Glenn Beck Tells His Biggest Lie Yet

Posted by on January 5, 2010 at 9:21 am. 8 Comments :

This is going to be a fun week. 2009’s Misinformer of the Year, Glenn Beck, has promised us a week during which he will end the debate on some of his most ludicrous, paranoid delusions. That will be a relief. I can’t be the only one who is sick to death of hearing him repeat endlessly his lies about Van Jones or ACORN or Saul Alinsky. But no more. This week is it. Next week…who knows? Unless, of course, he’s lying.

“A week from today this program is going to change. I’m no longer going to be debating the things we already know are true.”

And how does he know which things are true? Easy. They are whatever things he said last year that the White House hasn’t refuted by calling his in-studio chat line. And we all know that by not returning Beck’s phone calls it is as good as an admission of guilt. That is, in fact, how I know that Glenn Beck idolizes Adolf Hitler. Despite my many invitations to him to call and deny it, he has not done so, and therefore it is safe to conclude that it’s true.

Starting off his landmark week of television, Beck is going straight to the root of the problem. He is attacking head on the question of truth and lies. In the process he has delivered what may be regarded as his biggest lie yet.

“If I were lying I’d be off the air.”

Huh? Beck may have taken lying to a whole new dimension. This is a lie that lies about the context of his lying. It’s a lie that doubles back on itself as its own exculpation. Since he is not off the air, his dementia contends, he must not be lying. Were his statement to be true, much of the broadcast spectrum would go dark overnight. And that’s just the part of the spectrum controlled by Fox News. We can even look at this from a non-partisan viewpoint. If his statement were true, then how would Beck explain the continuing on-air presence of Keith Olbermann and his comrades at MSNBC? Surely Beck believes they are lying, yet they are still on the air. How can that be so without making him a liar? Perhaps he only meant that market forces would drive him off the dial as disillusioned viewers tuned out someone they considered to be dishonest. Nope, that aint it:

“Lies that are broadcast nightly to an entire nation are easily stopped. They are called laws. Or here’s an idea, standards.”

Beck truly seems to believe that there are laws that could be invoked to bar him from broadcasting due to his infatuation with falsehoods. The First Amendment notwithstanding, this is something he has predicted would occur ever since a Kenyan socialist moved into the White House. But this is the first time he has asserted that such laws have already been enacted. He doesn’t say which laws they are, but he’s certain they are there. And since these imaginary censorship dictates have not been exercised, Beck takes that to mean that the officials at the Department of Truth have certified his babble. One person who knows he is certifiable is his boss Rupert Murdoch, whom Beck believes hired him as a truthteller.

“Even if you think I’m wildly irresponsible, you have to know that News Corp. is not stupid. It’s a company worth billions of dollars. You really think that this corporation would risk everything on an irresponsible crazy guy?”

With this Gordian logic, Beck concludes that because Murdoch hired him, he must not be crazy. He may be jumping to an unsupportable conclusion. Murdoch made his reputation by exploiting the fringes of journalism. His tabloid papers featured outlandish gossip, sensationalistic headlines, and topless models. He is the carnival barker of media barons. Murdoch probably doesn’t think he is risking much by providing a platform for this schizoid sideshow freak. That is the keystone of his business philosophy and the engine of his wealth. As far as Murdoch is concerned, the crazier the better. And he hit the mother lode with Beck (although advertisers disagree).

Beck spent much of today’s program lying about not having lied on his previous programs. For example, he declared that he had only ever called one person in the Obama administration a communist. Not only is that not true, but on this same show he insinuated that many people in the White House preferred Karl Marx to James Madison, including President Obama. Maybe Beck would argue that that isn’t the same as calling them communists, but that would only be true in his warped brain. Media Matters has many more examples.

Beck’s defense of his veracity only sinks him deeper into duplicity. But with today’s pinnacle of prevarication, Beck has raised the bar on bullshit. To assert that he would be off the air if he were lying is a truly brilliant deceit. And his ability to render it with a straight face deserves some credit as well. Bravo Mr. Beck. You have more than earned your place in the Liars Hall of Sham.

ADDENDUM: Lest anyone absolve Fox News from complicity with Beck’s mania, here is a year-end compilation of the biggest stories missed by the mainstream media per Fox News. All but one were stories either originated or heavily promoted by Beck (i.e. Van Jones, ACORN, ClimateGate, Tea Baggers, etc). Fox cannot dismiss the evidence that Beck is their prime source for news.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Andrew Breitbart’s BigHypocrite.com

Posted by on January 4, 2010 at 4:50 pm. NO Comments :

Today on Fox Nation they are featuring a story on whether President Obama’s advisor, David Axelrod, is losing control of the President’s image. The headline is accompanied by a photo collage of what the Fox Nationalists must think are silly pictures, but which most people would regard as human pictures.

