Fox News Lies: Obama Did Not Praise Ho Chi Minh

One of the propaganda tactics most favored by Fox News is the snipping of a comment by President Obama and regurgitating it in a negative, and wholly dishonest, light. They did it last year on behalf of the Romney campaign numerous times with silliness like “You didn’t build that,” and other blatant misrepresentations.

Fox News

For more Fox-aganda bias, get the acclaimed ebook:
Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Fox News Community’s Assault on Truth

Today Fox News is premiering their latest rhetorical deception by fixating on remarks the President made in a press availability with Vietnam President Truong Tan Sang. While describing the discussion Obama had with Sang, he noted that

“At the conclusion of the meeting, President Sang shared with me a copy of a letter sent by Ho Chi Minh to Harry Truman. And we discussed the fact that Ho Chi Minh was actually inspired by the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and the words of Thomas Jefferson.”

That’s it. Nothing praising Ho Chi Minh at all. Just a simple recitation of unarguable facts. No one on Fox or the right-wing fruitcake brigade disputes that Ho Chi Minh revered the people and ideas that inspired the birth of the United States. He used the Declaration of Independence as the model for Vietnam’s quest for its own independence from France.

Nevertheless, Fox News is now attempting to twist Obama’s words into something that he never said or even implied. And the “fair and balanced” network brought on two revolting characters with sordid pasts to advance the distortions. Oliver North is the convicted Reaganite who illegally sold arms to Iran in order to secure funding to support fascist rebels in Nicaragua, which was prohibited by congress. Ralph Peters is the Fox strategic analyst who called on the Taliban to “save us a lot of legal hassles” by executing an American soldier. He also advocated military attacks on the media. These two traitorous miscreants spent several unopposed minutes on Fox lambasting Obama as “stupid” and “evil” as they lied about what he said.

Anyone who seriously regards Fox as a credible news source should seek professional help. The unadulterated lie that Obama praised Ho Chi Minh can also be juxtaposed with the documented fact that Fox did indeed praise the Unabomber. This is the level of cognitive disconnect that exists at Fox, and it is the reason that their audience is so pathetically ignorant. It’s a good thing that their viewers are so small in number (less than 1% of the population) and so close to their judgment day (the oldest skewing audience in television).

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Fox News Black Out: No Reporting On Juror Who Said Zimmerman “Got Away With Murder”

Fox News George ZimmermanIt’s not bad enough that Fox News openly rooted for George Zimmerman before, during and after his trial. Nor that they denied that race could have played any part in the crime or the subsequent proceedings and coverage. Nor that they shamelessly, and without foundation, demonized Trayvon Martin as a violent thug. Nor that they insulted all African-Americans by insisting they would resort to massive rioting after the acquittal (which did not occur). Nope. Now Fox is brazenly perverting the news landscape by what they choose not to report.

Yesterday, ABC News aired an interview with “Maddy,” a woman who sat on the Zimmerman jury and made significant news with her remarks. She told Robin Roberts that she believed that Zimmerman “got away with murder.” She went on to express sympathy for Trayvon’s parents and said that “in our hearts we felt he was guilty.” In the end, however, she felt that the state had not proved its case and she voted to acquit along with the other jurors.

Maddy’s statements were obviously newsworthy and were covered by most legitimate news outlets. Her observations were in sharp contrast to the previous juror who came forward, identified only as B37, shortly after the trial concluded. B37’s interview was covered broadly by the media including Fox News. Additionally, Fox’s Sean Hannity interviewed an alternate juror, E54, who said that he agreed with the verdict and believed that Zimmerman was justified in shooting the unarmed teenager.

Somehow Fox has decided that the only juror to go public with comments sympathizing with the Martin family was not suitable for coverage. In my research I have not found a single report broadcast on the network since Maddy’s interview with ABC News. This cannot be regarded as an accident. Given the broad-based coverage elsewhere, it is clear that Fox made an editorial judgment to black out Maddy’s story and deprive their audience of critical information.

