Fox News Has Its Own Version Of The Constitution

Posted by on November 16, 2011 at 11:55 am. 3 Comments :

The right-wingnuts on Fox News have been lamenting the decline of American values and calling for a return to the Constitution ever since Barack Obama was inaugurated. When challenged as to what Constitutional rights have been lost, the Fox whiners have been completely unable to cite any examples.

Today we learned the reason for their difficulty in documenting their complaints. They are using a different Constitution than the rest of the American people. In a segment discussing whether Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan should recuse herself from the health care case the Court recently agreed to hear, Fox’s national correspondent, Steve Centanni, had this to say:

“If she were closely involved with the health care bill, she would legally be required to recuse herself from the case. According to the Constitution a justice must recuse even if he or she quote, ‘…expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy.’ That’s from Article 28 of the Constitution.”

Centanni’s remarks were accompanied by an on-screen graphic that displayed the quote and included the source: “U.S. Constitution, Article 28, Sec. 144.” Well, as Media Matters points out, there are…

“Three glaring problems with this argument: The Constitution has no Article 28, has no Section 144, and does not contain the language quoted.”

Apparently, Centanni’s quote actually comes from a congressional statute: U.S. Code, Title 28, Section 455, Sub-section 3. But legal experts have debunked any interpretation of that that would require Kagan’s recusal.

However, the same statute appears to require the recusal of Justice Clarance Thomas. Sub-section 4 states that a justice must disqualify himself if…

“(4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;”

Thomas’ wife, Ginni, is the head of a Tea Party organization, Liberty Central, that is actively engaged in efforts to repeal the health care bill. She takes a salary and accepts donations from major contributors that are legally protected from disclosure. She is also the head of Liberty Consulting, a for-profit lobbying services firm. Clearly she has a financial interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding and, therefore, so does Justice Thomas.

The realization that Fox News is using a Constitution that is markedly different from the one the rest of know and love, explains how their audience has become so delusional with regard to Constitutional issues. Fox News notoriously misinforms their viewers and their ignorance is documented in studies and polls. This is just the latest embarrassing deception that Fox has loosed on its glassy-eyed congregation. And these errors persist despite an edict from Fox executives that they were implementing a “Zero Tolerance” policy for such mistakes:

“Mistakes by any member of the show team that end up on air may result in immediate disciplinary action against those who played significant roles in the ‘mistake chain,’ and those who supervise them. That may include warning letters to personnel files, suspensions, and other possible actions up to and including termination.”

So will heads be rolling at Fox News? Don’t count on it. Fox doesn’t regard these incidents as mistakes. In fact, they are an integral part of their mandate. A mistake would be if they inadvertently allowed something truthful to get on the air. That would be cause for termination at Fox.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Sarah Palin On Herman Cain

Posted by on November 15, 2011 at 1:37 pm. 12 Comments :

Sarah Palin[Editor’s Note: Please accept my apology for any mental image the headline of this article may have inadvertently caused]

Sarah Palin has taken great pains to cast herself as a new kind of feminist. Her crusade for a version of conservative feminism has spawned a movement of “mama grizzlies” who she regards as the defenders of traditional values. So it is interesting to look back a few months and recall how Palin stepped forward to fulfill her role as a women’s advocate.

When the Anthony Weiner story broke, Palin was quick to judge the congressman who had done nothing illegal and did not even have any physical extra-marital encounters. Nevertheless, Palin pounced on the scandal with a harsh condemnation complete with a sexually suggestive pun. Here is what Palin said about Weiner:

“From henceforth after his personal indiscretions were disclosed, he was going to be rendered impotent basically there in Congress and he wasn’t going to be effective…Obviously it was the right thing to do. Day late dollar short though, I think he should have resigned right when all of this came to light.”

However, Palin’s assessment of the Cain scandal, which does involve potentially criminal behavior and was described by the victim as physical, has not raised the same measure of indignation. Here is what Palin said about Cain:

 

That’s right. Palin has not bothered to comment on a case of alleged sexual harassment and, perhaps, assault. Even though she previously disparaged Cain as the “flavor of the week,” she cannot bring herself to make a statement on behalf of a victimized woman. Palin’s silence on this matter is deafening. If she expects people to give consideration to her views, she would be well-advised to express them.

