Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThere's an interesting conversation going on this weekend between the Barack Obama campaign and FOX News -- or, to be more precise, between the Obama campaign and the American people about FOX News.
On Friday, FOX host Wallace took the network to task for overplaying and distorting a remark by the Democratic presidential contender that the FOX folks were trying to present as a suggestion that the "typical white person" is a racist.
Wallace's comments fell short of a condemnation of his employer.
He simply told the hosts of the network's morning program, FOX & Friends, what was obvious to everyone: That FOX's obsessive focus on Obama's comments regarding race issues was an attempt to divert attention from the candidate's serious statements about other issues.
"Hey listen, I love you guys but I want to take you to task if I may, respectfully, for a moment. I have been watching the show since 6:00 this morning when I got up, and it seems to me that two hours of Obama bashing on this typical white person remark is somewhat excessive and frankly I think you're somewhat distorting what Obama had to say," said Wallace, couching his words more carefully than a corporate CEO giving a deposition in a shareholder lawsuit.
"Far be it for me to be a spokesman for the Obama campaign, and I will tell you that they would laugh at that characterization, but you know, the fact is that after giving a speech on race earlier this week, on Tuesday, he gave a major speech on Iraq on Wednesday and a major speech on the economy yesterday," Wallace continued. "And so, I think they would say that in terms of deflecting attention away from the issues people really want to hear about, maybe it's the media doing it, not Barack Obama."
Not exactly a radical critique of contemporary media.
But it was enough for the Obama camp.
The campaign's blog announced:
We appreciate Chris Wallace for doing his job as a tough but fair journalist on a network that has been deeply irresponsible over the last week in its unrelenting and sensationalistic coverage of Senator Obama.
Senator Obama gave the speech he did on Tuesday because he believes that Americans are ready for a thoughtful, mature discussion about race, and are hungry to move past media-generated controversies that distract from the struggles they face in their everyday lives.
If Fox News wants to play clips of the same offensive sound bites every day from now until November, that's their right, but that type of coverage does a disservice to their viewers and to a nation that is facing serious challenges that merit thoughtful and honest reporting.
An added update on the Obama blog noted that a FOX & Friends host, Brian Kilmeade, had objected off camera:
We've become aware of the fact that Brian Kilmeade was so offended by Fox and Friends this morning that he actually walked off the set. We appreciate the fact that he too was so offended by Fox's treatment of this serious issue that like Chris Wallace, he chose to speak out.
This may not rise to the level of a divide-and-conquer strategy on the part of the Obama campaign. But it is a valuable initiative. The senator's aides are moving away from blanket denunciations of FOX toward a far-more-powerful critique that recognizes divisions within the network over its Obama bashing.
By now, there is no question that the constant battering of the Democratic front-runner is being directed from the top of the network -- which is owned by Hillary Clinton-backer Rupert Murdoch -- rather than its news editors.
None of this absolves FOX or the vast majority of its on-air personalities. (Indeed, it should be noted that Wallace, who lends the network whatever credibility it has, operates from a place of relative job security.) The Obama campaign's comments simply move the discussion in the direction of the real story about FOX: It is now more than obvious that Murdoch is using his network to achieve his ends.
A fair and balanced assessment of what's going on at FOX has to go beyond the network's on-air reports to consider the behind-closed-door machinations of the boss. To look elsewhere is to run the risk of being outFOXed by Rupert Murdoch.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
John Nichols, I have yet to read anything in print media or on the web that is "fair and balanced" these days. None can tell an objective story, not even, The Nation.
Posted by ACook at 03/22/2008 @ 6:00pm
Fox is the most ridiculous "news source" , I use that term loosely, in existence. It's funny that they even know that all they do is lie to the point that they had to make their slogan fair and balanced. What a ridiculous ridiculous station.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/22/2008 @ 6:03pm
John Nichols, I have yet to read anything in print media or on the web that is "fair and balanced" these days. None can tell an objective story, not even, The Nation.
Posted by ACOOK 03/22/2008 @ 6:00pm
I agree with you but some people can print a partisan source of information that is at the same time legitimate and with information in it. Others try yellow journalism instead.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/22/2008 @ 6:04pm
The Wright contraversy is also a FOX fabrication
Here's 9 minutes of the chickens have come home to roost [youtube.com]
The full 35 minutes, including deeply and profoundly touching reflections on the victims of 9/11 here (audio only) [odeo.com]
The God Damn America in context here [youtube.com]
But hey, it's a handy excuse to hate a blameless man.
Posted by johnny canuck at 03/22/2008 @ 6:54pm
It's about time! I was begining to think we would never get back to the issues! Thank you.
Posted by NewDay08 at 03/22/2008 @ 7:07pm
It's good that Obama is responding to these things. He's already far surpassing Kerry when it comes to the dirty politics.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/22/2008 @ 7:45pm
Thanks Johnny Canuck.
I followed the links and listened to them all. Between what is said about Wright and what Wright said the difference is immense. The man's intelligence and good-spiritedness are inspiring. Obama has, in fact, nothing to repudiate.
