War on Fox

[IBCoupe]

Original link: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51949.html

The liberal group Media Matters has quietly transformed itself in preparation for what its founder, David Brock, described in an interview as an all-out campaign of “guerrilla warfare and sabotage” aimed at the Fox News Channel.

...

In an interview and a 2010 planning memo shared with POLITICO, Brock listed the fronts on which Media Matters — which he said is operating on a $10 million-plus annual budget — is working to chip away at Fox and its parent company, News Corp. They include its bread-and-butter distribution of embarrassing clips and attempts to rebut Fox points, as well as a series of under-the-radar tactics.

But if you get nothing else out of the article, this is my favorite part:

“Criticizing Fox News has nothing to do with criticizing the press,” [Media Matters']s memo says. “Fox News is not a news organization. It is the de facto leader of the GOP, and it is long past time that it is treated as such by the media, elected officials and the public.”

[bigbadberry3]

Fox can stay as long as they remove the "news" from the title.

[mattblancarte]

I'm all for destroying the perceived credibility of Fox News and its performing artists. They don't even deny that the vast majority of their programming is a facade for neo-con propaganda.

Makes me sick that so many folks drink up the act.

[telcoman]

Makes me sick that so many folks drink up the act.

Only the uneducated rednecks

Telcoman

[mattblancarte]

Only the uneducated rednecks

Not necessarily true. Plenty of educated adults watch Fox News Channel. My father, for instance, is a very successful and well-educated person. He pretty much solely watches Fox News for his TV news intake.

I think it has to do with the whole underlying "Christian values" ploy that Fox put out on the air.

[themadscientist]

I find it quite funny that Fox is lambasted for being a right-wing propaganda machine, which it is, when CNN, MSNBC and many onter media outlets are as guilty of being left-wing versions of the same. I have met as many lefties as righties who with or without formal education who shut their brains off and simply regurgitate the talking points of whatever personality they blindly trust. Two sides of the same counterfeit coin and it won't buy a damed thing.

Keep reading DailyKOS and damning FOX for being psudonews; the stunning irony brings me much laughter. Oh, the bell rang, time for your "news" pellet; good dog. I bet it makes your leg tingle don't it howie?

[mattblancarte]

Last time I checked, almost all 24 hour "news" networks are called out for their BS.

Fox News is particularly egregious when it comes to misconstruing the truth, which is why they are more often lambasted compared to the other networks.

CNN, MSNBC, etc. are all loaded with crap. Stay far, far away.

[IBCoupe]

I wonder if Fox changed its tagline from "Fair and Balanced" to "All the Herp That's Fit to Derp" they'd get the same level of criticism in comparison to the other 24-hour news networks.

----------------------
EDIT

Or, y'know, if they stopped doing things like this to the people who openly criticize them in print:

----------------------

[insert cookie-cutter "victim card" response here]

[IBCoupe]

I'm all for destroying the perceived credibility of Fox News and its performing artists. They don't even deny that the vast majority of their programming is a facade for neo-con propaganda.

Makes me sick that so many folks drink up the act.

Keep in mind that FOXNews gets its top ratings numbers in relation to other cable news.

Fox News averaged 2.25 million total viewers in prime time for the third quarter, up 2% over the previous year. That's more than CNN (946,000, down 30%) and MSNBC (788,000, down 10%) combined.

More than half of NPR's daily audience comes from its two "core" news shows, "Morning Edition" and the evening "All Things Considered." "Morning Edition's" average daily audience, 7.6 million, is now about 60 percent larger than the audience for "Good Morning America" on ABC and about one-third larger than the audience for the "Today" show on NBC.

And not to send this back in a discussion towards NPR bias, I have to wonder if a biased organization would hit daily listenership that's more than six times (20.9 million/day) FNC's daily viewership average (3.2 million/day).

[mattblancarte]

"All the Herp That's Fit to Derp"

[mattblancarte]

Keep in mind that FOXNews gets its top ratings numbers in relation to other cable news.

Indeed, they do. I was unaware that the two top shows on NPR were so popular.

Faith... In humanity... Slowly recovering...

[themadscientist]

No, don't stay far away, pull them in close and look into their eyes. I don't trust ANY source, you can't. I'm disturbed by the bald-faced lies and how so many people blindly beleive what they are told with not even the slightest bit of independent analysis, but it's good that the ideologues feel confident enough to show their true colors; it lets you know what you are up against.

