being mean to him. In the typical manner of bullies everywhere, Rush wiped his nose, stammered a bit, then fired back a volley of indignant spittle:

“It is clear to me that MSNBC is hoping to build its ratings on my back. […] they cannot go any appreciable length of time without showing video of me […] or excerpts from this radio show or having a bunch of hack guests on to discuss me. So my challenge is this, to MSNBC […] Let’s see if you can do Rush withdrawal. Let’s see if you can run your little TV network for 30 days without doing a single story on me”

Poor Rush. Those meanies at MSNBC won’t stop saying stuff about him. He would like it much better, I’m sure, if he were allowed to spout off about whatever he wants, no matter how ignorant or infested with lies, without some TV news commentators pointing out what a fraud he is. He would be so very happy if, for just thirty days, he could be free from having his ill-informed tripe rebutted by facts and logic.

This is the same Limbaugh who can’t go a day without flailing at what he calls the “drive-by” media. He is one of the most vituperative critics of any and all press with whom he disagrees. He bashes MSNBC regularly, but now he is begging for a thoroughly one-sided truce.

What could have provoked this pique? Ordinarily Limbaugh would be thrilled that people were talking about him at all. He frequently asserts that his adversaries just make him stronger. Now, all of a sudden, he wants them to shut up? Perhaps he revealed the answer in this remark:

“As you know, Michael Steele made a speech today outlining the future of the Republican Party. And apparently he mentioned every conservative’s name in the book except mine and Cheney’s. This has caused many excited media people to point this out.”

There it is. Steele’s speech actually cited only three conservatives (all deceased), in a rambling dissertation on how his leadership will bring change “delivered in a tea bag.” But by leaving out Limbaugh (not deceased, but still extinct), Steele set off a media frenzy that didn’t include the de facto head of the Republican Party. That is an unforgivable oversight that must be immediately corrected by imploring the press to pay more attention to Boss Limbaugh.

So Rush issues a challenge that he knows won’t be considered in an attempt to turn the spotlight back on himself. In the process he advocates for constraining the free speech rights of his critics. And underlying all of that, he exposes himself as the thin-skinned, sorehead that we all knew him to be. If Limbaugh really wants MSNBC and others to leave him alone, there is one very simple way to accomplish that: Leave!

Late Breaking: On his radio program today Rush issued this announcement regarding his position as Republican Party chief:

“I have been anointed to this position by members of the drive-by media, and of course, the Obama White House. I am resigning as the titular head of the Republican Party.”

Uh oh. Does that mean that the party is stuck with Michael Steele? Rush nominated Colin Powell for the job, but let’s be realistic…it’s more likely to be Dick Cheney. Given the choice of Limbaugh, Steele, Powell, or Cheney, Democrats would probably choose all of the above.

Top 10 Crazy Political Commentators

Posted by on May 4, 2009 at 2:43 pm. NO Comments :

According to AskMen.com, the Top 10 Crazy Political Commentators are:

  1. Bill O’Reilly
  2. Keith Olbermann
  3. Ann Coulter
  4. Michael Savage
  5. Rush Limbaugh
  6. Sean Hannity
  7. Chris Matthews
  8. Geraldo Rivera
  9. Dennis Miller
  10. Glenn Beck

Somehow I missed this list when it was published back in February. On the surface it doesn’t seem particularly groundbreaking. After all, the personalities enumerated are mostly deserving, although the order could inspire much debate.

The funny thing about this list is that AskMen is owned by Fox Interactive, a subsidiary of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. So it’s interesting to note that five of the top 10 crazies, including number one, are actually employees of Fox News. Three more (Coulter, Savage, and Limbaugh) are Fox-aligned right-wingers. That’s eight out of ten Foxies, with the remaining two from MSNBC.

What we have here is one Fox affiliate acknowledging that another Fox affiliate is dominated by pundits who are patently insane. Will the editors of AskMen be punished for this eruption of honesty? Will they be admonished for insulting their corporate cousins? Of course not. This is exactly what Fox intended when they hired these lunatics. They were pursuing a programming strategy that leaned heavily on exploiting madness for its entertainment value. They were convinced that nothing excited the American viewing public as much as a live, on-air, mental train wreck.

Well, they are sure getting their money’s worth.

David Shuster Tells The Truth About Fox News – Again

Posted by on May 2, 2009 at 12:49 am. 1 Comments :

With Fox News dispensing falsehoods and vitriol on a daily (hourly) basis, I have long thought that it is well past time for responsible media figures to respond by honestly portraying Fox as a partisan enterprise that has little to do with actual news.

By this I do not mean that partisans from the other end of the political spectrum should take on Fox’s disinformation machine. Folks like Keith Olbermann are already doing that. What I mean is that bona fide journalists should stop pretending that Fox is in the same business as they are. There needs to be a realistic appraisal of the state of the media and Fox’s role in it.

To that end, it is great to see MSNBC’s David Shuster coming forward and saying what all ethical reporters ought to be saying. In an interview with Stephanie Miller, Shuster provided an excellent example of how to tell the truth when it comes to Fox News:

[I]f Fox wants to consider themselves the GOP house organ, that’s fine. They completely backed it up. When Fox starts describing themselves as journalists or a news organization, that’s where I think it’s appropriate to describe Fox as disgraceful […] The stuff that comes out of Sean Hannity’s mouth has been infuriating. The stuff that Bill O’Reilly says has been illogical. You go up and down the schedule and it’s insanity over there.

This isn’t the first time Shuster has stepped up in this regard. Not long after he left Fox News (that’s right, he used to work there, so he knows of what he speaks), Shuster disclosed what it was like to try to practice journalism in a shop that had no respect for it:

…there wasn’t a tradition or track record of honoring journalistic integrity. I found some reporters at Fox would cut corners or steal information from other sources or in some cases, just make things up. Management would either look the other way or just wouldn’t care to take a closer look.

Seeing as how presenters on Fox are constantly bashing the rest of the media, you would think that they would stand up for themselves, particularly when they have the facts on their side. Fox is the only news organization that regularly insults the professionalism of their competitors in advertising and on the air. That is the whole point of their “fair and balanced” pretense.

Brian Williams, Katie Couric, Charlie Gibson, and others in TV and print, have the right and the duty to defend their presentation of the news and to reveal the deceit that is part and parcel of Fox. David Shuster is showing them the way. Nice job, David.