Does Honesty Still Mean Anything To Fox News?

Posted by on March 17, 2010 at 3:36 pm. 4 Comments :

Fox News executives and defenders have been adamant that whatever bias exists at Fox, it is clearly delineated as opinion and is separate from what they regard as their hard news reporting. Never mind that even Fox admits that the majority or their schedule is opinionated and observers notice that much of that opinion seeps into their straight “news.” Further evidence of this seepage was apparent this morning on the Fox News web site. The image posted here was today’s featured story.

What this demonstrates is that it is getting harder to recognize the difference between Fox News and the Fox Nation (or for that matter, the Republican Party and the tea bagging, birther, secessionist, militias). The editorial pages of Fox are becoming indistinguishable from what they assert is news content. And while this has been obvious for some time on the air, it is expanding precipitously online.

The story referenced here is one that Fox is busily misrepresenting. They are portraying self-executing rules in Congress as illegal, unconstitutional, “Slaughterhouse” rules. But knowledgeable analysts are aware that these rules have been used many times by both parties. Norm Ornstein, of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, had this to say on the subject:

“I can’t recall a level of feigned indignation nearly as great as what we are seeing now from congressional Republicans and their acolytes at the Wall Street Journal, and on blogs, talk radio, and cable news. It reached a ridiculous level of misinformation and disinformation over the use of reconciliation, and now threatens to top that level over the projected use of a self-executing rule by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In the last Congress that Republicans controlled, from 2005 to 2006, Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier used the self-executing rule more than 35 times, and was no stranger to the concept of ‘deem and pass.'”

The key falsehood that Fox and their Republican patrons are peddling is that there will not be a vote on health care. The truth is that there have already been votes in both houses of Congress and the bill passed by significant majorities (in the Senate by a super-majority). And there is still a vote to be held to invoke amendments to the bill that includes the self-executing language. So any member of Congress voting “aye” on this is transparently voting in favor of the health care bill. It is not clandestine in any respect, and it is not an absence of a vote.

Nevertheless, Fox, Republicans, and conservative pundits, are castigating this routine procedure as nothing short of treasonous. Rep. Mike Pence (the #3 Republican in the House), called the rule unconstitutional, but when it was pointed out to him that he had previously voted for such a rule at least three times, he said “Yeah, sure.” So either he misspoke and the rule is constitutional, or he previously voted for a rule that he knew was not constitutional.

Conservative talk show host, Mark Levin, has threatened to take the matter to court to reverse any measure passed via this procedure. Would that mean that every bill passed in this way by Republicans would also be repealed?

Fox News legal analyst, Judge Andrew Napolitano, made a nearly incoherent argument that the rule is unconstitutional but that the Supreme Court wouldn’t interfere with congressional discretion. This is a (former) judge who actually believes that the Supreme Court would let stand a law despite considering it to be a violation of the Constitution. That’s just plain nonsense. The court can issue rulings that are debatable, or even wrong, but they do not issue rulings that are contrary to what they believe.

Fox News, on the other hand, has no problem reporting things that they don’t believe. It is entirely implausible that the editors and reporters at Fox don’t know about the use of self-executing rules. Yet they misreport on them anyway. And now they even characterize them as being unconstitutional when they know that that isn’t the truth. And those false characterizations are posted on their news pages and are not differentiated as opinion. Which is why you have to wonder if honesty means anything to Fox News.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Glenn Beck Forgets To Expose His Latest White House Marxist

Posted by on March 16, 2010 at 4:11 pm. 3 Comments :

We can chalk this one down to another broken promise from Fox News’ star paranoid, Glenn Beck. On last Thursday’s program he teased his audience with news of yet another example of the cancer that was eating away our country from within:

Thursday, March 11, 2010: “And a programming note. There’s a new advisor to President Obama who fits nicely in this group. Oh, he loves Marx. I’ll introduce you to him on Monday because, see, it’s important that we know who these people are, and we know what the influences are. Otherwise we’ll be Doomed to Repeat.”

