The Fox Frame: Distorting Reality

For lack of a better hobby, I collect Fox News screen grabs that demonstrate their unfaltering commitment to obfuscation, misrepresentation, propaganda, and plain old garden variety lies. These were all snagged last week from “Your World” with Neil Cavuto. Cavuto has been tapped to be the managing editor of the new Fox Business channel which debuts October 15. This should give you all a pretty good idea of what to expect from the new network which claims that it “Means Business.”

In a discussion of the Free Flow of Information Act of 2007, Neil Cavuto and company described the bill as shielding “leakers” rather than reporters.

CBS News: The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday advanced a bill to shield reporters from being forced to reveal their sources in federal court.

The Cavuto Crew implies that a Hillary Clinton presidency should scare Wall Street. They apparently don’t know that Wall Street traditionally performs better during Democratic administrations.

“…the Dow Jones industrial average has returned an average of 6.4% under Republican presidents and 9.1% under Democrats since 1901.”

Are Democrats using kids as props? Gee, I Don’t know. Let’s ask President Bush who has made a habit of it throughout his presidency.

Whitehouse.gov:

And Fox wants people to take them seriously as a news network? How many viewers will take this sort of twisted proselytizing seriously. For rightwingers who so often complain about activist judges, they obviously aren’t too concerned about activist journalists.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

The O’Reilly Fear Factor: Collected Verses

Bill O’Reilly has gone over the edge. He is literally descending into madness on our very own TV screens. Those of you who actually don’t slow down on the highway to see gruesome accidents may want to avert your eyes.

[See also They’re Coming To Take Me Away for detail on O’Reilly’s meltdown]

When asked to elaborate, O’Reilly said

“I can no longer sit back and allow communist infiltration, communist indoctrination, communist perversion and the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.”


Ann Coulter’s Pipe Dream

nullIn her latest attempt to manufacture controversy on the eve of a new book release, Ann Coulter gave an interview in which she said:

“If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president. It’s kind of a pipe dream, it’s a personal fantasy of mine, but I don’t think it’s going to happen.”

For those of you who might be wondering about how this might affect her own voting rights, and why she doesn’t seem worried, I have just two words: Adam’s Apple.


Clear Channel Refuses VoteVets Ad

Radio giant Clear Channel Communications is refusing to air an ad by VoteVets, a veterans group protesting Rush Limbaugh’s recent assertion that vets who oppose the war in Iraq are “phony soldiers.”

VoteVets received a letter explaining that the ad would not run because:

“Airing anti-Rush Limbaugh ads during the Rush Limbaugh Show on WJNO would only conflict with the listeners that have chosen to listen to Rush Limbaugh.”

Once again, Clear Channel has taken it upon itself to stifle public debate and restrict the free flow of information. In refusing to air this ad, they are stepping on the free speech rights of the veteran activists at VoteVets. Clear Channel’s offer to air the ad at other times or on other stations denies VoteVets the opportunity to counter Limbaugh’s rantings in context. They fail to recognize the importance of directing the response to the audience that was subjected to Limbaugh’s insulting diatribes in the first place. And Clear Channel also makes the mistake of assuming that there aren’t any listeners who disagree with Limbaugh.

Clear Channel’s justification of their censorship on the grounds that it would create conflict is beyond absurd. This is the Rush Limbaugh Show we’re talking about. Conflict is part and parcel of the program’s mission. If Clear Channel is concerned about conflict, why do they let Limbaugh air audio of Democrats for the explicit purpose of denigrating them and thus, creating conflict? Why do they allow Limbaugh to take phone calls that have the potential to produce further conflict? Why do they let Limbaugh express any opinion at all at the risk of creating conflict wiht the many listeners who do not share his views?

To its credit, WJNO has a fairly balance schedule. Their weekday roster presents Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Randi Rhodes, Ed Schultz, and Sean Hannity. The problem is that Rhodes and Schultz are likely to address the VoteVets matter on their own. It’s the Limbaugh audience that most needs exposure to contrary arguments. I would have no objection to the GOP front group, Vets For Freedom, running ads on Schultz’s show. But I assume that Clear Channel would also think that that’s a bad idea too. What are they afraid of?

VoteVets is an advocacy group that supports soldiers and veterans. Unlike Rush Limbaugh, they fought for the rights enumerated in the Constitution, including free speech. But that right is being denied to them today.

You can call Clear Channel in Palm Beach at 561-616-6600 and tell them to air the VoteVets ad. Tell them that our veterans deserve the right to heard. Tell them that, as a listener, you don’t necessarily agree with everything (or anything) Limbaugh says. Tell them that you’re capable of enduring whatever conflict such an ad subjects you to. But what you are not capable of enduring is a giant media corporation infringing on the rights of citizens.

