Malice In Wonderland: Fox News Through The Looking Glass

Tea CrusadesOver the past year the Tea Party phenomenon has attracted a lot of attention from the rightist media. From the beginning Fox News took the lead sponsoring and promoting Tea Party events, dispatching their anchors to literally host Tea Party rallies, and donating hundreds of hours of airtime to Tea Party spokespeople and supporters. Fox News is the de facto Tea Party Channel.

Despite that massive PR push, the Tea Party remains quagmired as a niche clan of exclusionary cultists and corporate dupes. But that hasn’t deterred Fox News from their campaign to Tea Bag America. This morning Fox Nation declared that Tea Parties are going on high alert, and posted recruiting calls for Joe the Plumber’s Tea Party Tax Revolt.

All of this got me to wondering where it will all end. With a major so-called “news” network advocating on behalf of the delusional flank of the conservative crusade, it seems to me that the right stumbled into an abyss and has consumed some mighty potent mushrooms. So, with apologies to Tim Burton, I present…

Malice In Wonderland, Fox News Through the Looking Glass:

~~~

~~~

~~~

~~~

~~~

Later this month a new Tea Crusade will commence in the form of another AstroTurf sponsored bus tour. The thrid Tea Bagger Express will conclude in Washington on April 15. On August 28, Glenn Beck will headline his “Restoring Honor” affair at the Lincoln Memorial. That’s an ironic event considering the obvious lack of honor of the host. He just starting claiming that it’s a fundraiser for the Special Operations Warrior Foundation, but he originally promoted it as the launch date for his next book “The Plan.” Also, the date is the anniversary of Martin Luther’s King’s “I Have a Dream” speech at the same location. A couple of days ago, Beck called King a “radical socialist” and questioned whether we should be celebrating a holiday in his name. Now Beck seeks to muddy King’s memory by usurping this historic anniversary to hawk his book. In September Beck’s second annual 9/12 rally will take place on 9/11. This gives Beck another opportunity to tarnish a sensitive anniversary.

Expect all of these events to be aggressively promoted on the Tea Party Channel (i.e. Fox News). And expect there to be more coverage of, and interviews with, Tea Baggers and there proxies in Congress. And above all, expect more confusion, mischief, and deceit on the part of Fox and the right-wing politico-media complex.

I must say that I have to agree with Alice when she said:

“It would be so nice if something made sense for a change.”

The Right’s Top 25 Journalists?

Tunku Varadarajan, national affairs correspondent for The Daily Beast, has compiled a list of what he and 50 academics, politicians, and journalists, consider to be the top 25 right-wing journalists in America. The most enlightening thing we learn from this list has nothing to do with the ranking of wingnuts in the media. What is truly fascinating is how it reveals their definition of a journalist. Here are the top 10:

  1. Paul Gigot, Editorial Page Editor, The Wall Street Journal
  2. Glenn Beck, Fox News
  3. Rush Limbaugh, Radio Talk Show Host
  4. Peggy Noonan, The Wall Street Journal
  5. Bill O’Reilly, Fox News
  6. Michelle Malkin, Fox News/Blogger
  7. David Brooks, The New York Times
  8. Sean Hannity, Fox News
  9. James Taranto, The Wall Street Journal
  10. Matt Drudge, The Drudge Report

To be fair, placing Paul Gigot at the top of the list recognizes a veteran newsman who spent decades with ink-stained fingers pursuing his vocation as a reporter and editor. While devotedly right-wing in his current role as an editorialist and commentator, he also has the resume of a bona fide journalist. And that makes him the ONLY journalist on the list.

It is nearly hysterical that the 50 unnamed participants in this project elevated Glenn Beck to second place; and Rush Limbaugh to third; and Bill O’Reilly to fifth; and … well you get the idea. What’s more, Varadarajan obviously has a soft spot in his heart for his former employer, Rupert Murdoch. Seven of the top 10 are also Murdoch minions employed by either Fox News or the Wall Street Journal. I wonder if some of the few real journalists at those shops are upset that they were ignored in favor of Sean Hannity and Peggy Noonan?

