Joan Walsh Falling Into Bill O’Reilly’s Trap

Posted by on June 12, 2009 at 12:15 pm. 1 Comments :

[Note: See my post-broadcast update here}

Yesterday on Hardball, Salon editor Joan Walsh quite correctly called right-wing media to task for being provocateurs who openly engage in inflammatory rhetoric that paranoid, racist, lunatics feed upon. She said:

“When Bill O‘Reilly goes on TV every night and calls Dr. Tiller a baby killer and a Nazi and a Mengele, and shows where he works, why do we put up with that? Why is that entertainment in our culture? It‘s demonizing a private citizen for doing a lawful job? Why are people doing that? Why is that acceptable?”

Why, indeed? Why are these people given platforms to spew such thinly veiled rationalizations of violence and hatred? Why are their baseless rants regarded as acceptable in the discourse of controversial issues? Why are their words not associated with the all too predictable consequences wrought by the entranced disciples who congregate on the ledge of sanity? And why do otherwise reasonable editors persist in lending their credibility to these media malignancies, as Joan Walsh has agreed to do?

After her remarks on Hardball, O’Reilly invited her to appear on his program to debate the issue. She inexplicably accepted. It is beyond ridiculous for her to agree to participate in what will surely be a manipulated exercise in justifying O’Reilly’s incitations and massaging his bloated ego. What can she possibly hope to accomplish? She won’t change his mind or those of his brainwash followers…er…viewers.

I have previously documented the multitude of reasons why all Democrats and progressives should refuse to appear on Fox News (Starve The Beast parts One, Two, and Three). O’Reilly, in particular, is well known for bullying his “guests” and for using his editorial control to dismiss and humiliate them. He isn’t interested in winning an argument on its merits when he can just shout you down and exploit the resulting chaos to enhance his ratings. Here is a simple primer for an encounter with O’Reilly:

The O’Reilly Interview 101
Ask direct yes or no questions where one answer is clearly reprehensible and the other is totally meaningless, and bully your guest into responding.
“Do you want the U.S. to lose in Iraq? Well, do you?”

Create an association with an unpopular (preferably mischaracterized) opinion with the broadest attribution possible.
“Do you agree with Harry Belafonte, and the rest of the liberal establishment, that Venezuela should take over America?”

Never concede on substance, even if your arguments are demonstrably false.
“Saddam Hussein did too meet with Osama Bin Laden at Michael Moore’s compound in Libya – Twice.”

Employ ad hominims liberally.
“Why should anyone listen to a radical, Kool-Aid drinking, far-left loon like you?”

Shout louder than your guests and interrupt frequently, especially when they are making a good point.

Walsh is making a mistake by sucking up to this demagogue and she should seriously consider canceling the appearance. She is not merely placing herself in a position where she will be disparaged and diminished, she is creating an opportunity for O’Reilly to project his venom on everyone with whom she presumes to represent. She is willfully doing harm to all of us who are fighting so fiercely against the sort on poisonous rhetoric that O’Reilly dispenses on a daily basis.

It’s not too late to tell Walsh to back out of the booking. She asked for advise on her Twitter stream. Let’s give her some. And you can speak out at her blog as well.

Update: Well, after the taping, Walsh blogged about the experience. It wasn’t pretty.

Even though she has already gone through with it, we can still let her know that it was a mistake.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Glenn Beck’s Fear Mongering In The Wake Of Tragedy

Posted by on June 11, 2009 at 12:38 am. 5 Comments :

Stephen Tyrone Johns, a security guard at the Washington D.C. Holocaust Memorial was shot and killed by James W. von Brunn today. This was a blatantly racist act by an obsessed and demented, militant rightist who was driven by irrational hatred and fear. And in the wake of yet another tragic shooting – the third in less than two weeks – Glenn Beck proves that he is insensitive, inhumane, and incredibly ill-informed.

Despite the fact that von Brunn is obviously a racist, right-wing, NRA radical, Beck opened his program with a passionate defense of the very sort of conservatism that spawned von Brunn. Beck’s analysis began with the contention that there will be a witch hunt in this country that will come after two groups: First, the Jews. Second, conservatives.