What’s truly silly about this is that the item links to an article at Andrew Breitbart’s BigGovernment web site that expounds at length on what a terrible job of image building the White House is doing. The author, Kristinn Taylor, is appalled by what he regards as inadequate visual communications:

“Richard Nixon had advertising executive H.R. Haldeman; Ronald Reagan had image master Mike Deaver; Barack Obama has public relations guru David Axelrod.

“All three men understood the power of visuals in communicating the strengths of the presidents they served on the campaign trail and in the office of the presidency.

“I don’t know where David Axelrod has been since President Obama began his ten-day Christmas vacation in Hawaii, but it is safe to say he is goofing off as much as his boss.”

Taylor goes on to lament that the Obama team has…

“…failed in their most basic duty of reassuring the American public that the president is on the job.”

First of all, it is rather revealing that right-wingers like Taylor, and his boss Breitbart, so openly revere the manipulative art of public relations. The fact that they regard the most basic duty of presidential staff as providing pictorial reassurances that the President is on the job, as opposed to helping the President to actually get the job done, says a great deal about the Breitbart philosophy.

These are a breed of propagandists whose heroes are masters of deception like Haldeman, Deaver, and Fox News CEO Roger Ailes. And they are not in the least embarrassed to admit their preference for style and appearances over substance. That is the cornerstone of conservative leadership for decades. Reagan’s tough-guy, movie hero persona was thoroughly manufactured by PR professionals, as was Bush, Jr.’s cowboy everyman. Taylor’s article reinforces this superficial approach to public service and criticizes the Obama administration for not being sufficiently shallow.

It is also interesting to note that the complaint made by Taylor and company contradicts previous conservative complaints that this White House has been preoccupied with image. They never seem to tire of lame jokes about the President’s use of TelePrompters, or his photo-ops with the troops. On those occasions the President was being disingenuous for exploiting imagery. His aides were cynically attempting to manipulate the public, and were considered dishonorable for doing so. But now they are accused of failing in that “most basic duty” by not performing it.

I suppose it might be too much to expect Breitbart’s crew to refrain from hypocrisy. Taylor complained that it took four days for the White House to post a picture of the President on the phone. Oh my stars, someone get the smelling salts. In fact that wasn’t even true. There were many pictures of the President working, just not the ones Taylor cared to notice. He was too busy whimpering about presidential tiewear or the price of his hotel room.

In the end, as with most matters concerning this president, Obama cannot win. He is damned if he uses PR effectively, and he is damned if he doesn’t use it all. As Hillary Clinton once said, if he were to walk on water his critics would gripe that he can’t swim. But even more disturbing to me is the lust these people have for phoniness. They celebrate it and curse those who fail to worship it as they do. There is a place for reasonable image-making. But clearly the right has taken it way too far.


Welcome To The New Fox News Ministries With Brit Hume

Posted by on January 3, 2010 at 12:51 pm. 12 Comments :

Pray for Fox NewsBrothers and sisters, on this, the first Sunday of a new year, a new decade in the sight of our Lord, it is a blessing that we may now profit from the teachings of a new holy messenger of the Word of God. Salvation can now be achieved directly from the Most High – Definition, that is. Our Cable path to redemption is clear and the signals are strong. For we now are relieved of the weekly burden of attending a cold, dank church with uncomfortable pews. Now we can get salvation from the convenience of our sofas. We can worship at the alter of Television and absorb the Good News in the comfort of our homes thanks to the advent of the New Fox News Ministries.

Today’s sermon is one that effects every believer and non-believer alike. It concerns the fate of all who have sinned and, of course, that means everyone. Except for those sinners who have already placed their faith in the Savior and have repented and been saved. They can do whatever the Hell they please. But not so fallen stars like Tiger Woods, whose moral indiscretions require urgent redress. And thank the good Lord that we have the Reverend Brit Hume of the Fox News Ministries to counsel unto the golfer lost in the woods.

Rev. Brit Hume: The Tiger Woods that emerges, once the news value dies out of this scandal, the extent to which he can recover, it seems to me, rests on his faith. He’s said to be a Buddhist. I don’t think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. So my message to Tiger would be, “Tiger, turn your faith, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.”