It is rather telling that an assembly of conservative academics, politicians, and journalists, couldn’t actually come up with names of other conservatives who are actually journalists. One of their selections, Limbaugh, has already responded to the list by declaring that he shouldn’t be on it. At least he is honest enough in this circumstance to admit that what he does is not journalism.

Some of the notable non-journalists on the remainder of the list include raging propagandist Andrew Breitbart (11), serial interrupter Neil Cavuto (14), Coulter clone Laura Ingraham (21), and Marc Morano, a virulent Climate Crisis denier and science skeptic.

Overall, judging from this coterie of cranks, I’m surprised that James O’Keefe and Jeff Gannon weren’t given honorable mentions. Perhaps the panel should be consulted again and made aware of some of these glaring omissions. Remember, Joe the Plumber served as a war correspondent for Pajamas Media. How dare they insult these fine conservatives by failing to honor their contributions to the rightist media.

Bill O’Reilly Gets His (Pin)Head Spun By Russian TV

In the opening of every show, Bill O’Reilly points his finger at the camera and delivers this warning to his viewers: “Caution, you are entering THE no spin zone.” While it is obvious to sentient beings that O’Reilly’s pretense of being spin-less is preposterous, we should be grateful for the disclaimer advising caution. You can’t be too careful when watching anything on Fox News, and O’Reilly is particularly hazardous.

However, he has recently outdone himself (which is saying something) with comments he made regarding an interview of Bill Ayers on RT, an English-language Russian television broadcaster. In the course of the interview, Ayers said…

“We have to get the United States to participate in the world. The idea that we have been a force for good for the last six decades is nonsense.”

That caused O’Reilly’s head to spin. He began his retort by declaring his desire to slap Ayers. To O’Reilly, if someone expresses their opinion, that is sufficient cause to assault them. Way to honor the First Amendment, Billo. Then he continues with an utterly absurd attack on RT’s reporter, Anastasia Churkina:

“You saw the Russian interviewer nodding off like this. She had no idea. She didn’t even speak English. I mean that’s what she was doing. They assigned a Russian interviewer to interview that pinhead who didn’t even speak English. Because they knew what he was saying was so stupid they didn’t want to hear it. So if you don’t speak English, you don’t know how stupid it is.”

This criticism, aside from being immature, is laughably false. Churkina conducted the entire interview in better English than O’Reilly is able to summon. What’s more, she also speaks French, Italian and Spanish, in addition to her native Russian. I wonder how many languages O’Reilly speaks. He actually asserted that Churkina couldn’t speak English twice, in case his first lie went unnoticed by his indolent audience. If O’Reilly can lie so brazenly about something that is so easily proven to be false, how can anyone take anything he says seriously? The fact that this is all there on the videotape illustrates just how ludicrous O’Reilly’s “no spin” sloganeering is. He clearly has no qualms about deliberately misinforming his viewers with fabrications disguised as commentary. It is also clear that both Ayers and Churkina offer commentary on the media that far exceeds O’Reilly’s dishonest ranting:

Ayers: I think the best place to get the news is The Daily Show, Comedy Central, The Onion. Those places, they’re trustworthy, they’re honest, they strip the mask off the hypocrisy. They do what the media is supposed to do.

Churkina: The mainstream American media: Crusaders of truth, pathological liars, or just scary clowns? […] As Americans begin to wake up to the thought that what their mainstream media says is often detached from reality, the question rises as to whether the US media’s ever-increasing attention-grabbing tactics could cause its credibility to fly out the window.

So now we’ve seen O’Reilly being exposed as less credible than the pinko Ruskies he surely despises. That’s gotta hurt. And as far as O’Reilly is concerned, closing the window now wouldn’t do much good. His credibility has long since flown away. In fact, there have been reports of a flock of credibility heading south from the windows of Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Neil Cavuto, and the rest of the bird brains at Fox. It’s a migration of immense proportions.