If it is so important that we know who these people are, then why did Beck break his promise to introduce us to this new White House Marxist yesterday. I even gave him the benefit of doubt and waited to see if the introduction would come today. Beck was busy defending his hatred of Jesus yesterday and exposes always come after self-interest. But there was no mention of this commie mole on today’s program either. The whole hour was just an infomercial for his upcoming American Revival tour. I can’t help wondering how much additional damage is being done by this traitor while Beck neglects to reveal his identity. I might have suspected that Beck was just trying to make sure people tuned in day after day, waiting the big scoop, but he hasn’t even spoken of it since Thursday.

The reference Beck made to being “Doomed to Repeat” was another sales pitch, this time for his “special” program this Friday. It seems that every show is now an infomercial. I’m sure Friday’s special is filled with information that is just as accurate as the title, which Beck misquoted from the famous counsel of George Santayana:

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Well, you can’t expect Beck to get everything right when he’s under such pressure from religious leaders, and Fox News colleagues, and agent provocateurs inside our government, and the voices in his head. Perhaps it was those voices that distracted him from keeping his word to reveal the commie du jour.


Howard Kurtz Stumbles Into The Obvious On Glenn Beck

Posted by on March 15, 2010 at 1:17 pm. 3 Comments :

Nobody is going to mistake Howard Kurtz (CNN/Washington Post) for an insightful media analyst. His sycophantic and highly conflicted reporting barely qualifies as news on most days. And his latest column for the Post is no exception. However, it does hit on a couple of obvious truths that only Kurtz can think of as revelations:

Howard Kurtz: Beck has become a constant topic of conversation among Fox journalists, some of whom say they believe he uses distorted or inflammatory rhetoric that undermines their credibility.

Ya think?

HK: [Fox News VP Bill] Shine says that last fall a vice president was assigned “to help keep an eye on that program” and review its content in advance — a full-time job.

A full-time VP to keep an eye on Beck? I sure hope that guy had mental health insurance. Also, he didn’t do a very good job, judging by what made it to the air.

HK: Television analyst Andrew Tyndall calls Beck an “activist” and “comedian” whose incendiary style has created “a real crossroads for Fox News. […] They’re right on the cusp of losing their image as a news organization,” he declares.

What on earth would it take for Tyndall to regard them as over the cusp?

HK: When Fox covers breaking news during Beck’s hour, some journalists say, they are flooded with angry e-mail from viewers about the preemption.

And who could blame them? Beck’s viewers don’t want to be bothered with “news.” Even the sort that Fox pretends to deliver.

HK: Some staffers say they have watched rehearsals, on internal monitors, in which Beck has teared up or paused at the same moments as he later did during the show.

Because the secret of good comedy/propaganda is timing.

HK: Beck has caused such anguish at Fox that some of its journalists celebrated the failure of last week’s interview with embattled ex-congressman Eric Massa, which Beck pronounced a waste of time.

If those “journalists” want to celebrate whenever Beck’s program is a waste of time, they could celebrate every day.

Thanks Howie, for your always keen and penetrating outlook.

[Update: 3/17/10]: It appears Fox News CEO Roger Ailes was disturbed by Kurtz’ article. He hustled down to DC to dress down his staff for talking about “The Family.” In short he ordered them to shut up, fall in line, obey, or leave. And what ever they do, do not have an independent thought. That’s what the talking points are for.

Roger Ailes channels Michael Corleone:


Karl Rove Confesses: Most Of Fox News Is Unfair

Posted by on March 14, 2010 at 2:25 pm. 11 Comments :

Today on Meet the Press, Tom Brokaw (sitting in for David Gregory) interviewed Fox News contributor Karl Rove. In the course of the discussion Rove spewed the routine misrepresentations and falsehoods that one one might expect of him. But there was one exchange that was surprisingly honest:

TOM BROKAW: You’re now at Fox News. Do you think that Fox News is fair to President Obama?