That’s right, Beck actually believes that conservatives are going to be second only to Jews as targets for violent, domestic extremists. And he bolsters this dangerously deranged theory with affirmations straight out of The Idiot’s Guide To Race Wars. His bizarre thesis included the following examples of his madness:

“The pot in America is boiling and this is just yet another warning.”
Beck claims that he is not the one stirring the pot, that he is just the messenger. But that’s a difficult case for him to make when he is standing over the pot with a giant ladle.

“How did it happen that you look at people who are Nazis and you say that those are right wing. It doesn’t make any sense.”
Beck’s confusion can only come from his utter stupidity as he and his guests desperately try to tie Nazis to leftists in a feat of historical revisionism that defies comprehension. They actually believe that Nazis and Communists conspired to define each other as opposites so as to crowd out all other ideologies. They must work overtime to make up this crap.

“America, we are surrounded by people who want to control you. You’ve got the government, that is, I think, is just going crazy out of control.”
Oh no. We’re surrounded again. I thought Beck and his tea parties were surrounding them now. Nevertheless, notice how Beck isn’t stirring the pot with his talk of a government that is crazy out of control.

“We’ve got a guy in office right now, President Obama – and before everybody else…nobody else is…I don’t think anybody else is gonna bring this up today – Oh dare anyone in the media actually say this – We’ve got a guy in the White House right now, who if you’re gonna link people to this guy, who have nothing to do with this shooting, let’s talk about the relationship with Barack Obama and Rev. Jeremiah Wright.”
Now he is just babbling. But in his rant is evidence of his paranoid fear of an alien president, his persecution as the only one who sees what’s going on and will speak out, and his craving for a decoy, a scapegoat, upon which he can direct his anger and that of his followers.

“I think the Germans, however, were an awful lot like we are now. We’re kind of living in denial like ‘I don’t know, that can’t really be happening.’ You don’t want to believe some things but you have to.”
Don’t you see, America? You have to believe what he tells you, whether you like it or not. Beck is not only describing Americans as being like the pre-WWII Germans, he is praying for it.

At the conclusion of this screed, Beck commenced a tale of his own family outing to the D.C. Holocaust Memorial. He related a harrowing experience wherein he and his family were trapped in the building as a bomb threat ensued. The ordeal left him with a wish for future Museum visitors:

“I will tell you, I wish everyone could experience the Holocaust Museum like that, because it sure made it real and put it into perspective.”

Now, I know that he probably meant that the frightening risk to his life enhanced the sense of fear that the victims of the Nazis must have felt. But in his clumsy articulation, what he actually said was that he wished that there were more bomb threats so that everyone who visits the Museum would experience one. It is that sort of clumsiness that infects much of what Beck says. The problem is that not all of it is clumsiness. Too much of what Beck says is deliberately provocative.

It’s hard not to associate events like today’s shooting with Beck’s fear mongering and disaster mania. I don’t generally subscribe to the theory that TV personalities are responsible for the actions of lone lunatics, but I do think that they have an obligation to exhibit some empathy and not to further fan the flames. In his case, Beck seems to revel in standing over embers and waving furiously.


Krauthammer: Fox News Created An Alternate Reality

Posted by on June 10, 2009 at 1:28 pm. 3 Comments :

The Eric Breindel Award for Excellence in Opinion Journalism is a creation of Rupert Murdoch, who endowed the foundation that administers it. How convenient then, that this year’s honoree is Fox News favorite, Charles Krauthammer.

Krauthammer is an unrepentant defender of torture, war, and the conservative economic model dedicated to excusing the rich and fleecing the poor. Thus, he is an obvious choice for an award bestowed by News Corporation to one of their own. I wonder what Sean Hannity would have to say about an award created by General Electric that was presented to Keith Olbermann.

In his acceptance speech, Krauthammer graciously praised the heads of News Corp. and Fox News who are, of course, also his bosses:

“I said some years ago that the genius of Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes was to have discovered a niche market in American broadcasting — half the American people.”