Posted by steve elkind at 03/22/2008 @ 8:35pm
The Limbaughs, O'Reillys, Coulters of the world and Fox news personalities do have an effect on people. My father used to watch Fox News and listen to Rush Limbaugh before he passed-on a little over a year ago. The two or three years prior to that I started noticing a change in his attitude.
As a staunch conservative my father was never prone to making derogatory comments about a person. In fact growing up I was taught that if I did not have something nice to say about someone not to say anything at all. So you can imagine my surprise hearing him call one of the candidates, running for president in 2004, a snake-in-the-grass. It got to the point if you did not agree or challenged his views on politics he would go into a rage. He was right and I did not know what I was talking about. When he began making it personal I told him, "end of conversation." I believe this is directly linked to the influence of the media.
It is one thing for news show hosts to discuss a candidate's drawbacks, but it is quite another to exaggerate, distort and fabricate things that just are not true. It is irresponsible. As a result voters go to the polls uninformed and misinformed. And look where the nation is today.
I herald both Chris Wallace for publicly criticizing Fox and Brian Kilmeade for walking off stage. They stood-up for principle and honour rather than participate in sleaze politics. Until Americans do likewise this type of gutter-snipe political destruction will continue. Knowing the impact it had on my father the consequences are too high a price to bear notwithstanding.
Posted by serena1313 at 03/22/2008 @ 8:54pm
As the campaign drags on thanks to Billary, Murdoch-owned Fox becomes increasingly important to the BillaryPenn dirt machine: Fox is now their primary external conduit. A huge debt to Murdoch is being accumulated, and Rupert is not a man known to give away anything for free. Should Billary succeed in trashing the Democratic party, Murdoch will collect.
SuperDelegates, awake.
Posted by sloper at 03/22/2008 @ 9:10pm
Posted by SERENA1313 03/22/2008 @ 8:54pm
SERENA, the left is just as guilty of exaggerating and distorting the facts as the right. What this country truly needs is responsible and objective reporting. If you leave out the subjectivity (the emotions), the constant bias polling and opinion pieces and you may get a decent news organization that only reports on the issues.
Posted by ACook at 03/22/2008 @ 9:20pm
ACOOK, I tend to agree that both sides have media outlets that are biased. If I want the "real scoop" on a story, I usually go to news outlets outside the U.S., and always more than one. It's sad but true.
Posted by FritztheCat at 03/22/2008 @ 9:36pm
YES SLOPER! Great points on corporate media-
Mainstream media is NOT the most accurate acronym. Need to incorporate the true patrons - mega, multinationals. Look into connections between NBC, Lockheed and the Cheney's for example.
Corporate media is one clever, twisted democracy-crushing cancer.
The lie of lies is the claim to provide "news", to employ "journalists" - the whole edifice. This is the first law of propaganda. Disguise the medium / source of the information. So they dress up in the 4th estate big time.
Actually, they do even better. They employ super effective camoflauge. Hide the poison in decent, accurate reporting. Some sources are 90% legit, and some 90% propaganda. But who's to say which is better - given that they're all very happy with the media-govt merger.
To say this another way, the NYT is not pushing hard for any sort of resolution of this.
And there are absolutely ways this could be contained and corrected, and the constitutional role of the fourth estate could be restored.
Eventually the public's lulled into an upsidedown Alice-in-Wonderland World, made to believe that more or less the election process is a series of events which the media reports to the public as ongoing 'news'.
What passes for "news" is about like calling Cheetos 'farm-grown and all natural'.
Within this Big Lie, it's then relatively easy for Corporate Media to execute all manner of smaller cons. One of Limbaughs is "louder/longer". Clear Channel/Limbaugh/ Hannity / Coulter / Boortz / OReilly are that special class of journalist. You know the types to interpret EVERYTHING under the sun the same way, over and over and over and over and over. Neocons=good, Everyone else=evil. They outright censor, disallow, negate any form of opposing views. Fox uses a little bit of the Big Lie in their formula, so the censorship / louder / longer is a smidge more disguised. Still, in terms of any sense of reality, it's about as symmetrical as the US v Iraq air force was when we invaded five years ago. Ahhh, Fox and the firey streamers across the screen. They salivating as they pissed all over themselves in glee at shock/awe.
Anyone out there regret voting for Cheney/Bush? I would have but didn't so don't.
Posted by winyahn at 03/22/2008 @ 9:56pm
Posted by WINYAHN 03/22/2008 @ 9:56pm
WIN, right-leaning FOX news isn't the problem, it's the left-leaning media's inability to effectively keep an audience. Here lies the obvious question...why? What makes FOX so much more successful than their competitors? Yes, Bill O'Reilly et al are a factor, but not "the" factor. Is it FOX's marketing technique that draws them in? Or do they truly offer something different? I think one of the reasons the left is on the losing end of viewership is because they chronically complain about FOX, which in turn makes viewers curious as to why.
Posted by ACook at 03/22/2008 @ 10:29pm
Acook- Good point: FOX and Clear Channel rule when it comes to propaganda and exploiting the herd.
