Finding two people more "American" than my Mom and Dad isn't easy. They've worked — hard — all their life. The grew up picking cotton and getting by in hardscrabble Arkansas as best they could. They graduated high school and went to work. They toiled for decades and did the best they could to send their children to college. Mom has spent thousands of hours volunteering at church. Dad gave more than 30 years to the National Guard and more than two decades as a volunteer firefighter. Those are but a few of their patriotic and American bonafides.
Mom and Dad (and most of my family, for that matter) have one trait in common with more than half of the people in this country — they believe what they see on "Fox News."
I've tried to tell them that "Fox News" is no more a "news" outlet than MSNBC is. Both of those networks come to the information business with a perspective. The difference is that millions of Americans think they can take "Fox News" to the bank.
They couldn't be more wrong.
And the argument couldn't be more futile.
I've been saying for years that folks know what they know and they don't care to know the truth. That wasn't as true 20 years ago, but it's without doubt now.
Oh, I could list dozens of examples of how "Fox News" blatantly lies to the American populace to spread a political point of view, but it wouldn't matter. I'd just be this liberal pinko socialist spreading lies.
I can't resist one fact, though. Look it up. Don't take my word for it. Look at the video yourself. I can think of at least two examples (and I'm sure there are many others) of a Republican politician getting caught doing something bad. Fox couldn't avoid covering the story, but when the network is showing video of the culprit doing a mea culpa, Fox labels the GOP guy as a Democrat. Accidental? Sure, it is. Again, don't take my word for it, look up the video yourself. Mark Foley, the Florida congressman who was having weird relationships with teenage boys, was one of the examples. Mark Sanford, the married South Carolina governor who had the South American lover, was another.
Why does any of this matter today? President Barack Obama's administration has kinda/sorta called out "Fox News" for its agenda. He tried to block a "Fox News" pool reporter today. And the media establishment has lost its mind tut-tutting.
This is the same media establishment, of course, that hasn't had a spine since the Nixon years.
But we're supposed to believe Obama is the bad guy for calling "Fox News" what it is.
There are two things wrong with the whole mess. One, Obama will eventually cave. Two, most everyone (including my Mom and Dad) will think the "Fox News" won. Again.
Well, they won't be wrong about that.
Truth detector
The best way to know if you're hitting close to home is when someone tries to marginalize you. Obama is doing just that - Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod have both gone on "real" news channels and dismissed Fox News as having a "point of view" and, the Obama administration talking point you chose to use, having a "perspective".
The "point of view" and "perspective" they seem to have is that they report issues about the Obama administration the rest of the media tends to ignore. This "perspective" is unflattering to the president, and as such, the marginalization begins. The interesting thing is that the more the administration ignores them (and suggests that everyone else does, too), the higher their viewer numbers rise.
It's interesting to note that while the Obama administration ratchets up its marginalization effort of Fox, not one complaint is lodged against MSNBC. If the problem is that Fox has a perspective, then why is MSNBC not chastised for their own unique perspective? We all know the answer to that.
All cable news networks have "points of view" expressed on their regular nightly shows. Fox and MSNBC may very well be at the fringes, but CNN and Headline News are just as culpable of expressing perspective on the hosted shows they broadcast in prime time. This has little to do with the news segments of each network, however.
The bottom line there is that Fox reports news that simply isn't part of the liberal media's playbook. Obama knows this and rather than answering the hard questions, he attempts to get EVERYONE to just ignore the questions and the news outlet asking them. Not the mark of a distinguished and stately leader.
To address your specific points:
"Oh, I could list dozens of examples of how "Fox News" blatantly lies to the American populace to spread a political point of view, but it wouldn't matter."
Please, by all means, list the many dozens of these "lies". I'd be interested to know how the number one cable television news network gets away with spreading so very many lies.
"Fox labels the GOP guy as a Democrat."
You mean, just like the AP and half a dozen other "reliable" news sources did? http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3572
"This is the same media establishment, of course, that hasn't had a spine since the Nixon years."
Truth. Thank you for stating it.
Hitting Home
"The best way to know if you're hitting close to home is when someone tries to marginalize you."
Hey Rick, Looks like you are hitting close to Mark's home!
Like I said, there's no point
in going over the ridiculous lies — no mealy mouthed word in this no-spin zone — Fox News spreads.
But just for two more that immediately come to mind:
• The morning folks this past week (though I may be talking a bit more than a week ago now) quoted a Newsweek column as saying that the White House castigation was "un-American." Actually, the column called Fox News un-American. Just a bit of a difference. Look it up.
