Bill O’Reilly

Glenn Beck: Believers In Global Warming Are Socialists

Posted by on January 13, 2009 at 12:05 pm. 3 Comments :

Next Monday Fox News will premiere a new program hosted by fabulist radio jock, Glenn Beck. In advance of this debut, Beck has dropped a bomb on his new boss and millions of others around the world.

On his radio program, Beck spun a tale of McCarthyistic intrigue that slammed President-elect Barack Obama, his designated Climate Change advisor, Carol Browner, and environmentalism in general. The gist of his blathering (most of it incoherent) was that Browner’s association with the Global Warming initiatives of an organization called Socialists International, is proof that Obama intends to impose a left-wing dictatorship in America. SI is a worldwide enterprise that includes in its membership the ruling Labour Party in Great Britain and the center-left New Democratic Party of Canada. Browner’s connection is through her involvement with SI’s Commission for a Sustainable World Society, a cooperative effort to address global environmental concerns.

Where Beck goes completely off the cognitive cliff is when he asserts that…

“…almost everyone who does believe in global warming is a socialist. I mean, believes in manmade global warming that now can be fixed and reversed or whatever. And we’ve got the tools to fix it. Almost everybody who says, ‘I’ve got a plan to fix it’ is a socialist.”

Global Warming believers like George Bush, John McCain, Lindsay Graham, and Newt Gingrich may take umbrage at being called Socialists. Beck is also tagging 71% of the American people as Socialists, including about half of Republicans (Rep:49% / Dem: 84% /c Ind: 75%). To be clear, there are many Republicans who dispute the threat of Climate Change, like Sen. James Inhofe who likens its adherents to Nazis. But they are an increasingly out of touch cult of reality deniers who have also rejected scientifically validated views on evolution, stem-cells, tobacco, etc.

For Beck, this may not be the best way to start off a professional relationship with the owner of the network from which he is about to be broadcasting. Rupert Murdoch has publicly stated that he believes that Global Warming is real and he has committed his corporate empire to trying to fix it and reverse it, or whatever. Even Bill O’Reilly is on board. While he believes the causes are still open for debate, and he will gleefully attack environmentalists for sport, he concedes that Global Warming is occurring and must be dealt with:

“I have never understood the resistance to the concept of global warming. […] America needs to stop arguing over the cause of global warming and begin a disciplined 10-year plan to use fewer polluting agents, more conservation, and tons more innovation.”

But now Beck contends that Murdoch and his ilk are Socialists. Beck, however, doesn’t explicitly cite the Murdochian clan or other reasonable, environmentally conscious conservatives, because he would rather direct his fire at Obama and the Democrats in his aborning administration. And he’s not alone. Bret Baier of Fox News, the Moonie-run Washington Times, the uber-rightist American Spectator, the neo-con Heritage Foundation, and the rest of the Dark-Agist spin machine is out in full force screaming about the new “Green” red menace. Green is the new red.

This is particularly ironic because the ads promoting Beck’s new Fox program feature him becoming exasperated at people who make wild accusations about Democrats being Communist subversives. He literally cries out for them to “STOP” that sort of “blatantly stupid” ideological headbutting. Yet that is precisely what he is doing (and has done repeatedly as documented by MediaMatters).

What’s worse is that Beck swings from ludicrous allegations that environmentalists are Socialists to preposterous charges that they are also Fascists, in the span of a single rant. The Fascism jab arises from the desire on the part of environmentalists for government to participate in the solution. Well that settles it. He further alleges that the culmination of this debate will result in the resurrection of the Cold War with Russia, which he fears will not long remain cold. Think about that – Glenn Beck actually believes that the pursuit of solutions to a pending Climate Crisis will lead to war with Russia!

I’m beginning to look forward to Beck’s new show on Fox. If it contains a fraction of the flashes of delusional instability as the radio broadcast that contained the above screed, it could be one of the funniest TV shows ever. You know, funny in the way that schizophrenia or Armageddon is funny.

Bill O’Reilly Congratulates Senator Al Franken

Posted by on January 6, 2009 at 1:56 am. 5 Comments :

After a meticulous and prolonged recount, Al Franken has prevailed and will be Minnesota’s new senator. Although the defeated incumbent, Norm Coleman, is still threatening legal action to retain his seat, most observers give him little chance of succeeding. His legal arguments wouldn’t even produce enough votes to alter the outcome if he prevailed on every one.

There are, however, some determined holdouts, including the editorial page of Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal. The Journal itemized what it considers to be grievous errors on the part of the state Canvassing Board. But, while most of their complaints were unfounded, misconstrued, or outright false, it was spread throughout the rightist press by folks like Rush Limbaugh and Joe Scarborough, who characterized it as a news report rather than the opinion piece that it was.