KARL ROVE: I think they – on the news side, absolutely. I think that they’ve got first-rate individuals at the White House who – do their job. And in an objective, fair, and balanced way, yeah, absolutely.

Notice the qualification Rove inserts into his answer: “on the news side.” His assessment of fairness explicitly excludes those portions of the Fox schedule that are designated as opinion programs. Now recall that Michael Clemente, senior vice president of Fox News, defines the hours of 9am to 4pm, and 6pm to 8pm, as the dayparts that air straight news. So by their own calculation, that’s just nine hours of “news” programming. But the Fox & Friends morning block, plus the afternoon Cavuto/Beck double bill, plus the primetime fare (which is repeated) and the late night Red Eye, all add up to 13 hours. So the majority of their schedule is what they themselves regard as editorial content. Which means the majority of their schedule is deliberately unfair in the view of Karl Rove, who went out of his way to say so.

Taking into consideration the fact that what they do call “news” is heavily infested with opinions straight out of Beckville and Hannityland, it’s clear why Fox has zero credibility when it comes to authentic journalism. Former New York times editor Howell Raines noted this absence of objectivity in a recent op-ed. And Bill O’Reilly, never one to miss an opportunity to demonstrate the thinness of his skin, fired back back at Raines saying…

“The Factor is the signature broadcast of the Fox News Channel and we have covered the Obama-care debate carefully and with fairness, as have most of my colleagues.”

So O’Reilly is contradicting both Rove and Clemente. First he asserts that his show is fair (notwithstanding Rove’s contrary assessment). Then he describes it, not just as a “news” broadcast, but as the network’s “signature” example of one (despite not complying with Clemente’s definition).

In the end, O’Reilly’s ego confirms Rove’s confession. Fox News is utterly unfair throughout most of its broadcast day and its hired goons can’t tell the difference.


Glenn Beck vs. Martin Luther King On Social Justice

Posted by on March 14, 2010 at 3:06 am. 2 Comments :

Glenn Beck is feeling the heat from his repulsive commandment that his you should leave your church if it advocates social justice. Church leaders from across the religious spectrum are renouncing the ravings of His AssHoliness™. But there is another factor in this affair that ought not to be ignored.

When it suits his purpose, Beck will not hesitate to embrace Martin Luther King. Beck has even included King’s picture and words in the opening credits of his TV show (but no more). On the many times that Beck is accused of being racist he will cite King in an attempt to inoculate himself from the invariably correct criticisms. But that hasn’t prevented him from also calling King a radical and questioning whether there should be a day honoring him. And on the subject of social justice, which Beck is currently castigating as some sort of Da Vinci coded proxy for Marxism, King once said…

“[W]e will be able to go this additional distance and achieve the ideal, the goal of the new age, the age of social justice.”

Contrast that with Beck’s twisted view on the matter. It begins with a warning that when you see the words social justice you should…

“Run, and don’t listen to anyone who is telling you differently. […] It is a perversion of the Gospel.”

I’m not sure where Beck acquired his theological training. Perhaps it was when he was an alcoholic drug abuser. Or maybe it was after he sobered up and became a Mormon because, as he admits, if he didn’t his then-girlfriend wouldn’t sleep with him. In any case, he now considers himself so authoritative on spiritual matters that he, and only he, warrants your attention and observance.

The distinction between Beck and King is important because Beck has appropriated an anniversary that is cherished by Americans who revere King and his works. Beck is holding a rally on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC, on the anniversary of King’s “I Have A Dream” speech, which was delivered at the same location. The dark irony of Beck pontificating on that platform, on that day, is purely revolting. As is the prospect of his all-white army of paranoids desecrating the historical significance of King’s oratory there almost half a century ago.

