If You Still Think That Fox News Is Not Racist…

Posted by on October 1, 2009 at 9:40 am. 12 Comments :

This summer has seen an abundance of animosity directed at America’s new president. Town brawlers congregated at local Shriner’s clubs shouting to take “their” country back. Tea Baggers descended on Washington with posters of the President as an African witch doctor. When we weren’t marching toward Socialism we were euthanizing our grandparents. And through it all there was an overbearing stench of racism. It was stench that emanated most noticeably from Fox News, who went to extraordinary lengths to deny it. They complained that they were vilified as racist just for disagreeing with a black President – who himself was a racist according to Glenn Beck.

So if Fox News was not race-baiting, what would you say these folks have in common?

Pictured above (left to right) are Barack Obama (President), Van Jones (former White House Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation), Mark Lloyd (FCC General Counsel/Chief Diversity Officer), Valerie Jarrett (Senior Advisor and Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement), and Patrick Gaspard (Director of the White House Office of Political Affairs). And their obvious commonality is that they are all patriotic public servants with records of distinction and achievement, right?. Oh yeah…they are also all targets of Fox News conspiracy mongers like Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity. Hmm…Any other similarities?

The Obama administration has fended off attacks from inauguration day when Chris Wallace (of Fox News) suggested that Obama wasn’t really president because the Chief Justice flubbed the oath of office. It’s been downhill ever since. But it’s hard to ignore the fact that most of the fire has been aimed at low to mid level African Americans in the administration. The faces above have been relentlessly assaulted by Fox News and affiliated conservative outlets. Fox has attempted to marginalize them as “czars” and smear them as either corrupt or bent on subverting the principles of democracy. Van Jones has already been driven from his post by the forces of a resurgent McCarthyism. But this time the McCarthyites are as obsessed with race as they are with Communists.

The latest victim of this campaign of character assassination is Valerie Jarrett, a distinguished professional woman with a resume that includes public service, law, finance and academics.

Glenn Beck is now focusing his arsenal of defamation on Jarrett with all of the classic Beck smears: communism, corruption, and guilt by association, whether or not any association exists. Beck rolls out his “black” board to connect dots that only he can see. He aligns Jarrett with Che Guevara, Mumia Abu-Jamal, and even Darth Vader. He accuses her of being the lynch-pin between the Obamas and manufactured scandals at ACORN and the National Endowment for the Arts. By the end of his ravings he places her at the center of an evil cabal that he dramatically asserts is cancerous.

Much of these aspersions are cast in the shockingly despicable framework of her support for bringing the Olympics to Chicago in 2016. This is also a goal sought by the President, who is personally lobbying for the games in Copenhagen with the First Lady. Most nations consider it an honor, as well as an economic opportunity, to snag the Olympics. But Beck, and others at Fox News, seem to regard it as evidence of villainy. It makes you wonder for whom Beck is rooting. Spain? Brazil? Why does he hate America?

It cannot be mere coincidence that most of Fox’s targets have been African American. Obama has some pretty prominent associates who are not black: Vice President Joe Biden; Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel; Senior Advisor David Axelrod; Council of Economic Advisers Chair Christina Romer; Secretary of State Hillary Clinton; Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner; Secretary of Defense Robert Gates; etc. Yet there has never been a campaign against any of these, or other white staffers, even though there are many more of them and they have far more powerful positions. Fox pointedly goes after only African Americans who are much lower down the executive ladder. This is a situation that even Bill O’Reilly expressed concerns over when interviewing Beck last Thursday:

O’Reilly: Now, you’re hammering this guy Mark Lloyd, another Obama appointee. Is he a czar guy too? He’s the head of the FCC, right?
Beck: He’s the diversity czar.
O’Reilly: The diversity officer at the FCC.
Beck: He’s not the only one. Cass Sunstein and Mark Lloyd put together. That’s a dangerous combination.
O’Reilly: Sunstein’s a white guy, because I don’t want you to, you know, all black, and it’s the black…We had a black professor on just before you, thinks you’re…you don’t like the blacks and all of that.

How thoughtful of O’Reilly to consider the appearance of Beck going after all black guys. O’Reilly and Beck were clearly relieved that Cass Sunstein was white. They needed a token Caucasian to avoid the appearance of racial motives, and Sunstein fit the bill.

Unfortunately, as the photo montage above illustrates, there is still a vast over-representation of African Americans on Fox’s hit list. The presence of one or two white guys doesn’t change that. The obvious racism by the Fox crowd extends beyond the attacks on the administration. The crusade against ACORN is a blatantly racist attack on efforts to assist people of color with housing and voting rights. Beck has even called the movement for health care reform “the beginning of reparations” for slavery.

