Roger Ailes’ Limp Dictum: Keep Flinging Scandals Until Something Sticks

Last week has been described by many in the press as the worst week yet for the Obama presidency. It was a week that saw purported scandals hyped furiously by Fox News and other right-wing media. They almost cheerfully segued from Benghazi to the IRS to the Associated Press, and then looped back for more of the same.

Most of the reports were rife with falsehoods and errors. Most striking was the story aired by ABC’s Jonathan Karl who blatantly lied about his “exclusive” access to internal administration emails but, as it turned out, he not only did not have any emails, he unethically regurgitated false and damaging misrepresentations fed to him by Republicans in congress. And while he issued a vague note of regret for the phony attributions, he has yet to admit that his sources were partisans with an axe to grind. [NOTE: David Shuster appeared on CNN’s Reliable Sources this morning and smacked down GOP apologist Jennifer Rubin in grand fashion on this subject. Video below].

Ever since these stories emerged, Republicans have been spinning with feverish glee in the expectation that they might bring down this president that they hate with such vicious intensity. And as an added bonus, refocusing attention on manufactured melodramas allows them to avoid doing any actual work for the people they supposedly represent. The GOP House has voted 38 times to repeal ObamaCare, but not once for a jobs bill.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the witch hunt. Obama’s approval rating has risen 6 points since March in a new CNN poll. And majorities say that they believe Obama’s statements about Benghazi and the IRS. So despite the aggravated bluster of the right, Obama’s fortunes have been faring well.

So how does Fox News react to a scenario wherein they have flung virtually all of the feces they could gather and none if it sticks to their target? Being Fox News they simply get dirtier and more insane as their desperation builds.

Ailes Limp Dictum

Each of the headlines in these stories were built from scratch to disparage the President. And each has not even a smidgen of truth.

The item asserting that Obama “Admits He’s A Socialist,” was wrenched from an article in the New York Times where the author offered his opinion that Obama longed to “go Bulworth.” That was a reference to the Warren Beatty movie where he played a senator who abandoned the pretenses of politicking and went out to say what he really thought, including some positive remarks about socialism. However, the author of the Times article never mentioned the socialism part of the story. He only meant to refer to the straight-talk that Beatty embraced. And more importantly, Obama never mentioned any of it. It was all the musings of the Times author. So there was no “admission” by Obama by any stretch of the imagination.

In the article from the Wall Street Journal, Kimberly Strassel presents her theory that Obama was secretly signalling to people way down the ladder from the White House, his desire that they target conservative non-profits seeking tax-exempt status. The method he used was to say things that he believed. How insidious. Strassel’s idiotic theory would mean that anything any public figure says is evidence of complicity if some other people he’s never met do something illegal or unethical connected to that opinion. For instance, George W. Bush would be guilty of homicide because he publicly stated his opinion that abortion is murder and then George Tiller, a doctor who provides abortions, was fatally shot at his church. See how easy that was?

In the other two headlines Fox simply plucked the word “irrelevant” out of comments made by White House Senior Adviser Dan Pfeiffer without providing any context. In the first one Pfeiffer was asked about whether any laws were broken in the IRS affair. His answer merely reflected the fact that he was not a lawyer, but that regardless of whether laws were broken, the behavior was inexcusable. He was not saying that “the law” was irrelevant, but that it wasn’t relevant to the determination that what happened was wrong even if not unlawful.

Finally, Pfeiffer’s remarks about the relevance of Obama’s whereabouts during the Benghazi attack came in the course of Fox News Sunday anchor Chris Wallace repeatedly asking him where Obama was that night. Wallace seemed obsessed with which particular rooms in the White House the President might have visited. Eventually Pfeiffer responded by bluntly saying “I don’t remember what room the president was in on that night. That’s a largely irrelevant fact.” Which is unarguably true. Wallace was wandering down some weird and delusional path that had no bearing on anything. But Fox spun Pfeiffer’s response to suggest that it meant something broader with regard to Obama’s overall attention to the unfolding crisis.