This is blatant evidence of how Fox manipulates the news and their gullible audience. It is further confirmation for why Fox News viewers are repeatedly shown to be the most ill-informed audience when compared to other news sources, or even to those who don’t watch news at all.

~~~ Be Sure To “LIKE” News Corpse On Facebook

[Addendum] No sooner did I post this example of Fox editorializing by omission than Media Matters posts three more examples: Fox fails to report the racist comments by GOP Rep. Steve King and Fox fails to report on voter fraud when committed by Republicans and Fox fails to report on the conservative cabal Groundswell after obsessing over the liberal JournoList.

[Update] Fox News finally addressed Maddy’s interview on The O’Reilly Factor with guest host Laura Ingraham, whose contribution to the discussion was to say she doesn’t like post-trial interviews and that juror opinions don’t matter.


Rush Limbaugh’s War On The War On Women: Attacking Huma Abedin

I suppose it had to come to this. With most of the conventional media piling on Anthony Weiner – who had no extramarital affairs, and was not unfaithful to his wife – it has been left to Rush Limbaugh to sink to the most disgusting depths of personal vilification with his attack on Weiner’s wife, Huma Abedin.

Rush Limbaugh
Be Sure To “LIKE” News Corpse On Facebook

Limbaugh’s daily sermonette was dripping with contempt as he lashed out at Abedin for what he claimed was her effort to “normalize their depravity.” He said that Abedin was making it common and noble to stand by a misbehaving spouse, thereby enabling his misbehavior. And make no mistake, this is not Limbaugh complaining about Weiner. He is aiming his animus directly at Abedin:

Limbaugh: “Huma Abedin is doing everything she can to make sure that women are seen as steppingstones and doormats.”

It takes a truckload of gall for Limbaugh, a drug-abuser who is presently on his fourth wife, to pretend that he has any grounds for lecturing others on morality. Yet that is precisely what he did for much of his radio broadcast today. It is a typical Republican approach to ethics wherein they readily condemn their political foes for behavior they engage in at least as often.

What’s more, conservative hypocrites are all too ready to forgive those on their side of the aisle who stray. That’s why GOP scoundrels like Sen. David Vitter, Rep. Mark Sanford, and even former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, generally remain in their official posts while Democrats have the decency to resign and withdraw from public life for a while. And for some reason, the allegedly “family values” posers on the right frequently abandon their marriage vows, but still have the temerity to complain when Democratic couples succeed in keeping their families in tact. Limbaugh criticized that very aspect of the Weiners’ relationship, suggesting that by preserving their marriage Abedin was demonstrating poor character and weakness. These right-wing freaks actually root for divorce and broken families, but will surely condemn that as well should it occur down the road. Nothing irks them more than the fact that Bill and Hillary Clinton stayed together, raised their daughter, and continue to support one another.

Not surprisingly, Limbaugh couched his obnoxious assault in starkly political terms. In doing so he managed to prove that he has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. He sneered that his interest in these matters was because “feminism is a political arm of the Democrat Party” (which is a plus for Democrats), and that Democrats condone the sort of activity that Weiner has engaged in. Of course, the truth is that no one is more critical of Weiner than his fellow Democrats and certainly not one has come close to condoning anything he did. But Limbaugh’s demented political perspective goes even further to entirely slip the bounds of reason:

Limbaugh: “I don’t want to ever hear another word about a Republican War on Women, because Democrat women are doing more to set women and whatever causes they might have back to the Dark Ages.”

Apparently, Limbaugh thinks that the “War on Women” has something to do with marital infidelity. Obviously it does not. When Democrats accuse Republicans of conducting a War on Women, they are referring to the GOP’s overt opposition to issues that women support and that directly impact their freedom and well being. Republicans, as a group, oppose equal pay for equal work; they voted against the Violence Against Women Act; they fought allowing women soldiers into combat roles; they resist laws mandating gender equality in the workplace; and they don’t trust women to make reproductive decisions about their own bodies. That’s what the War on Women is, not some personal melodrama. But Limbaugh can’t understand this. He complains that Democrats are “making a mockery of women” by staying in nurturing relationships with them instead of casting them aside. And then he let’s loose this tirade boasting that Republicans are somehow superior in their treatment of the women they regard as inferior:

“It’s not us using them. It’s not us chewing ’em up and spitting ’em out. It’s not us making fools of them. It’s not us disrespecting them. It’s not us doing any of this stuff. Not as a political party.”