The truth is that it doesn’t matter what this administration does, the Fox contingent will find evil in it. If Obama personally found Osama Bin Laden and wrestled him bare-handed to the death, Fox News ranters would complain that Obama only did it boost his reelection bid and to sweeten the deal for his post-presidential autobiography. And in addition to finding fault with anything Obama does, they can also put any issue in a racial context. Then, of course, they will holler if anyone calls them on it. Their response to allegations of racism is that their accuser is guilty of reverse racism. But it isn’t much more than the old schoolyard taunt of “I know you are but what am I?” That’s the level of debate that is practiced on Fox News. It is a response that is just as childish and arrogant as one would expect from a network of overtly bigoted blowhards who still can’t believe that a black man is president.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Now Fox News Is Sponsoring Protests Against The Media

Posted by on September 30, 2009 at 9:48 am. 5 Comments :

Sooner or later someone is going to have to explain to Fox News that it is not the function of news enterprises to openly promote partisan political activities. This is a principle that they failed to observe when they hyped the Tea Party in Washington, DC, a few weeks ago. In the days leading up to the affair, Fox News actually had a their correspondent, Griff Jenkins, riding along with the Tea Party Express Bus and literally cheerleading at every stop along the way. Fox News also demonstrated that they do not understand the business of news when they helped to solicit money for the legal defense fund of Hannah Giles, the pretend hooker in the ACORN entrapment operation.

The most recent example of Fox News discarding professional ethics appeared on the Fox Nation web site this morning:

This featured item links to a web site for “Operation Can You Hear Us Now,” a Tea Party spin off that is organizing rallies against the media. Note that the link does not go to an article about the organization or the events it is planning. It goes directly to the organization’s web site. This departure from ethical behavior is multi-layered.

First of all, a legitimate news operation would not be helping to spike attendance at political rallies. Recently Fox News complained in an advertisement that their competitors missed the story on the 9/12 event in Washington. But what they really meant was that no other news outlet lowered themselves to promotion of it as Fox did. Now they are overtly promoting another right-wing event without actually reporting on it.

Secondly, this free publicity for a partisan protest is directed squarely at the news media (except, of course, for themselves). This means that they are now hyping public rallies against their own competition. Try to imagine how inappropriate it would be for Disney to use ABC News to incite the public to rise up against X-Men or other competing movie fare. That’s what Fox News is doing here, fomenting discord in the media marketplace to benefit their own brand.

I still don’t understand how the rest of the media can sit by idly as Fox trashes their products and even riles up a citizen revolt against them. It would be easy for the other news networks to return fire considering that Fox isn’t even engaged in the practice of reputable journalism. They should mount a campaign to sear into the public mind the facts about Fox: that they are no more news than the National Enquirer; that they repeatedly employ lies and misrepresentations to advance a political agenda; that their on air personnel are not journalists, but advocates; that they exist only as a mouthpiece for right-wing causes and the interests of big business.

If responsible news enterprises don’t begin to stand up for the ethical practice of their profession, then the worst elements of the business will continue to gain momentum and influence. The press will devolve into a factless forum for verbal fisticuffs and rhetorical rants. Even more so than it already has.


Chris Wallace Fluffs James O’Keefe On Fox News Sunday

Posted by on September 27, 2009 at 8:51 pm. 2 Comments :

For much of the past week, Fox News has been promoting the exclusive appearance of James O’Keefe, the ersatz pimp who produced the ACORN entrapment videos, on their Sunday interview program. The actual segment, it turns out, was not an interview at all, but an overtly favorable puff piece. O’Keefe was heralded as the Fox News Sunday Power Player of the week:

This blatant adoration of O’Keefe had no news content whatsoever. It was pure puffery from start to finish. The only items worthy of note were 1) O’Keefe’s answer to Wallace’s question on whether he broke the law. O’Keefe’s answered “I don’t know what the law is.” 2) Wallace’s search for what drove O’Keefe. Wallace said that what he found was “A special outrage with liberal hypocrisy.” 3) O’Keefe’s admission of intent to do harm in his “reporting” saying that “If you use their rules against them, you can really just tease them and mock them and really destroy them.”

So O’Keefe wants to destroy the liberals and doesn’t seem to care about what laws he breaks to do it. He also doesn’t care about what journalistic ethics he violates. A short examination of the Code of Ethics as enumerated by the Society of Professional Journalists, reveals numerous breaches. These are just a few, with some particularly egregious transgressions highlighted:

  • Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
  • Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.
  • Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
  • Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story
  • Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
  • Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.
  • Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.
  • Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.
  • Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
  • Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
  • Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct.
  • Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.