This is the kind of nuttiness that ensues when liars become increasingly desperate as they see their lies falling flat. They get more and more surreal as they strain to have an effect. And when the effect turns out to be the opposite of what they hoped (i.e. Obama’s approval rising), they keep walking down that dead-end path, accelerating their pace, until it leads to a cliff. In the next few days and weeks we will see if Fox and the GOP are crazy enough to keep walking right over the edge. This should be fun.

And now for something completely different: Shuster Mauls Rubin…

Is ACORN Pimp James O’Keefe A Felon And A Rapist?

James O'KeefeThere is a news report today that is raising the question of whether or not crocumentary videographer James O’Keefe is a felon and a rapist. The question has risen from the announcement by O’Keefe that he is suing the CurrentTV network, Keith Olbermann, and David Shuster over remarks allegedly made about allegations that he is a felon and a rapist.

What we already know about O’Keefe is that he is a liar and a convicted criminal. The videos he has produced over the past couple of years have invariably been proven to have been deceptively edited to reflect negatively on his victims.

He misrepresented himself in his ACORN videos as having entered ACORN offices dressed outlandishly as a pimp. It was later revealed that he never did so. He also cut out segments of his videos that showed his victims challenging him and he failed to disclose that some of his victims had even reported him to the police.

His NPR sting was so incompetently constructed that Glenn Beck’s web site (yes, that Glenn Beck) took it apart. The altered video was again selectively edited and this time even included replacing audio in parts with audio from other parts.

Then there is affair where O’Keefe attempted to lure a CNN reporter into a juvenile and salacious prank aboard his “love boat” that was designed to embarrass the reporter and the network. This stunt was so misguided that his own accomplice blew the whistle because she couldn’t go through with it.

His most recent escapade involved an attempt to demonstrate the ease with which one can cast a fraudulent vote. However, the only fraudulent activity he revealed was that of his own activities. He utterly failed to show that any voting fraud had or could occur using the methods he employed. But the use of those methods as captured in his video may have been illegal.

So now O’Keefe has filed a lawsuit alleging that he was been defamed by CurrentTV, Olbermann, and Shuster. The complaint cites instances of his having allegedly been referred to as a felon and a rapist.

The felon charge stems from his conviction in Louisiana for shenanigans in the office of Senator Mary Landrieu. O’Keefe and his cohorts entered the office dressed as telephone repairmen and asked to inspect the Senator’s phones. They were subsequently arrested and O’Keefe pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor of entering a federal building under false pretenses. So technically he is not a felon, which Shuster acknowledged and corrected. But he is still a convicted criminal and only avoided a felony record by pleading to a lesser crime.

The rape charge is a misstatement of events wherein O’Keefe was accused by a colleague of harassment in a case that included allegations of possible drugging. The case was dismissed due to jurisdictional issues, but could be reinstated in another court.

So was O’Keefe facing a rape charge? No, he was facing harassment charges. Was he a convicted felon? Not quite, but almost. And for this he is filing a defamation lawsuit. The man who has taken defamation to new levels of repulsiveness is so incensed at these affronts that he is willing to drag himself through the mud and remind everyone of his disgusting behavior.

Can you just picture his testimony? Can you see him on the stand asserting that he is not a felon because he was only convicted of a misdemeanor in a federal office? Can you hear his defense saying that he never faced rape charges, just charges that he held a woman against her will, possibly drugged her, and then threatened her and disparaged her in words and video?

The documents filed with the court go into lurid detail of his encounter with a female colleague and his criminal activity in Sen. Landrieu’s office. If anything, reading the entire complaint proves to me that there could not have been any defamation that was injurious to his reputation because his reputation is that of a scoundrel. To this day, the only persons ever convicted of any wrongdoing as a result of any of the video pranks O’Keefe has conducted are O’Keefe and his accomplices. And there is still other litigation against him pending.

Does O’Keefe really think that he has any chance of prevailing in court where he has to prove that the allegedly injurious statements were made with actual malice? Some of his complaints are merely misstatements, such as the charge that he was on parole. In fact, he was (and is) on probation, and it is highly unlikely that O’Keefe can prove that the use of the word “parole” was deliberate and intended to due him harm. Yet he is taking an aggressive stance in response to these trivialities despite the fact that doing so only exposes him to more bad publicity and coverage of his disgraceful antics and tawdry character. In a statement to his pals at Andrew Breitbart’s BigJournalism blog, O’Keefe said…

“I welcome criticism and even misguided hatred. But, if they call me a felon, if they call me a rapist, or any other disgusting, libelous, ridiculous thing, I will bring them into a courtroom, I will depose them, I will get access to their e-mails. I don’t care how many golden statues they have, I don’t care how many Emmies, Pulitzers they have. We will bring them to justice.”