Beck demonstrated his commitment to his version of social justice when he appeared on Bill O’Reilly’s show last week. The discussion turned to whether the government could regulate unhealthy behavior like excessive consumption of junk foods. Setting aside the fact that no one in government is proposing that, O’Reilly nevertheless asked Beck how he would deal with someone who had a heart attack due to such a lifestyle and who did not have insurance. Beck’s prescription? “Sucks to be him.”

Beck continued by saying that he would not pay for this person’s health care or treatment in an emergency room. O’Reilly, acting in the unfamiliar role as the voice of reason, told him that he was already paying for that. Whereupon Beck changed his tune and came out as an advocate of government regulation of personal behavior. Not just once, but three times:

“If you don’t want to work, or if you can’t work, well then you are on government assistance, well then I can now regulate your life.”

“If you are taking money. . .if you want to be a slave to the government, then they have every right.”

“So here is the deal, if you don’t have insurance and you need to take the government insurance, then the government has the right to regulate every aspect of your life. But leave the rest of us alone.”

To which O’Reilly responded, “I like that.”

There is so much wrong with this that it’s hard to know where to begin. Let’s start with the cruel insensitivity of Beck’s initial response that it “sucks” to have a heart attack and that’s just too bad for you. Go away and die. That isn’t just a denunciation of social justice, it’s sociopathic.

Then Beck mentions something about a “need to take the government insurance.” Of course, there is no such thing. When a patient is unable to pay for emergency treatment the cost is transferred to the medical facility and eventually to future patients in the form of higher rates for treatment and insurance. The current debate over health care reform has proposed a “public option,” but Beck opposes that (and everything else in the pending legislation) as socialism. What’s worse, he takes the utterly detestable position that anyone on public assistance surrenders his liberty to the state. He even uses the word “slave” to describe the status of such a person. Somehow, I don’t think that was an accidental racial reference.

What makes this particularly disgusting is that Beck has fiercely criticized the federal bailouts of banks and auto companies. Then, when the administration tried to assert some control over how those funds can be used (for instance, prohibiting the banks from using the taxpayers’ money for extravagant, undeserved bonuses), Beck complained that the government was interfering with a private business. So in Beck’s warped mind it is wrong to tell troubled corporations how to spend money they get from the government, but if you’re a private citizen undergoing an economic hardship the government can take ownership of you and “regulate every aspect of your life.”

I really can’t fathom how Beck justifies his contemptible callousness and hypocrisy. Corporations get billions in tax credits, trade subsidies, development incentives, etc., and all of that was before the bailouts. But they have no obligation to the taxpayers who provide it. Your Uncle Andy gets a few bucks for groceries and shoes for the kids and he is obliged to be the government’s slave. And even then he gets no medical care for himself or his family. Of course not. How could the government afford it after giving all those billions to the corporations and trillions more to pay for illegal and unnecessary wars?

That’s Glenn Beck’s version of social justice. It’s compassionless, hollow, and inhumane. Beck doesn’t deserve to walk the same earth as Martin Luther King, much less desecrate King’s memory by usurping the anniversary of his historic address. It was an address that spoke specifically of the obligation America owes to its citizens as promised in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. It was an address that foresaw liberty and justice for all:

King: “[W]e refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check — a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.”

That’s the difference between King’s full-hearted grace and Beck’s hardhearted arrogance. King had a positive vision of the goodness in humanity and a belief in what we can achieve together. Beck has faith only in self-interest and the privilege of the fortunate. Let’s hope that King’s vision prevails.

Addendum: Beck has generously supplied us with his definition of Social justice:

“Forced redistribution of wealth with a hostility toward individual property rights, under the guise of charity and/or justice.”

That explains a lot. If I defined kittens as blood thirsty killing machines, you can bet I would lead the opposition to kittens. Of course, I would be insane to have that definition, right Glenn? Glenn?


Who’s Afraid Of Fox News? A Confederacy Of Cowards!