There is little doubt that Murdoch and Ailes are adept at marketing (i.e. propaganda) and that their enterprise serves a niche market (i.e. dittoheads). However, to say that it is half of the American people is evidence that Krauthammer must have failed remedial math. There are about 360 million Americans and Fox’s audience rarely exceeds 3 or 4 million. Krauthammer seems to regard 1% and 50% as essentially the same. But that isn’t even the point at which he truly sails over the edge of his flat earth. For that he had to exhibit a bit more honesty:

“What Fox did is not just create a venue for alternative opinion. It created an alternate reality.”

Can’t argue with that. Fox News creates an alternate reality on a daily basis. They misrepresent the statements of Democrats and progressives. They edit videos to produce false and negative impressions. Studies show that Fox viewers rank lower with regard to knowledge of current events and, even worse, are far more likely to believe things that are demonstrably false.

It’s a good thing that Fox invents their own awards because they aren’t going to be winning any from reputable institutions.


Lying Is Easy, Comedy Is Hard

Posted by on June 9, 2009 at 3:20 pm. NO Comments :

Anyone who has ever tried to make an audience laugh knows how deceptively easy a talented comic can make their job look. The truth is, it is so difficult to do well that there is a famous (but difficult to source) quote reportedly made from an actor’s deathbed: “Dying is easy, comedy is hard.”

It’s going to get a lot harder for people like Jon Stewart. The competition is heating up with some of the most hilarious, and unexpected, entrants into the field of funny. Republicans from around the country are trying out their best material in an effort to amuse and deceive audiences nationwide.

First up is Republican National Committee Chairman, Michael Steele, who cracked up a room of College Republicans with his famous “Hat” routine. The premise is that it doesn’t matter how you wear your hat (to the side, backwards, etc) so long as it is a GOP hat:

I’m asking you to go out and ask your friends to wear our hat. The hat of an idea.

For this bit, Steele had four students stand so that he could pretend to put imaginary hats on them. Steele intuitively knew that the bit would be much funnier with audience members standing there for no purpose other than to grin and display their naked heads. And I have to admire the deeper meaning of the invisible hats of ideas that obviously represent the GOP’s absence ideas.

The setup included a dire admonition that Barack Obama “has asked your generation to wear his hat.” I must have missed that speech. But I did see Steele’s previous speech where he promised to deliver “change in a tea bag.” How does he keep coming up with this brilliant material?

And then there is Bill O’Reilly. In a sidesplitting debate over torture and abortion, O’Reilly challenged Juan Williams to explain why liberals object to torture but defend abortion providers like Dr. George Tiller. Williams attempted, through O’Reilly’s interruptions, to answer saying that torture is against both domestic and international law, but Tiller’s work was entirely legal. To which O’Reilly responded:

“You can dance the law dance all day long. And laws are passed by men. Laws can be revoked. They can be passed.”

The joke, as O’Reilly sees it, is the law itself. It’s just a dance and we don’t really need to comply with it because it’s just stuff that some people came up with in legislatures and courtrooms. Just imagine the comical scenarios that would ensue if we extend O’Reilly’s view of the law to burglary, rape, and terrorism. I can see O’Reilly now, defending Osama Bin Laden before a military tribunal, doing a jig while testifying that he can “dance the law dance all day long.” After all, the laws against flying planes into buildings could be revoked.

Almost as funny as his legal pirouettes is his contention that “the attorney general ruled waterboarding was not torture. It was legal.” As if the attorney general has the judicial standing to make such a ruling. He isn’t a judge. The best he can offer is an opinion, and you would think that O’Reilly has enough of those of his own. And to compound the laugh factor, O’Reilly seems perfectly satisfied to accept the constraints of the law (as he misinterprets it) with regard to waterboarding, even though he dismisses the law as it applies to abortion. Who’s dancing now?

This brings us to Newt Gingrich who made this declaration last night:

“Let me be clear. I am not a citizen of the world!”

I’m going to guess Plutonian, because he is just so out there, stretching the comedy envelope. He is objecting to a part of Obama’s speech wherein he referred to himself as “a citizen of the world.” I wonder if Gingrich knows that John F. Kennedy, George H. W. Bush, and even Ronald Reagan used the very same phrase. Gingrich also mined comedy gold by railing against the “fact” that our nation’s school curriculum doesn’t include American history. Makes you wonder how closely he was paying attention.