Another Journal disciple is Fox News kingpin, Bill O’Reilly. O’Reilly referenced the Journal’s story in his talking points memo and concluded that…

“Evidence shows that MN Secretary of State Mark Ritchie is not honest enough to run a clean election.”

Of course there was no such evidence in the Journal piece or elsewhere. The attack on Ritchie’s honesty was O’Reilly’s own invention and a trademark of his brand of personal assault commentary. But, as usual, he saved his finest vitriol for Franken himself. It’s classic O’Reilly:

  • “You don’t get any lower than that man, Franken.”
    – So, Charles Manson would be a step up?
  • “That’s the worst thing I’ve ever seen in American politics – is this man maybe becoming a senator.”
    – Really? Worse than Joe McCarthy? Or Watergate? Or Monica Lewinski?
  • “It’s personal with me. He’s lied about me. He’s slandered me.”
    – Ah…Now we’re getting to the heart of the matter. He’s told the truth about you.
  • “The fact that he was even competitive […] depresses me about America.”
    – So it’s America’s fault?

O’Reilly is fond of hyperbole, so it isn’t surprising that he would blast Franken as the lowest and the worst of whatever delusion in which he is presently immersed. However, he is also fond of bashing what he’d call the “blame America first crowd,” so it is a little surprising to see him throw that sucker punch at America – but only a little. It is very much like O’Reilly to be a major league hypocrite. And it is similarly like him to turn against anyone he perceives as opposing his dementia.

O’Reilly has given up on America. They opposed the war in Iraq. They favor universal healthcare. They elected Barack Obama president. And now they have put his nemesis in the United States Senate. So O’Reilly’s message to the nation as Al Franken prepares to take his seat is, “Screw you, America. You make me sad.”

MSNBC Celebrates Strongest 2008 Growth

Posted by on January 2, 2009 at 4:50 pm. 9 Comments :

Once again, MSNBC has demonstrated its dominance over the stodgy CNN and the rightist snake oil of Fox News. MSNBC’s programming grew more than twice as much as Fox during 2008:

The fact that this was an election year raised the numbers of all of the players, but in the end Fox took its usual place at the bottom of the scale of growth. On the other hand, MSNBC was the only network to finish the year with more viewers post-election than their average for the year. That’s because their rate of increase far exceeded what was given back after November 4, when audiences predictably declined.

As the new year kicks off, the battle for cable news supremacy will only heat up. MSNBC will continue to rely on of its powerhouse one-two punch of Keith Olbermann’s Countdown and the Rachel Maddow Show. Both programs continue to drive the network’s growth. CNN is sticking with the status quo. Their schedule is little changed for the year, with the exception of adding Campbell Brown, who hasn’t really made her presence known.

Fox News, however, is making several changes that seem to be geared to digging an even deeper conservative hole. This year saw the hiring of right-wing stalwarts like Karl Rove, Judith Miller, and Mike Huckabee, as well as Foxocrats and Obama opponents Lanny Davis and Howard Wolfson. In addition to that, they are losing Alan Colmes and debuting what they call a new “pure” Sean Hannity solo show. I’m sure they are happy to have filtered out the contaminants. Hannity also signed a multimillion dollar contract renewal, as did Bill O’Reilly. Brett Baier, a reliable Fox ideologue, is succeeding Brit Hume as anchor of their signature news program, Special Report. And later this month will see the premiere of Glenn Beck’s new program on the network for which he was born to work. His obnoxious, immature, fact-free squealing will fit right in on Fox.

These uber-conservative reinforcements called in by Fox News suggest that they are preparing for a new offensive directed at the incoming administration of Barack Obama. It’s hard to see any other justification for such a hardening of their right flank when political winds are shifting in a more centrist, post-partisan direction. Consequently, in the new year, Democrats and progressives had better be vigilant and prepare for an onslaught of contemptuous attacks from the Murdochian Empire. Their troops are amassed on the border and the rising sun is illuminating a determined and disturbing red dawn.

Media Milestones And Millstones For 2008

Posted by on December 30, 2008 at 12:38 pm. NO Comments :

At the conclusion of a year that few people will miss, it is time once again to indulge in the hackneyed cliche of annual list-making. While some events are already etched into our collective memories (i.e. the election of our nation’s incoming, first-ever, African-American president; the shoe attack on our nation’s out-going, worst-ever, remedial president), other events may be more subject to fading recollection as a new year of stimuli compete for a place in America’s short attention span.

It is in this spirit that I submit the following collection of awards in the hopes of preserving these moments for history, if not for comedy.

Starting with the history-making presidential election, Barack Obama wins the Somebody Had To Say It Award for this:

Obama: “I am convinced that if there were no Fox News, I might be two or three points higher in the polls. If I were watching Fox News, I wouldn’t vote for me, right?”