Posted by on March 12, 2010 at 3:08 pm. 9 Comments :

The national embarrassment to honest journalism that is Fox News continues to contaminate our country’s airwaves with false and misleading information designed to promote a conservative Republican agenda and to demonize Democrats and progressives. Almost a year ago I wrote an article that asked the question: “Who’s Afraid Of Fox News?” My answer was: “The Rest Of The Media!” It was an examination of how Fox aggressively attacked their competitors and how their competitors simply rolled over, apparently afraid to fight back. Now, a year later, not much has changed.

Sure, there have been a few disjointed, lucid moments. For instance, Rick Sanchez of CNN, who called out Fox for a thoroughly dishonest report that claimed that no one but Fox covered a Tea Bagger event in Washington. However, not only did CNN cover it, Fox used photos from CNN’s coverage to make their false claim that there wasn’t any coverage. Another example was when former White House Communications Director, Anita Dunn, honestly told Howard Kurtz that Fox News operates as “the communications arm of the Republican Party.” Her remarks were seconded by Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod. It was a promising trend.

But overall, there is still a deafening silence from most of the press. They still seem to be skittish and reluctant to offend the mighty Fox. That is, when they aren’t trying to emulate it. One voice that has arisen is that of Howell Raines, the former executive editor of the New York Times. He has written an op-ed for the Washington Post that is far more insightful and combative than anything he produced when he was at the Times. The article asks some questions that ought to have been asked long ago by every member of the media who values journalistic integrity:

Why don’t honest journalists take on Roger Ailes and Fox News?

Why haven’t America’s old-school news organizations blown the whistle on Roger Ailes, chief of Fox News, for using the network to conduct a propaganda campaign against the Obama administration — a campaign without precedent in our modern political history?

Why has our profession, through its general silence — or only spasmodic protest — helped Fox legitimize a style of journalism that is dishonest in its intellectual process, untrustworthy in its conclusions and biased in its gestalt?

Why can’t American journalists steeped in the traditional values of their profession be loud and candid about the fact that Murdoch does not belong to our team?

Why indeed? And why has it taken so long to ask these questions? And why aren’t all of Raines’ colleagues signing on to his rebuke of Fox, Murdoch, and Ailes? It shouldn’t take much courage for responsible journalists to defend their honor, but courage is in short supply in today’s press corps.

The sooner the rest of the media come to grips with the fact that Fox is NOT a news organization, the sooner they themselves can return to the business of news. Fox is in an entirely different category. It is a hybrid entertainment/soap opera/televangelist network. It is just as unnecessary for the media to worry about competition from Fox as it is to worry about competition from Nickelodeon (which, ironically, is a better source for news than Fox, and plays to a smarter audience).

It will be interesting to see if the questions Raines raises are taken up by others. And more importantly, will they provide answers? American media is in dire condition, and part of the reason is that news consumers do not perceive value in the product. That is going to have to change before things improve. And the most fruitful change would be to start behaving as real journalists and not tabloid sensationalists. In other words, abandon the Fox model and expose it for the phony, divisive, disinformation factory that it is. Of course, that would take real reporting and, at present, there is precious little of that in evidence.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Christian Leaders Rebuke Glenn Beck – Call For Boycott

Posted by on March 11, 2010 at 8:12 pm. 46 Comments :

In the wake of Glenn Beck’s admonishment to his viewers that they leave their church if it engages in “social justice,” the Christian community is rising up to condemn his heresy. This could spell trouble for TV’s most famous conspiracy-obsessed, cult-minded, race-baiting, rodeo-clown, crybaby. In fact, it may exacerbate his already severe persecution complex to the point that he envisions these critics as the coming of his tormentors with a giant wooden cross and a crown of thorns.

