Trouble In Paradise – The Malkin/Rivera Affair

Posted by on October 15, 2007 at 8:22 pm. NO Comments :

Get out your handkerchiefs. Michelle Malkin and Bill O’Reilly are officially separated. Malkin has notified the Fester that she will no longer appear on his program because she believes that her honor was besmirched by Geraldo Rivera. Then, when Rivera starred in an obviously staged apologia on Bill-O’s program, Malkin declared that it wasn’t sufficiently sincere and busted out this email:

“I made the decision to quit appearing on the O’Reilly show in response to the poor handling of the Geraldo Rivera matter (the staged “apology” on The Factor was a complete farce). I won’t go into details, but please know that your support means a lot to me. You can catch me on other Fox News shows and read my daily blog posts and weekly columns at MichelleMalkin.com.”

Malkin’s position on immigration reads like the KKK’s position on integration, and she is also the author of a book that defends the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. So Rivera is justifiably upset by her overtly racist rantings. But Malkin has a point as well. Here’s what Rivera said about her to the Boston Globe:

“Michelle Malkin is the most vile, hateful commentator I’ve ever met in my life,” he says. “She actually believes that neighbors should start snitching out neighbors, and we should be deporting people.

“It’s good she’s in D.C. and I’m in New York,” Rivera sneers. “I’d spit on her if I saw her.”

In the televised apology, all Rivera apologized for was the threat to spit on her. He said nothing retracting the “most vile, hateful commentator” sweet talk. Still, it’s funny that Malkin finds this affront so intolerable that she would quit the show. There must be ten thousand good reasons to avoid O’Reilly’s Circus of Stupidity. But it took being insulted by Geraldo to push her over the edge. How sad.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

The Fox Frame: Propaganda Is Job One

Posted by on October 14, 2007 at 2:21 am. 4 Comments :

Readers of News Corpse know that I work tirelessly to persuade Democrats and progressives to decline to appear on Fox News. See Starve The Beast for a detailed analysis of why such appearances are not only pointless, but are in fact detrimental. See below for what you can expect if you do appear.

Former Democratic representative Harold Ford is now a Fox News Contributor. This allows Fox to have a face on screen with a “D” after his name and a derogatory swipe at a leading Democratic presidential candidate in the text below him. “Burgler” is Fox’s pet name for Sandy Berger, Bill Clinton’s National Security Advisor.
Ford also has the privilege of gracing the screen on the day Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize. Fox takes this opportunity to slam Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth” with a headline about a British court ruling that the documentary contains some inaccuracies. That ruling, by the way, was widely misinterpreted and does nothing to discredit the film’s overall conclusions.

I wonder if Ford knows how Fox decorated the screen during his broadcast. These examples vividly illustrate why Fox News should be shunned by serious people who don’t want to be taken advantage of by this disreputable purveyor of disinformation. This particular tactic reeks of recess in elementary school when a goofy friend stands behind you making faces. Ford should be ashamed for allowing himself to be used in this manner.


Rush Limbaugh To Challenge Gore Peace Prize Win?

Posted by on October 12, 2007 at 1:25 pm. 9 Comments :

This morning the Nobel Committee awarded its Peace Prize to Al Gore and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The announcement stirred predictable speculation as to whether this honor would spur Gore to enter the Democratic primary for president. The announcement also stirred predictable gnashing of teeth and flapping of jaws as anti-planet rightists search for footing from which to bash the honorees. I’m certain that prescriptions are being furiously written for many pundits and politicos whose blood pressure is now rising faster than the global climate.

At the head of the line is Rush Limbaugh whose drug-addled delusions have him fancying himself as a Nobel nominee:

“As you know, I’m an accredited nominee this year for the Nobel Peace Prize.”

He is, of course, no such thing. His lawyers, who are not valid nominators, submitted his name to the Committee, but that doesn’t constitute accreditation. It’s surprising that Limbaugh would even bother to offer up such a lie when he has previously denounced the award:

“The Nobel Peace Prize has nothing to do with peace. I should be the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. I’ve done more for liberty, individual freedom, and the promotion of that, which is what leads to peace, than anybody in this year’s roster of candidates. I should be the recipient. I’m not campaigning for it. I say this only to illustrate how it’s just been devalued, this whole Nobel Peace Prize has.”

