Howard Kurtz

More Proof That Fox News Is Not News

Posted by on July 12, 2010 at 6:57 pm. 12 Comments :

As if any further evidence was needed…..

Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post wrote a profile of Fox News anchor Bill Hemmer. The piece began by making a completely unsupported assertion that Hemmer was “a middle-of-the-road guy.” However, Kurtz quickly redeemed himself by pointing out that Hemmer’s record of fairness and/or balance was something less than pure.

“The first solo guest on every show but one, from June 1 through July 2, was a Republican or conservative — including Karl Rove (twice), Steve Forbes (twice), House GOP leaders John Boehner and Eric Cantor, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, economist Art Laffer and officials from the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute. Conservative commentators, such as John Fund and Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal and Byron York and Chris Stirewalt of the Washington Examiner, appeared by themselves. Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce, a Republican who is a leading opponent of illegal immigration, was on three times. By contrast, a relative handful of Democratic lawmakers were given solo spots, while Democratic strategists were generally paired in debates with Republican counterparts.”

The rest of the article pretty much receded back into the sort of mushy puff piece for which Kurtz is well known. Kurtz didn’t even challenge the anchor, whom he described as having an “infectious grin and golly-gee demeanor,” when Hemmer noted that…

“A viewer needs to understand a story in a short period of time, otherwise they will zone out or they will change the station. Complexities are difficult to sell.”

It’s a good thing Hemmer doesn’t have to report on anything complex like a war in Afghanistan, a Supreme Court nomination, a teetering economy, or an environmental catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico.

You might also recall that Michael Clemente, senior vice president of Fox News, defines the hours of 9am to 4pm, and 6pm to 8pm, as the dayparts that air straight news. So Hemmer’s 9:00am program is the springboard to Fox’s news day. And like the rest of the Fox News schedule, it is infested with right-wing bias. In this case the bias is delivered with “boyish enthusiasm” and a comforting simplicity.

Update: Hemmer ventured off to Brian Kilmeade’s radio show to respond to charges of partisanship on his program. He blamed it on Democrats who, he says, refuse his invitations to appear.

I hope he’s right. Democrats should refuse to appear on Fox News. And for the same reason they wouldn’t appear on the Lyndon Larouche Network. Fox is not a legitimate news enterprise and should not be treated as one.

Howard Kurtz Stumbles Into The Obvious On Glenn Beck

Posted by on March 15, 2010 at 1:17 pm. 3 Comments :

Nobody is going to mistake Howard Kurtz (CNN/Washington Post) for an insightful media analyst. His sycophantic and highly conflicted reporting barely qualifies as news on most days. And his latest column for the Post is no exception. However, it does hit on a couple of obvious truths that only Kurtz can think of as revelations:

Howard Kurtz: Beck has become a constant topic of conversation among Fox journalists, some of whom say they believe he uses distorted or inflammatory rhetoric that undermines their credibility.

Ya think?

HK: [Fox News VP Bill] Shine says that last fall a vice president was assigned “to help keep an eye on that program” and review its content in advance — a full-time job.

A full-time VP to keep an eye on Beck? I sure hope that guy had mental health insurance. Also, he didn’t do a very good job, judging by what made it to the air.

HK: Television analyst Andrew Tyndall calls Beck an “activist” and “comedian” whose incendiary style has created “a real crossroads for Fox News. […] They’re right on the cusp of losing their image as a news organization,” he declares.

What on earth would it take for Tyndall to regard them as over the cusp?

HK: When Fox covers breaking news during Beck’s hour, some journalists say, they are flooded with angry e-mail from viewers about the preemption.

And who could blame them? Beck’s viewers don’t want to be bothered with “news.” Even the sort that Fox pretends to deliver.

HK: Some staffers say they have watched rehearsals, on internal monitors, in which Beck has teared up or paused at the same moments as he later did during the show.

Because the secret of good comedy/propaganda is timing.

HK: Beck has caused such anguish at Fox that some of its journalists celebrated the failure of last week’s interview with embattled ex-congressman Eric Massa, which Beck pronounced a waste of time.