Actually, Rush, it is you. It is you and your party that belittles and suppresses women. It is you who disrespect them. Ask the former Mrs. Giuliani, or the former Mrs. Sanford, or the several former Mrs. Gingrichs, or any of your own cast-offs, if they feel as if they were chewed up and spit out. Then ask Huma Abedin how she feels about you disparaging her character and passing judgment on her decision to work on and repair her marriage for the sake of herself, her husband, and her infant son.

Limbaugh began this broadcast saying that he “didn’t ever want to hear another word about a Republican War on Women.” Well, I don’t ever want to hear another word about Republican family values. At least not from neanderthals like Limbaugh who clearly do not value families.

[Update] Not to be outdone, Fox News hosted right-wing radio talker Michael Graham to bash Abedin. He rabidly pronounced that she is “even worse” than Weiner.


Fox Nation Hypes Ted Nugent’s Unhinged Promotion Of A Chicago Boycott

The cognitive dysfunction at Fox News sometimes gets so severe that it’s hard to believe they aren’t satirizing themselves. The latest example is an article on their community web site, the lie-riddled Fox Nation, that features Ted Nugent retching up another of his repugnant rants.

Fox Nation Ted Nugent

In order to advance the argument that it is somehow improper for celebrities to take a principled stance against the “kill at will” law (aka stand your ground), the Fox Nationalists recruited their version of a celebrity, the washed-up schlock-rocker, Ted Nugent. True to form, Nugent, who is also a board member of the National Rifle Association, let loose a tirade that was filled with his signature bombast and ignorance. His tantrum was centered on his apparent disgust for free speech and civil activism.

“[Y]ou can pretend by boycotting a single city with a stand your ground law that somehow you don’t have to boycott Chicago, where 700 people are slaughtered every year because they’re not standing their ground.”

It’s surprising how much idiocy can be drawn from that brief statement. Let’s start with the observation that Nugent doesn’t know what a boycott is. Those who are not intellectually impaired know that a boycott is an organized effort to influence policy or behavior that is objectionable. Therefore, a boycott of Florida aimed at persuading the state’s legislators to amend a law that is racist and exacerbates violence, could be an appropriate course of action that might achieve the desired result. But who is it that Nugent is proposing to boycott in Chicago? The behavior that he objects to is that of criminals who are not very likely to be swayed by tourists refusing to visit the city.

Then Nugent takes note of the high murder rate in Chicago and seems to be utterly unaware of situation on the ground. He thinks that the victims generally were harmed as result of their not being well enough armed to defend themselves. However, a majority of the shooting deaths in Chicago are gang-related. That means that in most circumstances both the shooter and the victim had access to lethal weaponry. Any sane observer knows that the problem in Chicago is not an absence of firepower, it’s an obvious over-abundance.

In many ways Chicago is a model of the NRA-theist utopia where everyone has a gun and the streets are rife with old west style shootouts. In effect, everybody is standing their ground and the result is a landscape of corpses. That’s what Nugent and his NRA cronies lust for, and Florida is seeking to become. Trayvon Martin, whom the nauseating Nugent called a “dope-peddling, gangsta wannabe,” is the tragic progenitor of this dystopian worldview. Nugent would do us all a favor if he would keep the promise he made over a year ago when he said that he would be either “dead or in jail” by now.


Media Warning Signs For The Grand Old White Republican Tea Party

The Nielsen ratings for July are coming out soon and there are developing trends in television viewing that portend problems for Republicans. Variety is reporting that…

“Univision is on pace to end the July sweeps in the numero uno spot, a milestone for the U.S. Hispanic network. Market leader expects to dominate July sweeps primetime among both Adults 18-49 and Adults 18-34 demos, in broadcast or cable.”

To be clear, this is not a ratings win among Hispanic networks or a particular genre of programming. It is the top spot for all television programming in the most important audience demographics. They beat ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX.

GOP Rebranding
Be Sure To “LIKE” News Corpse On Facebook

The political significance of this victory is that it affirms the growth of the Latino market, which has already been recognized as the fastest growing segment of the electorate. After the GOP’s dismal showing among Latinos in last November’s election (Romney drew only 27%), the party made a very public case for examining what went wrong, producing a thick document they called an “autopsy.” They concluded that the party “must embrace and champion comprehensive immigration reform. If we do not, our Party’s appeal will continue to shrink to its core constituencies only.”