Law And Order LBO: Limbaugh, Beck, O’Reilly

As the year comes to a close, many people view the remaining days as an opportunity to tie up loose ends, complete unfinished projects, and maybe produce another accomplishment or two to top off the year on a high note. For folks like Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly that means achieving something that surpasses their ordinary annual output of anger, hatred, and ignorance. This is the time of year to go for the gold, and you have to admire the tenacity of these professionals as they endeavor to reach new heights of stupidity and malice. Happy Holidays.

To this end, both Beck and O’Reilly serve up a heaping portion of boorish outrage directed at an episode of NBC’s Law and Order: SVU. The storyline concerned the murder of three immigrant children by a man obsessed with illegal aliens and possessed by the hateful rantings of a fictional TV talk show host, Gordon Garrison. In a pivotal scene, the lawyer for the defendant, played by John Larroquette, describes Garrison, Limbaugh, Beck, and O’Reilly as…

“…a cancer spreading ignorance and hate. I mean, they’ve convinced folks that immigrants are the problem, not corporations that fail to pay a living wage or a broken health care system.”

Perhaps that description, and the general plot, cut a little too close to the bone for Beck and O’Reilly. They may have seen more of their own dark underside in Garrison than they are comfortable acknowledging. This sends them both into a tizzy, infuriated by what they regard as a direct insult by the show’s producers and writers.

Billo-pediaBill O’Reilly starts off by telling his television audience that Dick Wolf, creator of NBC’s Law and Order, is “a despicable human being,” a “liar” and a “coward.” Seconds later he asserts that he doesn’t “demonize innocent human beings.” Apparently you lose your innocence if you disagree with O’Reilly or say anything unflattering about him. The entirety of his Talking Points rant was devoted to disparaging Wolf and glorifying himself. He even took partial responsibility for security fences on the US/Mexico border. But most of his tantrum made little sense, as usual.

In the course of his tirade, O’Reilly labeled NBC as “Propaganda Central in the USA.” (He must not watch much Fox News). But he undermines his own argument by immediately adding that it has the lowest ratings. How can it be the paragon of propaganda if no one is watching it?

For the record, NBC Entertainment is in fact the lowest rated broadcast entertainment network, but NBC News is the highest rated news broadcaster with four times as many viewers as O’Reilly. And that’s what makes all of this particularly bizarre. O’Reilly can’t seem to differentiate between reality and theater. He thinks that the dialogue of a character in a fictional TV program represents the opinion of the author. He thinks that if John Larroquette’s character says that O’Reilly is a cancer, then it is Wolf who believes that. And that’s as deep as O’Reilly’s comprehension can go.

The problem is that Larroquette is portraying a thoroughly unsavory character. He is not remotely sympathetic. He is, after all, defending a man who murdered innocent children. He is attempting to get his client off on an insanity defense and cast the blame elsewhere – to the talk show host. He is reviled by the show’s main characters and heroes. [SPOILER ALERT] He ultimately demonstrates his own extreme behavior by murdering his client. So the words to which O’Reilly objects were put into the mouth of the most unethical and unlikeable character. How on earth does O’Reilly interpret this as advocacy for those remarks? All of this easily discernible context notwithstanding, O’Reilly was mad as hell and he wasn’t going to take it anymore:

O’Reilly: I mean enough is enough with these network pinheads who shove propaganda down our throats under the guise of entertainment.

Is he referring to Dick Wolf or Roger Ailes? Because it seems to me that it is Fox that is using entertainment to disseminate propaganda. It is Fox that turned journalism on its head by casting loudmouth demagogues and witless beauty pageant rejects as news anchors. It is Fox that decorated their broadcasts with flamboyant graphics, alarmist “alerts,” and noisy soundtracks and gongs to announce even the most trivial events. And it is Fox that still pretends to be a news enterprise, while Law and Order has never presented itself as anything but drama.