If those “journalists” want to celebrate whenever Beck’s program is a waste of time, they could celebrate every day.

Thanks Howie, for your always keen and penetrating outlook.

[Update: 3/17/10]: It appears Fox News CEO Roger Ailes was disturbed by Kurtz’ article. He hustled down to DC to dress down his staff for talking about “The Family.” In short he ordered them to shut up, fall in line, obey, or leave. And what ever they do, do not have an independent thought. That’s what the talking points are for.

Roger Ailes channels Michael Corleone:

CNN’s Howard Kurtz On Glenn Beck, Fox News And Whores

Posted by on November 29, 2009 at 4:21 pm. NO Comments :

Today on CNN’s Reliable Sources, host Howard Kurtz raised an issue of obvious hypocrisy on the part of Fox News. The segment addressed an incident a couple of weeks ago when Rep. Alan Grayson referred to an aide to Fed chairman Ben Bernanke as a “K Street whore.” Fox News jumped on the comment and repeatedly criticized Grayson for making an insensitive and sexist remark. Grayson has since apologized.

A few days ago Glenn Beck used similarly offensive language when referring to Sen. Mary Landrieu. Beck said that Landrieu was “hooking” but “not cheap.” Kurtz took this opportunity to upbraid Fox News for being less than fair and balanced because they didn’t report Beck’s remarks or criticize him. Beck has not apologized.

I suppose I shouldn’t complain that Kurtz properly observed Fox’s hypocrisy. However, Kurtz left something out of the story that many people might consider relevant. You see, Mark Halperin, editor-at-large and senior political analyst for TIME, had something to say about Landrieu as well. He posted this modified photo of the senator on his TIME web site, The Page.

Why didn’t Kurtz take Halperin to task for a visual commentary that was just as offensive and perhaps more repulsive? Could it have anything to do with the fact that Kurtz’s employer, CNN, is owned by Time Warner, and so is Halperin’s employer, TIME? It is unlikely that Kurtz was not aware of the Halperin incident, as it caused such a ruckus he was forced to remove the picture.

Kurtz’s impartiality has been questioned on numerous occasions. Most frequently with regard to his role as a media analyst for both CNN and the Washington Post. Critics have complained that he cannot serve both masters and expect to be regarded as thorough and neutral, while he insists that he has always been tough on every news enterprise on which he reports. However, in this case, he blatantly lets his corporate cousin off the hook.

If Kurtz wants to be taken seriously, he needs to begin acting like an impartial observer. All that he accomplishes with this sort of hackery is to embarrass himself and the news bureaus that employ him. But on one level we can have a fair measure of confidence: When Kurtz reports on the behavior of whores, he knows what he’s talking about.

To his credit, Kurtz did challenge Jim Geraghty, the right-wing lip-servicer from the National Review, who tried to excuse Beck’s boorishness, by saying…

“Oh, I see, Grayson should be held accountable because he’s an elected official, and Glenn Beck is in the gasbag business, like many of us on television.”

That’s telling him – and yourself too.

Guilt By Association With Fox News

Posted by on October 26, 2009 at 4:57 pm. 6 Comments :

Much has been made the past week of the so-called “war” between the White House and Fox News. Never mind the fact that there is nothing occurring that remotely approaches being characterized as even a metaphorical war. The administration merely expressed an opinion that Fox is more engaged in partisanship than journalism, a view most objective analysts would regard as obvious.

Ironically, it is Fox itself that has been the most vocal about the dispute. They have devoted more airtime to it and have enlisted their corporate cousins at Fox Nation, the New York Post, and the Wall Street Journal to pile on. And at the same time that they bemoan their being the target of a presidential smackdown, their own Glenn Beck offers his conspiratorial thesis that it is all an attempt to distract the public from the administration’s attempt to ram what he calls a socialistic, government-run health care bill through Congress. In a double-reverse, pitchback, fakeout, Beck’s accusation that this spat is nothing but a red herring is delivered even as he dedicates the majority of his own program to the fishy story. He is, therefore, a major contributor to the distraction about which he is complaining.