That’s a fair amount of pseudo-bravado for someone who couldn’t even measure up to Glenn Beck’s ethical standards. But the material revelation in his statement is that he actually welcomes all of this, misguided hatred and all. He clearly enjoys being called a felon and a rapist. And he doesn’t even care if you’re Tom Hanks or Meryl Streep. The orgasmic thrill he gets just thinking about depositions and access to your email is palpable. So go ahead and call O’Keefe a felon and a rapist. It’s what he yearns for. And although he may not be a felon and a rapist now, I have every confidence that he will someday achieve his life’s ambition.

Fox News Reporter’s Guide: Think Like An Intolerant Meathead

Fox NewsMedia matters has published an interview with a former Fox News “insider” who reveals the inner workings of a modern propaganda operation. Some of the revelations have been obvious for years. Some of them will just infuriate you. Here are some highlights:

“I don’t think people would believe it’s as concocted as it is; that stuff is just made up.”

“It is their M.O. to undermine the administration and to undermine Democrats. They’re a propaganda outfit but they call themselves news.”

“You have to work there for a while to understand the nods and the winks. And God help you if you don’t because sooner or later you’re going to get burned.”

“[A]nything that was a news story you had to understand what the spin should be on it. If it was a big enough story it was explained to you in the morning [editorial] meeting. If it wasn’t explained, it was up to you to know the conservative take on it.”

“My internal compass was to think like an intolerant meathead. You could never error on the side of not being intolerant enough.”

“[Y]ou have to buy into the idea that the other media is howling left-wing. Don’t even start arguing that or you won’t even last your first day.”

Media Matters has much more. Check it out. It is fascinating getting this info from an insider. Very few people associated with Fox ever speak out, even after they have left. A couple of exceptions include Eric Burns, former host of Fox News Watch, and Jane Hall, former Fox News contributor. Both cited Glenn Beck as the reason for their departure. More notable was former Fox reporter David Shuster who said:

“At the time I started at Fox, I thought, this is a great news organization to let me be very aggressive with a sitting president of the United States (Bill Clinton). I started having issues when others in the organization would take my carefully scripted and nuanced reporting and pull out bits and pieces to support their agenda on their shows.”

“With the change of administration in Washington, I wanted to do the same kind of reporting, holding the (Bush) administration accountable, and that was not something that Fox was interested in doing.

“Editorially, I had issues with story selection. But the bigger issue was that there wasn’t a tradition or track record of honoring journalistic integrity. I found some reporters at Fox would cut corners or steal information from other sources or in some cases, just make things up. Management would either look the other way or just wouldn’t care to take a closer look. I had serious issues with that.”

It’s time that more people with knowledge speak out about the damage that Fox News is doing every day to the practice of journalism. We need more people like Howell Raines who asked some pertinent questions to his colleagues about their appeasement of Fox. (Too bad he waited until after he had left the NYT). And we need more insiders like Matthew Freud, the husband of Rupert Murdoch’s daughter Elisabeth, who said that he was “…ashamed and sickened by Roger Ailes.”

Fox News provides more proof every day that they are not a credible news enterprise. Today, as all hell was breaking loose in Egypt, Fox cut away to air their regularly scheduled broadcast of Glenn Beck. Glenn Beck!?! Is that what a news channel would do?

David Shuster Tells The Truth About Fox News – Again

With Fox News dispensing falsehoods and vitriol on a daily (hourly) basis, I have long thought that it is well past time for responsible media figures to respond by honestly portraying Fox as a partisan enterprise that has little to do with actual news.

By this I do not mean that partisans from the other end of the political spectrum should take on Fox’s disinformation machine. Folks like Keith Olbermann are already doing that. What I mean is that bona fide journalists should stop pretending that Fox is in the same business as they are. There needs to be a realistic appraisal of the state of the media and Fox’s role in it.

