Joe The Plumber – Now A Crack Reporter

Joe the Plumber ReportingAmerica’s own Renaissance Man, Samuel “Joe the Plumber” Wurzelbacher, has tackled many tasks. He has been an author, a country singer, a digital TV promoter, a tax advisor, a pundit, and a campaign mascot. One of the few things he has not been is a plumber.

Now Joe has found a new peak to scale. He is being sent to Israel as a war correspondent for Pajamas Media (that’s right, Pajamas). We at News Corpse have great confidence that he will be a crack reporter who will wrench the truth from his subjects. Israeli and Hamas officials will be comfortable disclosing sensitive data because – think about it – who knows more about leaks?

It will be a draining assignment, but Joe is surely up to it. After all, he has such a wealth of experience at his disposal to help him flush out any story.

Plumber Joe says that he wants to report from the perspective of the “Average Joe.” And who better to tell that story than a lying tax evader who pals around with failed presidential candidates? Never mind that he knows nothing about the region, or the people, or the conflict in which they are embroiled. He believes that God will protect him in this dangerous mission (except from mortars, so it must be one of those discount Gods), and that it’s a chance to do some good. But he had better do it quickly because he is scheduled to speak at the Pajamas Media Conservative 2.0 Conference at the end of February back in Washington, D.C.

There is little chance that Joe can dredge up anything but embarrassment from this. And while the Pajamas crew was never known for their professionalism or integrity, it’s still a little surprising that they would sink this low. Joe has demonstrated in his previous television appearances that he is no Christiane Amanpour. She would probably laugh in his face and call him a pathetic hack. And what could he do? I guess he could tell her to pipe down, and if that didn’t work he could sewer.

Update: Fox News hosted Mr. Wurzelbacher this morning and extracted the news-making exclusive that Joey the P has quit the plumbing business for good. What will we call him now?

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Bret Baier: The Same Old Fox News Nonsense

The Washington Managing Editor for Fox News, and anchor of Special Report, Brit Hume, has now officially moved from the anchor chair to the rocking chair. In his place is Bret Baier, who was interviewed today by Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post.

Baier considers himself an independent (so does Bill O’Reilly), but his remarks in this interview reveal a somewhat more partisan stance. For instance, he commented on the presidential campaing saying…

“…this campaign has at times been an easy ride for the Obama team. If that were to continue, people would be disappointed.

That would be true if what he means by an “easy time” is having the press continually harangue the candidate as a radical, Socialist, Muslim-raised, inexperienced, unpatriotic, elitist, who palled around with terrorists. Sure, it was a breeze. And I think that the people Baier asserts would be disappointed are Republicans and Fox viewers. But the next comment by Baier may well disappoint those viewers:

“Fox doesn’t have to be in a mode of attack…”

No, it doesn’t “have to be.” That’s just the way they like it. But the newsmaking moment of the interview came when Baier said:

“I hope the media will cover the Obama administration with as much aggressiveness as they covered the Bush administration.”

Really? So Baier wants the media to sit back and let Obama get away with things like lying to initiate an illegal war; with usurping power by presidential fiat; with rolling back Constitutional rights; with demonstrating ignorance and arrogance as he drives the nation into a death spiral? Does Baier want the press to attend parties with Obama and dispatch lobbyists seeking favor for their corporate enterprises? All of that would have to happen for the media to cover Obama as they did Bush.

In this era of change, the only thing changing at Fox News is the scowling old visage of Brit Hume for a younger, smiling version of the same thing.


Bill O’Reilly Congratulates Senator Al Franken

After a meticulous and prolonged recount, Al Franken has prevailed and will be Minnesota’s new senator. Although the defeated incumbent, Norm Coleman, is still threatening legal action to retain his seat, most observers give him little chance of succeeding. His legal arguments wouldn’t even produce enough votes to alter the outcome if he prevailed on every one.