They're the fast food of the media. Big mac n' fries = Rush n' Ann Coulter = cancer
Fox is a sick science. Murdoch Co. & Clear Channel are truly stunning modern techo seemingly transparent ("news"/"journalism") versions of Goebbels of Nazi era.
People want to believe in good and evil. That cowboy Bush went after the evildoers who attacked us because they hate freedom. Of course, it's idiotic but if you cater to average IQ, heavy- tv types, omit any divergent data, repeat the message enough with some sex appeal, suits and graphs. Well giddyup! It works!
Posted by winyahn at 03/23/2008 @ 12:23am
You can put lipstick on a pig all day and by sunset it's still a pig (no offense to any porcine lovers out there!) and that in a nutshell sums up Fox News right there. They go off of right-wing platitudes. I think the issue they sell here is of impartial journalism, and when called on their conservative slant they deny any such things then rail you for criticizing them. They can't show an obvious bias (which they make it a point of requiring less thought to digest) and then whine when called on it.
Posted by yutsano at 03/23/2008 @ 12:53am
Cook, you're a crank, faker, fraud, to be ignored. Intellectually bankrupt. Left-leaning MSM in the US? Absurd. Pick up yr Billary machine PR agency check before it bounces.
Posted by sloper at 03/23/2008 @ 03:52am
Look, bitchin' about Fox is like bitchin' about the weather.
They're the highest rated cable news (for what THAT is really worth) and not going anywhere, and they're not likely to change because John Nichols at "The Nation" says so (or anybody else, even Chris Wallace).
Move on.
Posted by Mask at 03/23/2008 @ 11:48am
Yep, bitchin about Fox & it's followers = bitchin about McDonalds and obese customers = bitchin about Walmart and the consumerism. No stopping them trains!
Posted by winyahn at 03/23/2008 @ 12:52pm
Beyond the Green Zone
Attention neocons. Here's someone else to hate:
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_ video_info&products_id=202648-1
Un-American! Aiding and abettin!
Posted by winyahn at 03/23/2008 @ 1:11pm
My, what a long ways we have come as a nation.
From the lynching of Emmit Till in 1957 for being too "uppity" for talking to a white woman to the political lynching of Obama for being "uppity" because he went to a church where the preacher spoke uncomfortable truths about this nation that has become the "Evil Empire."
The state sanctioned propaganda outlets, like FOX and CNN, led the lynch party last week with their ad nauseam playing of selected sound bites of Wright's sermons.
Just enough to get the unwashed masses roused from their Britney and American Idol induced stupors to join the lynch mob and shout for blood.
One FOX commentator, the repulsive Hannity, said that Obama was both a racist and an Anti-Semite for having Wright as a preacher.
And there you have the real reason for the Obama lynching, that tired ass canard that makes politicans wet their pants: Anti-Semite. Obama's too much of a threat to the LOBBY and that pain in the ass country Israel.
Israel has McCain and Hillary deep in their corner, but Obama is too much of an unknown for those bastards, so it's off to the gallows pole for that "uppity" bastard.
And again, we'll bow down humbly and gladly follow the dictates of that "shitty little country" and keep up the wars and war mongering for Israel, since that country has no idea nor inclination, of how to live in peace with its neighbors.
No sacrifice is too great for Israel. No amount of American blood shed is enough.
No matter that the Iraq War, which Israel and the LOBBY pushed for is wrecking our economy, Israel's economy is doing fine and by god, that's what matters.
How many more flag draped caskets filled with American kids are you ready to see come home, filled with our heritage, killed fighting wars for Israel?
10,000? 25,000? 50,000?
Sold to the gentlemen standing there with blood on their hands, a Mr. Olmert and his companion, Mr. Cheney.
Welcome to this brave new world.
Welcome to the United States of Israel.
Posted by Greg Bacon at 03/23/2008 @ 3:44pm
Posted by WINYAHN 03/23/2008 @ 1:11pm
I'll see your Dahr Jamail and raise you one Rajiv Chandrasekaran:
http://www.democracynow.org/2006/9/29/imperial_life_in_the_emerald_city
Wow! What will happen to our Democracy--er, Empire--when we let people besides Steve Doucy tell us what the truth is?
Posted by goyadad at 03/23/2008 @ 3:52pm
Cook, you're a crank, faker, fraud, to be ignored. Intellectually bankrupt. Left-leaning MSM in the US? Absurd. Pick up yr Billary machine PR agency check before it bounces.
Posted by SLOPER 03/23/2008 @ 03:52am
Not technically true. The Nations editorial board isn't very leftist, but their journalists in the field lean fairly well left. You've also got Free Speech Television and Democracy Now!, both of which are extremely leftist.
Posted by shadow master at 03/23/2008 @ 4:01pm
Not technically true. The Nations editorial board isn't very leftist, but their journalists in the field lean fairly well left. You've also got Free Speech Television and Democracy Now!, both of which are extremely leftist. Posted by SHADOW MASTER 03/23/2008 @ 4:01pm
True, but none of these remotely qualifies as MSM. All niche plays.