To that end, it is great to see MSNBC’s David Shuster coming forward and saying what all ethical reporters ought to be saying. In an interview with Stephanie Miller, Shuster provided an excellent example of how to tell the truth when it comes to Fox News:

[I]f Fox wants to consider themselves the GOP house organ, that’s fine. They completely backed it up. When Fox starts describing themselves as journalists or a news organization, that’s where I think it’s appropriate to describe Fox as disgraceful […] The stuff that comes out of Sean Hannity’s mouth has been infuriating. The stuff that Bill O’Reilly says has been illogical. You go up and down the schedule and it’s insanity over there.

This isn’t the first time Shuster has stepped up in this regard. Not long after he left Fox News (that’s right, he used to work there, so he knows of what he speaks), Shuster disclosed what it was like to try to practice journalism in a shop that had no respect for it:

…there wasn’t a tradition or track record of honoring journalistic integrity. I found some reporters at Fox would cut corners or steal information from other sources or in some cases, just make things up. Management would either look the other way or just wouldn’t care to take a closer look.

Seeing as how presenters on Fox are constantly bashing the rest of the media, you would think that they would stand up for themselves, particularly when they have the facts on their side. Fox is the only news organization that regularly insults the professionalism of their competitors in advertising and on the air. That is the whole point of their “fair and balanced” pretense.

Brian Williams, Katie Couric, Charlie Gibson, and others in TV and print, have the right and the duty to defend their presentation of the news and to reveal the deceit that is part and parcel of Fox. David Shuster is showing them the way. Nice job, David.

The Clinton/Shuster Affair Winds Down

Word has it that David Shuster, who was suspended for using a common colloquial that is even featured in the title of a popular television show on MTV, will be returning to the air on February 22.

What’s more, Hillary Clinton, who has been railing about Shuster’s comment, and threatening to boycott MSNBC, has confirmed that she will participate in a debate on the network February 26 – the week following Shuster’s return. I always thought Clinton’s over-reaction was politically motivated, and I think this decision is as well. With her campaign teetering, she likely believes that the exposure of a nationally televised debate is more valuable than a few more days of righteous indignation.

Throughout this affair, Clinton has narrowed the scope of her rage to only MSNBC, despite the fact that Fox News has been a far worse offender. While she was considering whether to ditch the MSNBC debate, she had already accepted one on Fox (Obama did not accept and its originally scheduled date has passed).

C.U.N.T.It is unclear whether Shuster ever got credit for demanding that right-wing Republican dirty-trickster, Roger Stone, take responsibility for a profane anti-Clinton organization he founded called “Citizens United Not Timid,” or C.U.N.T. Their stated mission is to “Educate the American public about what Hillary Clinton really is.” Wow, those Republicans are really classy! Check out that logo.

Finally, Greg Sargent at Talking Points Memo has confirmed that Shuster was never really Clinton’s primary target:

“As dumb and clueless as Shuster’s “pimp” remark, this was never really about him. The Clinton campaign, while genuinely upset about what Shuster said, lashed out at the network because they were primarily irked by Matthews’ conduct…”

I still wonder when they will become irked by Fox News’ conduct.

Hillary Clinton’s Hypocritical Pimped Out Rage

[Updated with new Clinton response]
First things first. when David Shuster asked, “…doesn’t it seem like Chelsea’s sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?” he couldn’t have been more wrong. It was inappropriate, demeaning, and unprofessional. In the wake of those remarks, he has apologized on air twice, expressed his regrets personally to the Clintons, and been suspended from broadcasting for an undetermined period of time.

That said, Hillary Clinton’s latest response to NBC News President Steve Capus is rife with hypocrisy and calculated outrage. From the Clinton letter to Mr. Capus:

“Nothing justifies the kind of debasing language that David Shuster used and no temporary suspension or half-hearted apology is sufficient.”

