Media Matters: A Tale Of Two Networks

Posted by on November 12, 2009 at 5:59 pm. NO Comments :

I was going to write a piece similar to this one that I found at Media Matters. However, Simon Maloy has so perfectly articulated everything I had to say on this subject that I just copied and pasted his article. I hope he doesn’t sue me.

Consider for a moment the circumstances surrounding Lou Dobbs’ abrupt departure from CNN, announced last night and effective immediately. Dobbs had been going increasingly far afield in
his programming, from spinning North American Union conspiracy theories, to indulging the Birther nonsense, to claiming that his opponents had taken to shooting at his house (the police said it was likely an errant bullet from a hunter’s rifle). Notably, CNN itself debunked each of these stories. According to the New York Times write-up of Dobbs’ exit, Dobbs’ on-air behavior was apparently too much for the network to bear: “Months ago the president of CNN/U.S., Jonathan Klein, offered a choice to Lou Dobbs, the channel’s most outspoken anchor. Mr. Dobbs could vent his opinions on radio and anchor an objective newscast on television, or he could leave CNN.”

Now, contrast CNN’s Dobbs situation to Fox News and its handling of Glenn Beck. In terms of delusional conspiracy-mongering and spittle-flecked invective, Dobbs is a stripling compared to Beck. Fox News’ steady transition from untrustworthy cable news network to conservative political action committee can largely be attributed to Beck, whose 9-12 Project is wrapped up with the Tea Party movement. Except for those that buy into his fevered shtick, Beck is an embarrassment, an embodiment of everything that is wrong with cable news, and there is no greater example of this than when he called the President of the United States a “racist” who has “a deep-seated hatred for white people.” The network lost scores of advertisers over that remark, and, as NBC’s First Read pointed out, “[t]here was a time when outrageous rants like this would actually cost the ranters their jobs.”

But what happened to Beck? He got a pat on the head from NewsCorp president Rupert Murdoch, who said Beck “was right” to call the president a “racist.”

CNN’s movement on Dobbs was long overdue, but they eventually decided that their credibility as a news network outweighed Dobbs’ (rapidly dwindling) ratings. Fox News, on the other hand, shows no such concern with Beck, maybe because they didn’t have a whole lot of credibility to sacrifice in the first place.

Well said, Simon.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Fox News CEO Roger Ailes Terrifies The Boy Scouts

Posted by on November 12, 2009 at 3:48 pm. 6 Comments :

Last night Fox News CEO Roger Ailes was honored by the Boy Scouts of America with the 2009 Good Scout Award. If his corpulent visage wasn’t enough to frighten the children, his acceptance speech surely turned the trick. Here is an excerpt that was broadcast by the boot-licking toadies of Fox & Friends:

So Ailes is “heartened to know that what the enemies of America don’t know is that someday they will meet the courage, resilience, dedication of these young Americans.” If you were a ten year old Scout in the audience, would you be heartened to know that powerful adults like Roger Ailes are already conscripting you into armies to face future enemies? And isn’t this the same sort of government indoctrination of innocent children by Ailes, for which his network has so furiously condemned President Obama?

Ailes was introduced by his good friend Rush Limbaugh. In the introduction, Limbaugh candidly revealed something that most observers already know about Fox News, but which Ailes himself has decried in the past as a great danger:

Limbaugh: Roger’s never been on camera. Roger is not actively in the director’s chair every day for all these shows and yet he’s created this culture where everybody there is on the same page and proud, and they’re winning.

Ailes: The greatest danger to journalism is a newsroom or a profession where everyone thinks alike. Because then one wrong turn can cause an entire news division to implode. We must respect and encourage diversity of thought and speech in the newsroom.

I think we can comprise and agree that Fox is both a myopic purveyor of lock-step biases AND a great danger.


Lou Dobbs Runs For The Border: Yo Quiero Zorro Noticias

Posted by on November 11, 2009 at 10:50 pm. 9 Comments :

CNN’s resident immigrant basher and birther booster, Lou Dobbs, has announced that he is leaving the network effective immediately.