Can O’Reilly tell the difference? Maybe his comment above is referring to Glenn Beck, who describes his own program as the “Fusion of Entertainment and Enlightenment.” Wouldn’t that make Beck a “pinhead” shoving “propaganda down our throats under the guise of entertainment?” For his part, Beck also misread the Law and Order segment for all the same reasons O’Reilly did. But Beck took a different tack. Rather than hysterically attacking Wolf and company, Beck launches into a self-serving defense to absolve himself of responsibility for the sort of violence portrayed in the program. He describes himself as “just a dad” and defiantly asks: “Where is the evidence for inciting any violence?”

Beck has the sort of convenient memory that allows one to be a sociopath without any messy recollection of his vile deeds. He forgets that he once fantasized about choking Michael Moore to death with his bare hands:

“I’m thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I’m wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out…”

He forgets his frequent radio bit wherein he mulls over who he would like to beat to death with a shovel:

“I’ve been sitting here for the last few minutes trying to come up with a list of people I want to kill with a shovel. […] How many people have I said let’s kill with a shovel, huh? How many people have I said let’s line ’em up and shoot ’em in the head? I think quite a few.”

I don’t know many dads who articulate these revolting ideas. Beck also forgets the numerous calls for his legion of demented disciples to “fight back” against an enemy that is deliberately trying to attack your family, your values, your faith, and even to destroy your country. Marxists and fascists are taking over Washington. They are indoctrinating your children. They are on your doorstep. Beck insists that this is not a time for compromise or debate. He says that “You don’t compromise on your destruction.” It is an Apocalyptic Gospel that leaves little option for true patriots. They either fight or they, and everything they love, dies. It doesn’t matter if Beck occasionally recites legal disclaimers to refrain from violence. Once you’ve convinced people that the very essence of their existence is threatened, there are going to be those who will conclude that violence is acceptable – even inevitable – as self-defense.

Rush Limbaugh - Riot in DenverBeck speaks in a Da Vinci coded language about things that only he can see to a congregation that is especially vulnerable to a message that only they can hear. Rush Limbaugh is even more direct. In advance of the Democratic National Convention in Denver last year, Limbaugh told his listeners to Screw the world! Riot in Denver!

“I mean, if people say what’s your exit strategery, the dream end of this is that this keeps up to the convention and that we have a replay of Chicago 1968, with burning cars, protests, fires, literal riots, and all of that. That’s the objective here.”

He couldn’t be much clearer than that. Limbaugh has yet to comment on the Law and Order episode that mentioned him and O’Reilly and Beck, but his record of offensive and hostile rhetoric like that above is well documented.

If you take the combined blather of these shoutcasters, it isn’t hard to foresee an outcome not unlike that of the one played out on Law and Order. And perhaps much worse. Yet they will continue to deny any culpability for their irresponsible fear mongering. And they will fire back at any criticism that holds them accountable. Even if it doesn’t make any logical sense, as this incident with Law and Order demonstrates. And even if it contradicts their professed appreciation for the First Amendment, as they seek to silence the creative output of a television dramatist. (Note: O’Reilly’s guest for the discussion on this subject was Laura Ingraham, author of “Shut Up and Sing,” a repulsive assault on free expression that reduces the role of artists to trivialities, ignoring their contributions to society and their potential for insight and inspiration).

But more than anything else, this affair reveals how intellectually vacant these losers are. They are incapable of grasping the meaning of a popular TV cop drama – which is not exactly the pinnacle of human intelligence. They are just angry that someone said something about them that they vaguely regard as adverse. And that’s enough to launch a full scale media war. Because, in the end, all they really want is an issue to blow out of proportion; a hyperbolic fireball of frenzy; a meaningless and dishonest controversy. An excuse to raise their voices, pull out their hair, and drive their viewers into a panic.

Like I said above…Happy Holidays.