There are, however, some determined holdouts, including the editorial page of Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal. The Journal itemized what it considers to be grievous errors on the part of the state Canvassing Board. But, while most of their complaints were unfounded, misconstrued, or outright false, it was spread throughout the rightist press by folks like Rush Limbaugh and Joe Scarborough, who characterized it as a news report rather than the opinion piece that it was.

Another Journal disciple is Fox News kingpin, Bill O’Reilly. O’Reilly referenced the Journal’s story in his talking points memo and concluded that…

“Evidence shows that MN Secretary of State Mark Ritchie is not honest enough to run a clean election.”

Of course there was no such evidence in the Journal piece or elsewhere. The attack on Ritchie’s honesty was O’Reilly’s own invention and a trademark of his brand of personal assault commentary. But, as usual, he saved his finest vitriol for Franken himself. It’s classic O’Reilly:

  • “You don’t get any lower than that man, Franken.”
    – So, Charles Manson would be a step up?
  • “That’s the worst thing I’ve ever seen in American politics – is this man maybe becoming a senator.”
    – Really? Worse than Joe McCarthy? Or Watergate? Or Monica Lewinski?
  • “It’s personal with me. He’s lied about me. He’s slandered me.”
    – Ah…Now we’re getting to the heart of the matter. He’s told the truth about you.
  • “The fact that he was even competitive […] depresses me about America.”
    – So it’s America’s fault?

O’Reilly is fond of hyperbole, so it isn’t surprising that he would blast Franken as the lowest and the worst of whatever delusion in which he is presently immersed. However, he is also fond of bashing what he’d call the “blame America first crowd,” so it is a little surprising to see him throw that sucker punch at America – but only a little. It is very much like O’Reilly to be a major league hypocrite. And it is similarly like him to turn against anyone he perceives as opposing his dementia.

O’Reilly has given up on America. They opposed the war in Iraq. They favor universal healthcare. They elected Barack Obama president. And now they have put his nemesis in the United States Senate. So O’Reilly’s message to the nation as Al Franken prepares to take his seat is, “Screw you, America. You make me sad.”


Ann Coulter Found Guilty Of Serial Lying

The arch-right-wing provocateur, Ann Coulter, has another book of disinformation and smears coming out tomorrow. This one is called “Guilty,” continuing her custom of disparaging one-word titles (i.e. Slander, Treason, Godless). And in another custom in which she engages, the book release has become embroiled in controversy. Sure, it’s a made-up controversy, but they all are with her.

In this case, Coulter was scheduled to appear tomorrow on NBC’s Today Show to pitch the book. That appearance was canceled this morning. Shortly after that news, Coulter placed a notice of the cancellation on her website with the commentary:

“I guess this ends the ‘they just want to get ratings’ argument about liberal media bias.”

She didn’t bother to give any reason for the cancellation, just that snarky remark alleging bias on the part of NBC.

But that’s not all. The cancellation was also reported on the Drudge Report, but Drudge went further to allege that Coulter had been “banned for life” from the peacock network. Drudge cited the usual anonymous top network insiders who said:

“We are just not going to have her on any more, it’s over.” [and] “We are just not interested in anyone so highly critical of President-elect Obama, right now. It’s such a downer. It’s just not the time, and it’s not what our audience wants, either.”

This is such a phony quote it barely deserves mention. No “top network source” would ever make that sort of comment to a legitimate reporter, much less to a hack like Drudge. What’s more, it flies in the face of NBC’s relationship with Coulter, which has always been welcoming. Whenever she desired a platform for her views or to sell something, NBC was cooperative. They have always been aware of her opinions and her scorched earth attitude, and they still provided air time for her. Nothing has changed in that regard. Clearly this is another of her attempts to manufacture controversy in order to boost her exposure and book sales.

For the record, NBC released a statement saying that:

“We’ve had Ann Coulter on ‘Today’ many times, but because of the news in Washington and the Middle East, we decided to cancel her appearance tomorrow. Understanding the media as well as she does, we are sure she knows this happens from time to time. We look forward to welcoming her back in the future.”