Fast forward to July 2013. The Senate passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill with the votes of every Democrat, but only 14 Republicans. And now the bill sits dormant in the House where the Republican leadership refuses to bring it up for a vote. Many Republicans are openly hostile to immigration reform and have vowed to obstruct any attempt to advance it. Additionally, Republicans back voter suppression schemes that negatively impact Hispanic citizens. They also oppose the Dream Act that allows certain undocumented residents to remain in the country if they were brought here as children, have no criminal record, and are enrolled in either school or the military.

So despite recognition that the Republican Party’s viability in the future depends on broadening their base and appealing to Hispanics, they are doing virtually everything they can think of to alienate and insult the Latino community.

Another segment of the electorate that the GOP has had problems with are young voters. President Obama got a whopping 67% of the youth vote last November. Some of the issues that are important to this demographic include marriage equality, gun safety, tax fairness, health care, student loan interest rates, ballot access, and reproductive rights. These are all issues that the GOP polls poorly on among young constituents. Their autopsy noted that many respondents viewed the GOP as the party of “stuffy old men,” and acknowledged that “If our Party is not welcoming and inclusive, young people and increasingly other voters will continue to tune us out.”

Back to the present, we see that Republicans have done virtually nothing to avert the catastrophes they themselves predicted. And another signal in the media illustrates just how far afield they are in addressing the concerns of young citizens. The New York Times reports that Fox News, the PR arm of the GOP, is increasingly an island of far-right, senior citizens:

“[F]or six of the last eight years, Fox News has had a median age of 65-plus and the number of viewers in the 25-54 year old group has been falling consistently, down five years in a row in prime time.”

This represents the highest median age of any television network. Hence all the ads for Cialis, reverse mortgages, and the Scooter Store. Fox also has the widest disparity between viewers 18-34 and those 25-54. MSNBC, which has been slumping lately, still manages to grab the top spot for for viewers 18-34 in primetime.

Republicans, and their preferred media, are bleeding supporters in key groups that they have already conceded are essential for future victories. Hispanics, youth, African-Americans, and women, are all growing constituencies. But they are being left behind by an increasingly extremist and narrow Republican Party that is only responsive to older, white, Tea Partiers.

While this trend surely portends trouble for the GOP, it is an opportunity for Democrats to show some real leadership and embrace the diversity for which the party is known. Democrats have an uphill battle in 2014 due to gerrymandered redistricting by the GOP. They have to outperform Republicans by 7% just to stay competitive. Consequently, now would be the time to start shoring up support for the faster growing and more populous voter groups that show the most promise for electoral gains. Let the GOP have have the white, senior wingnuts. After all, it’s all they have left.


BREAKING: Screwing Royals Surprise The World With Mystery Baby

Reports from our London bureau are confirming that a couple of members of the British royal family have in their custody a male infant who they are claiming to be an heir to the throne of England. The child arrived this morning, although there is no evidence of an entourage or a means of transportation. Witnesses report that it was not there one moment, and then it was there the next.

Royal Fuckers

Scientific experts have developed a consensus theory that is being met with some skepticism by Republicans in the U.S. who reject any explanation that doesn’t involve divine intervention or result in lower corporate taxes. The scientists’ description of the phenomenon was summarized in a paper submitted to a British medical journal:

“Our research indicates a probable relationship with an interaction between the parties in the royal family,” wrote Dr. Ezekial Bogsworth-Kent of the University of London. “Empirical testing suggests that Prince William inserted his penis into the vagina of Lady Kate and maneuvered it inwardly and outwardly in successive motions until there was an eruption of spermatozoa. A chemical reaction subsequently occurred that resembles fertilization. It is difficult to conclude with certainty the sequence of events because they appear to have taken place some eight or nine months prior to the appearance of the mystery infant.”

The media has dispatched considerable resources to London in an effort to uncover the details of this affair, and its political and social ramifications. There are many unanswered questions, but diligent journalists are hard at work pressing their sources to acquire the information that is critical to a curious world. The news networks have ceased coverage of all the other trivial matters that generally consume their airtime. In the several hours since the announcement of the infant there has been no mention of George Zimmerman, Benghazi, immigration, Edward Snowden, or the economy and jobs.