This comes as somewhat of surprise, as Dobbs was considered to be secure in his position despite significant protest from civil rights groups. But it is hardly out of the blue. There has been frequent speculation about Dobbs’ future with CNN. His opponents have mounted well publicized campaigns to persuade CNN to drop the anchor. And many observers have thought that he would be a better fit for a right-wing network like Fox, particularly its struggling business channel. A Fox News spokesman (not a notoriously credible source) said that there have been no discussions with Dobbs. However that would contradict reports a month ago that Dobbs was seen dining with Fox CEO Roger Ailes in September.

However plausible a Fox/Dobbs partnership may appear, Dobbs’ on-air farewell struck a tone that suggested another possibility entirely:

“Over the past six months it’s become increasingly clear that strong winds of change have begun buffeting this country and affecting all of us, and some leaders in media, politics, and business have been urging me to go beyond the role at CNN and to engage in constructive problem solving as well as to contribute positively to the great understanding of the issues of our day.”

Dobbs went on to lament what he called “the lack of true representation in Washington, D.C.” There was an unmistakable ring of political aspiration in his remarks. Does this mean he might seek political office? Dobbs lives in New Jersey where they just elected a new governor. The next available senate seat doesn’t come up until 2012. It seems unlikely that Dobbs would give up a multimillion dollar TV gig for anything lower.

If I had to guess, I would venture that he may want to mount an independent campaign for President in 2012. While there would be no realistic scenario in which he could prevail, it would be just the sort of thing to stroke his immense ego. And there is a vocal and motivated minority that is primed to get behind a third party protest candidate. He would sweep up the Beck/Palin malcontents and, in all likelihood, smooth the way for Obama’s reelection.

Closer to home, CNN now has a hole to fill at 4:00pm. Judging by their past timidity, it is unlikely that CNN will replace Dobbs with a partisan from either side of the aisle. The last opening they had was given to Campbell Brown, who is notable for…um…..

If CNN is serious about establishing itself as a straight up news provider in contrast to the modestly left-leaning MSNBC and the raving histrionics of Fox, they will need to find an anchor with journalistic bona fides. They will need to avoid the trap of personality-driven spokesmodels. It would be wise for them to build an investigative news group as the central point of their programming. Adding more news readers like Blitzer or Cooper simply won’t lift them from their cellar dwelling. They need to demonstrate that there is a place for reporting that is probing and informative. And that passion for journalism is not twisted into rancorous blathering.

That’s a tall order, but getting rid of Dobbs is a step in the right direction. Now they have to show that they can embrace this opportunity and aim for something higher. Yeah, I know…I’m not holding my breath.

Update: CNN has announced that their own John King will replace Lou Dobbs. King is an old-school, straight news reporter. This means that CNN is properly moving away from the Fox model of news screeching, but it also means that they are probably not planning on innovating and advancing the state of media. Oh well.


The Goal Of The New York Post: Destroy Barack Obama

Posted by on November 11, 2009 at 9:21 am. NO Comments :

On the heels of reports that Rupert Murdoch’s sensationalistic tabloid, the New York Post, is severely wobbling financially and bleeding circulation, comes this report from the Huffington Post’s Sam Stein about a fired NY Post employee’s lawsuit against the paper.

Sandra Guzman was terminated by the Post after she had leveled criticism of an overtly racist cartoon that portrayed President Obama as a chimpanzee. Guzman’s allegations cover a broad sweep of misconduct by the paper and its editor, Col Allan. Stein writes…

“As part of the 38-page complaint, Guzman paints the Post newsroom as a male-dominated frat house and Allan in particular as sexist, offensive and domineering. Guzman alleges that she and others were routinely subjected to misogynistic behavior. She says that hiring practices at the paper — as well as her firing — were driven by racial prejudices rather than merit.

And she recounts the paper’s D.C. bureau chief stating that the publication’s goal was to ‘destroy [President] Barack Obama.’”

The lawsuit alleges that the environment at the Post was a hotbed of salacious innuendo, undisguised racism, and open political partisanship. Read Stein’s article for the juicy details. He has also posted a copy of the full complaint.

This is just another embarrassing episode for the Murdoch family of pseudo-news operations, and should further lock in Murdoch’s legacy as a disreputable purveyor of filth and lies.