p.s. Ice-T has a few words for O’Reilly.

Update: Just one day after all the whining about how liberal Law and Order is, and how it is spewing leftie propaganda, the program aired an episode that told a very different story. This one featured an ACORN-like community organizer whose murdered body was found with the word “FED” scrawled across his chest. However, the conclusion revealed that it was not some right-wing, anti-government, Beckoid who was responsible, but the head of the community organizing group who was attempting to cover up an affair. So having indicted the liberals in this episode, will Beck and O’Reilly and the vast, conservative, Hollywood-bashing, over-reactionaries retract their allegations of bias against producer, Dick Wolf? Don’t bother staying tuned.

The Case For The Comcast/NBC Merger

There has been, and will be, much discussion about the proposed merger between entertainment giants NBC/Universal and Comcast. Now that an agreement has been formally entered into, the discussions will likely become even more heated. Media reform advocates like FreePress are already organizing opposition to the deal. Free market capitalists want it to go through without interference from the government.

However, the government has a legitimate role to play to insure fair competition and to advance the interests of the public. Hearings will be held by the FCC, the FTC, and several congressional committees over the next year before the marriage can be consummated. Opponents will make the argument that a combined Comcast/NBCU would dominate access to entertainment programming and news on both cable and the Internet. Estimates show that Comcast, already the largest US provider of cable service and Internet access, would control up to 25% of all content. Comcast, on the other hand, will promise not to abuse their market position. If you’re naive enough to take their word for that, you might not think it’s such a bad deal. Unfortunately, Comcast has not been a particularly conscientious steward of the power they already have. And approving the merger would surely propel competitors to similarly bulk up to face the new, more scopious Comcast.

Ordinarily, I am a knee jerk opponent to any kind of media consolidation. The scope and reach of the Five Families of media (GE, Disney, Viacom, News Corp, and Time Warner) already wield far too much influence over everything we see, hear and read. I have long advocated breaking up these anti-competitive conglomerates and re-introducing real competition, independence, and diversity into the media marketplace. I still believe that deconsolidation is an achievable objective, though fairly far off on the time line.

In the meantime, what does this merger present to the current marketplace? Is Comcast really a worse partner for NBCU than GE, the world’s biggest defense contractor? Conflicts of interest in program content and distribution cause considerable harm, but is it any less harmful than conflicts that involve the production of military goods and weapons? GE’s reach extends even further into consumer products, financial services, information systems and health care technology. That’s a pretty broad scope for potential conflicts.

The Comcast merger offers some opportunities if implemented responsibly. Regulatory agencies can impose restrictions to prevent market abuse that would apply to all players, not just Comcast. They could mandate open access to airwaves and cable lines. They could codify network neutrality. They could promote localism to enhance the community service obligations that networks routinely ignore.

Comcast is already making noises about how they want to be better corporate citizens. They contend that they will comply with reasonable conditions set for the merger by the FCC and others. They promise that the corporate office will not influence news reporting at NBC or MSNBC. They vow to keep their content available to competing services like DirecTV. They have even taken a position in support of health care reform, explicitly repudiating the position of the US Chamber of Commerce, of which they are a member.

Of course, These may all be tactics designed to curry favor with the administration in hopes of clearing a path for approval of the merger. If so, that could also be an opportunity. The agencies and congressional committees reviewing the matter could extract significant concessions and make them binding for all of the monopolistic media enterprises.

Another somewhat more amusing benefit is the new relationship that would be forged between Fox and the NBC News unit. Bill O’Reilly and others at Fox have taken great pleasure in demonizing NBC and its current parent GE. For the most part they go after the executives because they are afraid to utter Keith Olbermann’s name aloud. O’Reilly has called GE’s CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, “a despicable human being” and has spewed impotent threats, saying…

“That Immelt man answers to me. . . . That’s why I’m in this business right now, to get guys like that.”