With so many infractions of credible behavior, it is interesting that Fox News chose this character to honor as a Power Player. O’Keefe’s avowed prejudices and absence of professionalism would lead most reputable news enterprises to denouncement rather than tribute. But instead, Fox celebrates this journalistic parasite. It is a testament to the lack of credibility of Fox News itself.


Fox News Is Soliciting Donations For ACORN Foe Hannah Giles

Posted by on September 25, 2009 at 11:47 am. 8 Comments :

In yet another example of the interconnectedness of Fox News to blatantly partisan political activities, a “news” link on the Fox Nation website actually goes to a defense fund donation page for ACORN foe, Hannah Giles. You may recall that Giles is the YAFfie who dressed up as a hooker and accompanied her ersatz pimp, James O’Keefe, on a mission to entrap ACORN workers on hidden video.

The defense fund site was set up by the Plano, TX, based Liberty Legal Institute, an organization whose mission statement describes as their purpose…

“To achieve expanded religious freedom and family autonomy through litigation and education designed to limit the government’s power, increase the religious rights of citizens and promote parental rights.”

A defense fund for Giles appears to be outside the mandate of LLI, as it has nothing to do with religious and/or parental rights. Nevertheless, the right-wing organ has assumed responsibility for raising cash on behalf of the pseudo-journalist. The site’s administrator is Roe Ann Estevez, Director of Marketing for the LLI affiliated Free Market Foundation. Despite its name, it is also a faith-based enterprise that seeks to impose religious principles into government affairs.

However, the big problem here is that Fox has partnered with these conservative organizations to provide legal funds and cover to an individual who is an avowed activist for conservative causes, and who is presently being investigated for violations of privacy laws. The link at the Fox Nation will not land you on an article about the defense fund, but on the fund’s donation page. It does not provide information about the legal efforts on behalf of Giles or the groups organizing those efforts. It simply provides you with a solicitation to contribute.

The closeness of this association flies in the face of Fox’s recent attempts to distance themselves from the activities of Giles and O’Keefe. When ACORN announced that they would be suing the pair, along with Fox News, Fox complained that they had nothing to do with the video stunt. They asserted that they were merely broadcasting a story brought to them by a couple of independent reporters with whom they had no affiliation. But by openly promoting a defense fund for Giles, Fox can no longer pretend that there is no relationship between them.

As further evidence of Fox’s complicity with the anti-ACORN punkers, James O’Keefe will be interviewed this Sunday by Chris Wallace. This is another in a long line of appearances on Fox, the only network where the pair will agree to be questioned.

This fundraising project by Fox is an egregiously inappropriate affront to journalistic ethics. What would Bill O’Reilly say if CBS News directly promoted a defense fund for the fired ACORN workers? That is simply not within the purview of a legitimate news organization. And there is the key word: legitimate. Fox News is proving once again that they can make no claim to legitimacy. They are an unabashedly partisan player with an open interest in advancing their own political agenda. Nothing more.


Sean Hannity Pimps Convicted Ex-Governor

Posted by on September 24, 2009 at 1:59 pm. 6 Comments :

The Providence Journal caught an interesting news bite while watching Sean Hannity’s program recently. Hannity had just finished pouring gasoline on the ACORN fire with his usual bombastic sensationalism. It was the routine right-wing attack formula. Then Hannity announced that it was time for a word from his sponsors…

“[A]fter he broke for a commercial, Hannity returned with what he calls his ‘Great American Panel,’ including one Vincent Cianci. The show described him as the former mayor of Providence, R.I., without mentioning how he lost his job: He went to federal prison as a convicted felon for running city hall (with the help of our tax dollars and public power) as a criminal enterprise.”

So after condemning ACORN for engaging in activities for which no laws were broken, he proudly welcomed his felonious guest without even disclosing that this “Great American” was a bona fide ex-con.


Fox News Is Both The Most And Least Trusted News Network

Posted by on September 24, 2009 at 12:29 pm. 2 Comments :

Illustrating the ever-widening rift in American politics, a new poll by the Sacred Heart University shows that Fox News is the most trusted news organization (30%), as well as the least trusted (26.2%). That adds up to a 3.8% net trust for Fox. By comparison, CNN was most trusted by 19.5% and least trusted by 8.5%, for an 11% net trust.