That display of unchecked narcissism is typical for Rush. But even while he disparages the award, he must secretly be stewing. Earlier this this year he went so far as to propose a challenge to Gore’s Nobel candidacy:

“My lawyers at the Landmark Legal Foundation are looking into the possibility of filing an objection with the Nobel committee over the unethical tampering for this award that Al Gore is engaging in.”

By the way, those are the same lawyers that “nominated” Limbaugh. I think my second favorite thing about Gore’s winning will be watching as the light cast by this award sends roaches like Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Beck, etc., scurrying for the darkness they crave. But, like those other creepy crawlers, they won’t stay hidden for long. These are the same sleazeballs that recently attacked a 12 year-old auto accident victim because he had the temerity to speak out for health care for children. These are the same scumbags that call veterans who oppose Bush’s quagmire in Iraq “phony soldiers.” These are the same slime-miesters that are shocked to find that African-Americans eat with utensils and can run restaurants.

While we celebrate this honor for Al Gore and the victory for this little planet we call home, we might want to keep our peripheral vision attuned to the inevitable assaults from the Rapture Lobby who are all to eager to see life on this Earth come to a glorious, searing, apocalyptic end.


Tucker Carlson Is Afraid Of Young People Voting

Posted by on October 12, 2007 at 3:26 am. 5 Comments :

One of the most persistent shortcomings of modern electoral endeavors is the meager participation of young people. There are a multitude of programs run by political parties, schools, and private advocacy groups to educate America’s youth about the importance of voting and to motivate them to get involved in the democratic process.

Sadly, Tucker Carlson thinks that the whole idea of young people being engaged in politics is “creepy as hell.” And that’s not the worst of it. He even compares campaigns that have a youth outreach to the genocidal brutality of Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge. In discussing Barack Obama’s appeal amongst young citizens who will be eligible to vote for our next president in November of 2008, Carlson says…

“I just — it — politicizing children — there’s a Khmer Rouge quality to it. I think it’s scary. If some — if a right-wing candidate came and targeted my kids, I’d be mad about it. I don’t want my kids near political candidates. Do you?”

In all honesty, if a right-wing candidate came and targeted my kids, I’d be mad about it too. But only because I wouldn’t want them infected by your brand of ideological vermin. However, I would certainly not object to the notion of my kids caring enough to learn about issues and candidates. And I would respect their right to shape their own beliefs and agendas. In fact, I would be proud.

Carlson seems to think that kids (and we’re talking about 17 year-olds) are addle-headed twits that can’t form opinions or make judgments. Well, I don’t know Carlson’s kids, but the ones I do know are intellectually curious with agile minds and common sense. They had better be, because they are at the age that our society asks them to make some serious decisions like whether to enlist in the Army, or what to study in college, and even for whom to vote for president.

It’s really unfortunate that elitist cretins like Carlson can go on TV and purposefully discourage youth participation in government. He is working against the sort of good citizenship that democracy requires. It would be bad enough if he were just insulting kids by asserting that they’re not capable of voting, but using a brutal dictatorship as an analogy for their participation is perversely absurd and diametrically opposed to reality.

If Carlson were truly interested in democracy, he should praise kids who want to get involved, as well as candidates and other organizations that seek to promote such involvement. If he’s really looking for something to be afraid of, he might consider the consequences of not preparing succeeding generations for their role in public life. Carlson’s desire to stifle the voices of the young in this country is counterproductive and disrespectful. It reeks of an unspoken wish that only the pre-approved, prep school, scions of the privileged be allowed to engage in political pastimes. And that, Tucker, is something that I find “creepy as hell.”


Brian De Palma Stirs Bill O’Reilly’s Wrath

Posted by on October 11, 2007 at 2:48 pm. NO Comments :

On last night’s edition of the O’Reilly Factor, Brian De Palma earned the title of “worst Hollywood person I have ever come across.” Not only that but he is also “vile” and “a true villain” and his new film “Redacted” could, “lead to the deaths of Americans.”

Redacted is an Iraq themed movie that tells a fictionalized version of a true story of American soldiers serving under difficult conditions, and explores how perceptions vary between an event’s participants, witnesses, and the media.