For a little background, Beck asserted on his TV program that social justice is just a code word for communism, or fascism, or both. And then he added…

“I’m begging you, your right to religion and freedom to exercise religion and read all of the passages of the Bible as you want to read them and as your church wants to preach them are going to come under the ropes in the next year. If it lasts that long it will be the next year. I beg you, look for the words ‘social justice’ or ‘economic justice’ on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words.

Now, am I advising people to leave their church? ….. YES!”

The unambiguous message Beck is imparting is that you ought to abandon all churches that advocate for the welfare of the poor, the hungry, the sick, people enduring hardships and looking for answers. In other words, renounce any parish that practices the teachings of Jesus.

The Reverend Jim Wallis, president of Sojourners, has taken particular offense to Beck’s apostasy. He points out that many denominations regard social justice as a fundamental component of Christianity that goes back to the Mosaic law of Jubilee. And Wallis goes further to advise all Christians to stop watching Glenn Beck:

“Beck says Christians should leave their social justice churches, so I say Christians should leave Glenn Beck. I don’t know if Beck is just strange, just trying to be controversial, or just trying to make money. But in any case, what he has said attacks the very heart of our Christian faith, and Christians should no longer watch his show.”

Rev. Wallis’ speculation as to whether Beck is strange or greedy leaves out one potential explanation for what Beck hopes to accomplish. He actually wants you to leave your church so that you can follow him. He literally begs his viewers to watch every episode. To record it and study it and learn from his sermons. He is preparing to embark on a national tour that he has dubbed “The American Revival.” And although he has accused Al Gore of wanting to replace God with the planet earth, it is Beck who wants to replace God – with himself.

Beck has already lost over 100 advertisers since calling President Obama a “racist with a deep-seated hatred for white people.” Now he has sparked a spiritual battle that could eat right into the heart of his evangelical demographic. Believers may be put off by Beck’s meddling in their relationship with their God. And this is what Rev. Wallis is counting on with his response to Beck:

“Glenn Beck recently told his listeners to leave any church that teaches social justice, and to report its pastor to church authorities. Since Sojourners’ mission is ‘to articulate the biblical call to social justice,’ we thought we’d better turn ourselves in.”

Rev. Wallis has set up a web page to facilitate turning yourself in. It also notifies Beck of your stand for righteousness and principle: Tell Glenn Beck: I’m a Social Justice Christian.

It is fairly likely that Beck will dismiss Rev. Wallis’ appeal. After all, Wallis is a well-known progressive pastor whose humanitarian work stretches back for decades. Unlike Beck, whose selfish commitment to personal wealth and adoration has been the all-consuming centerpiece of his brief public persona. But it will be harder for Beck to dismiss the leaders of his own church who have also come out against his ravings.

Kent P. Jackson, associate dean of religion at Brigham Young University, said in an interview:

“My own experience as a believing Latter-day Saint over the course of 60 years is that I have seen social justice in practice in every L.D.S. congregation I’ve been in. People endeavor with all of our frailties and shortcomings to love one another and to lift up other people. So if that’s Beck’s definition of social justice, he and I are definitely not on the same team.”

Philip Barlow, the Arrington Professor of Mormon History and Culture at Utah State University, said:

“One way to read the Book of Mormon is that it’s a vast tract on social justice. It’s ubiquitous in the Book of Mormon to have the prophetic figures, much like in the Hebrew Bible, calling out those who are insensitive to injustices. A lot of Latter-day Saints would think that Beck was asking them to leave their own church.”

Actually, Barlow missed a key point. By demanding that Christians leave any church that practices social justice, Beck is asking himself to leave his own church. And from the sound of it, I don’t think the rest of the congregation would mind terribly much if he did.

[Update:] On his radio program this morning, Beck had a response that affirms his persecution/Messianic complex. As I predicted, he began by dismissing Rev. Wallis as an Obama supporter and a “dedicated foe of capitalism.” Then he goes on to reveal the plot against him by his ever-present, invisible horde of enemies:

“They must separate me from my base.”

“They’re trying to get in, twist my words and rot my core.”