Um, OK. If you say so. So who will O’Reilly bash now? If he were to go off on Comcast CEO Brian Roberts, he might find himself regretting it. Comcast may decide that Fox News would be better off on a more expensive, upper tier, cable package. That could significantly reduce the number of homes that Fox would reach. Such a move would impact their ratings as well as their revenue from both advertising and cable subscription fees. Comcast might also decide that its new asset, MSNBC, would be a better fit on their basic cable packages, which it is not currently on in many markets. That obstacle to access has been a longstanding impediment to MSNBC’s ratings performance.

Like all bullies, O’Reilly is likely to keep his fat mouth shut about Roberts and Comcast. When there is really something at stake, he will cower in the corner and stick with his War on Christmas shtick. O’Reilly would never send Stuttering Jesse Watters to ambush Roberts. He’d rather stay comfy in his studio holding hands with Dick Morris as they demonstrate how little they know about any subject they address. And Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch would probably bury O’Reilly if he were to damage their relationship with the nation’s biggest cable operator. So maybe O’Reilly might actually have to confront Olbermann man to man. Although he would certainly lose that contest too.

In conclusion, I can’t get excited about another merger of big media megaliths. But I can’t really muster a great deal of antagonism about this one. I don’t see it as worse than the status quo, and I do see an opportunity to tighten regulatory oversight for the whole industry. That is, if the regulators and the administration have the will. Stayed tuned.

Now We Know What Sarah Palin Reads

Last year, Sarah Palin famously flubbed a softball from Katie Couric. It’s actually not even precise to call it a softball. It was more of a floating feather on a windless day. Couric simply asked Palin what she reads. That was the question that Palin was incapable of responding to coherently.

Now, a year later, the mystery is solved. Palin was interviewed by Sean Hannity yesterday. Hannity came prepared with a bushel full of feathers to lob at Palin, but thanks to his crackerjack investigative skills, he managed to extract a truly newsworthy revelation:

Palin: I read Newsmax and the Frontiersman and the Wall Street Journal and everything online. I absorb the news via many, many sources.

She would have to absorb the news like a ShamWow in order to read “everything” online. However, she does do a good impersonation of the ShamWow pitchman by mentioning first the magazine, Newsmax. Her book, Going Rogue, is currently being peddled by Newsmax as bait to lure subscribers. I’m sure they appreciate the plug. The other two publications she reads are her hometown Wasilla rag and Rupert Murdoch’s financial paper. Need I remind you that Palin’s book is published by Murdoch’s HarperCollins?

This is the woman that virtually every conservative pundit is describing as the terror of liberals and Democrats. They are mostly echoing the sentiments of Bill O’Reilly whose Talking Points yesterday were devoted to “Why the Left Fears Sarah Palin.” The only problem is, I can’t find anyone on the left who is afraid of Sarah Palin. To the contrary, she is a great source of amusement to all the lefties I know. If anyone is afraid of Palin, I think it is the Republican Party. A recent CBS poll shows that only 43% of Republicans think Palin is qualified to be president. And 48% don’t even want her to run (more than the 44% who do). And that’s just Republicans.

In my highly unscientific poll of liberals I know personally, 100% are praying for her to run and win the Republican nomination. They’re not fearful, they’re giddy.

For the record: The DNC has conveniently complied a list of errors and falsehoods in Palin’s book, “Going Rogue.”

Bill O’Reilly Doesn’t Care About The Constitution

The Big “O” of Fox News let it slip on his program yesterday. While it has been apparent for years, Bill O’Reilly finally admitted on air his utter disdain for America and its values. We have always known that he has little knowledge of the Constitution, and now we know why – he just doesn’t care.

This accident of candor is revealing on a number of levels. Obviously, the literal meaning of his remarks are repugnant. But his justification transcends common idiocy. O’Reilly tells Judge Andrew Napolitano that he doesn’t care about the Constitution because the Constitution isn’t there and the Judge is. So as far as O’Reilly is concerned, if the Constitution isn’t physically present, it is irrelevant. Don’t bother to cite the Constitution or advocate its provisions around O’Reilly unless the two of you are standing in the National Archives Building in Washington, DC. O’Reilly went on to call the Judge a pinhead for having the audacity to bring Constitutional law into a discussion about Constitutional law.