I use media to mark lateral limits because when you have agenda-based reporting they will steer as hard as they can towards their respective sides. Once you know where the extremes are mark an equidistant point between them and there is a high probability that that is very close to what the truth is.

Rush cracks me up, he's very entertaining, but I don't trust him. Matthews is fun to watch, but he's as suspect as his counterpart. These people do a service of calling attention to important issues. They do it for the purposes of spinning it, but the importance of the issue is normally still there. Don't pay attention to their suspect opinions, do your own research and decide for yourself.

I lean to the right, but I have more in common with a left leaning thinking centrist than I do with any avid FOX viewer, and certainly no MSNBC devotee. This is because while the left leaning centrist does not share most of my views as a right leaning centrist, they do share my penchant for thinking for ones self and being wary of extreme ideologues and party politics.

America isn't Harry Reid or John Boener, it's not Barack Obama and it's not George Bush, It's not Keith Olberman or Sean Hannity. America is a fog of people in the center trying to survive and prosper, to live their lives and take care of their families in spite of the oppression and predations of loudmouth power-thirsty extremists who feel entitled to the reins of power simply because they are passionate and yell the loudest. Unfortunately, while conceptually that's false, in actual practice, it's true.

Media is a product and sensationalism sells, truth doesn't. Nobody wants to hear that you went home to your wife, had dinner and cuddled on the couch. That's boring. They want to hear about that time in Vegas with the hookers. Guess which metaphor fits mainstream media?

The closest thing to objective reporting in this day and age is a show that denys this very fact. The Daily Show.

[AZhitman]

^ ...this.

And, with all that said, it's pretty funny that despite all the "whining", they have to resort to underhanded means to compete.

You'd think just being GOOD at what you do would be enough? Nah, not if you don't believe in Capitalism.

Fox is junk. But so is MTV. So is TMZ, and HuffPo, and the Enquirer, and The Star. Big damn motherscratchin' deal. What's the harm? Why must you silence those you disagree with? Why can't you just refute them with truth?

Because liberals are good at being cowards, that's why.

Ok, go ahead with the "Fox News Watcher!!!" accusations. I'll just intellectually kick you in the taint, kinda like I do Howie every time he makes an ignorant, baseless assumption. I don't watch TV, with the exception of scrolling through the channels on the treadmill when I'm at the gym.

[telcoman]

^ ...this.

And, with all that said, it's pretty funny that despite all the "whining", they have to resort to underhanded means to compete.

You'd think just being GOOD at what you do would be enough? Nah, not if you don't believe in Capitalism.

Fox is junk. But so is MTV. So is TMZ, and HuffPo, and the Enquirer, and The Star. Big damn motherscratchin' deal. What's the harm? Why must you silence those you disagree with? Why can't you just refute them with truth?

Because liberals are good at being cowards, that's why.

Ok, go ahead with the "Fox News Watcher!!!" accusations. I'll just intellectually kick you in the taint, kinda like I do Howie every time he makes an ignorant, baseless assumption. I don't watch TV, with the exception of scrolling through the channels on the treadmill when I'm at the gym.

Everytime Fox is mentioned I just can't get this out of my head

http://www.cmt.com/videos/merle-haggard ... ogee.jhtml

Or do you remember this one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiVFfOOm_GI

or this one

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/sy-187835 ... sic_video/

Such great music the last time this country was in deep $hit

Now we have The Daily Show and
Dailykos


Telcoman

[R/T Hemi]

^ ...this.


Because liberals are good at being cowards, that's why.
...

Liberalphobia. DSM-IV
Definition;
The unwarranted fear of an advanced form of government often manifested by extreme distrust and loss of touch with reality in political issues.

Symptoms:
Liberalphobic individuals often exhibit shaking knees, slurred speech, cold sweats and possible nausea in the presence of great liberal thinkers. Body temperatures are known to rise when a liberalphobic individual is forced to dialog with a liberal.

Treatment;
Successful treatment requires the person to admit their fear, then face the Northeast and bow three times at any mention of great liberals such as WIlson, Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Clinton.

Footnote:
Liberalphobic individuals commonly become liberal at age 65, when it comes time to draw Social Security. T

[telcoman]

^ ...this.


Because liberals are good at being cowards, that's why.
...

Liberalphobia. DSM-IV
Definition;
The unwarranted fear of an advanced form of government often manifested by extreme distrust and loss of touch with reality in political issues.