Sticking with the campaign theme, Sarah Palin has repeatedly demonstrated her ignorance of the media’s role in public life. She believes that it is unconstitutional to criticize her, and that she is the one to restore the media’s credibility. That alone would be enough to merit an award, but Palin wins the What Constitution? Award by showing Carl Cameron of Fox News that she has no comprehension of the Constitutional role of the office she sought:

Palin: “The vice president, of course, is not a member – or a part of the legislative branch, except to oversee the Senate. That alone provides a tremendous amount of flexibility and authority if that vice president so chose to use it.”

Of Course, Palin has her fans – like Ann Coulter who along with Human Events Magazine named Palin Conservative of the Year. But that was not enough to pry away the Fatuous Infatuation Award from Rich Lowry of the National Review:

Lowry: “I’m sure I’m not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, ‘Hey, I think she just winked at me.’ And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America.”

On the plus side, CNN’s Jack Cafferty played a stream of gibberish from Palin’s interview with Katie Couric. After which he said that if you aren’t afraid that she is a 72 year old heartbeat from the presidency, you should be. Then Wolf Blitzer tried to cover for Palin by saying that she was just trying to squeeze a lot into her answer. Cafferty’s reply earns him the Anchor Smackdown Award:

Cafferty: “Don’t make excuses for her. That was pathetic.”

I suppose I should give an award to Palin’s running mate…what was his name? Oh yeah…John McCain certainly deserves a mention for his aggressive attacks on the media. But that’s all he gets. While it takes real guts for a former press darling who hosts barbecues for his reporter pals to turn on them when the next object of media affection pops up, the act for which I will remember McCain is his promotion and exploitation of Samuel Wurlzebacher – aka Joe the Plumber – whose name is not Joe and who is not a plumber. Despite his obvious deficiencies, Plumber Joe became a staple of Fox News, particularly business chief Neil Cavuto. On one notable occasion, Cavuto queried Joe on the subject of Barack Obama’s patriotism. And for his response Joe gets the McCarthyism Reprise Award:

Wurzelbacher: “Oh you know, [Obama’s] ideology is something that is completely different than what democracy stands for, so I had some question there. In my opinion.”

However, Joe will have to be satisfied sharing this award with News Corp Chairman, Rupert Murdoch, who also earned this honor in an interview with Cavuto:

Murdoch: “[Obama’s] policy is really very, very naive, old fashioned, 1960’s socialist.”

Old Rupert was destined to have an over-representation on this awards program. That’s partly because of the expansive nature of his media empire, but mostly because that empire is a repulsive purveyor of smears and propaganda. There is so much of it that I could devote an entire set of awards to News Corp alone. Consequently, I’ll focus here on the more peculiar instances of journalistic abuse. Starting with Amy Chozick of the Wall Street Journal who wins the Biggest Loser award for an article titled, “Too Fit to Be President?” which asks:

Chozick: “…in a nation in which 66% of the voting-age population is overweight and 32% is obese, could Sen. Obama’s skinniness be a liability?”

Then there is Fox News’ own Liz Trotta, winner of the Death To America Award for her public call for assassinating Obama:

Trotta: “…and now we have what some are reading as a suggestion that somebody knock off Osama …uh… Obama … well, both if we could.”

And don’t think I’ve left out the Grand Wizard of Fox News, Bill O’Reilly. Oh…where to begin? I’m going to skip over O’Reilly’s generous offer not to lynch Michelle Obama, and his assertion that 200,000 documented homeless veterans don’t exist, and even his delicious submersion into lunacy as demonstrated in any of the “Don’t Block the Shot / Dodge Us at Your Peril / We’ll Do It Live” rants. For some reason I get a kick out his delusional conspiracy theory that the TV ratings are fixed and that Nielsen is intent on destroying him. Never mind the fact that he is number one in those ratings and he frequently cites them as evidence of his ego-starved greatness. So for inventing enemies around every corner, O’Reilly gets the Paranoia Strikes Deep Award:

O’Reilly: “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.”

When O’Reilly isn’t threatening “the folks,” his colleagues in conservative crime are doing it. Rush Limbaugh is this year’s recipient of the Domestic Terrorist Award for exhorting his listeners to attend the Democratic Convention and to “Screw the World! Riot in Denver!”:

Limbaugh: “[T]he 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.”

Glenn Beck, not to be outdone, issued his own threats. But in an attempt to boost the degree of difficulty, Beck went off the scale. In November he told a story of how we had been accosted in a diner by a hostile trucker who threatened to run him down. He summarized the experience by saying that, no matter how much he disagreed with someone, he would never say such horrible things – not even to Michael Moore. However, just a few months prior, Beck said this about Moore and, thus, earned his Serial Hypocrite Award:

Beck: “Hang on, let me just tell you what I’m thinking. 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 – is this wrong?”