Sean Hannity’s Lies Exposed By Jon Stewart

Posted by on November 11, 2009 at 2:27 am. 7 Comments :

Jon Stewart is on fire. About two weeks ago, Stewart put together one of the best presentations illustrating perfectly why Fox News is NOT news. Just last week Stewart gave us an hysterical portrayal of Glenn Beck’s diseased psyche. And last night Stewart proved, once again, that he is a far better journalist than most of those who actually call themselves journalists.

Why does Sean Hannity even still have a job? Anyone else, on any other network, would be fired for this sort of deliberate fabrication. Apparently on Fox it is acceptable to show video footage from a rally two months ago and pretend it is from a rally a few days ago, in order to falsely inflate the size of the attending crowd.

The propagandists at Fox are well aware that the nation overwhelmingly supports heath care reform, so they resort to dishonesty in pursuit of their unpopular agenda. If they can’t get enough Tea Baggers to show up, Fox will just falsify the video record to make whatever point serves their venal interests. It is the same disrespect for the truth that compels Hannity to assert, without any evidence, that 20,000+ people turned out to the protest, although neutral sources say it was no more than 10,000. Hannity’s guest, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), put the crowd estimate as high as 45,000. She also said that the event was the result of spontaneous word of mouth. What she left out was that Fox News promoted the affair repeatedly and anti-health care lobbyists like Americans for Prosperity funded the organizing efforts, including some forty buses to deliver the AstroTurfers to the Capital.

What’s truly depressing about all of this (besides Hannity keeping his job) is that the rest of the media has failed to report any of it. When Dan Rather aired a true story that was marred by a few poorly vetted documents, it became a media frenzy that eventually cost Rather his job. But when Hannity blatantly manufactures a false story, the media shrugs its shoulders and turns away.

This is why Jon Stewart is such a treasure and a model of journalistic integrity, despite his objections to being cast in that role. We definitely need more like him. It would be great if they were just as funny, but I’d settle for just being responsible reporters.

Update: Hannity has responded to Stewart’s exposé in a typically smug manner, saying that he had “screwed up” but that it was “an inadvertent mistake.” Then he thanked Stewart and his writers for watching. That’s a little like a heroin trafficker thanking a DEA agent for listening in on his phone calls.

More to the point, Hannity’s apology doesn’t pass muster. It stretches credulity to assert that he had merely used “some incorrect video” along with some that was correct. The event he was discussing was current news, footage for which would be at hand in the newsroom. In order to buy his excuse you would have to believe that someone accidentally stumbled into the video archives facility, mistakenly retrieved footage from an event that took place two months prior, and unknowingly spliced it onto the correct footage. Then everyone on the staff – editors, directors, producers, and Hannity himself – failed to notice the mishap even after the multiple viewings that these prepackaged segments are subjected to prior to going on the air. Yeah, right.


Thank You Anita Dunn For Unmasking Fox News

Posted by on November 10, 2009 at 5:07 pm. 3 Comments :

Much of the press today is reporting the announcement that White House communications director, Anita Dunn, is leaving her post at the end of this month. And many of them are getting it wrong. This is a curious news item because it has been known since she accepted the position that it would be temporary. Nevertheless, right-wingers are falling all over themselves with delusional glee that Dunn has been “ousted.” It is just a matter of time before Glenn Beck takes credit and the Fox Nation claims victory.

On Fox News, anchor Jon Scott reported the non-event with added emphasis on her role as a Fox critic:

Anita Dunn is the person at the White House who decided it would be a good idea to try to freeze Fox News out of the White House operation, keep the president from doing interviews with Fox News personnel, keep high-level administration officials from doing interviews with Fox News personnel.

Actually, Dunn never tried to “freeze out” Fox or prevent anyone from doing interviews with them. I wish she had. The truth is that Dunn said explicitly that the President and others in his administration will engage with Fox. They will just do so with an awareness that Fox is “opinion masquerading as journalism.”

On Foxnews.com Andrea Tantaros went further, stating falsely that Dunn was leaving “earlier than planned,” and implying that she was forced out. That was not the only false statement in her column. She also said that comments Dunn made referencing Mao (which were taken thoroughly out of context) were made after her comments about Fox. In fact, they were excerpted from videos made months prior. Then Tantaros outright lies saying that…

“Liberal groups are already spinning Dunn’s announcement, insisting that her role as communications director ‘was always meant to be temporary.’“

Tantaros’ lies are revolving so fast she can’t see that it is she who is spinning. The truth is that Dunn was the President’s first choice for the position. She turned it down in November of 2008, to stay with her family and her job at a media consultancy. Obama’s second choice, Ellen Moran, took the job but later moved from that position to one in the Commerce Department. At that time Dunn agreed to come on board on an interim basis.