Much of the rest of the poll’s results were decidedly negative for the media as a whole. Respondents consider them to be biased and more concerned with ratings than quality reporting. But the most profound observation in the survey, in my view, dealt with public perceptions of the media business and the monopolistic enterprises that dominate it:

“Nearly three-quarters, 71.0%, believed it is very (31.8%) or somewhat (39.3%) important that limits be placed on how many media outlets one company should own. Another 24.7% believe such limits are somewhat unimportant (8.4%) or not at all important (16.3%). Some, 4.4%, were unsure.”

“Over half of all respondents, 56.7%, believed it’s “bad for democracy” that six companies currently own almost all the major media outlets in the United States. Another 30.4% suggested it does not matter while 7.8% indicated it was good for democracy.”

That’s a particularly encouraging response from a survey that also reports majorities who believe that the media is predominantly liberal. With that kind of support for expanding diversity in media ownership, the prospects increase substantially for responsible regulations. This may portend one of the best opportunities for efforts to roll back the destructive consolidation that ensued since the passage of the ill-advised Communications Act of 1996.

Update: Bill O’Reilly cited this study in his Pinheads and Patriots segment. Except the only part he cited was that Fox News is the most most trusted network. He conveniently neglected to mention that it was also the least trusted. Does that make him a pinhead?

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

The Glenn Beck Blackboard Challenge

Posted by on September 23, 2009 at 10:57 am. 20 Comments :

Let’s face it…Glenn Beck is insane. He rattles off loopy conspiracy theories that connect dots that only he can see. He makes wild and unsubstantiated accusations against his perceived enemies. He weeps incessantly over unexplained threats to “his” country. And, best of all, he draws pictures of his hallucinations that he thinks makes everything oh-so-clear.

It occurred to me that he might be able to use a little help (OK, a lot of help). So I drew up a few pictures of my own that convey a bit of the altered reality that infests Beck’s brain. This is my contribution to enhancing the understanding of a profoundly disturbed individual going through a very public psychological collapse.

If you are so inclined, feel free to make your own contributions and leave links to your work in comments.

Have at it.

And just to put some perspective on the impact of Beck, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC poll reveals that most respondents don’t know who the heck he is:

“According to the poll, 24 percent have a “positive” view of the Fox News host, while 19 percent view him negatively. Interestingly, 15 percent were “neutral” and 42 percent said they didn’t know Beck or weren’t sure.”

That’s comforting. And I wouldn’t worry about the 24% positive. It’s probably the same deadenders that support Bush, Palin, and Joe the Plumber.


What The News Emmys Tell Us About The News

Posted by on September 22, 2009 at 11:49 am. NO Comments :

The 30th Annual Emmy awards for News and Documentaries were announced last night. While I’m sure the winners are all grateful for the recognition, and many are respectable productions, there is much to learn from who did NOT win.

Emmys awarded to Cable News Networks:

  • Fox News – 0
  • MSNBC – 0
  • CNN – 1

Now, I don’t think anyone would have expected Fox to win an award for news. The Academy probably stipulates that any recipient for a news award has to actually produce news programming. And MSNBC hasn’t really gone out of its way to produce extraordinary programs either, though their cousins at NBC came in third in the trophy stakes, following PBS and CBS. It’s somewhat interesting that the two lowest rated networks took home the most awards.

But there is something disconcerting about the fact that the 24 hour networks devoted exclusively to news performed so dismally. The single Emmy amongst them (CNN) was for election night coverage. It seems to me that if you have a network that specializes in the production of a single genre of programming, you ought to be able to deliver some that deserves the recognition of your peers. All of the other winners were employed by networks for whom news was just a small part of their schedule.

If the cable news networks can’t deliver product that achieves a level of excellence worthy of an award or two, then maybe they are in the wrong business.


The Sacred Trust Of Fox News

Posted by on September 21, 2009 at 11:41 pm. 3 Comments :

A little over a week ago, Fox News sponsored a rally in Washington, D.C. to vent their bitterness over having lost the election last year to a black man. The 9/12 Tea Party Project was conceived and promoted entirely by Fox televangelist Glenn Beck, and for six months it was peddled to his viewers with the help of just about every other personality on the network. The whole affair could have had a Fox logo stamped on the bottom.

Then, a few days ago, Media Matters posted a video showing a Fox News producer stage managing a live event at the Tea Party by whipping up the crowd to cheer for correspondent and ambusher, Griff Jenkins. It was an obvious violation of journalistic ethics caught on videotape, but I had no intention of writing about it because it seemed a rather insignificant incident for a network that had fabricated an entire rally. Jenkins’ reporting (and everything of Fox News) was already drenched with bias before this producer sought to manufacture the crowd response.