Posted by sloper at 03/23/2008 @ 4:06pm
Posted by SERENA1313 03/22/2008 @ 8:54pm
This is a sad story, Serena. But a very common one. It doesn't matter to right-wing buzz machine what they do to the quality of public discourse, democratic participation, or the quality of policy & decision making on the part of elected officials, much less family relations among the public that they indoctrinate. They are continuing to make money as long as they sensationalize, indoctrinate, and demonize. You will notice that between the right wing diatribes on Fox there are ads for various products, etc. This is what Fox is all about. It is a media carnival for hucksters, scam artists, fraud-peddlers, acrobats, lion-tamers, and football players (to coin a phrase). None of it is true. It's just there like the cheese in a mousetrap, to catch the unwary. (Interesting to note that even editors see that it's the ad space that matters, and the airtime or column inches devoted to actual content is called "the news hole" -- news is a "hole," like the hole in the doughnut; it doesn't matter because it's the ads that generate revenue & pay the salaries.)
I'm not sure, but that might be why there are so many Rushbot blogflies and trolls continually swarming over here at The Nation. They know that they are going to hate everything that they read here because it doesn't tell "the official story" and has to do with something called "reality based journalism," something that the Righties have nothing but contempt for because it doesn't confirm their voluntary mass delusion.
But it is sad when it infects family relations and transforms normally amiable, sane, and fair-minded persons into viral, ranting, Rushbots that we scarcely recognize. (A bit like those folks Will Smith encounters in "I Am Legend" sometimes.) The elderly are especially vulnerable it seems. (And yes, I do know of this first hand, just like you. I try to avoid tripping the switches and restarting the tape-loops loaded up by the far right buzz-machine.)
Posted by goyadad at 03/23/2008 @ 4:43pm
Apropos the preceding, this is why I predicted some time past that the Obama campaign will ultimately fail. Hate, fear, suspicion, and prejudice are a much easier sell than hope, reason, balance, and common purpose. This is why, such a long time ago Thomas Hobbes opined that the life of man is at base "poor, nasty, brutish, and short"--because it is easier for us to live like selfish, fearful, instinctual animals than as citizens of a shared polity.
Does Rupert Murdoch & the rest of his folks at Fox know this? Indeed they do. That's why they sell flags, confetti, racism, and hatred on Hannity & Colmes and why Murdoch puts a topless model on Page Four of his tabloid papers. Sex and war and hate and greed sells. It always has, it always will.
Posted by goyadad at 03/23/2008 @ 4:49pm
Erratum: Sorry, it's actually "Page Three," not "Page Four" in Murdoch papers. You can tell I'm not a subscriber, I guess.
Posted by goyadad at 03/23/2008 @ 5:20pm
GOYADAD, Will check it out if I find time. Working harder not smarter right now. I get a kick out of your kick ass posts!
Posted by winyahn at 03/23/2008 @ 5:34pm
JOMAMMA Quick n' clever retort there - give yourself high five!
Posted by winyahn at 03/23/2008 @ 5:35pm
I'm no fan of the rightwing noise machine, but lefties have done at least as much to debase and destroy discourse in this country. Take a look at any old leftwing blog such as the Dailykook--such sites ooze with hatred, including race hatred (only against whites however). Moreover, the left has erected a mighty mechanism of censorship known colloquially as political correctness--a vast array of techniques including peer pressure, threats to livelihood, and even state power to ban many ideas and discourses. Not since the 1950s has freedom of thought and of expression been under such unrelenting assault.
Many of the left's criticisms (and the right's) of American society are perfectly valid and thus worthy of being taken seriously. But when they get wrapped in extremist, demagogic rhetoric that is demonstrably false, the discourse and our whole society suffer. This is Jeremiah Wright's problem--many of the criticisms he voiced are indeed true, but he gave into the temptation to express them in a hateful (and patently unchristian) manner. Of course, some of his statements were not valid, such as the charge that the (white-controlled) US government developed HIV to kill people of color. We can revisit that claim when someone has solid evidence.
Obama made a serious mistake by staying so closely connected to a deeply flawed and extremely divisive public figure (but of course Obama is not the only person ever to have done that). The left's uncontrollable rage directed at Fox News and at white voters stems, undoubtedly, from recognition that their fondest hopes of getting Obama elected president have been dashed because too many people have now heard too much from Rev. Wright. His secret is out. Many are now asking how many other secrets are there?
Posted by feinfein at 03/23/2008 @ 5:39pm
The Nations editorial board isn't very leftist, but their journalists in the field lean fairly well left. You've also got Free Speech Television and Democracy Now!, both of which are extremely leftist.
Posted by SHADOW MASTER 03/23/2008 @ 4:01pm
Shadow, you say "left" like it's a BAD thing. Sometimes truth, when it appears as news (rare, I know), is a good thing. Sometimes (really, more often true than not) a "left" news report turns out to be true.