These facts were reported in real time when they occurred, as evident in the links above. They were not phony afterwords like those of Tantaros and countless more right-wing prevaricators.

A common argument against Dunn taking on Fox is that it backfired by helping Fox to increase its ratings. That’s a mistaken and irrelevant point. First of all, the ratings barely budged. Secondly, there is zero evidence that any change in the ratings was attributable to Dunn’s comments. Thirdly, and most importantly, the ratings don’t matter with regard to political advantage. Television ratings are a measure of a programs value to advertisers. They do not reflect public opinion on political matters. Nielsen does not have any way of knowing if a Fox viewer agrees with the content of a program. And if high ratings had anything to do with elections, then Democrats would not have trounced Republicans in 2006, nor would Obama have won in 2008. Fox was the ratings leader throughout that time period.

As Dunn returns to private life, she deserves a round of virtual applause. By daring to speak honestly about Fox, she initiated a dialogue that reverberated throughout the media. It got everyone into the debate as to the legitimacy of Fox News. That’s a discussion that produces positive results no matter which side of the fence you’re on. In fact, it is almost more enjoyable to hear Fox News advocates, and even their own anchors and commentators, batting the issue around. Every time someone poses the question of whether Fox is really news, it reminds everyone that Fox’s credentials are suspect at least. So let the debates continue.

And thank you, Anita. Thank you for your service to America. Thank you for your honesty and courage. And good luck in all your future endeavors. Be sure to check in once in a while to watch all the fun you set off.

Update: Anita is not done yet. At a Bloomberg conference, she once again took on Fox News. Her remarks covered recent incidents involving Jon Stewart (“That’s where you are getting fact-checking and investigative journalism these days.”), Karl Rove, MSNBC, and false reports from Fox about pending interviews with the President.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Bush Justice Department Harrassed Indymedia

Posted by on November 10, 2009 at 11:51 am. 2 Comments :

CBS News is reporting that the U.S. Department of Justice sent a formal request to an independent news site ordering it to provide details of all reader visits on a certain day. U.S. Attorney Tim Morrison in Indianapolis, issued subpoenas to Indymedia.us demanding information that included e-mail and IP addresses, Social Security numbers, bank account numbers, etc. There was also a demand that Indymedia not disclose to anyone that they had received the subpoenas.

This was an unprecedented affront to both freedom of the press and the right to privacy for citizens who happened to visit a particular web site. Indymedia sought advice from the Electronic Frontier Foundation who succeeded in getting the subpoenas withdrawn. However, many questions remain. There was never any disclosure as to the criminal case that was being investigated by Justice Department. The subpoenas themselves were improper, as was the gag order, but no one in the Justice Department is commenting on that.

An amusing side note to this is that rightist media groups are framing this as an abuse of power by the Obama administration. Although this is just now coming to light, they fail to note that the investigation began during the Bush administration, months before the election in 2008. The date specified in the subpoena for the information they were seeking was June 25, 2008. The subpoena itself was issued on January 22, 2009, just two days after Obama was inaugurated. Obviously the investigation had to precede the issuance of subpoenas.

As further evidence of Obama’s culpability, it was noted that subpoenas to the media have to be approved by the Attorney General. The right-wing leaped on this factoid to accuse Obama’s AG, Eric Holder, of complicity in this outrageous act. Unfortunately for that theory, Holder was not confirmed to the position until February 2, 2009, after the subpoenas had already been sent.

So the whole affair was conducted by the Bush Department of Justice, with a Bush-appointed U.S. Attorney (Morrison), and an acting AG who was also left over from Bush’s administration. This is typical of the Bush regime’s disrespect for freedom of the press. And the response from the right is typical of their embrace of disinformation and propaganda.