Of course, it may not be her fault. Since bowing out of the GOP primary, Palin has all but disappeared from public view. The press is finally giving her the level of attention that she has always deserved – none. Since she is not an expert on any social or legal matter, and she holds no position of authority, her opinions are no more valid than any other media celebrity. So we should not expect to hear from her again unless she is appearing on a panel with Paris Hilton and Charlie Sheen.


Sean Hannity Decides Who The Real Conservatives Are

Posted by on November 15, 2011 at 3:14 am. 4 Comments :

In a conversation with Newt Gingrich, Sean Hannity of Fox News appointed himself the official source for conservative credentials. He was reciting some of the criticism Gingrich has earned from a broad spectrum of analysts, and as a means of dismissing it, Hannity simply de-certified the source:

Hannity: You have Kathleen Parker, a CNN conservative, which isn’t a real conservative, accusing you now of hating mankind. Can’t get any worse than that I guess, if you hate all mankind.

Gingrich: Wait a minute. How could she possibly come up with something that goofy?

Hannity: I don’t know. I mean I don’t speak for these liberal conservatives that are hired by these other news networks cause they’re not conservatives.

First of all, let’s be clear about what Hannity is referencing. Parker was not on CNN when she made the remarks that riled up Hannity. CNN fired her months ago. She was on CBS’s Face the Nation and was commenting on what others have said about Gingrich:

Parker: He’s not very much of a campaigner. In fact, he’s been described as sort of a misanthrope.

Of course, Fox News has to provide a definition of misanthrope for their viewers because the word has more than two syllables. But more to the point, we now know that it is Sean Hannity who decides who is, or is not, a conservative. And first among those who fail his test are conservatives on CNN. By that he must mean RedState’s Erick Erickson, Andrew Breitbart’s editor-in-chief Dana Loesch, Glenn Beck contributor Will Cain, and even Glenn Beck himself who used to have a program on CNN’s Headline News. I suppose Hannity would also include MSNBC’s resident racist Pat Buchanan, former GOP chairman Michael Steele, and McCain/Palin strategist Steve Schmidt. Surely none of them are conservatives.

The irony is that Fox News has a penchant for presenting conservatives that they misrepresent as Democrats. People like Pat Caddell, Doug Schoen, and Dick Morris, who have not had anything to do with Democrats for years (and whom Democrats would have nothing to do with). Their sole purpose is to collect a paycheck from Fox while bashing their former party and any liberal initiative. Fox regularly scours the news wires to find any incident wherein a Democrat is critical of other Democrats. That’s the fastest way for a Democrat to get invited to appear on Fox.

We ought to be grateful to Hannity for clearing up the confusion as to who the real conservatives are. At least now we have an ideological benchmark from a bona fide expert to keep us from making a terrible mistake. We might otherwise have gotten the misimpression that Mary Matalin or Bill Bennett were conservatives.


Rush Limbaugh Attacks Chelsea Clinton – Again

Posted by on November 14, 2011 at 2:44 pm. 5 Comments :

Conservative blowhard, Rush Limbaugh, is blowing harder than ever at the prospect of a politically connected offspring getting hired by a news organization.

NBC announced today that Chelsea Clinton will become a correspondent for their non-political, human interest series, “Making a Difference.” That announcement has Limbaugh’s blood boiling this morning as he rants…

“Chelsea Clinton, starting today will be getting her paychecks from the National Broadcast Company – NBC. I wonder how Luke Russert feels about this? Chelsea Clinton at NBC. She is not a journalist. She is a politician in training. That’s what this means, politician in training. It’s an incestuous business, circuitous route, revolving door, politics in media, on the Democrat side, is one and the same profession.”

Limbaugh is appalled that a news enterprise would hire someone not specifically trained in journalism just because they are related to a Democratic political figure. On that point I’d have to agree with him. Journalists should have professional training and a commitment to codes of ethical conduct. But Limbaugh’s only complaint is that “this is an avenue not open to conservatives.” So he doesn’t really care about the degradation of standards, only that Republicans can’t participate in the degradation. On that score he must have forgotten Michael Reagan, Lynn Cheney, Meghan McCain, and even George W. Bush’s daughter Jenna Bush Hager, who is already working at NBC. But Limbaugh’s obliviousness doesn’t stop there. He continues with a delusional lament that only Democrats waver between media and politics:

“I guess you could say we go to the media after we bomb out in politics, and we go to Fox. But that’s after we bomb out. After we lose our elections, that’s where we get hired by Roger Ailes, and so forth and so on. But seldom do we go from Fox back to politics. I could be wrong about this. I’m trying to think off the top of my head if that happens, but we do know that Chelsea Clinton is going to go from NBC to politics. There’s no question about it whatsoever in my mind.”