For instance: when reporters said that not all the Iraqis were greeting our troops as "liberators." That was a "left" report that was repudiated by "mainstream" outlets like Fox & NBC who preferred to show the statue of Saddam falling on a continual tape loop.
For instance: when reporters said that an organized resistance was forming up in Iraq, and they weren't a collection of "dead enders" to be easily mopped up as Rummy affirmed--on Fox, NBC on continual tape loop.
For instance: when reporters said that disaster response to Katrina was ill-organized, ill-resourced, and ill-deployed and that most of the people in need of emergency intervention were mostly poor and mostly black. This while NBC and Fox muttered that there were "rumors" of problems but nothing substantive.
The list goes on and on. Time after time, accounts of facts that are seen as "leftist" turn out to be true-- Galileo and the heliocentric heavens, Einstein & his questioning of the conservation of matter, Darwin's account of evolutionary development of species, questions challenging the biological inferiority of non-whites, etc. etc. These were all seen as loopy, left-wing, radical notions in their time. And they have all become accepted facts. Not on Fox News, but in the rest of the world, mostly. (According to Fox, the heavens still revolve around the Earth, and the Sun is the face of Rupert Murdoch, giving life, light, and truth to Earth's inhabitants, one tabloid newpaper and broadcast at a time. God bless Sir Rupert! All hail the Boss! Kiss his Shoes!)
Posted by goyadad at 03/23/2008 @ 5:42pm
Many of the left's criticisms (and the right's) of American society are perfectly valid and thus worthy of being taken seriously. But when they get wrapped in extremist, demagogic rhetoric that is demonstrably false, the discourse and our whole society suffer. This is Jeremiah Wright's problem--many of the criticisms he voiced are indeed true, but he gave into the temptation to express them in a hateful (and patently unchristian) manner.
Posted by FEINFEIN 03/23/2008 @ 5:39pm
You have a point, my blogosheric friend. Human nature is flawed, fallible and easily corruptible. Most insidiously corrupted to bad actions and bad faith in the name of what are often at face value good causes. I believe that it was Madame Roland, an avid advocate of the French Revolution in its early phases of overturning corrupt privilege and entrenched injustice, who found herself most unjustly on the scaffold condemned to death, and said, "Oh Liberty! What crimes are committed in your name!"
Well, we could say the same damn thing today, could we not? But the difference is (and I will insist upon this difference, by the way) that when power is in the hands of those who are zealous enforcers of the truth, they are obliged to have less regard for reality and balanced, skeptical construction of same, and they are more able to do any number of horrific things in the name of that delusion that they miscall "truth." This is that case with the Right. They have the reins of power and they are intoxicated with it. (Sorry for the mixed metaphor, but perhaps you get what I mean.) You can't say the same for the Left. They are unresourced, marginalized, and disempowered. But if you want to get a clear idea of what is going on in a country, you are probably better to ask an itinerant peddler or succourer of the poor than to ask the King and his courtiers. That's where we are now. We are getting facts from the Jester in Chief and his flunkeys in office and in the media. Not the most reliable sources, as the public is beginning to learn, most feelingly.
The problem with Wright, in my humble opinion, is that he had a collection plate to fill. Such a motive can have a corrupting influence on what a person says, methinks. Now, how that can be laid at the feet of a some-time parishoner, one Barak Obama, is a different matter. If we are all responsible for every loopy thing people might say while we are within hearing of them, who shall 'scape whipping? Just speaking for myself, I could scarcely get to "good day" for uttering denunciations of all the foolery and nonsense I am exposed to on a daily basis.
If one were frank about all of this blather, one would be forced to admit that it is really about race-baiting and whipping up an ethnic resentment against the ethnically-challenged Barak Obama. Why bother? It's already there. And besides, he's a Senator. Can anything worse be said of someone than that? (It was even an insult in Shakespeare's day--cf. "Othello" Act I, sc. 1)
Posted by goyadad at 03/23/2008 @ 6:09pm
"Cook, you're a crank, faker, fraud, to be ignored. Intellectually bankrupt. Left-leaning MSM in the US? Absurd. Pick up yr Billary machine PR agency check before it bounces."
Posted by SLOPER 03/23/2008 @ 03:52am
uh sorry SLOPE, but I don't like any of the candidates, especially Billary. Your quip about me doesn't negate the fact that the left is not adept at getting "their" message out to the public.
Posted by ACook at 03/23/2008 @ 7:58pm
ACOOK Fair to say, based on your comments, that you "don't like" Obama the most?
Did you vote for Cheney/Bush in the past? You can lie if you want.
Posted by winyahn at 03/23/2008 @ 8:14pm
"ACOOK Fair to say, based on your comments, that you "don't like" Obama the most?"
Posted by WINYAHN 03/23/2008 @ 8:14pm
WIN, I don't support any of the candidates nor the platforms they are running on. When the general election comes around, I will probably write in "dark horse" on the ballot.
BTW, whom I voted for in the past is irrelevant.
Posted by ACook at 03/23/2008 @ 9:35pm
It's become too ugly on the Obamacaca's side. Alrignt, if Bubba is like McCarthy, then Obama must be a Hitler. Read this.