This is the sort of strategic schizophrenia that makes it difficult to even bother trying to engage with Fox. They want people to believe that they are a credible news enterprise, yet they sponsor anti-Obama tea party protests. They want people to believe that they are fair and balanced, but they populate their air with wall-to-wall propaganda and Republican talking points. They want people to discriminate between what they claim is their news and editorial content, but their news is fully contaminated by the right-wing fungi with which their editorial is fatally infected.

It appears that the only way to relate to Fox is to disengage. That is the course that Jane Hall, an associate professor in the School of Communication at American University, and a frequent Fox contributor, has taken. This weekend on CNN’s Reliable Sources she told Howard Kurtz that she has left Fox and gave as part of her reason that…

HALL: I’m also, frankly, uncomfortable with Beck, who I think should be called out as somebody whose language is way over the top. And it’s scary.

KURTZ: Was that a factor in your decision to leave Fox?

HALL: Yes, it was.

I can’t help but wonder why more people haven’t come to the same conclusion. An association with Fox can only bring derision and ill repute to anyone who actually covets a career in journalism. Being yoked to Fox ought to be regarded as scarlet letter that permanently stains any hope of a reputation for ethical reporting.

It is time to start holding people accountable for the choices they make and for the partners with whom they align themselves. If someone elects to be on the same team as Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, that relationship cannot be swept under the rug. They must expect to be identified as the professional comrades that they are. Just as Jane Hall ankled Fox due to her objection to being affiliated with Beck, any others who share that objection ought to do the same thing.

This is not a case of an aversion to being affiliated with a deviant associate who broke the law or violated rules of the company or society. Certainly Katie Couric should not be held to blame because another employee of CBS News was caught blackmailing David Letterman. In the case of Fox, the deviants are celebrated and highly promoted by Fox. They are regarded as treasures and they contribute significantly to Fox’s success. They are not black sheep, they are leaders and they are the most visible icons of Fox’s identity.

For this reason people like Chris Wallace should not be able to set aside his relationship to Sean Hannity. In fact, Wallace has said of Hannity that “I generally agree with him.” Major Garrett cannot pretend to be a journalist when he shares airtime with Bill O’Reilly. In fact, Garrett, formerly of the Washington “Moonie” Times, is amongst many Fox presenters who has written books that are as overtly partisan as O’Reilly’s. And all the other wannabe reporters who rub shoulders with the likes of Dick Morris, Ann Coulter, Neil Cavuto, etc., should be made to feel the embarrassment they are due.

Most importantly, News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch cannot be permitted to wash the slime from his hands. Rupert Murdoch IS Glenn Beck. They are inseparable and indistinguishable. Murdoch likes to present himself as an old school news publisher, but he is actually a tabloid sensationalist who has done more to tarnish the profession of journalism than anyone before him. His purchase of the Wall Street Journal was intended in part to bring him respect and to co-opt the credibility of the iconic financial digest. But instead of the Journal lending its glow to Murdoch, Murdoch has leeched his bile onto the Journal. From now on the Wall Street Journal is the paper of Glenn Beck. His picture should appear in the masthead. In fact, Glenn Beck’s alternately smirking and scowling visage should grace the cover of every News Corp enterprise. It should be sewn onto the lapels of every News Corp reporter. It should edited into every Fox News program and promo.

It is precisely because the editorial content at Fox is indistinguishable from what they call news, that no one in the Murdoch family of companies should be allowed any distance from the insane ravings of Glenn Beck. From now on it is Glenn Beck’s Fox News, Glenn Beck’s Wall Street Journal, Glenn Beck’s Rupert Murdoch. If Murdoch is happy to sponsor Beck’s program, even as advertisers desert it, then let him be melded to it. If he is proud of his racist and incendiary provocateur, then fasten Beck around his neck and let this be the legacy he leaves. If Beck is what he wants, then Beck is what he gets. And Murdoch will forever be remembered, not as a media baron or press magnate, but as a disreputable exploiter of division and hate. His legacy, in the twilight of his career, is inextricably intertwined with the mugging buffoonery of Glenn Beck. And heretofore, no one will be able to conjure up the memory of Murdoch without being drenched in the spittle and dementia of Beck. Congratulations Rupert.