Symptoms:
Liberalphobic individuals often exhibit shaking knees, slurred speech, cold sweats and possible nausea in the presence of great liberal thinkers. Body temperatures are known to rise when a liberalphobic individual is forced to dialog with a liberal.

Treatment;
Successful treatment requires the person to admit their fear, then face the Northeast and bow three times at any mention of great liberals such as WIlson, Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Clinton.

Footnote:
Liberalphobic individuals commonly become liberal at age 65, when it comes time to draw Social Security. T

+1

Excellent

[IBCoupe]

No, don't stay far away, pull them in close and look into their eyes. I don't trust ANY source, you can't. I'm disturbed by the bald-faced lies and how so many people blindly beleive what they are told with not even the slightest bit of independent analysis, but it's good that the ideologues feel confident enough to show their true colors; it lets you know what you are up against.

I use media to mark lateral limits because when you have agenda-based reporting they will steer as hard as they can towards their respective sides. Once you know where the extremes are mark an equidistant point between them and there is a high probability that that is very close to what the truth is.

Rush cracks me up, he's very entertaining, but I don't trust him. Matthews is fun to watch, but he's as suspect as his counterpart. These people do a service of calling attention to important issues. They do it for the purposes of spinning it, but the importance of the issue is normally still there. Don't pay attention to their suspect opinions, do your own research and decide for yourself.

I lean to the right, but I have more in common with a left leaning thinking centrist than I do with any avid FOX viewer, and certainly no MSNBC devotee. This is because while the left leaning centrist does not share most of my views as a right leaning centrist, they do share my penchant for thinking for ones self and being wary of extreme ideologues and party politics.

America isn't Harry Reid or John Boener, it's not Barack Obama and it's not George Bush, It's not Keith Olberman or Sean Hannity. America is a fog of people in the center trying to survive and prosper, to live their lives and take care of their families in spite of the oppression and predations of loudmouth power-thirsty extremists who feel entitled to the reins of power simply because they are passionate and yell the loudest. Unfortunately, while conceptually that's false, in actual practice, it's true.

Media is a product and sensationalism sells, truth doesn't. Nobody wants to hear that you went home to your wife, had dinner and cuddled on the couch. That's boring. They want to hear about that time in Vegas with the hookers. Guess which metaphor fits mainstream media?

The closest thing to objective reporting in this day and age is a show that denys this very fact. The Daily Show.

Great post, and I think this is why I can simply roll my eyes and change the channel whenever Sean Hannity opens his mouth (I tend to run into him, because I scan the TV channels before bed, and History Channel and Animal Planet are up near FOXNews on my dial).

But the stuff that pisses me off is the stuff I don't witness, but find out about afterwards, like that image I posted above, and like this somewhat tolerable crap, followed by this completely intolerable s***.

It irked me before, but that's my hometown (though I didn't attend the elementary school in question - I went to Harrington, not Byam). Using the power of a national media operation to lie and humiliate complete innocents is cheap and infuriating.

An On The Media piece about the ambushes:
http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2010/01/01/03

[AZhitman]

Symptoms:
...shaking knees, slurred speech, cold sweats and possible nausea....

I've never experienced that, thank God.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...Oh. Well, there's why....

...in the presence of great liberal thinkers.

Liberalphobic individuals commonly become liberal at age 65, when it comes time to draw Social Security. T

Thank God I don't have to worry about that either. I have no plans to collect, or need SS, thanks to the lessons my parents taught me.

[heliochrome85]

Liberalphobic individuals commonly become liberal at age 65, when it comes time to draw Social Security. T

Thank God I don't have to worry about that either. I have no plans to collect, or need SS, thanks to the lessons my parents taught me.

that little blue pill can be pricey...

[mattblancarte]

Treatment;
Successful treatment requires the person to admit their fear, then face the Northeast and bow three times at any mention of great liberals such as WIlson, Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Clinton.

Footnote:
Liberalphobic individuals commonly become liberal at age 65, when it comes time to draw Social Security. T

Many lulz are being had.

[themadscientist]

That "advanced government" has been in practive in Europe for a long time. Try turning off MSNBC some time and check the world news to see how that's going right now. Spoon-fed incapable liberal cattle get angry when you turn off those entitlements and tend to riot.

The problem with liberalism is you eventually run out of other people's money. As host organism, I can tell you I'm tired of government taking my money and wasting it. Charity at the end of a gun is robbery.