Hallelujah and amen! Repent Brother Woods. It is obvious that those heathen Buddhists have nothing whatsoever to offer a poor sinner. They cannot redeem your cursed soul with the blood of a 2,000 year old martyr, can they? They rely merely on ancient wisdom that holds people accountable for their actions, not by judgment, but by the observance of respect for all creation. They reject the sort of forgiveness and redemption that absolves one of guilt or the suffering of consequences for their behavior. Well, unless you regard karma as a model for a virtuous life and a guide for honorable conduct.

Brother Woods, you must ask yourself if you want to embark on a challenging journey of self-examination and knowledge, or if you wouldn’t rather join the likes of Mark Sanford, David Vitter, John Ensign, Larry Craig, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, etc., as adulterous sinners who have been pardoned by the grace of a merciful God. You too can be a great example to the world, just as these bags of scum who have preceded you.

Heed the words of the Rev. Hume, all ye sinners. And follow these teachings as ye have those of Rev. Huckabee and Rev. Beck (see The Gospel according to Beck). Get down on your knees and beseech the Lord Fox for forgiveness. Kneel in the sacred blue glow of the Fox light and submit yourself to its flickering divinity. Because by worshiping at the alter of Fox all sins are forgiven. You are free to start wars; to kill innocents; to torture; to befoul the Earth; to pass judgment on others; to revel in wealth and greed; to deny the less fortunate access to food, housing, or health care; to lie, cheat, steal, and even to live as an infidel with impunity.

Sounds like Heaven, doesn’t it? And what does Buddhism have to offer but a life of peace, awareness, enlightenment, and harmony with all the world? Sounds like Hell, huh? As the Prophet Murdoch said:

“Let there be lie: and there was lie. And Murdoch saw the lie, that it was profitable: and Murdoch divided the lie from the psychotic. And Murdoch called the lie Day, and the psychotic he called Primetime.”

Bless you Brother Brit. And may the Fox be with you.


The Fox Nation Knowingly Lies About ACORN Chief Visiting The White House

Posted by on January 1, 2010 at 12:28 pm. 7 Comments :

Starting the new year off right (extremely far-right), the folks at the Fox Nation are featuring as one of their top stories a report that is completely false. In other words, they appear to be entering 2010 doing exactly what they have done since their inception a few months ago. On this occasion, however, the truth is so readily available that you have to conclude that they have just given up entirely on even pretending to associate themselves with the news business. This is their web page topping scoop:

Accompanying a headline that declares: ACORN CEO Visited White House Week Before Scandal Broke, the Fox Nationalists posted a picture of Bertha Lewis and linked to a story about her sojourn to the President’s abode. The only problem with the story is that none of it is true. Other than that, it’s a world-class expose.

The source for this fake news is Andrew Breitbart’s notoriously untrustworthy BigGovernment site. Their columnist, identified only as Publius, writes that the name Bertha E. Lewis appears on a White House visitor’s log. So far so good. And there is a Bertha Lewis who is the CEO of ACORN. Hmm, maybe they’re on to something. Maybe not. As it turns out, the visitor to the White House is not the same person as the ACORN chief. This fact was readily apparent to anyone who bothered to call and ask either the White House or ACORN, which neither BigGovernment nor Fox bothered to do. Even without calling it would have been obvious that these were different people because ACORN’s Lewis had a middle initial of “M” (for Mae), not “E.” But checking facts has never been a strong suit for Fox and its affiliates.

What makes this negligence even more extraordinary is the fact that this is not the first time that Fox has fumbled with easily verified facts concerning White House guests. A couple of months ago Fox reported that Jeremiah Wright, Michael Moore, and William Ayers had all visited the White House. Of course those were all people who merely had the same names as the more famous persons who Fox implied were actually White House visitors. Yet even after making that embarrassing mistake, Fox now repeats the error with Bertha Lewis.

But it gets even worse. The article on BigGovernment snidely acknowledged that this might be a case of mistaken identity saying…

“Of course, it is possible that this isn’t ACORN’s Bertha Lewis. […] Sure, possible, but we’d love to see a bookie’s odds on that.”

That is at best a marginal disclaimer that ends up contradicting itself. But at least they slipped in a mention of the possibility that this was a different Lewis before opining (without checking) that it was not. However, Fox’s headline story not only made a declarative statement that it was ACORN’s Lewis, they also cut out BigGovernment’s half-hearted disclaimer from their otherwise verbatim version of the story. That’s right. The Fox Nationalists reprinted the bulk of the article but deliberately left out the bit that acknowledged that it may not be true. And then they let stand their false, stated-as-fact headline even though they knew that it was, at the very least, unverified.