I’m not sure what criteria she used to assess the apology as “half-hearted,” but the ones I heard from NBC, Shuster, and Keith Olbermann all sounded pretty whole-hearted to me. Yet Clinton seems to be leaving open only one option – to fire Shuster. She may have an ulterior motive for this which I will address later. The letter continues…

“I would urge you to look at the pattern of behavior on your network that seems to repeatedly lead to this sort of degrading language […] Surely, you can do your jobs as journalists and commentators and still keep the discourse civil and appropriate.”

What I’d like to know is, how on Earth can Clinton ask that of MSNBC without holding Fox News to the same standard?”

That said, there needs to be some measure of perspective inserted into this affair. The term “pimp,” like many other rhetorical incivilities, has been been recast by contemporary social applications. Nobody thinks that MTV’s “Pimp My Ride” is pejorative in context. Pimping has assumed a colloquial definition of either enhancing or promoting the subject. That’s not to say that the traditional meaning is moot, and that is why Shuster is deserving of criticism.

However, Clinton’s response is wholly out of proportion. To threaten to cancel debates on MSNBC because of these comments raises an obvious question: Why did she happily agree to debates with Fox, despite the fact that they have said far worse for much longer about her and pretty much everyone in her party? If the Clinton campaign was truly concerned about not patronizing networks that disparage them, she would have canceled both network’s debates. Her selective outrage reeks of political chicanery, rather than maternal protectiveness.

For me this is not about the Shuster comment which is universally reviled. It is about the Clinton response that is inconsistent and not applied equally to her detractors at Fox whom she has embraced. And while Shuster deserves and has accepted the consequences of his verbal blunder, Fox stubbornly stands by every slur they’ve ever uttered.

While inartfully executed, Shuster’s point was not far off the mark. Politicians have been been likened to whores on more than a few occasions in the last thousand or so years. They engage in campaigns that are drenched with money from those seeking favors. They sell their votes and influence for cash, endorsements, appointments, and attention. And they are certainly not above exploiting their families.

Tucker Carlson RatingsFinally, no one should ignore the supreme irony of Shuster being suspended for offensive remarks he made while filling in for Tucker Carlson. Carlson is well known for making offensive remarks repeatedly, never apologizing, and yet he has never faced suspension. This is a particularly egregious oversight in light of the fact that his show has no business being on the air in the first place. It is a perennial ratings loser to his competition and is the worst performing program on the network. Yet his offenses have yielded nothing, but Shuster, a reporter with a long history of journalistic integrity and achievement is suspended.

This isn’t the first time Shuster was compelled to issue an apology. On the prior occasion, however, his bosses at MSNBC forced him to apologize for a mistake that, as it turned out, he didn’t make. It also isn’t the first time Shuster has butted heads with the Clintons. At KATV in Little Rock, Arkansas, and later at Fox News, he was assigned to the Whitewater investigation (h/t Chip Ramsey). Could this have something to do with the ferocity of Clinton’s attack on Shuster? It should be noted that when he left Fox for MSNBC he was unusually candid about his experience working for Murdoch and company:

“…there wasn’t a tradition or track record of honoring journalistic integrity. I found some reporters at Fox would cut corners or steal information from other sources or in some cases, just make things up. Management would either look the other way or just wouldn’t care to take a closer look.”

That rare moment of refreshing honesty will now be overshadowed by the drama that Clinton is stirring up, perhaps motivated by revenge. The right-wing media is already pouncing on this to hammer MSNBC as disreputable. But they should take note that at least this network has taken the responsible steps to repair any damage from the affront. When was the last time that Fox behaved responsibly? Yet Fox is being rewarded by Clinton for their irresponsibility. And speaking of double standards, Will Bunch at Attytood has posted what may be the definitive take on it:

…was it the worst thing ever said about Chelsea Clinton in the public arena? Not even close.

“Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno.”
Sen. John McCain, speaking to a Republican dinner, June 1998.


Maybe MSNBC should ban John McCain from appearing on the network for a while. And given Hillary Clinton’s strong stance on the matter, I assume she won’t be debating McCain this fall, either?