Behavior like this by officials in law enforcement is unconscionable, and should not be tolerated by any administration. It appears that the Obama administration did the right thing when it was brought to their attention by withdrawing the subpoenas, but they need to go further and reveal the nature of the investigation that led to this action, and the role of Bush officials in the affair. And it would also be nice if they would make a statement disapproving of such behavior and declaring it outside the policy of this administration.


Rupert Murdoch: Glenn Beck Is Right. Obama Is A Racist

Posted by on November 9, 2009 at 2:18 pm. 7 Comments :

News Corp. Chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch gave a wide-ranging interview to his own Sky News Australia. He is apparently not in a very good mood.

The interview touched on the so-called “war” between Fox News and the White House. Murdoch was asked a question about assertions that Fox is “an arm of the Republican Party.” Murdoch responded saying, “Everyone knows that’s nonsense” and charging that White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, is “a very young, inexperienced guy.” Of course, it was White House communications director, Anita Dunn, who made the comment, not Gibbs. Murdoch continued his defense of the fairness of Fox by bashing President Obama. When asked how the President was doing, Murdoch glibly replied with one word: “Badly.” He then claimed that only a couple of commentators on the network were presenting opinions. However, we know that isn’t true. Nevertheless, he falsely asserted that…

“We have on Republicans and we have on Democrats and we have them debate. The other networks only have Democrats, or something to the left of them.”

The truth, however, is that Fox does not have now, nor ever has had, a program hosted solely by a Democrat/liberal. CNN has Lou Dobbs, Nancy Grace, and until a few months ago, Glenn Beck. MSNBC currently has a three hour morning show hosted by conservative former Republican congressman Joe Scarborough. They have also employed Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham, and Michael Savage. Despite the evident dishonesty by Murdoch, he still defends his network’s balance. When the interviewer inquired as to characterizations of the President as Stalinist, Murdoch firmly objected saying,

“No no, not Stalin I don’t think. I don’t know who that is. Not one of our people.”

Oh really?

This screenshot is from the Glenn Beck show wherein Beck displayed pictures of Hitler, Stalin, and Lenin, and asked, “Is this where we’re headed?” But perhaps the most shocking moment in the interview was when Murdoch was asked about Beck calling the President a racist. Despite the widespread condemnation of Beck, the loss of eighty advertisers, and even Murdoch’s qualification that the comment may not have been proper, Murdoch openly and unequivocally declared that he agrees with Beck.

“He [Obama] did make a very racist comment about blacks and whites and so on. Which he said in his campaign he would be completely above. And it was something that, perhaps, shouldn’t have been said about the President, but if you actually assess what he [Beck] was talking about, he was right.”

So now we have an unadulterated admission from Murdoch that he believes the President is a racist. If there was ever a time to make Murdoch pay for the blatant bias and hostility for which he and his enterprise are responsible, it is now. If Beck can lose eighty advertisers for calling Obama a racist, what penalty should Murdoch pay?

Two organizations have already embarked on protest activities aimed at Fox News. Color of Change is the group that successfully persuaded advertisers to shun Beck. MoveOn has a petition requesting that Democratic representatives avoid fox News. Both of the groups should now escalate the actions to include all Fox programs and all Democratic and progressive politicians, advisors, consultants, etc.

Fox News, and the rest of the Murdoch empire, has absolutely no credibility or integrity. They do not deserve to be regarded as a news enterprise. They have demonstrated their overt prejudice and their intent on being rightist advocates, not journalists. Murdoch says that he wants to be remembered as…

“…someone who has contributed to the world and has tried to make the world more interesting and better. And used the media to good effect.”

Well he certainly has made a contribution. He has contributed Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity and more division and hatred than any media organization before him. And he has used the media to good effect. Well…it’s good if you like people shouting down free speech at town hall meetings and carrying posters of the President with Hitler mustaches. So it is our duty to treat them the same way we would treat partisans like the National Review, the Weekly Standard, WorldNetDaily, the Drudge Report, or any other avowed opponent. It is time to make a stand.

Stay the HELL off of Fox News: Starve The Beast!

Update: Media Matters has started an online petition calling on Murdoch to apologize. I don’t think that he will do so, but I do think it helps to send a message to him and the rest of the media that his remarks are objectionable and inappropriate. So go sign the petition.