So much for having been banned for life. However, the fact that it did not happen has not prevented the rightist media machine from disseminating this fiction, which is presently spreading across the web. Not that she wouldn’t deserve it. One look at the analysis by MediaMatters demonstrates that her writing is intentionally inflammatory and filled with errors/lies. Nonetheless, in an article on her web site this morning Coulter hilariously asserts that she is “usually stunningly error-free,” then proceeds to describe what she calls an editing mistake:

“On Page 89 of my new book, Frank Rich is quoted as referring to a ‘barrage of McCarthyesque guilt-by-association charges against [the media’s] candidate, portraying him as a fellow traveler of bomb-throwing, America-hating, flag-denigrating terrorists.'”

Coulter says that the brackets around the words [the media’s] were inadvertently left off. Unfortunately, even with the brackets on Coulter has mischaracterized Rich, who actually said this:

“Obama fans were angry because of the barrage of McCarthyesque guilt-by-association charges against their candidate…”

It is the word “their” that Coulter replaced with her brackets and the words “the media’s.” Obviously Rich was referring to Obama supporters and not to the media. That has quite a different meaning. Coulter just wanted to take a gratuitous slap at the media without regard for accuracy.

This is Coulter’s idea of a correction. But it is everyone else’s idea of lying.

Update: After having been “banned for life” from NBC, Ann Coulter has now announced that she will appear on NBC tomorrow. That was a short life. She gives the credit to her accomplice in publicity whoring, Matt Drudge, saying that “DRUDGE GETS RESULTS.” Of course since they made up the whole banning business, it’s easy to claim victory when the imaginary ban is lifted.

Update: In her appearance on NBC, Coulter was her usual bombastic, dishonest and delusional self. But the funniest moment was when she said that “The Drudge Report has never had to retract a report.” Is she on drugs? Because, if not, perhaps she should be.


Media Bias According to Fox News

On the New Year’s Eve edition of Special Report on Fox News, the matter of media bias was raised by anchor Jim Angle, sitting in for the retiring Brit Hume. It was a simple question, really. He merely remarked that it was “a big year for the media” and tossed it to panel member Bill Sammon, Deputy Managing Editor of Fox News. Sammon replied

“The year that journalism died, to borrow a phrase I first heard from Roger Ailes. I never thought the press could become more biased until I saw what happened during the coverage of the Obama campaign.”

“Unbelievable that The Washington Post ombudsman admitted afterwards that they were basically in the tank for him. We had people talking about thrill up my leg when they heard Obama’s speech.”

What’s unbelievable is listening to a senior Fox News reporter quoting Roger Ailes, the most partisan news executive in history, and complaining about the existence of bias in the news. As his example of bias, Sammon cites the allegedly favorable press treatment of Barack Obama, whom Fox and other news organizations relentlessly smeared as a radical, Socialist, Muslim-raised, inexperienced, unpatriotic, elitist, who palled around with terrorists. Just because Sammon could recall a notably stupid comment about Chris Matthews’ leg, doesn’t undo all the vile character assassination directed at Obama for months.

What’s more, Sammon’s commitment to objectivity was somewhat diminished by his company. He was sitting on a panel that displayed a diversity of political views that spanned from Jeff Birnbaum of the Moonie-Con Washington Times to conservative icon Charles Krauthammer. Sammon specifically singled out the Washington Post for criticism as biased, which is interesting because that’s the deplorable liberal rag that employs and syndicates his panel pal Krauthammer.

Sammon’s obtuse obliviousness is a rather typical Fox characteristic. They assert press bias without even a hint of ironic recognition that they are a prominent part of the mainstream media. All that matters is that they cast aspersions on anyone who is not them. Yet by the end of the program, Sammon said something that was impossible to deny:

The media really had a bad year in 2008. It will take a long time to recover.