UPDATE: On his show today, Rush suggested that VoteVets run their ad on his program. Either he’s not talking to his ad sales people, or they’re not listening to his show.


When CNN Presents Actual News…

A little over a year ago, I noted the success that CNN had with a program on Osama Bin Laden that was part of its “CNN Presents” series of long-form news. The program was number one in its time period and was one of the few occasions that CNN bested its arch-rival Fox. At the time I asked:

“What are the odds that the editors at CNN will correctly analyze what happened here? […} will they figure out that there is a news vacuum in America that is crying out to be filled?”


Apparently not. In the past year, CNN has barely budged its place in the cable news net rankings. It actually declined 9%. In the same span of time, MSNBC has increased its viewership 53%, led by the Olbermann locomotive with a 73% rise. For the record, Fox News Channel was down 10%.

Now, the question I asked last year needs to asked again. In the latest report (pdf) for the the 3rd quarter of 2007, the number one program in the 25-54 demo is CNN Presents. It is also number two in total viewers, and is one of only two programs in the top 10 that is not from Fox (the other is CNN’s Larry King Live at #8).

Will CNN now recognize that the best way to compete with Fox’s tabloid coverage of car chases, missing white girls, and bashing Democrats, is to give the audience substance in the form of news that is accurate and relevant to their lives? Why is this such a difficult lesson to learn? Week after week, the networks competing with the Fox Propaganda Channel seem to be in a race to the bottom of the journalism barrel. Their meager attempts to emulate the worst of all possible role models cannot help but fail. Not only because it is a poor strategy, but because they can’t hope to woo viewers away from Fox’s authentic garbage with their own brand of contrived garbage.

Americans are thirsting for honest journalism that informs and enlightens. They want their news to be placed in a context that respects the integrity of the subject matter and the intelligence of the audience. When this is done, the networks get viewers and advertisers, as this quarter’s CNN Presents demonstrates. When it is not done they get Glenn Beck and Tucker Carlson. Carlson, by the way, came in dead last in the 3-net beauty contest.

So pay attention CNN, and any other wannabe responsible news organizations. Try as you might with the likes of Nancy Grace or Lou Dobbs, the only time you come out ahead is when you give the people what they’re clamoring for. Honesty, integrity, and a commitment to ethics and excellence, is the path to success. CNN Presents is not a fluke. It is the only program that has prevailed against Foxic waste, and it has now done so twice. Are you getting the message?


The O’Reilly Fear Factor: They’re Coming To Take Me Away

While most of America, and the world, is focused on painfully real wars and their tragic consequences, Bill O’Reilly is engaging a different enemy, a far more dangerous enemy, in his mind, because it originates in his mind. When O’Reilly said on his radio show that he…

“couldn’t get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia’s restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it’s run by blacks…

…he was properly criticized by the public and pundits alike. But O’Reilly has never been known as someone who takes criticism well, and this affair is no exception. Ever since the story broke, he has been obsessively pounding on the media for accurately reporting his racist comments. For four straight days (so far) he has led off his program with this controversy. That’s four days of demonstrating that, so far as he is concerned, there is no story with a higher priority than Bill’s story and his bold defense of himself. That defense consists primarily of offense, and being offensive is an O’Reilly specialty. For reference, wade through this selection of sewage from the past few days: 9/25; 9/26; 9/27; 9/28.

[See also The Collected Verses for more O’Reilly insanity]

When someone criticizes O’Reilly, they are not merely at odds with him, they have “gone over to the dark side,” and they are, “dishonest and dangerous.” The reasons for their criticisms are always suspect and usually have something to do with their own self interest. O’Reilly often cites his ratings as the reason he is attacked by jealous competitors. He believes that his numbers validate his views. But being #1 isn’t everything. Like the #1 restaurant in America, McDonald’s, it only means that he serves up the cheapest crap that is loaded with filler and seasoning designed to appeal to the largest number of consumers with the least sophisticated taste. Still, you have to wonder about his rabid intensity when he already claims that, “FOX News has literally destroyed CNN,” and that, “Both CNN and NBC will never recover from their shameful conduct.” Why is he fighting so fiercely against a vanquished foe?

It isn’t just a pack critics that are riling O’Reilly. It is the whole of the media. He is displaying the classic symptoms of a paranoid fanatic who is convinced that he is the target of a fearsome cabal that is “out to destroy” him. And he isn’t shy about using his bully pulpit to broadcast his dementia and attack his perceived enemies, whom he casts as villains that only he has the courage to face and fight. He is his own Superhero, as he told his audience last Friday, saying that “…there is no enterprise on earth that does more damage to the far left than The Factor”.