The Grand Prize for a year of countless media atrocities is reserved for a despicable act of greed and betrayal. Actually, it is a pattern of acts that has persisted for many years, but came to a head during the Bush administration and was courageously uncovered by the New York Times. It has been called the Pentagon Pundits scandal, though I call it SPINCOM. It centers around an initiative to stack the press with analysts who were willing to lie to support an illegal war and to fatten their own wallets. The Times gets the Milestone of the Year Award for revealing the rancid corruption of the media, the military, and the Bush warmongers:

NY Times: “Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance.”

“The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.”

Sadly, the heroic work of the Times was largely ignored by the rest of the press, particularly television. Of course, the TV news networks were the most aggressively abusive employers of the tainted pundits. It would have taken a powerful dose of integrity to criticize behavior that they were in the thick of engaging in. The failure to cover such a controversial issue that impacts so directly on themselves is further evidence of a media community that is untrustworthy and uninterested in serving the public. However, the story in the Times has resulted in an investigation at the FCC and another proposed in the next Congress. So, hopefully, some accountability will be brought to bear.

The fight for honest and independent journalism will continue into the new year. While there are some promising signs accompanying the incoming Obama administration, there will undoubtedly be much work to do. So in the spirit of optimism and renewal, and hopes for better future, I wish everyone a…

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Why Christmas Matters To Bill O’Reilly

Posted by on December 21, 2008 at 2:16 am. 1 Comments :

In his Talking Points Memo this week, Bill O’Reilly endeavored to describe a matter that must be very dear and personal for him: Why Christmas Matters.

Uncle SantaSo with an earnestness that befit the occasion, he began by talking about his TV ratings and why his viewers, who are insufficiently alarmed by the War on Christmas, are wrong:

“While our ratings have been very high this month, some viewers have written to me complaining we’re over-covering the Christmas controversies. They say the subject really isn’t that important. Well, they’re wrong.”

Apparently O’Reilly has gotten over his suspicion that the Nielsen ratings were conspiring against him. Last October he unleashed a paranoid rant directed at Nielsen that included an absurd threat:

“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.”

Of course, the Feds have nothing to do with private market research firms, so let’s get back to the importance of Christmas. O’Reilly proceeds to explain how Christmas was made officially into a holiday in 1870 as a measure to unite a nation that had been bitterly torn by civil war. Surprisingly, he actually got the basics facts about this right. However, he thoroughly mangled the interpretation saying…

“…President Grant realized that Christmas was one of the few things that Americans had in common, that just about everybody back then respected the holidays.”

Actually, there were significant differences at the time, with some Christian denominations discounting the December feast as a remnant of Paganism. But more to the point, Grant was not seeking to sanctify a date that everyone respected. He was merely trying to find one that a majority would tolerate. He previously rejected Easter as being too overtly religious, and the Fourth of July for having too close an association with a Yankee victory. So the Christmas holiday was not a commemoration of a shared faith in God – it was a calculated, political compromise.

That doesn’t stop O’Reilly and his ilk from glorifying the occasion and disparaging those who truly seek unity and inclusiveness. He says that the “extremely vicious” secular progressives are out to diminish religion. On the other hand, O’Reilly considers himself a stalwart defender of faith. As evidence he offers up a sales pitch for his book “Culture Warrior,” and claims to be prevailing over what sounds like a nocturnal, Zombie army:

“…we are up against some very bad people. Thanks to you, we destroy them every night.”

Despite destroying them every night he also claims that they “have made huge gains.” An interesting and absurd contradiction. What then is O’Reilly fighting for? He has previously hailed Christmas as a celebration of holy consumerism:

“Every company in America should be on its knees thanking Jesus for being born. Without Christmas, most American businesses would be far less profitable.”

Now that’s a sentiment that just oozes with the season’s warmth, joy, and humanity. But what more can you expect from a man that considers himself proof of the existence of God:

“Next time you meet an atheist, tell him or her that you know [me]. Then, while the non-believer is digesting all that, ask him or her if they still don’t believe there’s a God!”

And just a couple of days ago, O’Reilly was promoting his new book, “A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity,” on the Christian Broadcasting Network, where he was asked if he considers himself “someone who has a personal relationship with Jesus?”

“I don’t look at it that way. My whole theology is based upon what I believe I’m here to do on earth. I believe I was given talent. I don’t believe it just happened because a meteorite crashed into the world and all of this is just luck. I believe I’m here for a reason, that I was blessed with talent.”

So O’Reilly’s whole theology is based on himself and his alleged talent. And that’s the Culture Warrior who is promising to save Christmas and the rightful place of religion in American society. That’s the self-centered, ego-maniacal demagogue who is intent on convincing us that…

“There’s a struggle going on to redefine America. And in 2009, that struggle will become even more intense.”