I couldn’t agree more. And it was mostly due to the sort of dishonesty and disinformation propagated by people like Sammon and Fox News.


MSNBC Celebrates Strongest 2008 Growth

Once again, MSNBC has demonstrated its dominance over the stodgy CNN and the rightist snake oil of Fox News. MSNBC’s programming grew more than twice as much as Fox during 2008:

The fact that this was an election year raised the numbers of all of the players, but in the end Fox took its usual place at the bottom of the scale of growth. On the other hand, MSNBC was the only network to finish the year with more viewers post-election than their average for the year. That’s because their rate of increase far exceeded what was given back after November 4, when audiences predictably declined.

As the new year kicks off, the battle for cable news supremacy will only heat up. MSNBC will continue to rely on of its powerhouse one-two punch of Keith Olbermann’s Countdown and the Rachel Maddow Show. Both programs continue to drive the network’s growth. CNN is sticking with the status quo. Their schedule is little changed for the year, with the exception of adding Campbell Brown, who hasn’t really made her presence known.

Fox News, however, is making several changes that seem to be geared to digging an even deeper conservative hole. This year saw the hiring of right-wing stalwarts like Karl Rove, Judith Miller, and Mike Huckabee, as well as Foxocrats and Obama opponents Lanny Davis and Howard Wolfson. In addition to that, they are losing Alan Colmes and debuting what they call a new “pure” Sean Hannity solo show. I’m sure they are happy to have filtered out the contaminants. Hannity also signed a multimillion dollar contract renewal, as did Bill O’Reilly. Brett Baier, a reliable Fox ideologue, is succeeding Brit Hume as anchor of their signature news program, Special Report. And later this month will see the premiere of Glenn Beck’s new program on the network for which he was born to work. His obnoxious, immature, fact-free squealing will fit right in on Fox.

These uber-conservative reinforcements called in by Fox News suggest that they are preparing for a new offensive directed at the incoming administration of Barack Obama. It’s hard to see any other justification for such a hardening of their right flank when political winds are shifting in a more centrist, post-partisan direction. Consequently, in the new year, Democrats and progressives had better be vigilant and prepare for an onslaught of contemptuous attacks from the Murdochian Empire. Their troops are amassed on the border and the rising sun is illuminating a determined and disturbing red dawn.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

The Forgotten War In Iraq

Brian Stelter of the New York Times has noticed a disturbing trend in news reporting from Iraq:

Quietly, as the United States presidential election and its aftermath have dominated the news, America’s three broadcast network news divisions have stopped sending full-time correspondents to Iraq.

The story documents the shift in priorities from Iraq to Afghanistan, as well as a general sense of fatigue amongst the national news networks. Reporters quoted in the article cite the disinclination by the networks to cover a war that they believe the audience has lost patience with:

Jane Arraf (CNN): The war has gone on longer than a lot of news organizations’ ability or appetite to cover it.

Mike Boettcher (NBC): Americans like their wars movie length and with a happy ending.

Those characterizations display an arrogant disrespect for the American people and for their tolerance of bad news, even as it impacts their own friends and families. But even if it were true, it is not the job of journalists to report the news that is most popular. Journalists have an obligation to make editorial decisions as to the relevance and significance of current events. They certainly should not be permitted to decide that the audience doesn’t care about war or home foreclosures or natural disasters, and instead reassign their staff to celebrity drunk drivers.

If news organizations ever hope to restore their lost credibility, they might start by showing their customers more respect and by delivering a product that serves their needs.


Dan Rather’s Suit Against CBS Will Be Fun

Dan Rather is suing CBS for breach of contract related to his firing in 2004. The suit revolves around the reporting of George Bush’s evasion of service in the Texas Air National Guard. As the case gets closer to a trial date, new stirrings are emerging from Rather’s camp that offer a tantalizing preview of what may be revealed in court. The Guardian reports that Rather contends that his reporting was true and that…

“…CBS succumbed to political pressure from conservatives to get the report discredited and to have him fired. He also claims that a panel set up by CBS to investigate the story was packed with conservatives in an effort to placate the White House.