Another year, another pile of lies from Fox and Rupert Murdoch’s devotedly dishonest anti-news enterprise.

Update (1/4/10): Days after this story was debunked, Gretchen Carlson ran with it on Fox & Friends. The truth really doesn’t matter to these sleazeballs. They’ve got lies to disseminate.


The News Corpse 2009 Retro-Speculum

Posted by on December 31, 2009 at 12:46 pm. 1 Comments :

Looking back on 2009 can be a harrowing experience. There has been much that many people would rather not recollect. It was a year that began with dreadful economic suffering. From there it went on to unprecedented political division, animosity, and disappointment from virtually every perspective. And it ended with a reminder of our vulnerability to violent extremists at home and abroad. For that reason, like the mythical Medusa, it may be best not to look back on 2009 directly.

Nevertheless, News Corpse has compiled some moments that, for our own good, ought not to be forgotten.

SPINCOMMedia Malfeasance of the Year:
SPINCOM. In 2008, David Barstow wrote an article for the New York Times detailing how television news programs were employing Pentagon-trained military analysts to promote the Bush administration’s agenda for an unnecessary and illegal war in Iraq. In 2009, that article won a Pulitzer prize, a Golden Keyboard from the New York Press Association, and an Emmy nomination. Yet the article and its author never once appeared on television to discuss it. Despite Barstow’s many accolades and awards, the story was blackballed by the same TV producers who hired the phony pundits (who were also enriching themselves as consultants for the military contractors who benefited from the war). And by refusing to report on one of the most egregious examples of propaganda ever directed at the American people by their government, they also covered up their own complicity in cheerleading for the war.

2010 Prediction:
Someone famous will die while fleeing from police in a high-speed TV chase after being caught cheating on a spouse for a new reality show.

ACORN: Pimp. Prostitute, BoratThe Pimp & The Prostitute
What passes for journalism took a huge hit in 2009 when a couple of rightist activists dressed up for a Halloween expose on what they regarded as America’s most feared enemy: community organizers. James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles played the roles they were made for, a pimp and a whore, as they visited offices of ACORN. The results were dishonestly edited videos that were played incessantly on Fox News despite having zero news value. The pair never appeared on any other television news network as they were closely guarded by their mentor Andrew Breitbart, and their patrons at Fox. Sadly, the other networks acquiesced by reporting the story despite having no access to the pseudo-news team.

2010 Prediction:
 Osama Bin Laden will buy Philip Morris, thus taking responsibility for killing 197,000 more Americans EVERY YEAR than he did that one time on 9/11.

Glenn Beck Rodeo ClownColor of Change We Can Believe In:
After Glenn Beck called the President a racist, a previously little-known group embarked on a boycott campaign directed at Beck’s advertisers. By last accounting Color of Change had persuaded over 80 advertisers to pull or withhold their ads from Becks show. What’s more, they compelled a retraction from the DefendGlenn web site (whose proprietor, Gary Kreep, is a story unto himself) that had been falsely disparaging the boycott efforts.

2010 Prediction:
Twitter will fold when its enfeebled users decide that 140 characters is too many to comprehend. It will be replaced by Blather, where messages are restricted to 26 characters and you can only use each letter of the alphabet once. The media will herald it as a phenomenon.

Fox News Tea PartyThe Tea Party Delusion
What can be said about the year’s most overblown non-story: The Tea Party Movement? Never has there been a less significant amalgamation of disruptive whiners that received more attention from a controversy-challenged media. The Tea Baggers were always just a noisy minority who were fully sponsored by right-wing lobbyists and Fox News. But near the end of the year a poll was released that revealed the truth, even though the true part was ignored. The NBC/Wall Street Journal poll hit the airwaves proclaiming that Tea Baggers (at 41%) were more popular that Democrats (35%) or Republicans (28%). What they didn’t report, although it was in the same poll, was that 48% of respondents knew very little or nothing at all about the Tea Baggers. When almost half of the country doesn’t know who you are, you are not much of a movement.

2010 Prediction:
Fox News will lie. (I know. That one was too easy, but it’s New Year’s Eve and I have a party to go to).

Undisputed Scumbag Pundit Hall of Shame
This award is a tie due to the presence of two so thoroughly deserving Scumbag Pundits. These despicable cretins earned their awards by claiming a couple of the most repulsive utterings ever contemplated in the press:

Retired Lieutenant Colonel, Ralph Peters: “Although it seems unthinkable now, future wars may require censorship, news blackouts and, ultimately, military attacks on the partisan media.”