Yes, that’s the expression of Yuletide spirit that unites all people. O’Reilly, in this rant, has revealed himself for what he is – a narcissistic, self-promoter who thrives on division and an imagined sense of superiority. He is an opportunistic provocateur who cannot exist without conflict. He must nourish hostility to survive.

And that’s Why Christmas Matters to Bill O’Reilly.

The Real Reason Bill O’Reilly Bailed On His Radio Show

Posted by on December 5, 2008 at 4:46 pm. 4 Comments :

It was announced today that Bill O’Reilly is leaving his radio program, the Radio Factor. In the press release from Fox News, O’Reilly cites the strain of the workload for opting out of his lucrative radio deal:

“It is with great regret that I’ve come to the decision to leave the Radio Factor, but with the success of the O’Reilly Factor, I can no longer give both TV and radio the time they deserve.”

TV and radio must have done something very bad to deserve any time at all from Bill O’Reilly. More likely it is O’Reilly who has been bad. That would explain why radio audiences have rejected him. As one of the highest paid hosts in radio, he can’t even crack the top 10 in the talk format. He had lower ratings in New York than Al Franken before Franken left to run for the senate in Minnesota. His program was dropped from the influential Washington, D.C. market.

O’Reilly’s excuse for bailing on his radio audience is that he can’t carry the load. His two daily hours on the radio plus an hour on TV (15 hours a week) is just too much for him. Of course, much of the real work is carried out by his assistants and producers. So he must have the stamina of a slug. Other talkers like Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Lou Dobbs, and Rachel Maddow seem to have no trouble handling both gigs.

Rightist broadcasters have lately been stirring up all manner of dread that Barack Obama and his liberal cadre are plotting to restore the Fairness Doctrine in order to silence conservative voices. Despite the fact that their fears stem from nothing more than their own maniacal hallucinations, they insist that conservative talk radio is threatened by these leftie conspiracies. As it turns out, conservatives are falling of their own weight as audiences become ever more repulsed by their lies, histrionics, and vitriol.

One thing O’Reilly may have been uncharacteristically honest about is the need to concentrate on his TV show. Two years ago he held an unapproachable lead that was never at risk. This year Keith Olbermann’s Countdown is a strong second place challenger that frequently beats the Factor in the key 25-54 demographic, as it did twice this week. So maybe O’Reilly is just ditching his also-ran radio show to shore up his diminishing performance on TV.

On a side note, the boilerplate language at the bottom of the press release identified the divisions of Fox News as Fox News Radio, Fox News Channel, Fox News Sunday, foxnews.com, and Fox News Mobile. Does the absence of the Fox Business Network signal something about its future?

Does Rupert Murdoch Despise Bill O’Reilly?

Posted by on November 28, 2008 at 1:00 pm. 6 Comments :

The question of Rupert Murdoch’s relationship with his top-rated TV blowhard, Bill O’Reilly, has come up before. Now, courtesy of Michael Calderone at Politico, an excerpt from Michael Wolff’s upcoming biography of Murdoch is asserting that:

“It is not just Murdoch (and everybody else at News Corp.’s highest levels) who absolutely despises Bill O’Reilly, the bullying, mean-spirited, and hugely successful evening commentator, but Roger Ailes himself who loathes him. Success, however, has cemented everyone to each other.”

If Murdoch and Ailes “absolutely despise” O’Reilly, I can only hope they come to despise me as much. The apparent reward for such hatred is endless fawning, copious perks, and a brand new multimillion dollar contract renewal. But I wouldn’t get too excited. Wolff provides very little support for his conclusion, and what he does provide is weak and contradicted by past comments and behavior.

Wolff suggests that Murdoch’s purchase of Dow Jones, publisher of the Wall Street Journal, was in part to distance himself from the tenor of Fox News. Though why he thinks that the famously conservative newspaper is a departure from the obvious partiality of Fox is a mystery. Wolff seems to think that Murdoch finds the more sedate bias of the Journal preferable to the loudmouth variety at Fox. However, he doesn’t consider the more likely scenario that Murdoch will turn up the volume at the Journal. He has already said publicly that wants the Journal to publish shorter, punchier stories, with less business and more general news. And Wolff, at least in this excerpt, doesn’t consider that a major factor in purchasing the Journal was to beef up resources for Murdoch’s recently launched Fox Business Network.

Politico’s Calderone curiously opines that Murdoch’s political views are “difficult to pin down.” In support of this he cites Murdoch’s backing for Thatcher, Reagan, Blair, Koch, and McCain. That seems pretty easy to pin down to me. They are all notable conservatives with the exception of Tony Blair, who started out as a progressive Labour Party leader, but ended up as a Bush lapdog. And rumors have it that Murdoch and Blair made a pact early on that if Blair did not interfere with Murdoch’s business aspirations, Murdoch would see to it that News Corp. enterprises (including the London Times, the Sun, and the Sky News satellite network) would stand behind Blair.