The claim as to the panel was in fact documented and showed that CBS actually considered the likes of Robert Novak, Tucker Carlson, Pat Buchanan, Matt Drudge, William Kristol, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, to sit in judgment of Rather. Talk about a hangin’ jury…..

Rather goes on to be fairly specific about CBS’ motivations and he asserts that they were attempting to mollify the Bush administration in order to get more favorable regulatory treatment. In addition to his claims about Bush’s military non-service, Rather reveals that CBS also tried to bury a story on the human rights abuses at Abu Ghraib. He contends that the network refused permission to air the story for weeks and, when it did air, they crippled it by denying it any promotion and took other measures to suppress viewership. This was also at the request of government overseers.

Rather is a little late to this party. Many industry observers have known for years that the big media conglomerates were shaping their reporting in order to please their benefactors in government agencies as well as in Congress. But it’s still better to have Rather arrive late than not at all. When this case makes its way to court there may be even more revelations. I can’t wait. It’s just too bad that it took a lawsuit by an embittered former anchor for these allegations to surface. You have to wonder how many similar acts of journalistic malpractice and government collusion with media have occurred but remain the secrets of people who are still protecting their jobs and their associates in Washington.


Media Milestones And Millstones For 2008

At the conclusion of a year that few people will miss, it is time once again to indulge in the hackneyed cliche of annual list-making. While some events are already etched into our collective memories (i.e. the election of our nation’s incoming, first-ever, African-American president; the shoe attack on our nation’s out-going, worst-ever, remedial president), other events may be more subject to fading recollection as a new year of stimuli compete for a place in America’s short attention span.

It is in this spirit that I submit the following collection of awards in the hopes of preserving these moments for history, if not for comedy.

Starting with the history-making presidential election, Barack Obama wins the Somebody Had To Say It Award for this:

Obama: “I am convinced that if there were no Fox News, I might be two or three points higher in the polls. If I were watching Fox News, I wouldn’t vote for me, right?”

Sticking with the campaign theme, Sarah Palin has repeatedly demonstrated her ignorance of the media’s role in public life. She believes that it is unconstitutional to criticize her, and that she is the one to restore the media’s credibility. That alone would be enough to merit an award, but Palin wins the What Constitution? Award by showing Carl Cameron of Fox News that she has no comprehension of the Constitutional role of the office she sought:

Palin: “The vice president, of course, is not a member – or a part of the legislative branch, except to oversee the Senate. That alone provides a tremendous amount of flexibility and authority if that vice president so chose to use it.”

Of Course, Palin has her fans – like Ann Coulter who along with Human Events Magazine named Palin Conservative of the Year. But that was not enough to pry away the Fatuous Infatuation Award from Rich Lowry of the National Review:

Lowry: “I’m sure I’m not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, ‘Hey, I think she just winked at me.’ And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America.”

On the plus side, CNN’s Jack Cafferty played a stream of gibberish from Palin’s interview with Katie Couric. After which he said that if you aren’t afraid that she is a 72 year old heartbeat from the presidency, you should be. Then Wolf Blitzer tried to cover for Palin by saying that she was just trying to squeeze a lot into her answer. Cafferty’s reply earns him the Anchor Smackdown Award:

Cafferty: “Don’t make excuses for her. That was pathetic.”

I suppose I should give an award to Palin’s running mate…what was his name? Oh yeah…John McCain certainly deserves a mention for his aggressive attacks on the media. But that’s all he gets. While it takes real guts for a former press darling who hosts barbecues for his reporter pals to turn on them when the next object of media affection pops up, the act for which I will remember McCain is his promotion and exploitation of Samuel Wurlzebacher – aka Joe the Plumber – whose name is not Joe and who is not a plumber. Despite his obvious deficiencies, Plumber Joe became a staple of Fox News, particularly business chief Neil Cavuto. On one notable occasion, Cavuto queried Joe on the subject of Barack Obama’s patriotism. And for his response Joe gets the McCarthyism Reprise Award:

Wurzelbacher: “Oh you know, [Obama’s] ideology is something that is completely different than what democracy stands for, so I had some question there. In my opinion.”