O’Reilly has been railing against this film, which he has not seen, for several weeks. He is enraged that there are scenes that depict American soldiers in a negative light. O’Reilly believes that showing Americans engaging in crimes will motivate our enemies to commit further acts of aggression against us. As if they needed any more motivation. In all likelihood, the opposite is true. Iraqis who see an American film that portrays Americans realistically, even the dark side, will appreciate our commitment to justice. They will be moved by the inherent expression of remorse and sympathy for their loss. It is far more incendiary when politicians and pundits hold pep rallies for troops who commit atrocities and glorify such behavior.

But that injection of reason doesn’t stop O’Reilly from bashing De Palma and Mark Cuban, the film’s producer. De Palma And Cuban have also been feuding over De Palma’s complaint that Cuban ordered modifications to the film. This infighting just gives O’Reilly tingles.

What was interesting about the segment was the guest O’Reilly invited to discuss the movie. Holly McClure was introduced as a film critic. I suppose she is, but the only places her columns appear are the Christian Broadcasting Network and a couple of other Christian networks and web sites. She is also the author of “Death by Entertainment: Exposing Hollywood’s Seductive Power over You and Your Family,” published by Lions Head Press. Lions Head appears to have a roster of three books. They are all Christian-themed and are mostly sold through Christian booksellers. They have no web site that I could find.

What we have here is another favorite strategy of O’Reilly – and Fox News. Locate unknown “experts” with little or no credentials, pluck them from obscurity, slap a mic on their lapel (and a flag pin while you’re at it) and let them nod vigorously in rapt agreement with everything you say. This is how they create a congregation of like-minded true believers who spread their gospel through the mediasphere.


Huffington Post Treading On Drudge Territory

Posted by on October 10, 2007 at 5:19 pm. NO Comments :

An article on the Huffington Post seems to be reaching into the tabloid press for guidance on journalistic practice. The author, Sam Stein, a recent Dartmouth graduate, has compiled a catalog of innuendo so flimsy it’s inconceivable that any seasoned editor would allow it to be published.

Unfortunately, the editors at the Huffington Post did publish it. And all it amounts to is an unverified and salacious attack on John Edwards. What’s worse is that this is not the first time that this drivel was posted. Just two weeks ago, essentially the same story, with the same factual emptiness, was posted at HuffPo. If I had the reportorial lack of ethics that Stein has, I would accuse Arianna of having it in for Edwards.

The premise of the column is that there is something suspicious about expenditures by Edwards on a film production, as well as his relationship with the producer. The problem is that Stein only has questions, but no answers. That’s enough for him to make sly suggestions that have no basis in fact. For example:

What Stein Says Why Stein Fails
“…shortly after Edwards declared his White House aspirations, the footage all but disappeared from public view.” Stein does not bother to explain what might have happened or why i’s important. He has no statement from Edwards. He just leaves the empty assertion dangling.
“Little was known about Hunter as well.” And Stein does little to elucidate us.
“The Huffington Post has uncovered a deleted website that formerly belonged to Hunter […] there is little indication as to what Hunter did professionally.” So HuffPo found an old web site that has nothing to do with any of this and Stein tries to inject some nefarious meaning into that.
“…the 44-year-old Hunter (formerly known as Lisa Druck) discusses her former hard partying days, her search for enlightenment, and her issues with drugs and debt.” Stein reveals here that an actress, who may have a stage name, has lived through a rowdy and imperfect youth, something no one else has ever done. And this is relevant, how?
“So why was Hunter’s website – which had no material related to her work with Edwards or the Edwards’ campaign – taken down?

Emails and calls to Midline Groove Productions went unanswered.”

 Stein doesn’t bother to answer this question. He just posits it with a raised eyebrow and casts further aspersions with images of unanswered emails.
“…why did Edwards choose someone with limited film experience to document his behind-the-scenes campaign presence

The Senator’s campaign, likewise, did not return calls requesting comment.”

 Why did the Huffington Post choose someone with limited reporting experience to document, or more correctly, fail to document, a non-story that is devoid of facts?
“…was the more than $100,000 spent by Edwards’ One American Committee – itself dedicated to fighting poverty and lifting Americans into the middle class – worth it?” Gee, I don’t know. And apparently neither does Stein because he does next to nothing to find out or provide authoritative context.

This is uncommonly shoddy work that Arianna Huffington should find unacceptable and embarrassing. It is already having a Drudge-like effect in the media echo chamber. On Tucker Carlson’s program today, his guest, Ann Coulter, alluded to a story from the National Enquirer about John Edwards having an affair. That story is equally lacking in substance, as is to be expected from the Enquirer. Are the items related? I can’t say, but the dates match up [oh great, now I’m doing it].