------------
Obama Aide: Bill Clinton Like McCarthy Mar 22, 3:58 AM (ET) By MATT APUZZO
SALEM, Ore. (AP) - Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign is trying to clarify comments by former President Clinton that seemed to question Barack Obama's patriotism - comments an Obama aide likened to Joseph McCarthy.
Clinton's campaign said the comments were being misinterpreted and quickly posted a clarification on its Web site. But retired Air Force Gen. Merrill "Tony" McPeak said he was disappointed by the comments and compared them to those of McCarthy, the 1950s communist-hunting senator.
Posted by HelenDAO at 03/23/2008 @ 10:29pm
Here's Wright's retirement sermon, wherin he used the N-bomb. Keep in ming, the man is retirement, it's in the wake of the Ferraro comment, and he had some thinsg to get off his chest.
Also, if you look into the actual tennets of the Black Liberation Movement, this requires him to speak out against racism whenever he sees it.
If you pay attention to what is said before and after, you will realize that while it's racialized, (which makes me grind my teeth personally because race is only as relevant as you make it, the whole thing is a consensus illusion, but that's another topic) it is not in fact racist. Because right after he says the shocker, he says that he refuses to hate people who are his enemies, and refuses to descend to bigotry and hate. And then he ties it all back to Barack, reminds the audience that Barack was also shunned by the local black community for a while (ie them), and then ties the whole thing back to Jesus loving his enemies and his people, even though they both hated him.
The whole thing was in fact anti-racist IMO, but of course FOX cut out all that other stuff.
But hey, judge for yourself:
Part 1 [youtube.com]
Part 2 (with the N-bomb, but be sure to watch part 1 as well. [youtube.com]
Posted by johnny canuck at 03/23/2008 @ 10:34pm
Now the most extremist liberal starts straying. He needs Ted Kennedy and the liles' votes only for the primaries. Smart this guy Obama. Too smart. Dangerously smart.
---------
Obama: Don't Label Me Liberal Obama's promise of a new majority, and the question it prompts
By Robin Toner Published: March 23, 2008
WASHINGTON: At the core of Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign is a promise that he can transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars, and build a new governing majority.
Posted by HelenDAO at 03/23/2008 @ 10:40pm
ACOOK Who your voted for for POTUS is a lot more relevant than what your preacher screamed or baseball coach shouted.
How about just answer this: do you still have the Cheney-Bush sticker on your car?
Posted by winyahn at 03/23/2008 @ 11:07pm
Clinton superdelegate Gus Bickford, was paid $8,000 in November for consulting that started the day he endorsed Clinton.
Neato
Posted by winyahn at 03/23/2008 @ 11:51pm
Clinton superdelegate Gus Bickford, was paid $8,000 in November for consulting that started the day he endorsed Clinton.
Neato
Posted by WINYAHN 03/23/2008 @ 11:51pm
So THAT'S where all her money went!
Posted by yutsano at 03/24/2008 @ 12:22am
the left is just as guilty of exaggerating and distorting the facts as the right. What this country truly needs is responsible and objective reporting. If you leave out the subjectivity (the emotions), the constant bias polling and opinion pieces and you may get a decent news organization that only reports on the issues.
Posted by ACOOK 03/22/2008 @ 9:20pm
sorry, but reality has a "liberal" bias in regard to fox. fox has been so incredibly over the top in its bias.
furthermore when a right wing buzillionaire finances a "news" network, he can get away with telling lie after lie and eventually many will believe. the big, concentrated money is on the right. all this bullshit about "liberal media" is little more than projection and distress over the fact that the right wing version of the truth consistantly conflicts with the real truth, which must therefore logically be liberally biased...right?
bullshit.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/24/2008 @ 01:01am
As someone's mentioned, the guy's just too smart. Dangerously smart. He could turn everything negative about him into his own political gains: votes, money, big time endorsements; and just by a speech or too. Or are we all so dump asses anybdy could manipulate our minds and souls so easily.
-------------
Swift Boating the Speech It was a great piece of oratory, and a good short-term political tactic. But it won't help him beat McCain. By John Heilemann Published Mar 24, 2008
Few events in this relentlessly eventful campaign season have felt as momentous, as freighted with portent, as the speech that Barack Obama delivered last week on race. As a piece of rhetoric, Obama's address was pretty much everything one could ever hope for from a presidential candidate on the vexed topic of black and white: nuanced, candid, gutsy, and replete with context. But Obama's oration was more than a speech--it was a political maneuver. And, as such, at least in the short term, it was as nearly as effective as it was eloquent and erudite. It helped Obama move past the raging controversy stirred up by the rantings of Reverend Jeremiah Wright. It put him back on the elevated plane where he thrives. And, in the words of one Democratic strategist, "It strummed the mystic chords of the press corps, which has been south on him since Ohio and Texas."
In the longer term, however, Obama's speech did nothing to defuse an issue that Republicans clearly intend to beat him senseless with this fall--assuming that, as seems increasingly likely, he secures the Democratic nomination. Quite the contrary.