It’s going to be hard for working comics and satirists to compete with the new Republican Rubber Chicken Society. Not many people are better at spinning lies…er…stories than desperate Republican politicians and pundits. It may be too much to ask our professional laugh-smiths to create humor from scratch when the GOP can just pull it out of their butts. I mean, how can you compete with headlines like:
“Fox Newser Accused of Dragging Cyclist Through Central Park.” And:
“Peter Doocy [Steve’s boy] Joins Fox News.” And:
“Sarah Palin Mystifies and Annoys the Republican Establishment.”
“Coburn’s STD Lecture to Congressional Interns Put On Hold Due to Pizza Dispute.”

Yes, those are real. And so is the danger that reality will make comedians obsolete. Thanks GOP.


Rupert Murdoch Defends The Fairness Of Fox News

Posted by on June 9, 2009 at 1:14 pm. 2 Comments :

Neil Cavuto went out on limb to interview his boss, Rupert Murdoch, again. I don’t know of any other network that conducts this type of incestuous self-promotion with such frequency. But we are talking about Fox News, so…..

In this clip Murdoch defends the notoriously false slogan that Fox News is “fair and balanced.” Murdoch says:

“If we weren’t fair and balanced, we wouldn’t have the number one network in news – by a very wide margin. People believe we’re fair and balanced, and they love us.”

However, people do not watch Fox News because they believe it’s fair and balanced. They watch to have their right-wing preconceptions validated. What’s more, many more people hate Fox News than love it. Twenty-three percent of the public report being regular Fox viewers. That means that 75% are not. And being the number one network is no measure of quality. As I have said before:

“McDonald’s is the #1 restaurant in America. I don’t think that anyone interprets that to mean that they have the best food. What they have is the cheapest crap that is loaded with filler and seasoning to appeal to the largest number of consumers with the least sophisticated taste.”

And that’s a pretty good description of Fox News too.


Rothenberg Dunks Hardball

Posted by on June 8, 2009 at 2:44 am. 4 Comments :

Stuart Rothenberg is the very model of a modern major political pundit. He has his own newsletter and contributes to Roll Call, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and is a regular commentator on television news programs. He has a reputation as an astute analyst. Which makes me wonder why it took him so long to come to this realization:

“America’s cable ‘news’ networks have concluded – on the basis of considerable research and evidence, I’m sure – that most viewers don’t want straight news and analysis as much as they want to hear what they already think or to watch predictable partisan attacks.

“The three big cable ‘news’ networks don’t exist to provide a public service, after all. They have corporate officers and stockholders to answer to, which means they need more and more eyeballs to generate more advertising dollars.

“Their answer: talk radio on TV. Forget about the serious implications and political fallout that follow an event or policy, and instead attack your opponents repeatedly using half-truths, glittering generalities and inapplicable analogies.”

With that, Rothernberg announced that he will no longer be a guest on MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews. Very little of what Rothenberg says should surprise anyone who has been paying attention. So either he is not as astute as he pretends to be, or he just preferred picking up his paycheck and indulging in denial. Rothenberg complains that Hardball has evolved into “a partisan, heavily ideological sledgehammer” and he is upset that Matthews made reference to some Republicans as crackpots. But that seems like a pretty petty reason to pound on a news culture that has plenty of legitimate flaws.

I’m not sure what his objection is to the crackpot remark. With characters like Michele “Let’s investigate Congress for Socialists” Bachmann, and Michael “It’s a Hip-Hop GOP, Baby” Steele, crackpot seems like a rather reserved assessment. And as for being a partisan sledgehammer, I can’t think of any other program that regularly hosts the disgraced former Republican leader, Tom DeLay, and treats him with such deference and respect.

Rothenberg’s assertion that viewers aren’t interested in straight news is really a form of attacking the victim. There is surely a segment of the market that prefers to only hear those things that validate their preconceptions, but part of the problem is that they haven’t been given a real choice in the first place. If the audience currently has no place to find neutral reporting, how can we conclude that they would not watch it if it were available? The truth is that viewers are drawn to programming that provides either information or drama. Since there is presently no compelling source of informational programming, viewers are stuck with the dramatic variety.