Setting aside Limbaugh’s psychic aspirations, he is partially correct in that Republican losers do get swept up by Fox News. Witness Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee. But if he needs help remembering Republicans who jumped from positions at Fox into electoral politics, he need not look further than the current GOP presidential primaries where both Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum made that leap. He might also recall that current Ohio governor John Kasich left his Fox News program to run for that post.

Going back further in time, I can’t recall a single democratic politician whose career started in the media. However, on the Republican side I can count Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Fred Thompson, Sonny Bono, Fred Grandy, and George Murphy. Going from politics to media there are a few from both sides. Bill Moyers and George Stephanopoulos were both presidential aides before landing at PBS and ABC respectively. Tony Snow went from Fox to the Bush White House to CNN. Diane Sawyer was a Nixon press aide who is currently the anchor of ABC’s World News Tonight.

It should be noted also that Limbaugh has a history of gratuitous attacks on Chelsea Clinton. On his failed TV show in 1993 he asked his audience, “Did you know there’s a White House dog?” Then he put up a picture of 13 year old Chelsea. At least the maturity level of the right is consistent.

I think what might be really bugging Limbaugh is not that Democrats have some imaginary entrée into the mediasphere, it’s that Republicans have such an embarrassing field of candidates by comparison. After all, most people would not view Chelsea Clinton, a graduate of Stanford and Oxford who is currently pursuing her doctorate, as unqualified for such a position. On the other hand, Bristol Palin couldn’t even make it through the season of Dancing With the Stars.

[Update] Limbaugh doubled-down this morning with another heaping pile of stupidity:

“Can you imagine Brian Williams, if one of the Bush twins, one of George W. Bush’s duaghters had been hired? [Responding to someone off mic] One of George W. Bush’s daughters is a correspondent on the Today Show? Really? I didn’t know that. That is interesting. And they haven’t undermined her yet?”

And he continues…

“You’ve got to get experience on television. You have learn how to use TV if you’re going to do anything in politics of a substantial nature. […] Chelsea…what’s her degree in? History or make-up?”

For the record, Limbaugh dropped out of Southeast Missouri State University after two semesters and one summer. According to his mother, “he flunked everything.”


ABC News Lists The Wealthy 1% Influencing Politics – But Leaves A Few Out

Posted by on November 14, 2011 at 12:19 pm. 3 Comments :

ABC News has published a list of what they call the “Top 8 Most Powerful Businessmen Influencing Politics.” It is a testament to the success of the Occupy Wall Street movement that a mainstream news organization is even attempting to tackle this issue.

Prior to OWS there was nary a peep about the appalling and dangerous wealth gap in America. The pundits and politicians had a single-minded focus on deficits and ignored the larger question of how they accumulated throughout the Bush administration via tax cuts for rich, off-the-books wars, and irresponsible deregulation.

The Occupy movement has completely shifted the debate to the more relevant issue of economic equity and the abuse of power by corporations and their wealthy proponents. That shift is the reason that ABC News has, for the first time, published a list of One Percenters who influence politics. Unfortunately, the list is woefully incomplete:

  • Koch Brothers
  • George Soros
  • Warren Buffett
  • Jeffrey Katzenberg
  • A. Jerrold Perenchio
  • George Kaiser
  • Howard Schultz

ABC seems to be going out of their way to be non-partisan. The problem with that approach is that the ranks of the wealthy are not themselves non-partisan. Here are a few more Republican power brokers that ABC omitted – and every one a billionaire:

  • Rupert Murdoch
  • Philip Anschutz
  • Sumner Redstone
  • Donald Trump
  • Steve Wynn
  • T. Boone Pickens
  • Arthur Blank
  • Meg Whitman
  • Richard Scaife

The noticeable leaning of wealthy businessmen to the conservative side ought to have been acknowledged by ABC. This is especially true given that so many of them are their colleagues in the media. It is particularly conspicuous that ABC left Rupert Murdoch off of their list given that he may be the world’s most prominent influencer of politics with both his blatantly biased news enterprises and his personal generosity toward conservative causes.

Other than these egregious omissions, it is encouraging to see the mainstream press starting to recognize the imbalance in this nation’s economic and political systems. And for that we can thank the Occupiers.