As further evidence of Murdoch’s squishy liberalism, the article cites the New York Post’s endorsement of Obama over Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary. But the endorsement from the Post reads like an outright condemnation. Here are some highlights from the Post’s column endorsing Obama:

  • “…an untried candidate, to be sure…”
  • “Obama is not without flaws.”
  • “For all his charisma and his eloquence, the rookie senator sorely lacks seasoning…”
  • “Regarding national security, his worldview is beyond naive…”
  • “His all-things-to-all-people approach to complicated domestic issues also arouses scant confidence”
  • “…he is not Team Clinton…That counts for a very great deal.”
  • “…we don’t agree much with Obama on substantive issues.”

With friends like that, who needs enemas? The Post eventually endorsed McCain in the general election. And unlike the Obama endorsement, it was enthusiastic and complimentary.

I don’t for minute believe that Murdoch has become disenchanted with O’Reilly or Fox News. His views are as consistent as ever. In September he lashed out at Obama saying that he is a naive, 60’s style Socialist, and that his administration would worsen inflation, ruin America’s relationships with other nations, and drive companies to leave the country. All achievements for which George W. Bush can already claim credit.

Shallow analysis like that of Wolff and Politico has been asserted before. In the end, Murdoch is who he has always been: an irredeemably conservative corporatist, consumed with lust for money and power. As long as O’Reilly contributes to those goals, Murdoch’s love for him will endure.

Hilarious Update: Kara Swisher at All Things Digital has dredged up a laughably appropriate example of Michael Wolff’s deficiency of insight. In 1998 Wolff said:

“I think the myth of the Internet is that it is going to come into everybody’s home.”

Good call, Mikey.

Fox News Fans Obama Assassination Flame, Again

Posted by on November 19, 2008 at 12:35 pm. 2 Comments :

What is it with these Fox News contributors who are incapable of repressing their fantasies of violence against Barack Obama? This morning on the Live Desk, a discussion on Obama’s emerging cabinet led to another disturbing and repulsive threat directed at the President-elect.

Eric Metaxas, an author of (get this) children’s books, was making the argument that naming Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State would be inviting trouble for Obama. Metaxas asserted that Clinton would seek to grab all of the attention and that her omnipotent power would overcome Obama. That analysis fails to give Obama credit for defeating her in the primary, which might suggest that he would not be so easily dominated. Metaxas, however, thinks Clinton is untrustworthy and having her in the cabinet would be like “dancing with a snake.” He likened it to President Lyndon Johnson during the Kennedy administration. I was unaware that Johnson overshadowed Kennedy. So was Bob Beckel, who then initiated the following exchange:

Beckel: Who got more attention – Kennedy or LBJ?
Metaxas: Who got shot?

Without sharpening my mind-reading skills, it’s difficult to know precisely what Metaxas meant by that. But I can’t come up with any justification for how that could be used in this context, other than that Metaxas believes that LBJ had something to with Kennedy’s assassination, and that Clinton will play the same role in the Obama saga.

There are plenty of Kennedy conspiracy theorists out there, and some finger LBJ as a participant. But Clinton would have to knock off Biden, Pelosi, and Byrd too, before she would benefit from such a plot. Consequently, Metaxes’ comment makes no sense. It is just an unnecessary passage into a dark territory that is all the more troubling due to the increasingly threatening environment that surrounds the new president. The Secret Service reports receiving more threats against Obama than any previous president-elect (thanks to Sarah Palin).

Metaxas’ remarks follow up on those made by another Fox News contributor, Liz Trotta, who said last May:

“…and now we have what some are reading as a suggestion that somebody knock off Osama …uh… Obama … well, both if we could.”

And then there was Bill O’Reilly’s lynching party for Michelle Obama:

“I don’t want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there’s evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels.”

These are not random crackpots posting anonymously on some blog. These are paid commentators on a major news network. The cumulative effect of these repeated atrocities could plausibly lead to real crimes as mental suggestions are planted and a general numbness sets in.

The fact that Fox gets away with it is problematic not just because of the obvious disgust that it entails, but the very notion that they persist in this behavior with little notice or consequences makes my skin crawl.

The Fanatical Fear Of The Fairness Doctrine

Posted by on November 12, 2008 at 3:44 pm. 9 Comments :

Let’s face it – Change is scary. America now has a new President-elect swept to victory on a wave of change. Those on the winning side are anxious to implement a new agenda, but are also wary of the movement being diluted by political cowardice. The losers, however, are struggling to retain their composure as they imagine all variety of horror that awaits.

Speaking of losers, the most notorious amongst them are pundits like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, etc. Their losses are not confined to being on the wrong side of public opinion in the recently concluded election. They are also losing listeners and viewers who are rapidly awakening to the dishonesty and hostility wafting through the conservative media’s airwaves. Fox News, once a runaway leader in cable news networks, is now threatened by upstart MSNBC, who has emerged as a surging second place competitor, and even beats Fox with some frequency. Radio’s problems are much deeper, facing stiffer competition from television and new media.