Rothenberg’s observation that the media has abandoned public service in favor of profit is irrefutable, but hardly a revelation. And while he describes the corporate response to conditions in the marketplace (talk radio on TV), he doesn’t bother to offer any suggestions for reversing the trend and restoring a commitment to quality and public service in cable studios and newsrooms. He seems to lack the courage to declare that it is the iron grip of the monolithic media conglomerates that is responsible for the greed-driven state of today’s news providers.

While Rothenberg comes down pretty hard on Hardball, he says that Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, and Ed Schultz, are even worse. To his credit, he attempts to seek some balance by making a couple of obvious, yet still notable (for a mainstream pundit) comments about the Fox News all-stars, including…

“O’Reilly’s obsession with General Electric and that company’s CEO is bizarre, though any program that treats Dick Morris seriously as an independent analyst obviously has major problems.”

So Rothenberg’s epiphany has led him to eschew Hardball for good. He doesn’t say whether he will do likewise for the rest of the cable asylum. That would certainly make a dent in his wallet. However, he does suggest that his fellow pundits reconsider their own fraternization with the compromised world of cable news. He regards it as a matter of integrity in the name of journalistic ethics and says that…

“Trying to be an unbiased reporter or neutral analyst on a heavily biased television program is incredibly awkward and uncomfortable. Either you end up fighting the host’s premises and rephrasing loaded questions, or you are tacitly accepting the way the host defines a situation, making yourself an accomplice to a political mugging.”

That’s about the truest thing I have ever heard a member of the political mugging class admit to. On one hand, I admire Rothenberg’s honest appraisal, though I still can’t imagine what took him so long to arrive at it. On the other hand, he isn’t exactly an innocent bystander. He’s more like the stoolie who’s giving up his pals to save his own skin. Time will tell whether this is a genuine revelation or merely a tantrum for some perceived slight in the Hardball green room – or retaliation for Matthews calling his Republican buddiess crackpots.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

The Hateful Slander Of The New York Post

Posted by on June 6, 2009 at 2:35 pm. NO Comments :

Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post has a long history of shameless bias and insensitivity. This is, after all, the paper that published a cartoon portraying President Obama as a monkey being shot to death.

Now the post has moved their repulsive imagery onto the front page.

What first drew my attention to this was the utterly disgusting reference to the death of David Carradine. What Post editors must have thought was a cutesy play off of “Kung Fu,” the TV series in which Carradine starred, was entirely inappropriate and shockingly lacking in sympathy for the deceased’s family and friends.

But upon further examination, I noticed that the image at the top was no less repulsive. It depicts a couple of quasi-terrorists lounging on the sofa, caressing their assault weapons, waiting for a TV dinner, and watching Obama deliver an address to students at Cairo University in Egypt. They are wrapped up all snugly in their fatigues and wool caps and, if we could see their eyes better, I’m sure they would be glassy with admiration for what the Post describes as their “friend” who wants to “woo” them.

The obvious intention of the Post is to cast Obama as one of “them” – as a fellow Muslim speaking directly to his extremist comrades in the warmth of their secret lairs. Notice the rapt attention they give to their Manchurian leader. The juxtaposition of these hooded barbarians, serenely embracing Obama’s electronically glowing presence, with the superimposed text that speaks of friendship and wooing, can have only one purpose: To insinuate that the televised Obama in the background is just as much a threat to America as the fearsome subjects in the foreground.

This is propaganda in its most advanced and destructive form. It is a deliberate attempt by Murdoch and Co. to exploit his media megaphone and smear the image of the President. The Post, and everyone affiliated with it, should be embarrassed by this forsaking of journalistic principles. Of course, the Post, being what it is, probably feels only pride for its lack of ethics.

And what is it with the repeated use of the nickname “Bam” for the president? Is that supposed to create an association with an explosive device (by removing the beginning “O” and the concluding “a” from Obama’s name, the phonetic remainder would be pronounced “bomb”)? The Post has been using this label for some time. At least as far back as January 2008, in a hilariously stupid article suggesting that Obama could be the first woman president because he is slim, attractive, and well-dressed. By that measure, the Jonas brothers would be next Supremes.