So one stupid slip by an otherwise outstanding reporter draws threats of a boycott, but years of premeditated character assassination earns a personal appearance on a televised debate that will bring viewers, revenue, and prestige to the offending network. Fox has already started touting the victory of snagging Clinton for the debate, even though there may not be one as Sen. Obama has yet to accept. That didn’t stop Fox’s Chris Wallace from telling A Daily Show’s Jon Stewart that “The dam is broken now that John Edwards is no longer in the contest.” The dam has been broken at Fox for a long time, and here’s a sampling of what has been pouring through:

Note to Hillary: Cancel both debates or SHUT UP!

The O’Reilly Meltdown Will Be Televised

Today on the Factor, Bill O’Reilly played his videotape of the Clash in Nashua. It was truly disgusting listening to that belligerently egotistical megalomaniac barking orders at Obama’s aide, who was just doing his job. I don’t understand how The Fester can show this video and think that it makes him look sympathetic. I’m a little surprised he showed it all (though he did censor the part where he called the aide a “son of a bitch” and he ends it before his talk with Obama). Perhaps he had no choice but to show it after saying publicly on Saturday that he would do so. (Here is CSPAN’s version that contains the exchange between O’Reilly and Obama)

The video does clear some things up. For instance, it was clear in the video that O’Reilly lied when he said that there was no physical engagement. O’Reilly can be seen pushing the aide several times. It was also clear that O’Reilly lied when he said there was no intervention by the Secret Service. The video plainly shows an agent getting in between O’Reilly and the aide, and making sure that O’Reilly stayed back.

Perhaps the funniest part of this sorry escapade is O’Reilly’s attempt to characterize this as a defense of the Constitution. On his radio program today he made that argument twice:

“…in the tradition of the freedom of the press, I had to remove the man from blocking our camera shot – which I did.” And… “This guy’s clear intent was to block The Factor. And he knew it was me – he knew I was standing there – from getting any shot of the Senator and that’s against the Constitution.”

Then on TV he cast himself as a reluctant champion of the First Amendment:

“Well that’s a total violation of press freedom so I had no choice, ladies and gentlemen, but to uphold the Constitution.”

That’s right…O’Reilly thinks he has a Constitutional right shove his way into a crowd and demand that everyone make room for him and his camera crew. Can you imagine what O’Reilly would have said if Keith Olbermann was caught shoving an aide to John McCain so he could get a better shot? And what journalistic principle was O’Reilly fighting for? Did he have an issue of critical interest to the public to raise with Obama? Well, not unless you think that sucking up to the Senator to try to get him to appear on his TV show is high on the list of the American people’s concerns, because that’s all O’Reilly did.

When O’Reilly finally caught Obama’s attention, it sounded like Obama agreed to appear on The Factor sometime after the New Hampshire primary. I will be very disappointed if that occurs. First, because I have long been advocating that Democrats stay off of Fox News as a matter of principle (see Starve the Beast). And second, because after learning what led up to O’Reilly’s invitation, Obama would be foolish to reward him with an interview.

This is a point also made by NBC’s David Shuster, who couldn’t hold his tongue any longer. Shuster breaks loose and calls O’Reilly a “jerk” and a “buffoon.” And he adds that…

“Fox News ought to be so embarrassed with this guy.”

That’s not likely to happen as O’Reilly epitomizes the Fox News ethic of blustery ignorance. But this video is a rare example of a newsman speaking candidly and honestly about a repulsively demagogic colleague.

I sincerely hope that a lot of people watch O’Reilly tonight, and I know many more will see this affair on YouTube. After catching this little slice of strife it may just start to sink in that this guy needs Dr. Phil’s help more than Britany. And we may have a sound bite that can supersede last year’s “Don’t tase me, bro.” That would be O’Reilly hollering…

“Don’t block the shot, got it? Don’t block the shot!

By the way, O’Reilly has a poll at asking if he “was right to remove the guy that was blocking the Factor’s shot?” Feel free to go and vote.

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.

Former Fox Reporter Sees The Light

David Shuster, currently a reporter for MSNBC, is coming clean about his former bosses at Fox.

…there wasn’t a tradition or track record of honoring journalistic integrity. I found some reporters at Fox would cut corners or steal information from other sources or in some cases, just make things up. Management would either look the other way or just wouldn’t care to take a closer look.

It’s nice to know that if you quit drinking the kool-aid, eventually your senses will return. Now we need to get the rest of the Fox crew into rehab.