[Update:] Beck has responded to Jane Hall, calling her “that idiot who left Fox:”

BECK: “Well, don’t let the door hit you on the ass when you leave. I’m going to miss you, I am, whatever your name is.”

Here we have Glenn Beck, a drug-addicted, alcoholic dropout, calling Hall, a Phi Beta Kappa with a master’s degree in journalism from Columbia University, an idiot. And Beck doesn’t even know her name although she’s been a Fox News contributor for eleven years. No wonder she doesn’t want to be associated with that network anymore. Why would anyone want to be?

White House: Fox News Is A Wing Of The Republican Party

Posted by on October 12, 2009 at 5:50 pm. 13 Comments :

Perhaps I should just forward this to the Department of Redundancy Department. White House communications director, Anita Dunn, appeared on CNN’s Reliable Sources with Howard Kurtz and made some rather obvious, though too often unsaid, remarks about Fox News’ role as a right-wing megaphone.

It is about time that the administration articulate what anyone paying attention already knows. The highlight of Dunn’s comments is simple and straight forward:

“The reality of it is that Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party. And it is not ideological… what I think is fair to say about Fox, and the way we view it, is that it is more of a wing of the Republican Party.”

These remarks were in response to an inquiry by Kurtz about previous comments by Dunn that Fox was “masquerading” as news. Kurtz went further to inquire as to whether Obama would appear on Fox again. Unfortunately, she said that he would. That, of course, would be a mistake for all the reasons she just articulated. Fox News is not a news network, and they no more deserve Obama’s presence than does the National Enquirer. Why would they agree to appear on a network that masquerades as news?

In response to Dunn’s comments, Michael Clemente, Senior Vice President of News for FOX News, said:

“An increasing number of viewers are relying on FOX News for both news and opinion. And the average news consumer can certainly distinguish between the A section of the newspaper and the editorial page, which is what our programming represents.”

The problem with that statement is that Fox’s news is as much opinion as their opinion is. Even their top “news” people, like Bill Sammon, Major Garrett, Neil Cavuto, Carl Cameron, etc., are steeped in personal biases to which ethical journalists would never sink. Another problem with Clemente’s statement is that it contradicts Bill Shine, senior VP for programming, who admitted that Fox News is the “voice of opposition.”

Glenn Beck was moved to spend the first 20 minutes of his program on this matter, and another six minutes later in the show. That’s half of his airtime, during which he characterized Dunn’s appraisal as an assault on free speech. Never mind the fact that Obama, and any public figure, has the right to book their own appearances. That does not in any way impose on the free speech rights of Fox News. They can, and do, continue to spew their partisan views. More evidence of this is that Bill O’Reilly also spent about nearly half of his show grumbling about Dunn’s remarks. Beck and O’Reilly are just whining about being left out, the same way Chris Wallace did when he called the Democrats a bunch of “crybabies.”

At one point, Beck makes the ludicrous claim that it is Fox News who is “standing up for the republic and the Constitution.” He later complains that he was corrected by Dunn on a misstatement he made about Major Garret not being called on in news conferences. It was, of course, true that Beck made that statement and that it was false, but he just laughs it off. Then he goes on to make some more mistakes (otherwise known as lies).

Most notable was his mention of Nixon’s enemies list, about which he said, “That whole thing. That was just about who’s not coming to state dinners.” However, Nixon aide John Dean stated the true purpose for the list as “how we can use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies.” This meant tax audits, grant availability, federal contracts, litigation, and prosecution. For Beck to so cavalierly lie about what was one the most despicable actions by a leader in our nation’s history says so much about Beck. He probably thinks that the Final Solution was a dish washing detergent.

In the end, Fox’s defense is the best evidence that Dunn’s remarks are are all too true.