It is time to let the Post know that their readers will not tolerate this sort of manipulation and dishonesty. This is a paper that loses about $50 million a year, but is kept afloat by Murdoch’s deep pockets and sustained evil. But that doesn’t mean that our complaints will go unheeded. After the controversy regarding the monkey cartoon, Murdoch personally apologized – sort of. So for anyone who is outraged at this demonstration of hate and slander…..

Letters to the Editor


Bill O’Reilly Lies About Army Recruiter Shooting

Posted by on June 6, 2009 at 10:39 am. NO Comments :

Ordinarily it would not be news to report that Bill O’Reilly lied about something. But in this case he is layering lies on top of lies as he squirms to extricate himself from his lies.

On June 1, Pvt. William Long, was fatally shot at an Army recruiting office in Arkansas. This was the day after Dr. George Tiller was shot and killed at a church service. Both of these tragic events deserved attention from the press and sympathy from the public. And that is just what they got.

Never the less, O’Reilly sought to politicize the matter by falsely claiming that there was a deliberate distortion in the news coverage in favor of Dr. Tiller. He delivered an outraged rant in which he asserted that Tiller’s murder was over-emphasized in the media, while Long’s shooting was virtually ignored – except, of course, by himself and Fox News. The problem with O’Reilly’s tantrum is that he was completely wrong on the facts. Rick Sanchez of CNN took the time to set O’Reilly straight:

The next day, O’Reilly recognized that he could not ignore the blatant factual errors in his screed. So he issued an apology of sorts. But his apology just revealed more of his arrogance and dishonesty. He starts off with a condescending declaration that this is a “rare” correction he is being forced to make. What he doesn’t say is that it is only rare because of his reluctance to admit his frequent errors, not because he doesn’t make any. He goes on to describe the person to whom he is supposedly apologizing as a “snide and surly guy.” This is the sort of graciousness O’Reilly offers when he is apologetic:

In addition to the crude and self-serving remarks noted above, O’Reilly based his entire apology on another fundamental lie. He sought to excuse himself for his mistake by saying that he was only “talking about primetime” but neglected to say that. But in his original remarks he specifically said:

“Only Anderson Cooper at 10 o’clock covered this. Nobody else. So all day long it wasn’t news to cover an Army recruiter gunned down in Arkansas.”

O’Reilly did not forget to mention that he was only talking about primetime. He explicitly stated that CNN’s failure to cover the Long shooting occurred “all day long.” So his so-called apology was just another obfuscation of the truth.

The whole premise of this segment was based on a trumped up controversy from the start. O’Reilly, and much of the right-wing media, were up in arms about what they perceived as a disparity in coverage between the Tiller and Long shootings. But they fail to grasp some basic realities of news coverage. While these were both tragic events, they were also different events.

Tiller was a well known public figure whose position as a lightening rod for controversy guaranteed scrutiny from the press. Long was unknown and, without further investigation, there was no cause to suspect that his murder was anything other than a personal dispute that got out of hand. So the immediate reaction from the media was understandably different. For better or worse, the death of an Anna Nicole Smith will always generate more buzz than the death of a Jane Doe.

Even after it was discovered that Long’s killer was a convert to Islam, and the shooting might have a political component, it was still not controversial in that all Americans would abhor such an act. In Tiller’s case, the overriding debate about abortion stirred conflicting reactions. And if there is anything that the media loves, it’s conflict. That’s the explanation for any disparity in reporting, not some imagined preference for Dr. Tiller’s life over Pvt. Long’s.

There are two things that we can learn from the aftermath of these events. First, that the press will always fan the flames of controversy. And second, that O’Reilly can always be counted on to be a lying jerk.

Update 6/9/09: After making such a big fuss about CNN not giving enough coverage to the army recruiter shooting, Fox News failed to cover today’s press conference given by the survivor of the attack. Both CNN and MSNBC covered it live. Fox chose, instead, to broadcast remarks by Newt Gingrich from the night before.