The priority afforded to this breaking news is understandable when viewed in light of the international significance of this event. After all, this infant, in a couple of decades, may or may not be elevated to an entirely ceremonial role as the king of an empire over which he would have no power whatsoever, other than to spend millions of the tax dollars collected from struggling British citizens on his lavish lifestyle. So it is obvious why the media would focus so intently on this singular spectacle that is repeated tens of thousands of times every day by less consequential peasant folk.

The American press corps is no less obsessed with this distinctly British story because, despite the fact that the United States engaged in a bloody war of independence in order to cast off the shackles of monarchy, they are still entranced by royal melodrama that has no impact on them at all. So for the next few hours (days?) don’t expect to hear anything on the news that addresses the myriad problems America faces with its economic and social tribulations. There is a funny looking baby in a palace thousands of miles away that is far more important.

Royal Baby

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Allen West: There Never Was Any Racism Ever. What’s All The Fuss?

President Obama spoke last week in a very personal way about the experience of many African-Americans in a society that has struggled for decades to achieve equality. He expressed his recollection of the sort of prejudice that is well known by the black community saying that…

“There are very few African-American men in this country who haven’t had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store. That includes me. There are very few African-American men who haven’t had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me—at least before I was a senator. There are very few African Americans who haven’t had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off. That happens often.”

For his honesty, the President was lambasted by mostly white pundits and politicians who heard a very different message in his words. They accused him sowing division, ripping the country apart, and in an especially perverse interpretation, of professing racism himself.

Not to be left out, African-Tea-merican Allen West weighed in with his own recollections of being a black child in the South:

“I am a black male who grew up in the inner city of Atlanta and no one ever followed me in a mall. I don’t recall any doors clicking when I crossed the street. And I never had anyone clutching their handbag when I got on an elevator. I guess having two awesome parents who taught me to be a respectful young man paid dividends.”

Allen West

This actually explains a lot. Apparently West had a childhood that differed greatly from that of his peers. Having never been exposed to prejudice based on his race, it is somewhat more understandable how he could have grown up to be a mouthpiece for a racist movement and political ideology. Now we have a better idea of why West has placed himself at the front of a parade of white bigots who gleefully exploit him.

What is still difficult to comprehend is how West grew up in the environment that he describes. Could it be that the he was just so oblivious to the behavior of those around him that he simply didn’t notice the door-clickers and the handbag-clutchers? After all, while West claims to have never seen people follow him in malls, he does claim to have seen some eighty communists in the House of Representatives. Perhaps his cognitive ability is a little warped.

What point is West trying to make by noting his unique and improbable personal history? Is he asserting that other black men, including the President, are lying when they say they have been the subjects of prejudice? Does he think that there has never been a black man who was followed in a mall, or stopped by the police, or otherwise treated adversely because of his race? In West’s world there seems to be no trace of racism, and anyone who says otherwise is a liar.

Furthermore, West implies that his upbringing by “two awesome parents” is responsible for the fairy tale harmony he enjoyed growing up. By contrast he suggests that Obama’s single mother, and every other single-parent family, is the cause of rude children who deserve the harsh treatment they receive from bigots in malls and on elevators.

If only all black kids were well behaved, respectable young men, there would never be any racism. On that, West agrees with Ted Nugent who recently said that the solution to racism was for African-Americans to be clean, well-spoken, and not so damn lazy. He never mentioned that white people should be less hateful. These are the sort of repugnant, easy answers that racists wallow in because it places the blame on the victims. And that is precisely what West is doing with his utterly unbelievable personal history.


Demonizing Trayvon: Racist Editorializing With Graphics On Fox News

On his Friday program on Fox News, Sean Hannity invited Martin family attorney Daryl Parks on to discuss the aftermath of the Zimmerman trial and verdict. The interview itself was uneventful, with Hannity arguing throughout that Martin was responsible for his own death. However, when Fox posted the video online it featured a cover photo and headline that had nothing whatsoever to do with the interview.