“They are going to try to separate you from me, and that’s fine. And if I don’t survive, I don’t survive, That’s OK.”

Then Glenn went with them to a place called Gethsemane, and He said to His disciples…

“Sit here, while I go yonder and pray. […] Are you still sleeping and taking your rest? Behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of Rupert is betrayed into the hands of sinners. Rise, let us be going; see, My betrayer is at hand.”

See also: The Gospel According To Beck


Michael Moore’s Capitalism: A Wal-Mart Story

Posted by on March 11, 2010 at 9:06 am. 5 Comments :

Michael Moore has announced that the DVD of his documentary “Capitalism: A Love Story” is now available. On its own, that wouldn’t really be enough to interrupt an episode of Law and Order:SVU with a special report. What makes this release interesting is that it is being carried by Wal-Mart, which is featured prominently in the film in a not particularly flattering manner. As Moore says on his blog:

The fact that Wal-Mart is carrying this movie — a movie that specifically exposes Wal-Mart’s past practice of taking out secret “dead peasant” life insurance policies on its employees and naming itself as the lone beneficiary should the employee meet an “untimely” early death — well, my friends, need you any further proof that Corporate America is so secure in its position as the ruler of our country, so sure of its infallible power that, yes, they can even sell a movie that attacks them because it poses absolutely no threat to them?

Moore contends that Wal-Mart is simply unafraid of any negative publicity due to their market dominance. They are too big to be hurt by a little documentary. I would go a step further. I believe that Wal-Mart is expressly aware that they can make a bundle off of this. And since their mission is to make money and increase shareholder value, that goal takes precedence over any potentially bad PR. They are demonstrating a principle articulated by the anti-consumerist artist Banksy, who said:

“I love the way capitalism finds a place – even for its enemies. It’s definitely boom time in the discontent industry.”

Modern marketing philosophy long ago adopted the position that the counter-culture was cool and, in order to attract contemporary consumers, you have to be willing to bash whatever is considered to be the establishment, even if it’s you. That strategy has led to progressive radio stations, who are owned by giant conglomerates, to explicitly insult their corporate parents. It has led to graffiti being embraced by staid art galleries. It has led to television commercials with music that is notably inconsistent with the product being advertised. Some of my favorite examples of the latter:

  • Jaguar’s use of “London Calling” by confirmed leftists The Clash.
  • Fidelity Mutual Funds use of David Bowie’s “Changes,” which contains the lyric “Don’t want to be a richer man.”
  • Carnival Cruise Lines use of Iggy Pop’s “Lust for Life,” which is about heroin use, not partying on yachts.

This self-deprecating brand of promotion is kind of like McDonalds opening up a health food restaurant and imploring people not to poison themselves on the crap at those golden-arched fast-food joints. And now Wal-Mart is selling Michael Moore’s Capitalism. What a world.


Dana Perino And Fox News On Repressive Regimes And Propaganda

Posted by on March 10, 2010 at 12:34 pm. NO Comments :

Idiot FoxEd Brayton at Science Blogs has caught a classic example of hypocrisy from a member of the class that made an art of it: the Bush administration.

Former Bush press secretary Dana Perino was on Fox News this weekend and commented on a video produced for the White House web site. She was appalled that the administration would post videos in support of its own agenda and implied that it represented some kind of affront to a free press and democracy:

[T]he White House decided through its own media — they have a robust new media shop and they’re creating their own news and they’re posting it, and all the networks said that they’re not going to show it. But creating your own news is something that happens in repressive regimes. And a democracy is — it is critical to have a good, strong free press in a democracy.

Let’s dissect the idiocy of this comment. First of all, you cannot accuse the White House of “creating your own news” in the sentence following your observation that “all the networks said that they’re not going to show it.” If no news network is showing it then it is simply an informational video available only to visitors to the White House web site.