Even if the only connection to these stories is that they both represent the worst in journalism, there is still an important distinction. The National Enquirer has worked hard for decades to establish its reputation for unreliability and falsehood. Until now, I would have suspected that that is not the goal of the Huffington Post. But when the first version of this article appeared last month, the comments were inundated with indignation at how such a poorly written and sourced article could get online. Why on earth would they repeat such an egregious error? I hope they will take the appropriate measures to assure that they do not travel further down this road, but in case they need help…

You can help steer them in the right direction. E-mail Addresses:
The Huffington Post
Sam Stein

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Fox Business: The Business Friendly Business Network

Posted by on October 10, 2007 at 1:12 pm. NO Comments :

Robert Greenwald and Brave New Films has a new video announcing the launch of the Fox Business Network (FBN):

Remember, we’re talking about the network whose chairman promised to make it a more “business friendly” business network. Its managing editor, Neil Cavuto, has already compiled an impressive collection of rosy-hued Foxaganda.

Fox Attacks is soliciting headlines from the public that reflect Fox’s unique slant on the news. Here are some of my predictions for the sort of stories we are likely to see on FBN:

  • Relentless Bombings In Iraq: An Opportunity For Kuwaiti Building Contractors?
  • Bush Vetoes SCHIP Bill: A Boost For Insurance Companies’ Profits?
  • Commerce Secretary: Dem Flag Lapel Pin Boycott Hurts Trade With Chinese Pin Manufacturers.
  • Health Care Crisis: Time To Buy Stock In Forest Lawn?
  • Democrat Bill Restricts Lobbyists: Former Congressmen Headed For Welfare?
  • Global Warming: Do Environmentalists Aid Terrorists By Keeping Climate Comfortable In Desert Hideouts?

Go to Fox Attacks and contribute your own headlines.


Michelle Malkin: Fox News Not Patriotic Enough

Posted by on October 9, 2007 at 10:56 am. NO Comments :

The Fox television network is sponsoring a workshop with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to help young Muslim artists aspiring to work in TV and film. “Hollywood 101“ is described as an event to…

“…introduce aspiring Muslim writers, directors and actors to the entertainment industry. The event, held at FOX Studios in Century City, was also designed to help promote a positive change in Hollywood’s portrayal of Muslims and Arabs.”

Fox News has previously been taken to task by CAIR for “anti-Islamic bigotry.” The Fox Entertainment Group, under separate management, deserves some credit for making an effort to enhance understanding and opportunity. But this program, emanating from Fox’s “Diversity Department,” makes Michelle Malkin “cringe:”

“‘Diversity Department?’ How about a Patriotism Department? How about reaching out to the brave Muslim/ex-Muslim critics of jihad and sharia?”

Malkin, who is currently on a campaign to smear a 12 year-old victim of a catastrophic car accident, is taking a bold position against diversity. What’s more, she is actually castigating Fox for not being patriotic enough. The network with the ever-present flag logo waving on-screen, mandatory lapel pins, and an editorial policy that brands dissent as treason, is in need of a corporate department to advocate patriotism, according to Malkin. This is the same network whose PR spokeswoman Irena Briganti said in response to Christiane Amanpour’s charge that the media “muzzled itself” during the Iraq war:

“Given the choice, it’s better to be viewed as a foot soldier for Bush than a spokeswoman for al-Qaeda.”

The current philosophy at Fox is that if you practice responsible, probing journalism, you are on al-Qaeda’s team. They believe that it is an appropriate role for the press to fall in line behind the president. And both Fox and Malkin believe that patriotism is best expressed by abandoning journalistic independence and the First Amendment. And all of this in the name of denying opportunities to minority communities and quashing diversity.


Giuliani: Artists’ Constitutional Interest Minimal

Posted by on October 9, 2007 at 12:30 am. NO Comments :


Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani has a record of authoritarian positions on crime, foreign policy and terrorism. His tendency toward dictatorial rule extends even to the arts. In 1997 he argued a case against street artists in New York saying:

“An exhibition of paintings is not as communicative as speech, literature or live entertainment, and the artists’ constitutional interest is thus minimal.”

All America needs now is a president who doesn’t think that art is communication or that it is protected by the Constitution. Welcome to the Dark Ages.