Former CIA employee Michael Scheuer: “[T]he only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States.”

And just for fun, I now present the Comedy Colonoscopy Award for 2009. So far as I know, there was only one entry. But it’s a doozy:


HAPPY NEW YEAR!


Fox Nation Gives Birth To Christmas Bomber Truthers

Posted by on December 30, 2009 at 3:51 pm. 2 Comments :

Establishment conservatives have long assailed fringe groups who believe that there has been a cover-up of government involvement in the attacks on 9/11. The “Truthers” have been ridiculed as conspiracy theorists who are something less than patriotic. The very act of implying a government role was viewed as misguided and disrespectful at best, treasonous at worst. So why is Fox Nation featuring this as their top story?

U.S. Knew of Airline Plot Before Christmas

The story linked to by the Fox Nationalists doesn’t actually allege that anyone in government knew of a plot to bomb an airplane on Christmas. It merely restates what was previously disclosed in the press, and by the President, that there had been a “systemic failure” to correlate information from multiple sources that might have raised warning flags. That’s a far cry from knowing the identity of a specific Nigerian individual who had conspired with Yemeni members of Al Qaeda to blow up a plane on Christmas day.

Fox: US KnewThe glaringly misleading headline, that was also featured on Fox News and Foxnews.com, is identical in form to the Truthers’ claims regarding 9/11. So where is the outrage at this blatant promulgation of anti-American propaganda? How does Fox get away with espousing such repugnant disloyalty? Is it because the difference this time is that it is the Obama administration about which there is an insinuation of shared guilt?

New York Post: Bush KnewBefore we presume that there is a partisan nature to this story, we need to take note of another Rupert Murdoch “news” vehicle that in May of 2002 was supportive of the 9/11 Truther movement. Just eight months after the attack on the World Trade Center, the New York Post published a story that charged then-President Bush with having prior knowledge of those attacks.

So maybe it is just that Murdoch is an equal opportunity accuser of the U.S. government with complicity in terrorism. Remember, Murdoch is a native Australian who moved to the U.K. before eventually applying for U.S. citizenship so that he could take control of the Fox network. So it’s difficult to ascertain to whom he has allegiance. Strike that. It is clear that Murdoch’s allegiance is only to himself, his rightist agenda, and his bank account. Any assessment of Murdoch’s motives as they are revealed by his media enterprises must be seen in the context of his obvious disdain for the United States, its people, and their welfare.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Republicans Are To Blame For Terrorism

Posted by on December 28, 2009 at 4:44 pm. 8 Comments :

On Christmas day the passengers of a plane bound for Detroit narrowly missed a catastrophe. At this time there is still much that is unknown about the attempted act of terrorism, the culprit, or his affiliations. But one thing is clear: It is all the Republican’s fault.

Republicans Screw AmericaIs that too hyperbolic an assertion so soon after the incident occurred? Of course it is. But that hasn’t stopped Republicans from asserting that very same claim against Democrats with all seriousness. In a cynical and self-serving search for blame, it only took a few hours for Republicans to start throwing charges at President Obama.

Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) was asked Sunday if it was fair to blame Obama. Without hesitation he answered, “Yeah, I think it really is.” Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) fingered the unionization of airport security workers and the closing of Gitmo, along with the standard allusion to appeasement. And scads of right-wing bloggers piled on the Transportation Security Administration and Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano.

A closer look at the circumstances preceding the attempted attack paint an entirely different picture. For instance it is DeMint who has been personally blocking the President’s TSA chief appointment for months. House Republicans, including most of their leadership, just voted against funding for explosives detection systems and other aviation security measures. And the House recently passed a Republican-authored bill to ban the use of the full-body scanners that many are claiming could have prevented this incident.

The most damning evidence of the Republicans guilt is seen in the rhetoric they’ve employed for many months that casts Obama as weak and our nation as more vulnerable than ever. They seem to be signaling to Al Qaeda that now is the time to strike. Take note of what Dick Cheney said about this five years ago:

“Terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength; they are invited by the perception of weakness.”

And ever since Obama took office Cheney and other Republican officeholders and pundits have been striving to manufacture such a perception. Some examples:

Cheney: It is recklessness cloaked in righteousness and would make the American people less safe.

Mitt Romney: It’s the very kind of thinking that left America vulnerable to the attacks of Sept. 11th.

Joe Scarborough (MSNBC): I knew by the second day that America was less safe.

Laura Ingraham (Fox News): I think you can make a pretty compelling case that we’re less safe today.