Secondly, if anything, this affirms the strong free press Perino is lamenting. Obviously they are making up their own minds with regard to what they consider news. If they they don’t want to broadcast the President’s video, they don’t have to. And according to Perino, they aren’t.

But most importantly, Perino has deliberately withheld her own complicity with assaults on the free press as a member of Bush’s press team. It was the Bush administration that repeatedly packaged phony news reports that they distributed to television stations with the intent that they be broadcast in whole. These pseudo-news reels were produced with a fake “anchor” and were aired by many stations without disclosing that they came from the Bush propaganda studio.

Under the Bush administration, the federal government has aggressively used a well-established tool of public relations: the prepackaged, ready-to-serve news report that major corporations have long distributed to TV stations to pitch everything from headache remedies to auto insurance. In all, at least 20 federal agencies, including the Defense Department and the Census Bureau, have made and distributed hundreds of television news segments in the past four years, records and interviews show. Many were subsequently broadcast on local stations across the country without any acknowledgement of the government’s role in their production.

This sort of deception was routine in the Bush years. They were also caught paying Armstrong Williams under the table to write glowing reviews about their education policy, “No Child Left Behind.” The Bush Pentagon was entangled in a scandal wherein they paid editors of Iraqi newspapers to publish articles secretly written by American soldiers praising the war effort and the occupation of Iraq. And let’s not forget Jeff Gannon, the right-wing mole who was planted in the White House Press Corps under Bush. Or the irrepressibly corrupt Kenneth Tomlinson, who chaired the Broadcasting Board of Governors which oversees the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

SpinComThen there was what may be the worst episode of propaganda aimed directly at Americans in our nation’s history: SPINCOM. This was a program run out of Bush’s Pentagon that served up former generals to news networks as military analysts. They were trained by the Pentagon to promote the administration’s agenda and were rewarded with access and contracts for the defense companies they represented. And none of this was disclosed to viewers, or even to the networks.

The abuse of an independent and unfettered press under Perino and her bosses was unparalleled. For her to criticize the current administration for posting some videos online, while ignoring her own participation in a full-blown propaganda operation, specifically targeting the media and the American people, is the pinnacle of hypocrisy and dishonesty. Add to that the fact that she made these assertions as an employee of Fox News and it is at least evidence of the following: She and Fox are bona fide experts on repressive regimes and propaganda.


Fox News Portrays Health Care Advocates As Violent

Posted by on March 9, 2010 at 8:51 pm. 5 Comments :

This morning in Washington, DC, at the Ritz Carlton Hotel, there was a rally held to protest the insurance companies and lobbyists responsible for abusive increases in insurance rates and opposition to health care reform. America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), an industry lobbying organization, were meeting at the Ritz.

The rally actually got a little coverage on Fox News. Megyn Kelly’s program showed live streaming video of the health care protest with reporting from Jake Gibson. Suffice it to say that it was something less than fair and balanced.

During the segment Kelly and Gibson made suggestions that the crowd was potentially violent. They talked about arrests and worried aloud about what was going to happen when the health care executives and lobbyists meeting inside the hotel came out. The chyron said

“Police Concerned Protesters Might Storm Ritz Carlton in D.C.”

Of course there was no evidence presented that the police had any such concern and there was no interview with the police. There also were no arrests, contrary to Gibson’s reporting. The protest ended without incident and Kelly failed to note that no storming of the hotel took place.

This is typical of the blatant bias exhibited by Fox News. During months of protests at town hall meetings where Tea Baggers were overtly hostile, loud, rude, and aggressive, Fox News never insinuated that they presented any sort of threat whatsoever. That was true despite their signs that promised they would “come armed next time.” And some were even observed carrying guns.

However, when a couple of thousand people gather peacefully to advocate on behalf of humane health care policies, Fox portrays them as thugs who are preparing to storm the defenseless executives and lobbyists who are just trying to have a quiet meeting in a luxurious hotel.

Fair and balanced? You decide.