Democrats And Media: Battered Party Syndrome

Posted by on October 8, 2007 at 3:23 pm. 3 Comments :

A newly released Gallup poll reveals a national trust gap with regard to the media. Amongst its findings is that less than half of respondents (48%) report having either a great or a fair amount confidence in the accuracy or fairness of the news media. The only thing surprising about that number is that it isn’t much lower.

What is truly surprising is the distribution of views along partisan party lines. Republican’s trust threshold bottoms out at 33%. Democrats, however, have a curiously high satisfaction with the media at 66%. What’s more, the ferocity of the Republicans disdain for media dwarfs that of Democrats. 77% of Republicans consider the media to be too liberal, while only 22 % of Democrats view it as too conservative. 66% of Democrats trust the media, while only 33% of Republicans are similarly inclined.

It’s difficult to imagine why Democrats are so content in a media atmosphere that is so blatantly hostile. The number one cable news network is an unapologetic apologist for the White House and an unabashed basher of Democratic policy and personage. The other networks feature conservative program hosts like Lou Dobbs, Glenn Beck, Tucker Carlson, etc., but there is only one identifiably progressive host on any network – Keith Olbermann on MSNBC’s Countdown. So why do 66% of Democrats trust the media?

The same conservative dominance exists in newspapers where virtually all of the major publishers have had to apologize for their sycophantic cheerleading that led up to the war in Iraq. Now they are repeating the pattern with drumbeats for war with Iran. Even the so-called liberal papers like the New York Times promoted their most conservative voices for most of the past half dozen years; voices like the disgraced Judith Miller, and Michael Gordon. So why do 66% of Democrats trust the media?

It hardly seems necessary to bring up radio, where conglomerates like Clear Channel own 1,000 stations with wall-to-wall rightist programming like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Hugh Hewitt, Michael Savage, Laura Ingraham, etc. So why do 66% of Democrats trust the media?

Coverage of the presidential campaign is illustrative of the conservative media slant. Where in the coverage of Republican candidates is there anything like the stories that have hammered Democrats? Stories like haircuts, or where they went to school when they were six, or cleavage, or style of home, or laughter, or lapel pins. So why do 66% of Democrats trust the media?

There is a little good news in the survey. The percentage of Americans that view the media as “too conservative” has increased from 11% in 2001, to 18% today, according to this poll. That’s not a tectonic shift, but it does suggest that a bit of light is starting to get through to the population at large. What it does not explain is why 66% of Democrats trust the media?

Earlier this year, the Project for Excellence in Journalism released a study that showed that the media devoted more time to Democrats than to Republicans. The problem is that most of that time was spent disparaging Democrats:

“..conservative talkers, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Michael Savage were the most Democratic focused of all – 75% of their time on Democrats and only 13% focused mainly on Republicans.”

And yet, 66% of of Democrats still trust the media. What will it take for people to see through the myth of the “liberal” media? The disparity is glaringly obvious to anyone paying the least bit of attention. Part of the problem is that the facts that comprise the reality of conservative bias would have to be distributed to the people by the media. The very same media that wants to disguise their bias; that wants to preserve their rightist influence; that wants to maintain their relationships with political leaders and regulators; that wants to expand their corporate reach through consolidation and market manipulation.

Until Democrats and progressives stand up to the abusive behavior of a hostile press; until they recognize the obstacles that the media repeatedly and purposefully drop in their paths, it will be very hard to overcome the prejudices that are becoming ingrained in our culture. Do they want to continue to be portrayed as tax-and-spenders, despite the fact that it is Republicans who spend us into record deficits in each of their administrations? Do they want to be characterized as soft-on-defense, despite the fact that it is Republicans that have mired us in an Iraqi quagmire while ignoring the real terrorist threats in the world? Do they want to be cast as anti-economy, despite the fact that the Dow Jones average performs better during Democratic administrations than Republican?

If not, then they need to stop being complacent about a media that is determined to undermine them at every opportunity. They need to stop appeasing the most serious perpetrators of their abuse. They need to stop appearing on Fox News in any capacity. And they need to start to engage in a realistically aggressive counter-assault on the elements in the media that want to do them harm.

Democrats had better come to terms with the truth: Their batterer does not love them and is not doing it for their own good. And they must finally realize that it is foolish and destructive to profess love for your abuser. There is no excuse for 66% of Democrats trusting the media.