In the past four days (and counting), O’Reilly has demonstrated an all-consuming preoccupation with his own tribulations at the hands of fiends. He has accused a broad swath of the media of being dishonest, corrupt, and out to get him. Those explicitly called out include: the New York Daily News, the CBS Early Show, the Chicago Sun Times, the Philadelphia Inquirer, ABCnews.com, the Louisville Journal, the Syracuse Post-Standard, the Cleveland Plain-Dealer, the Houston Chronicle, the Calgary Herald, the Guardian of London, and, of course, NBC, MSNBC, Media Matters and MoveOn.org.

In a particularly bizarre episode, O’Reilly played an audio tape of a conversation with Paul Farhi of the Washington Post wherein Farhi says, “please don’t repeat this, because I’m supposed to be neutral…” This is an unsettling spectacle of a reporter confessing his bias to a loudmouthed, TV blathering head, and asking that his remarks be kept in confidence. Of course, O’Reilly then plays them on the air without notice or permission, revealing the unscrupulous idiocy of them both. This is typical behavior from the man who warns America to be skeptical of the media because, “No longer can it be trusted.” So long as he’s talking about himself, I can’t say that I disagree. But he’s talking about everyone except himself, despite his prominent place in the media he so ferociously castigates.

As demented and pathetic as O’Reilly’s cartoonish behavior has portrayed him to be, there are still lines that he had not crossed. Sure, he had invited Al Qaeda to bomb San Francisco; and yes, he sexually harassed an employee; and he dispatched a producer to trespass on a the property of a circuit court judge; and admitted that he doesn’t care about lethal bombings in Iraq; and he compared DailyKos to the KKK and nazis; and he accused Democrats of wanting to lose in Iraq; and he lied about receiving a Peabody Award; but there are still lines…..

Well maybe he has crossed all the lines. But now, in a frenzied tantrum that makes Hitler look like he was merely engaging in a bit of garden-variety hyperbole, O’Reilly aims to show that he means business:

“[T]here is a huge problem in this country and I’m going to attack that problem. I’m going to attack it. These people aren’t getting away with this. I’m going to go right where they live. Every corrupt media person in this country is on notice, right now. I’m coming after you…I’m going to hunt you down […] if I could strangle these people and not go to hell and get executed…I would.”

These are the rantings of a sociopath whose grasp of reality is paling precipitously. He mused in the September 25 broadcast that his persecutors would soon proclaim him to be “a member of the Manson family.” So as not to disappoint him, I’ll do so now. But I won’t settle for a lowly, suggestible family waif. The truth is that O’Reilly’s hostile ravings sound more like that of the messianic cult leader himself – who also thought the media was out to get him:

  • Manson: “The news media has already executed me and buried me.”
  • O’Reilly: “[T]hey are going to do anything and everything to destroy me, or try to. And it’s a war. It is a war.”

It is a little surprising that, in the aftermath of these threats, his targets haven’t bothered to stand up for themselves. Media organizations and individuals in broadcast, cable, and newspapers, are all being hammered by this seriously disturbed shill-miester and they don’t seem to have the slightest desire to defend their reputation or professional honor. How can they when they are so busy trying to emulate him. It’s almost as if they are watching themselves and want to protect their shell of denial. Maybe they are keeping a respectable distance because they don’t want contribute to the inevitable meltdown already in progress. Or maybe they just don’t want to get splattered with the blood of the bursting veins and arteries as his over-inflated head loses its structural integrity.

O’Reilly is advancing onto Armageddon and steeling for the battle with his secular-progressive foes. When the ultimate clash commences, he will view himself as a valiant Culture Warrior lashing out at the many-headed beast that imperils children and Christmas and virtue and the traditional values that are so fragile that they can be turned to dust by the wispy breath of Pagans.

But while he envisions himself wrestling with these demons, we will be gathered around his twitching form, fanning and curling on the pavement, wondering if somebody else has already called the paramedics. And all that will be left for us is to watch with a sickly curiosity because he is beyond us now. He has reached that destination about which he cautioned us a thousand times while pointing menacingly. He has finally and irreversibly entered a Zone that is thoroughly devoid of Spin – or, for that matter, reason or sanity. Who’s looking out for you now, Bill?

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Fox News: Generals Betray Us

Col. David Hunt, a Fox News military analyst, has a column posted at FoxNews.com with the headline, Top Military Officials are a Disgrace to Those They Lead.” The article begins by saying, “Our generals are betraying our soldiers … again.”