John Boehner: I think this is a pre-9/11 mentality, and I think it’ll make our nation less safe.

Karl Rove: They’re doing the wrong thing for our country, they’re doing the wrong thing for our men and women in uniform, and they’re making us less safe.

David Gregory (Meet the Press): But do you agree with the vice president when he says that the country is less safe under President Obama?
Newt Gingrich: Absolutely.

In other words, “Come on down, Al Qaeda. The door’s wide open and we’re sitting here playing tiddlywinks.” I first asked this question last May:

“How does announcing to the terrorists that they believe our nation is becoming weaker make us safer? Do they even care? Are they just pasting a big bulls eye on America and hoping for an ‘I told you so’ moment?”

It appears from the Republican’s response to this latest incident of terrorism that my speculation was sadly on target. It appears that the only things the right are interested in are bashing Democrats, announcing alleged security flaws, and gloating when the unthinkable (almost) happens. That is not a recipe for national security. And if they don’t cut it out, they are going to regret the consequences which will be tragic and entirely their fault.


Bill O’Reilly Gets His (Pin)Head Spun By Russian TV

Posted by on December 25, 2009 at 4:26 am. 7 Comments :

In the opening of every show, Bill O’Reilly points his finger at the camera and delivers this warning to his viewers: “Caution, you are entering THE no spin zone.” While it is obvious to sentient beings that O’Reilly’s pretense of being spin-less is preposterous, we should be grateful for the disclaimer advising caution. You can’t be too careful when watching anything on Fox News, and O’Reilly is particularly hazardous.

However, he has recently outdone himself (which is saying something) with comments he made regarding an interview of Bill Ayers on RT, an English-language Russian television broadcaster. In the course of the interview, Ayers said…

“We have to get the United States to participate in the world. The idea that we have been a force for good for the last six decades is nonsense.”

That caused O’Reilly’s head to spin. He began his retort by declaring his desire to slap Ayers. To O’Reilly, if someone expresses their opinion, that is sufficient cause to assault them. Way to honor the First Amendment, Billo. Then he continues with an utterly absurd attack on RT’s reporter, Anastasia Churkina:

“You saw the Russian interviewer nodding off like this. She had no idea. She didn’t even speak English. I mean that’s what she was doing. They assigned a Russian interviewer to interview that pinhead who didn’t even speak English. Because they knew what he was saying was so stupid they didn’t want to hear it. So if you don’t speak English, you don’t know how stupid it is.”

This criticism, aside from being immature, is laughably false. Churkina conducted the entire interview in better English than O’Reilly is able to summon. What’s more, she also speaks French, Italian and Spanish, in addition to her native Russian. I wonder how many languages O’Reilly speaks. He actually asserted that Churkina couldn’t speak English twice, in case his first lie went unnoticed by his indolent audience. If O’Reilly can lie so brazenly about something that is so easily proven to be false, how can anyone take anything he says seriously? The fact that this is all there on the videotape illustrates just how ludicrous O’Reilly’s “no spin” sloganeering is. He clearly has no qualms about deliberately misinforming his viewers with fabrications disguised as commentary. It is also clear that both Ayers and Churkina offer commentary on the media that far exceeds O’Reilly’s dishonest ranting:

Ayers: I think the best place to get the news is The Daily Show, Comedy Central, The Onion. Those places, they’re trustworthy, they’re honest, they strip the mask off the hypocrisy. They do what the media is supposed to do.

Churkina: The mainstream American media: Crusaders of truth, pathological liars, or just scary clowns? […] As Americans begin to wake up to the thought that what their mainstream media says is often detached from reality, the question rises as to whether the US media’s ever-increasing attention-grabbing tactics could cause its credibility to fly out the window.

So now we’ve seen O’Reilly being exposed as less credible than the pinko Ruskies he surely despises. That’s gotta hurt. And as far as O’Reilly is concerned, closing the window now wouldn’t do much good. His credibility has long since flown away. In fact, there have been reports of a flock of credibility heading south from the windows of Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Neil Cavuto, and the rest of the bird brains at Fox. It’s a migration of immense proportions.


Sarah Palin: Pitiful, Sniveling, Coward Of The Year

Posted by on December 24, 2009 at 4:52 pm. 23 Comments :

Having already won the coveted “Lie of the Year” award from PolitiFact, it is time that we recognize Sarah Palin for the truly superlative accomplishment of her brief public tenure. It is an achievement for which she has no peer. She has masterfully positioned herself as the undisputed champion in this highly specialized calling.