Fox News

The headline was a question, “How Should Trayvon Martin Be Remembered,” that was never asked or addressed in the interview at all. The entire segment was a rehash of the arguments presented in the trial and Hannity’s concurrence with the defense position. Where Fox came up with the notion that Martin’s legacy was relevant to the video is a mystery.

Nevertheless, Fox attached the unrelated headline to a photo that cast Martin in a decidedly negative light with a bullet hanging prominently over his face. That photo was also unrelated, and unnecessarily incendiary, as it did not appear anywhere the video. The purpose of this visual messaging was clearly to implant a memorial image of Martin as inherently violent.

After conducting a little research, I discovered the source photo that Fox had used. Their editors had cropped it to feature a close-up of Martin’s face and the bullet. But the original picture plainly shows that the photo was of a t-shirt being worn by someone attending a rally in support of justice for Trayvon. The bullet was an accessory worn by the rally participant and had nothing to do with Martin. Furthermore, contrary to the impression given by Fox’s biased photo editing, the t-shirt also had a message of peace and understanding: “It’s not a black or white thing. It’s a right or wrong thing.”

This sort of graphic editorializing is nothing new for Fox. Even specifically with regard to this story, Fox News had once posted a photo that they had deliberately altered to make Martin appear more sinister.

Fox News

The obvious racist intentions of Fox News literally scream out at you in both of these photo incidents. They are playing to the emotions of their audience that is predominantly white, with only 1.38% of their primetime viewers being African-America. And that’s why they believe they can get away with this sort of blatant prejudice in the guise of remembering Trayvon.


Knee-Jerk Off: Fox News Hammers Obama’s Remarks On Zimmerman Verdict

President Obama made a surprise appearance in the White House press briefing room this morning to express his thoughts on the Zimmerman verdict and related matters including race and law. Fox News didn’t waste any time to begin smearing the President for having the gall to communicate to the American people his feelings on these subjects.

Fox Nation

Apparently, the all too predictable hate mongers at Fox’s community web site, Fox Nation of Lies, believe it is appropriate for everyone to have an opinion on this case except for the President of the United States. Fox has already published commentaries from professional Obama-haters Sean Hannity, Charles Krauthammer, John Lott, Mark Levin, Rich Lowery, and more. But when the Obama speaks for himself, Fox leaps into full Obama Derangement Mode and speculates that his words alone are making things worse. And that’s after repulsive suggestions from the wingnut crowd that any criticism of the verdict was the work of “race hustlers”; that if anything happened to Zimmerman there would be blood on the hands of Obama, Eric Holder, and Al Sharpton; that advocates for Trayvon Martin were likely to incite riots across America; that Martin was a drug-addicted, thug who was responsible for his own death. And they don’t think that those statements will make things worse?

Obama’s comments demonstrated a breadth of understanding and compassion that these rightist instigators could never imagine. He made the events personal to many Americans at the same time as he reflected on the sort of solutions that should be considered. Here are some excerpts:

“You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot I said that this could have been my son. Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago. And when you think about why, in the African American community at least, there’s a lot of pain around what happened here, I think it’s important to recognize that the African American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that doesn’t go away.

“There are very few African American men in this country who haven’t had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store. That includes me. There are very few African American men who haven’t had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me — at least before I was a senator. There are very few African Americans who haven’t had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off. That happens often.”

“I think the African American community is also not naïve in understanding that, statistically, somebody like Trayvon Martin was statistically more likely to be shot by a peer than he was by somebody else. So folks understand the challenges that exist for African American boys. But they get frustrated, I think, if they feel that there’s no context for it and that context is being denied. And that all contributes I think to a sense that if a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, that, from top to bottom, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different.”