This Week With John McCain

Posted by on September 29, 2008 at 12:12 pm. NO Comments :

It seems fitting that John McCain sat down with George Stephanopoulos yesterday on a program called “This Week,” because the name itself carries the suggestion that what you hear McCain say will only be operative for a limited time. Next week may be a different matter entirely, and last week has succumbed to history’s dust bin.

The tone of the interview was set early on with McCain answering the second question in a distinctly political dialect:

Stephanopoulos: Congress has to pass a stimulus plan for the middle class, which extends unemployment benefits, adds infrastructure funding, and sends money to the states to shore up their budgets. Are you for that, as well?

McCain: I am for keeping taxes low. I am for whatever steps we think we need to be taking right now.

Wow! So, by extension, he’s against whatever steps he thinks should not be taken. That’s a courageous stance.

It was also noted by several observers that McCain would did not look at Obama at all during the entire debate. Even when they shook hands, McCain quickly turned away. This behavior was somewhat eerie and obviously purposeful. When Stephanopoulos asked him about it he said:

McCain: I was looking at the moderator a great deal of time. I was writing a lot of the time. I in no way know how that in any way would be disdainful […] I’ve been in many, many debates. And a lot of the times I don’t look at my opponents because I’m focusing on the people and the American people that I’m talking to. That’s what the debate’s all about.

Got that? He was looking at the American people. That’s why he was unable to glance at his opponent, to whom he was presumably engaged in discourse, even once in an hour and a half. Did he have a magic mirror that allowed him to see voters in their living rooms as they watched the debate on their TV machines? Would he also decline to look at Putin and other world leaders with whom he meets in order to keep his gaze on Americans that he is imagining?

Next up, Stephanopoulos asked McCain about Sarah Palin’s assertion that she, like Obama, would approve of cross border incursions into Pakistan to target Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. This is contrary to McCain’s own position, though he denies it:

McCain: She would not – she shares my view that we will do whatever is necessary. The problem is, you don’t announce it.

The problem is Palin did announce it, as did McCain in the same sentence that declared that he would not. McCain further argued that, while Palin said what she said, she shouldn’t be held to it because it was said while someone had a microphone picking up what she said, and besides what she said was the same thing that he was saying and that she did “just fine.” Can we hold him to that?

McCain also defended Palin from criticism she’s received, much of it from conservatives, that she is unprepared for the position that McCain has thrust her into.

McCain: Listen, I’m so excited about the reaction that Sarah Palin has gotten across this country, huge turnouts, enthusiasm, excitement. She knows how to communicate directly with people. They respond in a way that I’ve – that I’ve seldom seen. You know, they can complain all they want to. I’ll rely on the American people.

The American people have resoundingly rejected Palin. She has the lowest favorability ratings of anyone on either ticket. And it isn’t because she is getting bad press. In fact, Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post is reporting that many journalists are “censoring their comments about Palin to avoid looking like they’re piling on.” He also notes that CBS has more embarrassing responses from the Couric interview that they haven’t aired. So if CBS and others in the press were more honest and candid, the public’s view of Palin would be even worse.

That’s what McCain had to say this week on “This Week.” I can’t wait to hear what he’s going to say next week.

Brit Hume Not Stepping Down From Fox News Program

Posted by on July 15, 2008 at 1:36 pm. NO Comments :

Actually, Brit Hume is stepping down from his fox news program, Special Report. I just thought it would be nice if the headline of this article served as a tribute to Hume’s journalistic record:

Brit HumeFrom Howie Kurtz at the Washington Post:

“Sources familiar with the situation say that Hume, 65, will give up his job as Washington managing editor and anchor of “Special Report.” They say he is near a deal to continue with Fox in a senior statesman role, not unlike that of Tom Brokaw at NBC, for roughly 100 days a year.”

Kurtz notes in his column that Hume’s chummy relationship with the Bush White House helped him snag some exclusives. For instance, Hume got the only interview given by Dick Cheney after he shot a hunting companion in the face. What Kurtz didn’t say was that Hume and Fox News censored the interview to hide the fact that Cheney had been drinking that day.