Congratulations Sarah Palin, for being this year’s most “Pitiful, Sniveling, Coward.”

The path to victory for Palin was characterized by her trademarked apprehension of, and disdain for, the press. Palin’s fear of the media is an all-consuming neurosis. She has exhibited these tendencies beginning with her initial introduction to the national stage. After being tapped by John McCain as his vice-presidential running mate, Palin immediately ducked for cover.

Free Sarah PalinFrom the earliest days of the campaign, Palin sought the refuge of friendly inquisitors like Sean Hannity and Greta Van Susteren. Needless to say, Fox News had a virtually exclusive relationship with Palin. That was smart strategy on the part of Palin and her handlers with the McCain staff. On the rare occasions that she strayed from the protective cocoon of Fox she was stymied by brain twisters like “What do you read?” Nevertheless, she pretends to have an interest in being accessible. At least that’s what she told Carl Cameron of Fox News:

Palin, 10/3/08: “I look forward to speaking to the media more and more everyday and providing whatever access the media would want. My life is certainly an open book.”

For something she claims to look forward to, she sure did avoid it like the plague. Palin’s fear is palpable. She runs from the press like a Tea Bagger from a library (the Teadiots really hate that “socialist” style distribution of elitist books containing “information”). Throughout the campaign, and to this day more than a year later, Palin has declined to appear on any of the Sunday news programs. Not even Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. She has not held a single press conference. And in a fit of uncharacteristic candor, she even admitted that she resigned her governorship to avoid further press scrutiny. Quitting, of course, is just another manifestation of her renowned chicken-heartedness.

So how does a media-phobe like Palin conduct herself in a public sphere that demands access and fresh bones on which to chew? By hiding behind a curtain of social media, an online version of a one-way mirror. Palin tweets and posts updates on her Facebook account as a means to communicate with her legion of fans. The problem is that the press seems to regard this as an appropriate method of interaction and they faithfully regurgitate every keystroke as if it were newsworthy. It isn’t.

The media seems to be oblivious to the absurdity of reporting Palin’s tweets. First of all, they don’t even know if they are from Palin or her ghostwriter. Secondly, there is no opportunity to question her about her comments. These postings are nothing more (and actually something much less) than press releases. Why do newsrooms on television and in print feel the least bit obligated to pass them on? And when they do so, why don’t bother to at least fact-check them?

By cowering behind an Internet firewall, Palin can shoot spitballs at the press and quickly duck back into her shelter. For that she deserves to be the Pitiful, Sniveling, Coward Of The Year. But what award do we give the news media? They present an even bigger problem by letting Palin get away with her cheap shots and cheesy antics. In some respects you can hardly blame Palin. She must know deep down that she’s a woefully unprepared dimwit who was elevated to national prominence by a fluke of political desperation. She has to behave this way now or risk further embarrassment. But the press has no such excuse.

So far this month, Palin has criticized Nancy Pelosi, Eugene Robinson, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Al Gore, and of course, President Obama, from the safety of her Facebook page. This sort of attack plan assures that she is shielded from return fire. It is a sterile battlefield that she controls and from which she need not worry about pesky rebuttals or corrections. She also took a couple of swipes at the press who still, for some reason, obediently yield to her siren’s call.

If the media is to preserve whatever crumbs of credibility they are clinging to, they need to start exhibiting signs of life. They need to start acting like professionals. And that means that they need to ignore Sarah Palin. If Palin will not stand before them and engage in a substantive dialogue, then let her tweet to her followers and enjoy her fame the same way other celebrities like Ashton Kutcher and Lindsay Lohan do. Let her sign books at church picnics. Let her go on Dancing with the Stars. But don’t under any circumstances patronize her contempt for the practice of journalism. Don’t be played for suckers. Don’t be seduced by the short-term attention rush you get from recounting Sarah’s latest online insipidness. That’s not reporting. That’s just repeating. And the public deserves more than that from the press.

Palin’s tweets, books and fluff pieces on Fox do nothing to contribute to the public’s understanding of her or her positions. If she persists in ignoring the media, then the media must ignore her back. When she wants to behave like an adult public figure and political leader who will address the issues of the day, then the press can pay her some attention. Until then, who cares? Twitter is not proxy for honest, informative discourse. Facebook doesn’t replace old fashioned newsgathering. If Palin won’t or can’t interact with news people, then she isn’t news. Walk away. Don’t look back. You’re not missing anything.