[R/T Hemi]

tms, That's a mighty wide brush you paint with my friend. Liberals have jobs. Liberals get up and go to work every day. Liberals serve their country. Liberals pay taxes and raise families and contribute to the United Way. But liberals have this inner desire to better the plight of their fellow citizen instead of invading other countries looking for magic scimitars.

[AZhitman]

That's dandy. They can do it out of their own pockets - stay the hell out of mine.

That also implies that ONLY libs are philanthropic, when nothing could be further from the truth. They *do* like that public pat-on-the-back, though.

[IBCoupe]

*Sigh*

Back on topic, this might be part of the war:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201103250011

Is Fox So Anxious To Attack Obama That They'd Endanger Covert Military Personnel?

...


O'REILLY: Now, the Obama administration says flat out we don't have any boots on the ground there. We are not going to have them. Is that a lie, Colonel Hunt?

HUNT: Yes, it's disinformation. It's protecting guys whose assets on the ground. We don't talk about covert activity. Some the stuff I have been involved in both the Southeast Asia and the Balkans, you know, it's really protecting our guys.

O'REILLY: You were one of the guys on grounds in the Balkans, Colonel Hunt was, when we weren't supposed it have any guys on the ground, correct?

HUNT: Yes, and the reason it's not published want to protect the guys I was with. In this case, it was Seals and trying to do some Intel work -- without the bad guys knowing about it. It's the same issue here with Libya.

O'REILLY: All right, but you were there yourself doing this while the Clinton administration was saying we didn't have anybody there. You were there. I just want people to know that that you have hands on experience and you know what's going on.

Now, Colonel Shaffer, when you say that we have guys in there, you are talking Delta Force guys? Green Beret guys? Navy Seals? All of those people?

SHAFFER: I know what group I was told are in there and their primary duty, their primary job is to make -- we would call them Forward Air controllers, Combat Air controllers.

O'REILLY: OK, but they are attached to the military service. We assume CIA guys are in there. You have got to assume that they are in there. They are everywhere, but they are civilians. You are talking about a military guys in there?

SHAFFER: Right, and their job is to basically make sure that on the terminal phase, the terminal ballistic phase of a bomb going into target that it goes into the target we want.

O'REILLY: Doesn't blow up villagers that have nothing to do with it.

SHAFFER: The bottom line is we trust our guys more than anyone else.

O'REILLY: Of course, look, we have the best Intel people in the world. They are all over the place and -- but I want people to know what's going on in Libya. That's my job.

...


DOOCY: Meanwhile, a stunning revelation -- sources say there are troops on the ground in Libya. Will this spell more trouble for President Obama in the court of public opinion?

[R/T Hemi]

Much of the smarts in smart bombs requires covert people on the ground aiming lasers at strategic targets. They get in, do what they have to then depart quickly. I don't know that we've used smart bombs in Libya.
Does O'Reilly really think he's going to find someone, in the loop regarding current operations, who's willing to talk publicly about that ongoing operation? I seriously doubt that's going to happen.

[AZhitman]

Is Fox So Anxious To Attack Obama That They'd Endanger Covert Military Personnel?

Forgetting that it's Fox, and playing devil's advocate...

Maybe that's just journalism. The public has a right to know... If we're told there's no troops on the ground, and that's a lie, then what? And, didn't the left defend WikiLeaks?

I think the perception that a few questions from Gasbag O'Reilly could equate to "endangering military personnel" is an extreme, extreme stretch for MM.

[IBCoupe]

In fairness to the article, Greg, though it does sensationalize, it foes provide more than a few questions by O'Reilly.

And it might be just good journalism, but I have to wonder if they're just using the ambiguities of what was meant by the phrase "boots on the ground." I don't think anybody who gave it any amount of thought would be surprised to know that we had very small numbers in very small groups on the ground in Libya.

[AZhitman]

Understood. That speaks more to O'Reilly's long-windedness than it does to MM's journalistic integrity, though.

I think you're correct on the ambiguity. I just don't like the title / tone.

[IBCoupe]

I can relate to that. The title smacked of the way opposition to the Iraq war got you branded a certain way, and I didn't like it then, either. I quoted the article's title to give some context to the following quotes for those who didn't want to follow the link.

And I should add that the criticism bleeds over into other FOXNews programming; it wasn't just O'Reilly.

[AZhitman]

I just think it's a disingenuous piece that smacks of Fox-ishness, while damning Fox. Kinda ironic.

Hell, I would HOPE we have small numbers of "boots on the ground" in Libya (and in every other country)... covert, embedded, highly-trained boots. We're foolish if we don't.