The response to this changing marketplace, however, is not to retool the product and search for new ways to connect with an audience. The tunnel vision of right-wingers like those at Fox is inhibiting self-awareness and ironically gaining fans amongst liberals who are happy to see them shrinking their own audience. Harold Meyerson at the Washington Post observes what he calls “the Palinization” of the Republican Party:

“During the campaign just completed, you guys focused on Barack Obama’s allegedly Muslim and alien roots and socialist ideology; meanwhile, in the real world, unemployment rose, foreclosures soared and Wall Street went flooey […] And the way your flock sees it, the modifications that Republicans need to make to become competitive again in American politics — acknowledging a need for state intervention to make the economy work, backing off the primitive religiosity, embracing a more tolerant pluralism — amount to nothing less than heresy.”

In a feat of denial, though, the conservative punditry is barreling headlong into a campaign of fear-mongering and frightful tales of censorship. They believe, and hope to persuade others, that Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress are surreptitiously plotting to reinstate the dreaded Fairness Doctrine that their hero, Ronald Reagan, vanquished 20 years ago. Should that happen, they say, their little ideological monopoly of the air will come crashing down. The main problem with their scare tactic is that there is neither substance nor truth in it.

Stephanie Mencimer has nicely summarized the situation for Mother Jones Magazine:

“In 2005, Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) introduced legislation to bring back the doctrine. Conservatives dubbed the measure the “Hush Rush” bill. Then last year, Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) said publicly that he thought the Fairness Doctrine should be revived, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), after noting that talk radio was overwhelmingly conservative, suggested that Congress hold hearings on the political imbalance […] But Hinchey’s bill went nowhere, Feinstein never held hearings, and the issue died down after President Bush in March threatened to veto any attempt to revive the Fairness Doctrine.”

What’s more, Obama has explicitly stated his opposition to the Doctrine on multiple occasions. That hasn’t stopped rightist enterprises like the National Review, the Center for Individual Freedom, and WorldNetDaily from spreading fabricated stories about conservative voices being kicked off the air. The prospect of this happening is not only false, but pointless. As Mencimer notes, the territory allegedly being fought over has been declining in value for years:

“Conservative talk-radio hosts love to position themselves as the victims of liberal media conspiracies, and the Fairness Doctrine gambit certainly fits the bill. But there is little substance behind the overheated rhetoric. Most Democrats have little interest in a big legislative fight over government regulation of the ever-shrinking sphere of broadcast media.”

And Obama recognizes this himself:

“He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible. That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets.”

Obama’s position correctly describes the field of battle as encompassing issues of corporate consolidation, diversity, independence, and open access to new media. Let conservatives whine about imaginary assaults on their dying medium. They can have it. And if they want to shiver in the shadows, pretending that rabid liberals are coming after them, that’s their prerogative.

Like I said above – Change is scary. But it is also necessary. The media world is changing whether we like it or not (we like it). If effective media reform is implemented, the problems facing progressives (and conservatives for that matter) will work themselves out. If ownership caps are enforced, more diverse voices will have access to the airwaves. If anti-trust law is enforced, more independence will be exercised by commercial media. Support for network neutrality and public broadcasting will provide opportunities for alternative media.

That’s what reform is about. That’s what change is about. It’s only scary if your melded to outmoded technology and institutions that profit from corporate domination and propaganda minded government agencies.

Progressive Media In The Obama Era

Posted by on November 11, 2008 at 5:20 pm. 1 Comments :

With the election over, prognostications about the new administration of Barack Obama, and the fate of the losers, began in earnest. Almost simultaneously, speculation arose concerning the direction and prospects for the media in general, and the cable news networks in particular. The conventional wisdom (always conventional, rarely wise) is that Fox News will thrive in the role of a voice for the opposition and MSNBC will struggle for lack of drama. This analysis presumes that audiences respond only to conflict and that the Obama victory will put conservatives on edge and liberals to sleep.

There is some merit to this theory, but, us usual, it is too narrowly drawn to be enlightening. If contrarian politics were paramount then Fox would not have flourished during its early years of the Clinton administration, which it opposed, as well as the Bush years that followed, which it embraced. A common misconception about the success of Fox News is that it was driven by its conservative point of view. The only role ideology played was that it funneled all of the right-leaning viewers to one channel, allowing Fox to score higher in Nielsen ratings. The larger truth is that it transformed stodgy news delivery into thrill-inducing combat and soap opera. They created an us-vs-them, hero narrative that feeds on the same zealotry as a religious cult.