In GOP circles, the incendiary video clips of Obama's former pastor are seen, not surprisingly, as a gift that will keep on giving. And indeed, the furor around them has caused Republican strategists to rethink their preconceptions about whether Obama or Hillary Clinton would be a more formidable general-election opponent against John McCain. "Once, there was a clear impression that he would be tougher," a senior McCain adviser tells me. "But, after these past few weeks, I don't think that's the case anymore."
Posted by HelenDAO at 03/24/2008 @ 02:48am
Obama is taking a lot of heat for things that genuinely shouldn't matter. It's quite an illustration of how backward, blind, and racist America is that the worst thing the right wing can manage is Obama's middle name or what his pastor says. The end result is a general public that sees Obama as a liberal [sic] who wants to change [sic] things. The issues, as always, are ignored. The richer get richer, the sick get sicker, the bombs continue to fall, eco-systems decline and vanish, and American Idol is down to its final 10 contestants.
Read more [mickeyz.net]
Posted by coolobserver at 03/24/2008 @ 05:44am
Wasn't Fox News the network that started the trend of playing cherry-picked blips taken out of context in a Dean-screamed 24/7 loop?
What would Billary do without Fox? And who needs Republicans with Democrats like these? Between McCain endorsements and running a dirty campaign against a fellow Democrat, it enables McCain to run a "clean" campaign, because the Clintons acted as Goons for the right.
Posted by Lil at 03/24/2008 @ 07:19am
Sloper writes: "Fox is now their primary external conduit"
That and Drudge.
Billary is a class act, eh? Don't count on the Super Delegates, that are sure to milk this for all it is worth while they are in a position to negotiate. Billary put a freeze on a lot of them that were poised to throw their lots with Obama--but as repellent as they have become, Billary does not get the same media scrutiny that Obama is subject to. There was a brief acknowledgement that Clinton had "inflated" her experience claims, but mostly soft criticisms, supplemented by qualifiers, and then back to the race fear-mongering around the clock. Billary is desperate-and far behind Obama and still keeps up the Republican smear crusade, but it is left for people to recognize the reality independently--the media isn't really an accurate baromenter--the case for Iraq is a classic example.
Posted by Lil at 03/24/2008 @ 07:33am
Posted by GREG BACON 03/23/2008 @ 3:44pm | ignore this person
you are frothing at the mouth. America and Americans have shed no blood FOR Israel.
Posted by emile duBois at 03/24/2008 @ 07:57am
you are frothing at the mouth. America and Americans have shed no blood FOR Israel. Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 03/24/2008 @ 07:57am
Israel sunk a US Navy ship with all US sailors on board killed. Hundreds of Marines were killed when their barracks were demolished in Lebanon. True, they weren't in the direct service of Israel. But they weren't defending US national interests either. Furthermore we've just been told that it is the role of the US president to support the people of Israel & their decisions. Find that in the US Constitution. In fact, find even a treaty of alliance between the US & Israel: there isn't any.
Posted by sloper at 03/24/2008 @ 09:32am
Israel sunk a US Navy ship with all US sailors on board killed. -----Posted by SLOPER 03/24/2008 @ 09:32am |
SLOPER, what "US Navy ship" was that, that was sunk with "all US sailors on board killed"?
Posted by Mask at 03/24/2008 @ 10:20am
Israel attacks the USS Liberty in an unprovoked and savage attack. For that bit of murder and treason, we give Israel billions and billions of dollars and weapons. The IDF even went so far as to machine gun the survivors trying to escape in life boats. This from our "friend" Israel. What do you think would have happened if a country like Iraq or Iran had been the attackers?
Eyewitness to an Act of War…A US Air Force Intelligence Officer Speaks with American Free Press About the USS Liberty
The outrage in his voice was made all the more striking by his New England accent and Yankee assertiveness that long ago brought about the American Revolution. ‘I couldn't believe it…One minute, nothing, and then the next minute they were attacking our ship in broad daylight…We had no warning that it was coming, and then ‘boom,' there it was, and our guys were being slaughtered.'
Like hundreds of other individuals who have particular stories to tell concerning their actions and whereabouts on June 8th 1967 when the USS Liberty was attacked by the air and naval forces of Israel, Capt. Richard Block's testimony is noteworthy, but in some respects much more important than others. At that time, he was in command of the 6931st Security Group of the USAF Security Services stationed on the island of Crete where his job was to act as the eyes and ears of the US intelligence community. What he and the others under his command heard that day obliterates the lie that has been foisted upon the people of the United States for the last 40 years that the attack was all the result of ‘mistaken identity' and proves beyond any reasonable doubt that it was a deliberate and premeditated act of war.
‘We were getting the translations in real-time' he said, speaking of the air-to-air and air-to-ground communications taking place between the pilots and C&C (command and control) on the ground in Israel. ‘They knew it was an American ship. We heard it with our own ears, several times. The story they have told for the last 40 yrs about the Liberty being mistaken for another ship is complete bull****.