However, Joe will have to be satisfied sharing this award with News Corp Chairman, Rupert Murdoch, who also earned this honor in an interview with Cavuto:

Murdoch: “[Obama’s] policy is really very, very naive, old fashioned, 1960’s socialist.”

Old Rupert was destined to have an over-representation on this awards program. That’s partly because of the expansive nature of his media empire, but mostly because that empire is a repulsive purveyor of smears and propaganda. There is so much of it that I could devote an entire set of awards to News Corp alone. Consequently, I’ll focus here on the more peculiar instances of journalistic abuse. Starting with Amy Chozick of the Wall Street Journal who wins the Biggest Loser award for an article titled, “Too Fit to Be President?” which asks:

Chozick: “…in a nation in which 66% of the voting-age population is overweight and 32% is obese, could Sen. Obama’s skinniness be a liability?”

Then there is Fox News’ own Liz Trotta, winner of the Death To America Award for her public call for assassinating Obama:

Trotta: “…and now we have what some are reading as a suggestion that somebody knock off Osama …uh… Obama … well, both if we could.”

And don’t think I’ve left out the Grand Wizard of Fox News, Bill O’Reilly. Oh…where to begin? I’m going to skip over O’Reilly’s generous offer not to lynch Michelle Obama, and his assertion that 200,000 documented homeless veterans don’t exist, and even his delicious submersion into lunacy as demonstrated in any of the “Don’t Block the Shot / Dodge Us at Your Peril / We’ll Do It Live” rants. For some reason I get a kick out his delusional conspiracy theory that the TV ratings are fixed and that Nielsen is intent on destroying him. Never mind the fact that he is number one in those ratings and he frequently cites them as evidence of his ego-starved greatness. So for inventing enemies around every corner, O’Reilly gets the Paranoia Strikes Deep Award:

O’Reilly: “The bottom line on this is there may be some big-time cheating going on in the ratings system, and we hope the feds will investigate. Any fraud in the television rating system affects all Americans.”

When O’Reilly isn’t threatening “the folks,” his colleagues in conservative crime are doing it. Rush Limbaugh is this year’s recipient of the Domestic Terrorist Award for exhorting his listeners to attend the Democratic Convention and to “Screw the World! Riot in Denver!”:

Limbaugh: “[T]he dream end of this is that this keeps up to the convention and that we have a replay of Chicago 1968, with burning cars, protests, fires, literal riots, and all of that. That’s the objective here.”

Glenn Beck, not to be outdone, issued his own threats. But in an attempt to boost the degree of difficulty, Beck went off the scale. In November he told a story of how we had been accosted in a diner by a hostile trucker who threatened to run him down. He summarized the experience by saying that, no matter how much he disagreed with someone, he would never say such horrible things – not even to Michael Moore. However, just a few months prior, Beck said this about Moore and, thus, earned his Serial Hypocrite Award:

Beck: “Hang on, let me just tell you what I’m thinking. I’m thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I’m wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out – is this wrong?”

The Grand Prize for a year of countless media atrocities is reserved for a despicable act of greed and betrayal. Actually, it is a pattern of acts that has persisted for many years, but came to a head during the Bush administration and was courageously uncovered by the New York Times. It has been called the Pentagon Pundits scandal, though I call it SPINCOM. It centers around an initiative to stack the press with analysts who were willing to lie to support an illegal war and to fatten their own wallets. The Times gets the Milestone of the Year Award for revealing the rancid corruption of the media, the military, and the Bush warmongers:

NY Times: “Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance.”