Update II: Gary Ginsberg, a spokesman for Murdoch told Politico that Murdoch “does not at all, for a minute, think the president is a racist.” Sort of makes you wonder what he meant when he said that Glenn Beck was right when he called Obama a racist. But Ginsberg refused any further comment.


New York Post: Next Stop FAIL

Posted by on November 9, 2009 at 1:25 pm. NO Comments :

The New York Times is reporting some bad news for Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post:

“Three years ago Col Allan, the editor of The New York Post, pumped his fist and waded into a cheering crowd at a Midtown restaurant, celebrating The Post’s overtaking its rival, The Daily News, in weekday circulation. The Post trumpeted the news on a Times Square billboard and in its pages.” […] “Mr. Allan, who called it ‘a joyous occasion’ when The Post took the lead, now takes a more subdued view of the competition, saying in an e-mail exchange that ‘whether we are a little in front or a little behind has no impact on our forward business plan.'”

This turnaround in attitude is the result of a 30% drop in circulation for the Post in the past two and a half years. That is a bigger and faster decline than most of his competitors in a time of difficulty for the entire industry. This loss of readers comes on top of the paper losing approximately $50 million a year for the past ten years. Sources for the Times put the figure this year at $70 million. One must wonder how long Murdoch will tolerate such losses. He has shown in the past great patience for money-losing operations. He deficit financed Fox News for five years. He has been losing money on both MySpace and the Fox Business Network for two years. He doesn’t seemed to be the least bit phased by Glenn Beck’s loss of some 80 advertisers.

What this demonstrates is that Murdoch is not just the greedy media baron some think. He obviously is committed to his ideologies and the “news” enterprises that disseminate them. And if it costs him a few tens of millions of dollars, so be it.


Rupert Murdoch Sneers At Google – Google Shrugs

Posted by on November 9, 2009 at 1:01 pm. 3 Comments :

Rupert Murdoch has been whining for months about Google and other Internet search sites “stealing” his content. His complaint is that web users seeking information will search on sites like Google and then be directed to News Corp pages like Fox News and the Wall Street Journal. This is apparently something to which he objects.

It is hard to find any logic in his complaints. If traffic is directed to his web sites it increases his page views, which permits him to charge more for advertising. It also presents an opportunity to convert those readers into loyal customers from whom he can solicit subscription fees. It is difficult to grasp what he is so upset about. Particularly since he can put an end to it all by simply placing a line or two of code in a file (robots.txt) that will restrict Google and others from indexing his sites and sending them more traffic.

Murdoch’s lament has evolved into a threat to remove his sites from Google. Of course, Google has long made known that he could do that at any time. What really makes this impotent threat even more perplexing is that he is now saying that he will carry it out in conjunction with his intent to make his sites accessible only to paying customers. Perhaps he doesn’t realize that once he constructs his pay wall, the content would not be available to Google’s users anyway. In effect he is saying that he will withhold his content from people who already can’t access it. That’ll show ’em.

During the interview Murdoch demonstrated his ignorance of the Internet and his own businesses. He asserted that the Wall Street Journal already did bar non-subscribers. That isn’t entirely true. If you search for an article on the WSJ site, you will only be able to view a paragraph without signing up. But you can search for the same article on Google and read the whole thing. Once again, that’s under Murdoch’s control, not Google’s.

Murdoch also demonstrated his hypocrisy. While he is slamming Google and other content aggregators for linking to his properties, he is doing the very same thing with his Fox Nation web site. Fox Nation is nothing more than a hub for news items from other sources. So Murdoch, by his own definition is “stealing” their content.

The Sky interview also covered Murdoch’s views about the BBC, which he called a “scandal.” Clearly he is disturbed by a publicly supported news enterprise that is committed to providing news and information for free, while he is anxiously plotting to close off his content to anyone unwilling to feather his nest. He has even threatened to sue other news providers for copyright infringement. Someone might want to inform him that, unless you overtly plagiarize an article, the news does not belong to anyone. If Fox reports on a shooting in Texas, they cannot prevent me from reporting the same thing, so long as I don’t cut and paste their story verbatim.

I can’t wait until Murdoch comes through on his threats to cut off Google and to bar access to his web sites. Reducing the amount of garbage that Murdoch showers on the world will be a big contribution to journalism and the advancement of knowledge.