Fox Nation vs. Reality: Lazy Americans

Posted by on November 14, 2011 at 10:57 am. 3 Comments :

If there is one thing Fox News loves to do, it is to blatantly clip snippets of dialogue from President Obama’s public comments and build them up into scandalous proportions in an attempt to portray the President as anti-America. That is precisely what they did this morning with their Fox Nation article entitled, “Obama: Americans are a ‘Little Bit Lazy'”

Fox Nation

The Fox Nationalists have once again distorted the meaning of the President’s words in order to cast him in a negative light. Here is what was actually said:

“We’ve been a little bit lazy over the last couple of decades. We’ve kind of taken for granted, well, people would want to come here and we aren’t out there hungry, selling America and trying to attract new businesses into America.”

It could not be more clear that in the original context of his remarks Obama was referring to the actions of government, not the American people. After all, it isn’t the people who engage in activities to “sell America” or “attract new businesses into America.” Those are trade missions generally carried out by the Department of Commerce and other federal agencies. Obama made these comments at a meeting of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), an inter-governmental trade association.

Anyone analyzing this speech would have to agree that Obama’s assessment is objectively true. They could hardly argue that the past ten years was a model of success with regard to trade and the U.S. economy in the world market.

Nevertheless, Fox News jumped on the dishonestly edited clip with the posting on Fox Nation, an editorial on Fox Radio, and at least two segments on Fox & Friends on the Fox News Channel. And in every case they falsely characterized the President as insulting the American people. But what is really insulting to the American people is the way that Fox insults their intelligence with shoddy reporting and deliberate lies. And, sadly, for many in Fox’s audience, the insult is apropos.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Killing Truth: Bill O’Reilly’s Error-Plagued Biography Of Lincoln

Posted by on November 13, 2011 at 9:55 am. 3 Comments :

Salon’s Justin Elliot reports that the National Park Service’s bookstore at the Ford Theater has recommended that Bill O’Reilly’s new book on Abraham Lincoln not be carried in the store “because of the lack of documentation and the factual errors within the publication.”

It should come as no surprise that O’Reilly’s “Killing Lincoln” would be a trifling, fact-challenged version of historical events. The Fox News host, who recently blew a gasket over $16.00 muffins that don’t exist, cannot be expected to accurately convey historical events that occurred 150 years ago when he can’t produce factual accounts of last week.

Amongst the errors in O’Reilly’s book are his multiple references to Lincoln in the Oval Office, which was not built until 1909. That’s typical of the sloppy reporting for which O’Reilly is famous. After all, this the same man that insisted that there are no homeless veterans in America. And that’s why we should be grateful for O’Reilly confessing his contribution to the debasement of journalism:

Bill O'Reilly

Indeed you have, Bill-O.


Andrew Breitbart Joins Fight Against Fat Cats

Posted by on November 11, 2011 at 2:18 pm. 5 Comments :

Right-wing propagandist, Andrew Breitbart, has jumped feet first into the battle against the wealthy 1%ers. Known primarily as a mouthpiece for the conservative elite and Republican power mongers, Breitbart is now attacking someone for having attained a comfortable lifestyle amongst the upper crusties.

Andrew BreitbartBreitbart sent his stalkers to photograph what he calls the “vacation mansion” of this tycoon who is “so wealthy that he does not need to worry about his income,” and enjoys “the kind of luxurious summer home that 99 percent of Americans can only dream of owning.”

This scoop ranks highly amongst Breitbart’s notorious journalistic accomplishments. He is the media patron of video lie-ographer James O’Keefe. He is the perpetrator of the libel that got Shirley Sherrod fired from her position at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. He orchestrated the campaign against former congressman Anthony Weiner. Most recently he published stolen emails and attempted to recruit his readers to find material to embarrass the Occupy Wall Street movement (he failed to turn up anything).

And now Breitbart has launched an attack against a successful American entrepreneur for having the audacity to spend lavishly from his own earnings. It may be surprising to hear Breitbart staking out this position that seems to align with the views of the 99% of the nation that is protesting the economic inequities in our system. But it is less surprising when you know that the target of Breitbart’s ire is filmmaker Michael Moore. In an effort to soft-pedal his criticism, Breitbart dials back his outrage to assert that…

“No one begrudges Moore his wealth, but it is deceitful for him to claim poverty while encouraging class warfare among other Americans. It is also purely narcissistic and selfish for Moore to back radical and destructive socialist policies that would deny other Americans the opportunity to become as rich as he is.”