But now, in the aftermath of that embarrassing display, Fox News VP and Washington Managing Editor, Bill Sammon, has issued a memo on the subject of “standards” that raises the bar for irony:

For those of us who have only been at Fox for a relatively short period of time, it’s useful to remind ourselves that, as journalists, we must always be careful to cover the story without becoming part of the story. At news events, we’re supposed to function as dispassionate observers, not active participants. We are there to chronicle the news, not create it.

That means we ask questions in a fair, impartial manner. When approaching interviewees, we identify ourselves, by both name and news organization, up front. We seek out a variety of voices and views. We take note of the scene in order to bring color and context to our viewers.

We do not cheerlead for one cause or another. We do not rile up a crowd. If a crowd happens to be boisterous when we show it on TV, so be it. If it happens to be quiet, that’s fine, too. It’s not our job to affect the crowd’s behavior one way or the other. Again, we’re journalists, not participants – and certainly not performers.

Indeed, any effort to affect the crowd’s behavior only serves to undermine our legitimate journalistic role as detached eyewitnesses. Remember, our viewers are counting on us to be honest brokers when it comes to reporting – not altering -the important events of the day. That is nothing less than a sacred trust. We must always take pains to preserve that trust.

The fact that Sammon finds it necessary to remind his colleagues that journalists do not create the news is pretty sad to begin with. But it’s all the more astonishing when Fox News is presently plastering its air with reports about ACORN by James O’Keefe who explicitly states that…

“I’m not just reporting on something, I’m becoming something I’m reporting on.”

Sammon is being disingenuous and dishonest by pretending that he is interested in dispassionate observations. His pathetic admonitions sound like a scolding to the staff of a junior high school newspaper. His own appearances on Fox News are littered with prejudice and intended to sway the opinion of the audience. His confirmed partisanship is revealed in his reporting as well as the collection of books he has written.

The fallacy that Sammon is perpetuating that Fox News is either fair or balanced is beyond a joke. They do not seek out a variety of voices and views. They routinely cheerlead for one cause. It’s impossible for them to undermine their legitimate journalistic role because that would presuppose they were legitimate. What’s more, the last thing their viewers are counting on is for them to be honest brokers. To the contrary, their viewers are counting on them to provide the non-stop partisan propaganda that feeds their paranoia and rage. That’s the only sacred trust Fox News seeks to preserve.


Glenn Beck: McCain Would Have Been Worse Than Obama

Posted by on September 21, 2009 at 5:20 pm. 7 Comments :

Katie Couric is premiering a new Internet interview program tomorrow. Her first guest will be Glenn Beck. In a teaser for the episode, Couric asks Beck what he thinks of Hillary Clinton. That set off an interesting exchange:

Beck: How about this? I think John McCain would have been worse for the country than Barack Obama. How’s that?

That’s pretty remarkable. Considering that Beck has alleged that Obama is marching the nation to socialism; he asserts that Obama is both a Marxist and a fascist; he connects Obama to all sorts of figures that Beck regards as evil and/or corrupt; he believes emphatically that Obama is intent on destroying every principle on which our country was founded; he insists that, due to this administration, these are the most dangerous and frightening days of his lifetime.

I have to wonder then, how does it get worse than that? What does Beck think McCain might have done that would exceed in horror the destruction of America? Beck’s characterization of McCain as a “weird progressive like Theodore Roosevelt,” doesn’t seem to be enough to validate his fear. After all, Roosevelt served as president for eight years and the country survived and is still here a hundred years later.

I will be interested to see if Beck explains his position further in the Couric interview. Can he possibly present a coherent argument that justifies his bombastic assertion? And if he does, then how on earth can he remain silent about such an existential threat that still occupies a prominent place in the United States government?

Ever since Obama was inaugurated, Beck has been on a televangelistic crusade against some relatively low level administration advisors and non-governmental organizations. But McCain is the ranking member of the powerful Senate Armed Services Committee, he serves on several other important committees, and he is a frequent guest on television news programs. Yet despite the risk Beck sees in him, Beck has never bothered to alert his audience to the danger. If McCain is truly worse than Obama, shouldn’t Beck do a week-long series exposing him? Shouldn’t McCain be driven from office to protect our nation’s future?

On the surface, I have to agree with Beck (did I just say that?). McCain would indeed have been worse than Obama. But my reasons for that opinion have nothing to do with a paranoid and foreboding sense of doom, nor even a belief that McCain would have reduced America to rubble. This outburst is just further evidence that Beck is suffering from a dementia that may be deeper than modern psychology can address.