The race for president provided ample opportunity for the sort of melodrama upon which the new generation of cable news networks thrive. Fox took full advantage of this promoting, and even creating, friction where it otherwise would not have existed. Who can forget (despite how desperately we try):

  • William Ayers
  • Rev. Jeremiah Wright
  • Samuel “Joe” Wurzelbacher (the Plumber)
  • ACORN
  • Drill, baby drill
  • Elitists
  • Flag pins
  • Muslim Madrassas

The irrelevance of these phony issues is confirmed by how quickly they have vanished from the news scene. The campaign season stirred the pot, but the conclusion of the campaign is not the end of controversy. We are still mired in war, a collapsing economy, a climate crisis, and a multitude of other critical affairs that will define the next four years.

Nevertheless, cable news is going to have to undergo a post-election makeover. Brit Hume has already left the building. Some reports from Fox News insiders suggest that they will be taking a softer approach toward the President-elect (don’t believe it). Keith Olbermann’s Countdown contains segments like “Bushed” and “McCain in the Membrane” that will need to be retired. Political contests will likely play a smaller role in his program and others, and the void will have to be filled by something else. In the search for new themes, I would like to suggest one that is ever-present and exerts an overdue influence on American politics and culture: the Media.

There will always be political, social, and global controversies. They will erupt between and within party affiliations. The one thing that ties them all together is that they are fodder for interpretation by the media. The characterization of ideas can be instrumental in their acceptance or rejection by the people. Ideally, news organizations would be neutral providers of information and analysis, but those days may be long past. The modern era of television news seems to have irreversibly digressed into partisan advocacy. Even Fox News, the home of the “fair and balanced” fallacy, seems to have abandoned that pretense. Chairman and CEO, Roger Ailes was asked by Broadcasting and Cable Magazine about their post-election prospects:

B & C: [W]ill the news side of Fox News face an apathetic audience, compounded by being on the losing end of a national election?

Ailes: There may be certain elements of our audience that turn away between now and the inauguration. I think cable numbers overall will drop, although there is a fascination with Obama.

Notice that Ailes doesn’t object to the question’s premise that Fox was “on the losing end” of the election. The reality of Fox’s bias is so well established now that he doesn’t even bother to refute it. If Ailes’ response isn’t validation enough, listen to his executive VP, John Moody, from the same article, describing Obama as…

“…a once-in-a-lifetime politician and that means he’s smart enough to know that, despite his prescient 2004 speech, there are red voters and blue voters. And he wants to reach out and get the red ones, too.”

Here we have Moody blithely confessing that Fox is the venue for conservative viewers. This is something that Moody and Ailes would have vehemently denied in the past. Today it is treated as a foregone conclusion. That’s what makes observation of the media such a rich vein for the sort of melodrama that excites cable news programmers and viewers. The presentation of the news is so narrowly focused and poorly produced that it invites criticism, sarcasm, and ridicule.

This is where progressive media can excel. The Rupert Murdochs of the world aren’t interested in self-examination or improvement. They have an agenda to pursue and they won’t let a little thing like truth get in the way. Witness the inveterate lying of folks like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, and Sean Hannity. Liberals are generally more predisposed toward ethical oversight and, thus, make better watchdogs. With the decline of political content in the news cycle, this would be an opportune time to jump headlong into media analysis and criticism.

Scrutiny of the press has the added benefit of expanding the audience base because those who are skeptical of the press are a diverse group. An honest appraisal of reporters and pundits will appeal to a broad swath of news consumers. Evidence of this is the popularity of a couple of programs on Comedy Central. The Daily Show and the Colbert Report demonstrate the appeal of programming that takes on the press. Many analysts misconstrue these shows as political satire, but that is not an accurate characterization. They are media satire programs. Everything they do is less a statement on policy than it is a statement on the absurdity and incompetence of the people who bring us the news. It is also noteworthy that conservative attempts at this endeavor have all failed miserably.

Drawing attention to the media is also fertile ground for effective reform. It is potentially the most powerful avenue for political change. Every issue that faces citizens and their representatives has to be disseminated through the media apparatus. So whether it’s healthcare, education, taxes, energy, etc., it is the press that will shape much of the public’s view. The more light that is cast on the press, the more likely they will modify their behavior. So if cable news figures like Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Campbell Brown, and even Fox’s Shepard Smith (who has been known to take swipes at his net’s coverage), step up and challenge their industry, they could have more impact, and do more good, then if they merely assume the posture of another kvetching pundit.

The next few weeks will tell whether the press has learned anything, whether it is interested in self-reflection and reform, and whether it is capable of fulfilling its traditional role as a check on a government that would much prefer to work in secret. This will also be an outstanding time to have media watchers illuminating the stage and exposing the imperfections and deceits of those who purport to inform us. Let’s hope they heed the call. Because, now more than ever, we need an open, honest, and diverse fourth estate to document the progress of what may be the most astonishing political achievement in this nation’s short history.