“The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.”

Sadly, the heroic work of the Times was largely ignored by the rest of the press, particularly television. Of course, the TV news networks were the most aggressively abusive employers of the tainted pundits. It would have taken a powerful dose of integrity to criticize behavior that they were in the thick of engaging in. The failure to cover such a controversial issue that impacts so directly on themselves is further evidence of a media community that is untrustworthy and uninterested in serving the public. However, the story in the Times has resulted in an investigation at the FCC and another proposed in the next Congress. So, hopefully, some accountability will be brought to bear.

The fight for honest and independent journalism will continue into the new year. While there are some promising signs accompanying the incoming Obama administration, there will undoubtedly be much work to do. So in the spirit of optimism and renewal, and hopes for better future, I wish everyone a…

HAPPY NEW YEAR!


How Green? Is Fox News?

The folks at Fox News have published a new environmentally focused web site called “How Green?” The site appears to be in the early stages of development with just a few articles posted, mostly re-posts from Associated Press.

Once again, Fox News is demonstrating a measure of hypocrisy that flies off the scale. The right-wing network still regularly hosts Global Warming deniers, and its top anchors scoff at what many of them call environmental “hysteria.” For example…

Sean Hannity: One of the reasons we’re so energy dependent is because of the global warming hysteria and extremism.

In an article on Foxnews.com, James O’Brien, a professor from Florida State University, continued the hysteria theme saying…

“Global climate change is occurring in many places in the world,” O’Brien said. “But everything that’s attributed to global warming, almost none of it is global warming” […] He called sea level changes a “major scare tactic used by the global warming people.”

And Jennifer Lawinski of Fox News wrote this bit of nonsense: Children’s Books Use Christmas to Push Global Warming Agenda. These dangerous tomes include one wherein Santa is so moved by a young boy’s efforts to save his adopted polar bear, that he decides to re-use last year’s wrapping paper, recycle toys and start using wind to generate power for his toy shop. OH NOOO!

In an effort to support her premise, Lawinski quoted a critic of the book “Santa Goes Green”:

“The global climate change alarmists are now trying brainwash our kids by infusing their unproven and baseless climate change rhetoric into Santa books,”

Was this critic a scientist? A climate expert? An authority on literature? Nope. It was a review written by a visitor to Amazon.com. In fact, it was the whole review. And to be clear, Amazon permits anyone to post comments on their products regardless of their credibility, or lack thereof. In all likelihood, this reviewer didn’t even read the book. This is the authority that Lawinski cited to buttress her reporting. And it’s typical of Fox News who often imbue partisan propagandists and ignorant nobodies with qualifications they haven’t earned and don’t deserve. (see Joe the Plumber).

But what’s occurring here is more than hypocrisy – it’s schizophrenia. News Corp Chairman, Rupert Murdoch has become an outspoken advocate of reducing greenhouse gasses. He accepts that Global Warming is a real concern and that human behavior has an impact on climate. He pledged the corporation to reduce its carbon footprint 10 percent by 2012 via energy reduction initiatives, and to become carbon-neutral by 2010, by buying carbon offsets.

Despite that commitment, Murdoch’s minions still vigorously oppose any suggestion that there is a climate crisis that demands our attention. Everyone from Hannity, to Brit Hume, to Neil Cavuto, to Steve Doocy, routinely dismiss the subject as Junk Science. And to top it off, a poll on the How Green? website that asks “Is Global Warming Real?” presently has a 63% majority answering “No.”

That makes it pretty difficult to square Fox’s eco-activity with the views of its staff and audience. Their overt hostility toward the environmental agenda makes their token gestures seem all the more cynical and exploitative. Most likely, these fleeting eruptions of green are just an attempt to curry favor with millions of concerned conservationists. Fox thinks this will give them cover so that they can claim to be responsible citizens. And if it weren’t for the fact that they contradict themselves at every turn, it just might have worked.