Rush Limbaugh: Obama Will Own The Media

Posted by on June 5, 2009 at 4:36 pm. 3 Comments :

Sean Hannity recently interviewed Rush Limbaugh and much was made of Limbaugh’s warning to Osama Bin Laden that, if he wanted to “demolish the America we know and love,” he had better hurry because “Obama’s beating them to it.” That was certainly worthy of attracting attention as a classic articulation of Limbaugh’s patently asinine opinion. However, there was another segment of the discussion that didn’t get much play despite being at least as disturbing and stupefying:

Limbaugh: “People ask me about the Fairness Doctrine all the time and I’ve been watching something here – newspapers are losing money. Advertising revenue is down, circulation. But radio companies, too, Sean. Television companies – their advertising revenues are down. Advertising as a whole is down.

Now, what happens if they have to file Chapter 11? What if all these radio companies can’t make their debt payments next year or the year after that and have to go Chapter 11? If Obama is controlling the banks and the banks then will or will not lend to the broadcasters and the newspapers to make them solvent, we could reach a point where Obama controls radio and TV, because he will own it by virtue of the banks he controls owning it.

This is a very stealth way – you don’t need the Fairness Doctrine. You don’t need localism. […] So, if you think that the media in this country cannot also be owned by Barack Obama, think again.”

So, just to break this down…Obama is somehow going to wind up owning all of the banks. Then, he will instruct the banks that he owns to attach conditions to any loans they make to failing media companies. Those conditions will, presumably, include the forced carriage of liberal programming and, perhaps, even the cancellation of programs like Limbaugh’s. In this way the Fairness Doctrine will have been implemented by stealth and Obama will emerge as the owner of all of the media, in addition to the banks, the auto manufactures, the health care providers, the United Nations, the World Wrestling Federation, and Disney World.

This is conspiracy theorism run amuck. Limbaugh is connecting dots that only exist in his OxyContin riddled brain. The right wing’s incessant paranoia with regard to the Fairness Doctrine – which no one is pursuing in Congress or regulatory agencies, and for which Obama has publicly stated his opposition – is warping their their judgment beyond any hope for normal human comprehension (see the related posts below). This obsession is threatening to turn their entire movement into either a political relic or a pathetic joke (most likely, both).

And I still can’t figure out why these people, who regard Obama as an incompetent who could not survive without his TelePrompter, are still terrified of his omnipotent evil genius that will subjugate them all to slavery were it not for the eternal vigilance of superheroes like Rushman and his Boy Hannity.


Republicans Form Phony Fairness Caucus On Media

Posted by on June 4, 2009 at 9:04 pm. NO Comments :

Texas Representative Lamar Smith has announced the formation of the Media Fairness Caucus in the House of Representatives. This would be a pretty funny venture if only because he asserts that the mission of his caucus is for…

“…the American people to get the facts and then be allowed to make up their own minds, not be told what to think. When you have network news programs and front pages of national newspapers reading like an editorial page or sounding like an oral editorial, then the American people aren’t getting the facts, they’re not getting the objective news. They’re getting opinion. And if all they do is hear is one side, that does have an impact over time.”

It sounds like Smith is launching a war against Fox News and the Wall Street Journal. But that can’t be. His caucus is apparently open only to Republicans who will busy themselves with writing letters to editors and making one minute speeches on the House floor. There doesn’t appear to be any substantive agenda for the caucus other than working the refs. And the only venues for the announcement of the caucus have been Fox News and the ultra-right wing NewsMax.

Smith is a few years behind the curve with regard to House media caucuses. Democrat Maurice Hinchey has already convened the Future of American Media Caucus with a mandate to reform ownership regulations and promote greater independence and diversity. Hinchey’s group is open to all members of Congress who seek to bring real reform that addresses the root causes of media bias and faulty journalism.

The truly remarkable thing about Smith’s announcement, however, is that Smith ranks the liberal media bias that he is imagining as…

“…the greatest threat to our democracy today.”

That’s right – a bigger threat to the nation than a terrorist attack or a depression. And it is from this perspective that he hopes to fashion the return of objective and responsible reporting. Good work, Lamar.