No replacement has been named yet for Hume. One possible candidate is Jim Angle, presently the chief Washington correspondent for Fox News and a regular guest host on Special Report. Angle’s reporting is at least as slanted as Hume, so he would be able to slide right into the new role. But who know, maybe they’ll go with Sean Hannity or Karl Rove. At Fox News, journalistic credentials are not a prerequisite.

Fox News On O’Reilly vs Olbermann: If You Stop, We’ll Stop

Posted by on May 19, 2008 at 10:17 am. NO Comments :

Howard Kurtz has a revealing backgrounder on the battle between Bill O’Reilly and Keith Olbermann. O’Reilly, who has a superstitious aversion to saying Olbermann’s name, has directed his attacks at NBC, calling its chairman, Jeffrey Immelt, “a “despicable human being.” He even blames Immelt for the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq. The sad reality is that Ailes, O’Reilly, and Fox News are far more culpable for the tragedy that is Iraq via their persistent disinformation and cheerleading for the war.

Kurtz reports on conversations between Fox News president Roger Ailes and NBC CEO, Jeff Zucker. Ailes is reported to have jumped in swinging at Zucker:

“Ailes warned that if Olbermann didn’t stop such attacks against Fox, he would unleash O’Reilly against NBC and would use the New York Post as well.”

Unleash O’Reilly? Wouldn’t they need a permit from the Department of Animal Control for that? It’s interesting that Ailes openly asserts that he exercises editorial control over both O’Reilly’s program and the New York Post, for which he has no executive responsibility. NBC is to be lauded for their refusal to similarly impose such controls on Olbermann.

While Ailes is violating every tenet of journalistic independence, O’Reilly is behaving like the bully he is known to be. And worse, he is rapidly spinning into the Delusions of Grandeur Zone:

“That Immelt man answers to me. . . . That’s why I’m in this business right now, to get guys like that.”

O’Reilly’s claim to domination of GE’s CEO is both pathetic and laughable. The Factor averages about 2.5 million viewers a day. NBC Nightly News does three times that. The Today Show more than doubles O’Reilly’s numbers. The idea of Ailes and O’Reilly pushing NBC around makes no sense. But that never stopped O’Reilly before.

Now it appears that Ailes is already making good on his threats. The New York Post’s gossipy Page Six is asking whether the “notoriously odd” Olbermann is “on the verge of yet another professional meltdown?” That’s funny coming from the notoriously disreputable Post, and particularly Page Six, which has a history of publishing false items and hiring corrupt columnists.

Kurtz Watch: Disclosure And Hypocrisy

Posted by on March 26, 2007 at 3:35 pm. NO Comments :

Howard Kurtz is engaged in a battle with himself over when full disclosure is dangerous or admirable. In his article for the Washington Post, he frets that there is too much incivility on the Internet. He cites recent episodes where comments at the Huffington Post (which were deleted) and at Little Green Footballs (which left them up) exceeded the boundaries of Howie’s morality. He concludes that it is the Internet’s culture of anonymity that is responsible for the problem:

“What is spreading this Web pollution is the widespread practice of allowing posters to spew their venom anonymously. If people’s full names were required — even though some might resort to aliases — it would go a long way toward cleaning up the neighborhood.”

Kurtz doesn’t explain why full names, even aliases, would result in a change of demeanor. But if he is truly interested in cleaning up the neighborhood, then why did he himself quote an anonymous blogger last month who called the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, a bitch? He also refuses to explain how he magically stumbled on this blog that was less than 24 hours old, with only one posting on it. I guess he thinks it’s OK to be a profane, anonymous blogger if it suits his purposes.

If that’s not enough hypocrisy for you, on his CNN program, Reliable (?) Sources, Kurtz complained that reporters appeared biased when they pressed White House press secretary, Tony Snow, for answers. The issue they were pursuing was whether White House operatives should testify openly, before Congress, under oath, or be “interviewed” privately, unsworn, and with no transcript of the proceeding. The fact that Kurtz considers the reporters biased just because they prefer openness from the administration is just another example of the selectivity of his principles. He objects to citizens who express themselves freely, but he favors public servants who refuse to do so.