O’Reilly has demonstrated his aversion to Constitutional principles on many occasions. He opposes dissent unless it’s by Tea Baggers. He imposes religion via his defense of marriage and his annual War on Christmas nonsense. He disposes of fourth and fifth amendment rights for those he preemptively declares are guilty until proven innocent.

At least now it’s out in the open. From her on out, anytime he makes one of his tortured arguments about his twisted perspective on freedom or liberty, we can remind him and his flock what he confessed here. He really doesn’t care.

Bold/Fresh? The Bill O’Reilly/Glenn Beck Idiots Tour

On the O’Reilly Factor yesterday, the big news was released that Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck will be taking to the road for a major entertainment event: The Bold & Fresh Tour.

It sounds like the launch of a new laundry detergent to me. But no – this is the Tea Bagger equivalent of the Grateful Dead. This national extravaganza will march across this great nation from Westbury, NY, to Tampa, FL, to North Charleston, SC, to Norfolk, VA to … well actually, that’s the whole thing. Four cities in seven days. It’s gonna be WILD! As it says on BoldFreshTour.com…

“It’s an event that makes professional wrestling seem like a night at the opera.”

Now that’s exciting! This will not be just another evening of inspiring music, compelling drama, extraordinary talent, and cultural enrichment. Hell no! It will be a sweaty brawl with two of America’s premiere purveyors of slack-jawed invective, spitting furiously at each other in their phony, choreographed dance of dimwitted arrogance. Either that or a Marx Brothers movie.

The announcement last night revealed the name of the tour as the Bold & Fresh Tour. Then the fireworks started as Beck pretended to be bothered by the fact that the tour was named for O’Reilly’s book instead of his own. I’m inclined to agree with Beck. They definitely should have used Beck’s book for the name of this tour. It is so much more accurate to promote this as the “Arguing With Idiots” tour. But that would have been a bit more honesty than this clod couple could muster.

Rupert Murdoch: We Did Not Start This Abuse

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.

Desecrating The American Flag

Much of the right-wing blog and cable crowd is aghast at what they regard as the disrespect accorded to the American flag by a video in an online contest for health care reform ads. The contest is sponsored by the Democratic National Committee’s Organizing for America.

I happen to think that’s a pretty fine video. It makes its point in a creative and compelling way. There is nothing derogatory directed at the flag because there is, in fact, no flag. It’s a painting. And the commentary affixed to it tells a story about our nation and what we can achieve.

Nevertheless, the hypersensitive panic attackers on the right are having conniptions. Sean Hannity and Michele Malkin tried desperately to twist this into a scandal. Fox Business News anchor, Jenna Lee, hosted a debate that featured Armstrong Williams calling it obscene. Gretchen Carlson and the Fox & Friends crew commiserated about what Carlson said was a movement to make the flag offensive. Bill O’Reilly wasn’t all that disturbed until his guest, Laura Ingraham got him riled up. Ingraham even talked hypothetically about how disrespectful it would be if someone were to walk on a flag.

That’s funny, she never had that problem when George W. Bush actually did walk on a flag. It goes without saying that stepping on a flag is disrespectful, and letting it touch the ground is officially regarded as desecration. So is placing any mark, insignia, letter, word, etc., on it. But that didn’t stop Bush from signing a flag.

These hypocritical pseudo-patriots just don’t know the difference between art and actual desecration. They are obsessed with exploiting non-events to promote their own twisted view of patriotism. More than anything else, they want to manufacture controversies that harm the President, Democrats or liberals in general. Fortunately, this is precisely the sort of fanatical ranting that is driving reasonable Americans farther from the Republican Party and its PR arm, Fox News.