FoxFan Military Matters

It’s rather astonishing that so soon after the MoveOn controversy, wherein the advocacy group was assailed by indignant, grandstanding politicians for “dishonoring” our brave military leaders, Fox can publish Col. Hunt’s article without acknowledging the tiniest bit of irony.

In the column, Hunt feigns a measure of desperation that drove him to use this provocative rhetoric. But upon reading the story it is clear that he means what he says. He accuses the generals of caring “more about their precious careers and reputations than their soldiers and Marines under them.” He insists that, “We should be putting these generals on trial.” And he lashes out at them for being a, “poor excuse for officers [who] do not deserve the soldiers they dare claim they lead.”

Just last week, both the House and the Senate passed resolutions condemning MoveOn for their “General Petraeus or General betray Us” ad in the New York Times. Both bills expressed strong condemnation for any effort to attack the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces. Members of Congress form both parties spoke out against what they considered unconscionable disrespect for military leaders who were risking their lives for their country in a time of war.

It didn’t take long for cracks to appear in their self-righteous indignation. Last week Rush Limbaugh hurled an insult at troops who oppose the war in Iraq calling them “phony soldiers.” No resolution was offered to condemn that attack on the honor and integrity of the Armed Forces. And now we will watch as they disregard this new attack by Col. Hunt and his editorial facilitator, Fox News. Sadly, we are just beginning to see the depths of their hypocrisy.


MSNBC: The Luckiest Network On Television

MSNBC may be the luckiest network on television. Republicans are threatening to boycott the cable net. That’s kind of like having lepers threaten to not French kiss you.

It all began when David Shuster asked Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) if she could name the last soldier from her district who was killed in Iraq. She could not, so he told her who it was. It was later reported that the soldier Shuster named was not from Blackburn’s district and Shuster apologized for the error on air. Now it turns out that Shuster was right in the first place. But being right was never a major article of concern for the right and they are still hammering Shuster. Even Brit Hume at Fox News participated in the pile on.

Now, according to Politico, Republicans are escalating the battle to new heights:

“We don’t mind skipping MSNBC. No one watches that channel anyway,” says a high-placed Republican consultant.

Word is, a growing number of GOP lawmakers have become mysteriously “unavailable” when asked to appear on MSNBC.

This would be a sublime development. I have long been advocating that Democrats and progressives swear off of Fox News (see Starve The Beast). Rupert Murdoch and his media megaphone is openly hostile to our agenda and our representatives. They will only use these appearances to distort our message and derail our mission. Studies have proven that their audience is unreceptive, and even antagonistic, to us and by appearing we will be rewarded more with ridicule than respect.

It has been difficult to advance this strategy because the siren’s call of the TV camera still lures people to Fox. Now, ironically, it is Republicans who are openly promoting the concept in reverse. If their effort has the residual effect of causing a reciprocal boycott of Fox, it will be well worth it. They won’t miss MSNBC and we won’t miss the further propagation of their propaganda.

Reminder: It has already been reported that Republicans have been more reluctant to appear on many programs regardless of network. Plus, they have refused to participate in televised debates sponsored by Gays, African-Americans, Unions, and even YouTube (on which they eventually agreed to appear).

Update on Shuster: It appears he was strong-armed into the premature apology by his boss.


My Name Is Scooter

On NBC’s My Name Is Earl, the title character is presently serving a jail sentence for a crime that his ex-wife Joy committed. In last night’s season opener he revealed that his prison ID number is 28301-016. “So what?” you might ask. Well, I think it may not be a coincidence that another famous inmate has the very same number:


Very funny, guys. (h/t to Yazoo Street Scandal)


RushipediA: Phony Soldiers

Chickenhawk Rush Limbaugh thinks that soldiers who are opposed to the war in Iraq are “phony.” Despite the fact that they serve with the same honor, courage, and patriotism as any other soldier, Limbaugh has this to say about them:

CALLER: …what’s really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.

LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.

CALLER: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they’re willing to sacrifice for their country.

LIMBAUGH: They joined to be in Iraq.

Jon Soltz of VoteVets.org is one of those who went to Iraq and now is both a vigorous supporter of the troops and a vocal opponent of the Bush administration’s failed policies in Iraq. He writes at the Huffington Post that Limbaugh never served himself and has no moral standing to judge other soldiers; that a majority of returning soldiers oppose the war, as well as many retired generals. And he has this to say about Rush:

“You weren’t just flat out wrong, you offended a majority of those of us who actually had the courage to go to Iraq and serve, while you sat back in your nice studio, coming up with crap like this.”

In a petulant tantrum aimed at disparaging MoveOn.org, the Congress just passed resolutions condemning those who attack the honor of members of the Armed Forces. Will they now condemn Limbaugh for having done just that?