First Do No Harm: Jane Hamsher On Fox And Friends

Posted by on December 22, 2009 at 12:07 pm. 26 Comments :

Color me disappointed. Jane Hamsher is a first-rate blogger/analyst and an admirable advocate for progressive causes. Her web site, FireDogLake, is a must read. That is why what took place this morning on Fox News is all the more disturbing.

Steve DoocyIn a segment titled “First Do No Harm,” Jane engaged in an interview on her opposition to the Senate health care bill. It’s bad enough that Jane would appear on any program on Fox, but her decision to submit herself to Steve Doocy on Fox & Friends is just baffling. Doocy is the poster child for ignorant disinformers of the world. He makes Sean Hannity look like a Rhodes Scholar. For Jane to be subject to an interview by this evolutionary throwback to cave-dwellers is unconscionable.

For the record, I happen to think this bill should pass. Mainly because I am pessimistic that we can get anything better on this go-round. I think there are too many people in Congress who are compromised by their association with Big Pharma and that the process is dreadfully dysfunctional. The best political approach appears to me to be an incremental one. That said, I completely agree with Jane’s criticisms of the bill, and I respect her opinion.

Hamsher: People on the right, people on the left are looking at the Senate and they’re saying, “Nobody’s there representing us.” Nobody’s representing the people. It’s just a matter of who’s in power and who’s taking Pharma’s money.

Exactly. Jane and I have the same goals for health care reform. We just differ on whether to scrap this bill and start over, or pass it and push for more later. But she ought not to have sunk this low. Is she really this desperate for a platform? It doesn’t help her cause in the least to fraternize with the goons at Fox. They have just one agenda: Destroy Democrats and progressive reform. And there was a time when Jane recognized that (h/t pontificator):

Hamsher: Fox is not a news outlet, it’s an openly partisan opinion factory and the Democrats should not be legitimizing them (and allowing them to recruit Democratic viewers to propagandize to) by doing this.

Exactly. What happened Jane? The only purpose served by appearing on Fox is to validate them as a legitimate news enterprise. It permits them to persist in their dishonest claim to being “fair and balanced.” It lends credibility to a network that has not earned any on its own. And there is no benefit to promoting a progressive point of view on Fox, even if well stated, because their audience is not just unreceptive to it, they are overtly hostile.

What’s more, Fox will aggressively exploit your appearance to their advantage. They will either make you look stupid or portray you as supporting their agenda. In this case, Fox is using Jane to bash the health care bill. They are positioning her as another reason to defeat the evil, socialist Democrats in Congress. Fox looks upon this as, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Fox is opposed to the health care bill. Since Jane is also opposed to the bill, in its current form, let’s have her on to beat up the people on her own side. It’s a win/win for Fox. Bash the bill and Democrats in general too. And Fox will replay slanted excerpts of this interview over and over for the rest of the week. Jane ought not to empower that sort of cynical exploitation.

Doocy began the segment by shamelessly exploiting Jane’s past experience as a breast cancer survivor. This is a typical ploy by Fox to tug at heart strings and to imply that this gives her opinion more weight. Jane’s contribution to the debate lies in her analytical ability and insight, not her medical history. But Fox doesn’t care about Jane, her health, or her position of the issues. They only care about disparaging their perceived enemies. At the close of the segment Doocy announced that…

Doocy: If you would like to sign her petition to try to kill the Senate bill, go to our web site at FoxandFriends.com

So Jane didn’t even get the benefit of a plug for her site (although it did appear on screen). Fox used the whole piece to promote themselves and drive traffic to their own site. Any Fox viewer who happens to click through to Jane’s petition will see a list of reasons to oppose the bill with which Fox viewers will fiercely disagree.
Starve the BeastFox conservatives oppose the bill for completely different reasons than Jane and other progressives do. Consequently, they would never sign her petition. Once again, Jane has achieved nothing of benefit by appearing on Fox.

There is some irony in the title of Jane’s segment on Fox: First Do No Harm. She should take that advice and stay the HELL off of Fox News! Such appearances only do harm to Democrats and progressive reform.

For a complete analysis of why it is pointless, and even harmful, to appear on Fox News, see my Starve The Beast series.

Update: Jane responded to criticism of her Fox gig on her own web site addressing the content of her remarks, saying…

“I stand by that message, and I think it’s important for both people on the left and people on the right to hear.”

The thing is, I have no problem with her message. My problem is with the platform she chose to dispense it. I still admire Jane and her commitment to changing this country for the better, but appearing on Fox does not serve that end. And for the record, I have also criticized others who appeared on Fox, including Obama:

Obama Capitulates To Fox News Barack Obama Falls Into Fox News Sunday Trap