“For those who resist that idea that we should think about something like these “stand your ground” laws, I’d just ask people to consider, if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? And do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman who had followed him in a car because he felt threatened? And if the answer to that question is at least ambiguous, then it seems to me that we might want to examine those kinds of laws.”

The President also spoke about how things have improved over the years, but that there is still more to be done. How anyone could argue with these comments is mystifying. But how Fox can go even further than disagreement to assertions of exacerbating the problem is just plain absurd. It can only be explained by recognizing that Fox is fully vested in disparaging Obama regardless of what he does or says. And that being the case, it is safe to simply disregard anything Fox says about anything. We already know what their opinion is and we know that they are composing their attacks even before the President finishes speaking.

Media Matters has compiled a collection of truly revolting responses to the President’s remarks.


OUTRAGE! Fox News ‘Glamorized’ Boston Bomber Three Months Before Rolling Stone

For a network that perpetually displays an “Alert” graphic regardless of whether they are reporting on a car bombing in Afghanistan or the opening of a Hooters in Tacoma, it is not surprising that Fox News’ hair-trigger Outrage Detector is stuck on “Apocalypse Now.” The standard facial expression of a Fox anchor at any given moment is an eye-bulging, jaw-dropping, sweat-dripping, fright mask of horror.

And so it was when the new issue of Rolling Stone magazine hit the streets. The featured story was about Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, with the headline “THE BOMBER. How a popular, promising student was failed by his family, fell into radical Islam and became a monster.” Accompanying the story was a cover photo that has stirred more controversy than anything in the article. Many in the media, and particularly Fox News, condemned the photo as an attempt to glorify terrorism. There is just one problem.

Fox News - Rolling Stone
Be Sure To “LIKE” News Corpse On Facebook

The picture that has rattled Fox News so furiously is the same one that Fox itself used back on April 19, 2013, to illustrate an article on their Fox Nation web site (See Fox Nation vs. Reality for an in-depth examination of its relentless dishonesty). That was just four days after the actual bombing. So if it’s true, as Fox says, that the photo turns Tsarnaev into a celebrity; that it glorifies a notorious killer; that it encourages others to follow in his footsteps; then Fox is not only guilty of the same things, they beat Rolling Stone to the punch by three months.

Rolling Stone’s decision to publish a story about Tsarnaev is entirely consistent with their editorial practice. Contrary to their reputation as merely a music magazine, they regularly publish articles on politics, media and other current events. They have some of the best topical journalism and journalists anywhere (e.g. Matt Taibbi). And lest we forget, Hunter S. Thompson wrote for Rolling Stone. All in all, it is a far better source for news than Fox.

The complaints about the photo are comically inept. Fox News is just one of many outlets that make a ludicrous comparison of the Tsarnaev picture to one that Rolling Stone had of Jim Morrison. However, it really was no different than virtually every cover of the Rolling Stone where they feature a headshot of the subject of the issue’s feature story. The only similarity between the two covers is that they both show young men with long, wavy, brown hair.

As of this writing, Fox News has broadcast their outrage on Fox & Friends, Happening Now, America Live, and Studio B. They have devoted more airtime to this story than to the “bombing” just averted in the senate over the so-called “nuclear option” to limit filibusters on presidential appointees. This story has even supplanted the Zimmerman verdict in terms of airtime. As for Fox Nation, they posted their own denunciation of Rolling Stone, decrying it as “DISGUSTING: ‘Rolling Stone’ Glamorizes Boston Bomber.” It would be interesting to see if the Fox Nationalists thought it was disgusting when they published the very same photo. [Update: Fox Nation changed their headline to “POISON FOR AMERICA: THIS IS ROLLING STONE.” It goes without saying that Fox is poison for America.]

Rolling Stone issued this response to the cover controversy:

“Our hearts go out to the victims of the Boston Marathon bombing, and our thoughts are always with them and their families. The cover story we are publishing this week falls within the traditions of journalism and Rolling Stone’s long-standing commitment to serious and thoughtful coverage of the most important political and cultural issues of our day. The fact that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is young, and in the same age group as many of our readers, makes it all the more important for us to examine the complexities of this issue and gain a more complete understanding of how a tragedy like this happens.”

[Update] Fox News is now hyping some new photos taken by a police officer when Tsarnaev was apprehended. They say that this is the “REAL” Tsarnaev. OK, then. Suppose Rolling Stone had used this picture. Would that have made everything better? I don’t think so.

Rolling Stone Tsarnaev