Despite his assertion, Breitbart is explicitly begrudging Moore his wealth. His clear implication is that Moore is a hypocrite. But the 99% movement has never been about opposition to financial success. It’s about opposition to corruption, and the undue seizure of power. Contrary to Breitbart’s brazen lie, Moore never claimed poverty. He openly acknowledges his success, for which he is unreservedly grateful. And he does not advocate class warfare. Like the rest of those in the Occupy movement, he merely seeks fairness and an economic environment that allows everyone to prosper. And he understands that democracy is best served when all the people’s voices are heard, not just the barons who bankroll elections.

Shared Sacrifice

Conservatives are all for the free market and the accumulation of wealth so long as as the recipient is an approved member of their club. When someone like Moore, or Warren Buffett, or Bill Gates, or Al Gore, or many other millionaires, speak out on behalf of those with lesser fortunes, people like Breitbart just can’t figure it out. These folks are not declaring war against themselves. They recognize the greater economic benefits of a society that offers affluence to all. It enhances their own financial prospects and makes the country stronger.

But it will always be anathema to the Breitbarts of the world who yearn for exclusivity amongst their ranks. God forbid they might have to rub elbows with the riff-raff. And that’s why Breitbart is reduced to stunts like peering over the hedges of well-off folks that he doesn’t happen to like. If that seems creepy to you, then you are a good judge of character.


Americans Ditching Big Banks By The Tens Of Thousands

Posted by on November 9, 2011 at 9:28 pm. 10 Comments :

The Occupy Wall Street movement has had a profound effect on changing the topic of debate in this country. A couple of months ago the only subject the media would entertain was the national debt and federal spending. Today the conversation has veered to economic inequities and the abuse of corporate power.

An ancillary to the Occupy agenda that arose a few weeks ago is the call for Americans to Move Your Money from big, impersonal banks, to local community banks and credit unions. That initiative climaxed last Saturday as the day designated “Bank Transfer Day.”

By any measure it was a resounding success. The Credit Union National Association reports that $80 million was moved into their member institutions on Saturday alone. For comparison, the CUNA notes that on an average day in 2010, they opened 1,643 new accounts. On November 5th, they opened 40,000 new accounts. Could anyone have predicted this level of success?

Move Your Money

One person whose predictions were typically some distance from reality was Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly. Last Friday he engaged Geraldo Rivera in a debate that ended with a brief discussion of the Bank Transfer Day.

Rivera: “Tomorrow there’s a Bank Transfer Day. This is a concrete thing. They are saying ‘Take your money out of the Bank of America. Take your money out of J. P. Morgan Chase. Take your money out of these big banks and put them in small credit unions.’ What if that comes out to tens of millions of dollars in bank transfers?”

O’Reilly: Let me just tell you something. Nobody’s gonna do that. Number one, those people don’t have any money and nobody’s gonna listen to them because they lost credibility.

Ya think O’Reilly will acknowledge his error now that he has been proven to be a lousy prognosticator? Do you think he will address the fact that 650,000 new accounts were opened in the month prior to Bank Transfer Day? That’s more than the total number of new accounts opened in all of last year. Do you think the big banks will stop pretending they don’t care about customers fleeing because they aren’t profitable customers? Yeah, me neither.


Fox News Commentator Secretly Worked On Michele Bachmann Book

Posted by on November 9, 2011 at 11:29 am. 1 Comments :

Politico reported this week that Fox News commentator Jim Pinkerton is a paid co-author of GOP presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann’s new book.

This sort of collaboration would be a problem for any journalist who failed to fully disclose the relationship. But the problem is compounded by the fact that Pinkerton is a regular on Fox’s Media Watch, a program whose purpose is to monitor malfeasance in the media. It is precisely this sort of affair that a program like Media Watch would expose, instead they are accomplices.

As if this wasn’t bad enough, Pinkerton told Media Matters that he does not regret his failure to disclose the relationship and that he had cleared it with his bosses at Fox who approved the deal. This is further evidence that the unethical behavior of anchors and commentators on Fox is not restricted to the whims of the on-air personnel. The editors and executives at Fox are fully involved in this perversion of journalistic standards. It’s just the way they do business.

Media Matters has compiled comments from a variety of press veterans and academics condemning Pinkerton’s actions. What do you think the adds are that Fox’s Media Watch will cover this story next Saturday?