Or, go to the USS LIberty's home page at:
USS Liberty Home Page [gtr5.com]
Posted by Greg Bacon at 03/24/2008 @ 11:03am
This is for "Blanche" Dubois--the one that depends on the kindness of strangers... like Israel.
What country, in the ME, constantly threatens neighboring countries with war or the threats of war?
What country, in the ME, has invaded its neighboring countries numerous times in the last 40 years?
What country, in the ME, is seeking cover to carrry out it's campaign of genocide against its indigenous people?
What country, in the ME, has profited handsomely since 9/11, by seeing the money, weapons and political backing from its host nation increase?
What country, in the ME, had a film crew standing across from the WTC in New Jersey, ready to film the 9/11 attacks?
What country, in the ME, is known for launching "false flag" ops against countries that are supposed to be that nation's friends?
That country is Israel and it's Israel behind these messages purportedly to be from the CIA creation known as aL-Qaeda. Israel is trying to get another war started in the ME. A war that will see the U.S. fighting another of Israel's "existential" enemies, Iran, while Israel goes back into Lebanon to murder and bomb that country into oblivion.
Posted by Greg Bacon at 03/24/2008 @ 11:12am
There are two Fox-related factoids of which I love to remind people;
1. The term "fair and balanced" does not mean the same thing as the word "truthful".
2. Fox News successfully defended itself in a Florida whistleblower case by asserting its constitutional right to lie. (If you think this is hyperbole, then do a little Googling. The story will not take long to find.)
Posted by drhammer at 03/24/2008 @ 11:29am
Posted by DRHAMMER 03/24/2008 @ 11:29am | ignore this person
i believe the world is roundish...dingdong schwingshwong thinks its flatish...
fair and balanced give both "opinions" equal time!
some opinions are butt stupid...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/24/2008 @ 11:39am
Don't let anyone blur the issue by saying that "everyone is biased." That's like saying "everyone has an opinion," when this isn't about differing opinions, it's about honesty vs. dishonesty. It's about integrity or lack of integrity. There is a difference between having a point of view and being a propaganda machine. There is a difference between lies and manipulation and debating--presenting points of view honestly while still advocating for one position over another. There's a difference between offering an opinion as such and disguising opinion as "objective" fact. Finally, there's a difference between corporate media and independent media.
Posted by MoPro at 03/24/2008 @ 12:14pm
Well, this thread is now setting a new precedent....
TWO totally useless arguments on the same thread.
1. Fox News. Useless, because Fox isn't going anywhere and it's still tops in the cable ratings.
2. Israel. Because NONE of the remaining 3 candidates for President are planning on gutting aid to Israel.
What's next? Abortion? Eliminating nuclear weapons?
Posted by Mask at 03/24/2008 @ 12:34pm
1. It's possible that wanting more of your fellow citizens to be aware of a network's bias does not automatically equal putting said network out of business.
2. It's also possible that wanting more of your fellow citizens to be aware of the amount of influence a particular special interest group has in their governance does not automatically equal the demise of said special interest group.
Posted by drhammer at 03/24/2008 @ 1:38pm
Just an excerpt from The Media Can Legally Lie:
"During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre's claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so."
Posted by drhammer at 03/24/2008 @ 1:49pm
Okay, Fox has the right to lie, but do they have the right to slander?
Posted by johnny canuck at 03/24/2008 @ 1:55pm
I tell everyone who tells me they're a regular Fox viewer to do themselves a favor and find some more sources. And while I'll reveal my sources if prompted, I don't tell anyone which sources to search out.
I don't need for everyone to think like me.
But I don't think we should be lied to, either.
Posted by drhammer at 03/24/2008 @ 2:06pm
Posted by DRHAMMER 03/24/2008 @ 1:38pm
Doc, aside from the local Repubs/cons who believe Fox is "fair and balanced" (or don't care if it IS a shill for the Republicans)....
anybody here not know that???
As for Israel...I'd say the opinions for, unconcerned, or vociferously opposed to, that nation are pretty locked-in as well.
Posted by Mask at 03/24/2008 @ 2:12pm
Posted by MASK 03/24/2008 @ 2:12pm
Well, I didn't do a cost/benefit analysis, and don't intend to.
I am prone to airing this and similar ramblings on a regular basis, to the choir or otherwise.
I am sure that in my lifetime, I will waste far more valuable things than your time.
Posted by drhammer at 03/24/2008 @ 2:30pm
I am sure that in my lifetime, I will waste far more valuable things than your time.---Posted by DRHAMMER 03/24/2008 @ 2:30pm
Hey...we're still thrashing it out on THIS thread?...heheh
Point was...nobody's mind is going to be changed about Fox News, NOTHING is going to be done to blunt their ratings (How long ago was "Outfoxed" now?...a year?)
Everybody who knows it's a propaganda arm...knows it. Everybody who doesn't, isn't on the Left, and won't be persuaded by the Left.
End of story.
Posted by Mask at 03/24/2008 @ 3:22pm