• Here's my favorite. I've been writing about this for years. Several Fox News shows will have panels of folks talking about the news. Three people is the standard for these panels. They'll have one conservative columnist. They'll have one conservative activist. They'll have one reporter from The New York Times or NPR or some media outlet. Note the difference: columnist (opinion writer), activist and REPORTER. But the reporter -- who gets asked the same questions that call for an opinionated reply -- is from a newspaper or other media outlet.
What's the point? The reporter answering the questions gives the impression that the Fox News folks make all the time that the news media is all about foisting opinions off in the newshole.
It's a heckuva ploy, and it works extremely well, especially on people who aren't paying attention.
Dozens?
No point in going over them? Let's suppose someone wrote in a blog, "There are dozens of examples of how the Log Cabin Democrat blatantly lies to the citizens of Conway and Faulkner county." Wouldn't you want to see the dozens of examples? What if they only provided two or three that could easily be construed as simple mistakes at best and slight bias at worst? Wouldn't you still rightfully defend the LCD as a valid news outlet?
The first example you gave lies somewhere between a simple mistake and a slight bias. The Newsweek article does call Fox's so-called "British model" of news "un-American", but when part of that "model" involves castigating the White House, then how is it incorrect for Fox staff to say that the Newsweek article called the action "un-American"? It's not, and to use it as an illustration of how Fox news is so obviously biased is biased in itself.
Your second example is less clear. I guess I don't understand how inviting members of the "fair" news sources such as the NYT or NPR to participate in Fox News on-air discussions is somehow presenting a bias in coverage. The Newsweek article implores these people to STOP responding to Fox invitations, but again, that's only a marginalization tactic that does little to foster the truth of the matter.
It's a lot like your editorials and blog entries to which I respond - marginalization would mean that I didn't respond at all. Quite the contrary, I enjoy the debate, and to get to the heart of any debate, the debate itself must take place, involving parties of both sides of the issue.
OK, here ya go
Here's a good place to start:
http://foxnewsboycott.com/tag/lies/
Oh, and note that there are multiple pages to this posting.
I especially like one of the ones toward the bottom of the first page, how Fox News contended (and took out a newspaper ad in The Washington Post) that other networks did NOT cover the tea parties of ... Sept. 12, was that the date, I think so. The video is of Rick Sanchez of CNN showing CNN's coverage of the tea parties.
Lie. Yeah, that's the word.
And oh, by the way, happen to notice Rush Limbaugh's faux pas Friday? He fell for a satirical hoax "thesis" that Barack Obama had supposedly written somewhere back in the day that purported to unveil his spread-the-wealth plan. Cited the hoax as truth. Best part? When it was pointed out that the thing was a big joke and that he had fallen for it, he said words to the effect of, "Well, yeah, but we know that's what he's thinking anyway."
Ok, you got me
According to that website, it looks like there are lots of lies, mistakes, whatever you want to call them on Fox News. Just for kicks, I fired up Google to see if I could dig up some websites that point out the same kind of lies and mistakes from the "real" media.
Wow! Googling "fox news lies" brings up about 7 million websites. Googling "media lies" brings up 255 million. Here's a few:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/10/media_dishonesty_matters.html
101 mainstream media lies listed there.
http://www.mrc.org/realitycheck/archive.aspx
I didn't count the number in their archive.
http://mrc.org/timeswatch/
A website dedicated to monitoring the New York Times. Kinda like the millions of others set up to monitor Fox News.
As for the tea party coverage, you have to admit the coverage from the other networks was sparse at best. You also have to admit that the LCD followed suit and didn't cover the tea party in Conway on April 15th.
Re: Rush - I did notice his rush (pardon the pun) to judgment on the thesis story. However, he did catch it and gave it its due correction shortly thereafter (unlike most of the media who falsely accused Rush of making racist statements he did not make). Since Rush is an opinionated talk show host, I fully expect him to give his opinion of what Obama thinks. It's not like that opinion is based on nothing Obama has said or done before, even if it wasn't actually said in his thesis.
Getting back to the main point of discussion, I can admit Fox News is biased as long as you can admit that every other national and world news source is as well.
Rick, here's an article
that might interest you...
"30 Reasons Why Fox News is Not Legit" http://mediamatters.org/columns/200910270002
~ "I didn't fight my way to the top of the food chain to be a vegetarian." ~ Author Unknown ~
Truth detector
"Just for kicks, I fired up Google to see if I could dig up some websites that point out the same kind of lies and mistakes from the "real" media."
"... Googling "media lies" brings up 255 million..."
"A website dedicated to monitoring the New York Times."
And isn't that an effort to marginalize what Mr. Fahr has written about Fox News? There are more ways to marginalize something than to not respond to it at all.
Definition of marginalize:
prevent from having attention or power: to take or keep somebody or something away from the center of attention, influence, or power