Rep. Steve King calls Sunday's health care vote sacrilegious "to take away the liberty that we have right from God," and Glenn Beck agrees that it is the work of "a group of people that have so perverted our faith and our hope and our charity, that is a--this is an affront to God."
Just the kickoff for a foaming-at-the-mouth festival in Murdochland as Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal applauds Brett Baier's sassing of the President on Fox News, while disclosing that "Fox is owned by News Corp., which also owns this newspaper, so one should probably take pains to demonstrate that one is attempting to speak with disinterest and impartiality, in pursuit of which let me note that Glenn Beck has long appeared to be insane."
Her column accompanies another Journal piece titled "Whether or Not Congress 'Deems,' Public Is Steamed" asserting that "brawling" on health care "has fed a public unhappiness with the institution of Congress that now borders on disgust."
How strongly their master, the former Australian Rupert Murdoch, feels about fomenting revolution here is reflected in the fact that, although he recently starting charging readers for such gems online, both links were available free at the time of this writing.
The start of the decisive health care weekend promises to be a test for First Amendment purists as well, as Fox News et al pull out all the stops in what used to be called advocacy journalism but has morphed into anarchic attacks on a president and his party.
How far all this has gone can be judged from the news that Bill O'Reilly is now seen as a moderate.
"You've become in some ways the voice of sanity here," Jon Stewart noted during a recent appearance on O'Reilly's show, which is "like being the thinnest kid at fat camp."
But this weekend, the fat kids will be gorging.
Showing posts with label Fox News. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fox News. Show all posts
Friday, March 19, 2010
Friday, October 23, 2009
Country Wisdom: White House vs. Fox
Campaign attacks on Barack Obama and his crew as latte-drinking elitists are finally coming into play in their war of words with Rupert Murdoch's rough-and-ready outback minions.
Any country boy could have told them a basic rule of rural life: Never get into a pissing contest with a skunk.
Now, the Administration is finding itself befouled by controversy as an ABC correspondent asks at a briefing why "one of our sister organizations" was excluded from a round of official interviews and a moderate House Democrat calls the feud "a mistake...beneath the White House to get into a tit for tat with news organizations.”
The President himself, after pointedly meeting with Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich and other sympathetic souls, goes public on NBC. “What our advisers have simply said is that we are going to take media as it comes,” he observes. “And if media is operating, basically, as a talk radio format, then that’s one thing. And if it’s operating as a news outlet, then that’s another.”
Historically, that's a distinction the American people have always reserved the right to make for themselves. Back in the late 1960s, Richard Nixon unleashed his Vice President Spiro Agnew to attack the unfriendly media.
Agnew, who later resigned in disgrace for taking bribes, pelted them with alliterative epithets--"pusillanimous pussyfooters," "nattering nabobs of negativism" and "an effete corps of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals," phrases coined by the recently deceased William Safire who later morphed into a respected New York Times columnist and Pat Buchanan, who is still pontificating for MSNBC.
Those attacks brought a backlash. Although I spent an evening with Mike Wallace and other journalists privately questioning our own fairness, the White House intrusion into that debate only brought public disapproval and recruited more media members for what Nixon would call his Enemies List.
The lesson here for the Obama people seems simple enough: Call out Fox's commentators for their lies and distortion, but don't try to neuter the network as a news organization. In city or country contests, that's not a winning strategy.
Any country boy could have told them a basic rule of rural life: Never get into a pissing contest with a skunk.
Now, the Administration is finding itself befouled by controversy as an ABC correspondent asks at a briefing why "one of our sister organizations" was excluded from a round of official interviews and a moderate House Democrat calls the feud "a mistake...beneath the White House to get into a tit for tat with news organizations.”
The President himself, after pointedly meeting with Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich and other sympathetic souls, goes public on NBC. “What our advisers have simply said is that we are going to take media as it comes,” he observes. “And if media is operating, basically, as a talk radio format, then that’s one thing. And if it’s operating as a news outlet, then that’s another.”
Historically, that's a distinction the American people have always reserved the right to make for themselves. Back in the late 1960s, Richard Nixon unleashed his Vice President Spiro Agnew to attack the unfriendly media.
Agnew, who later resigned in disgrace for taking bribes, pelted them with alliterative epithets--"pusillanimous pussyfooters," "nattering nabobs of negativism" and "an effete corps of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals," phrases coined by the recently deceased William Safire who later morphed into a respected New York Times columnist and Pat Buchanan, who is still pontificating for MSNBC.
Those attacks brought a backlash. Although I spent an evening with Mike Wallace and other journalists privately questioning our own fairness, the White House intrusion into that debate only brought public disapproval and recruited more media members for what Nixon would call his Enemies List.
The lesson here for the Obama people seems simple enough: Call out Fox's commentators for their lies and distortion, but don't try to neuter the network as a news organization. In city or country contests, that's not a winning strategy.
Monday, October 19, 2009
White House Goes to War
The knock on Barack Obama from the start was his unwillingness to go head to head--"mix it up a little," as Maureen Dowd urged him during the campaign. Now, after a Nobel Peace prize, he suddenly seems to be brawling with everybody, from the health insurance industry down to Fox News.
“They’re filling the airwaves with deceptive and dishonest ads," he said this weekend in counterattacking the insurers. "They’re flooding Capitol Hill with lobbyists and campaign contributions. And they’re funding studies designed to mislead the American people.
“It’s smoke and mirrors. It’s bogus. And it’s all too familiar. Every time we get close to passing reform, the insurance companies produce these phony studies as a prescription and say, 'Take one of these, and call us in a decade.'"
As the President takes off the gloves on health reform, his surrogates fan out to confront Rupert Murdoch's cable minions. On ABC yesterday, David Axelrod defended Communications Director Anita Dunn's offensive against Fox News.
"I understand that their programming is geared toward making money. The only argument Anita was making is that they’re not really a news station...it’s not just their commentators, but a lot of their news programming. It’s really not news--it’s pushing a point of view."
Axelrod was backing up Dunn's manifesto in a New York Times interview: “We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent. As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.”
A Times analysis sniffs that a White House web site called Reality Check with a "truth-o-meter" to correct Glenn Beck lies "sounds a bit like the blog of some unemployed guy living in his parents’ basement, not an official communiqué from Pennsylvania Avenue."
The new combative Obama may not be to everyone's liking, but it would be well to remember how the President-to-be reacted to Dowd's prodding. “When I get into a tussle,” he said, “I want it to be over something real, not something manufactured."
His tussles these days are as real as it gets.
“They’re filling the airwaves with deceptive and dishonest ads," he said this weekend in counterattacking the insurers. "They’re flooding Capitol Hill with lobbyists and campaign contributions. And they’re funding studies designed to mislead the American people.
“It’s smoke and mirrors. It’s bogus. And it’s all too familiar. Every time we get close to passing reform, the insurance companies produce these phony studies as a prescription and say, 'Take one of these, and call us in a decade.'"
As the President takes off the gloves on health reform, his surrogates fan out to confront Rupert Murdoch's cable minions. On ABC yesterday, David Axelrod defended Communications Director Anita Dunn's offensive against Fox News.
"I understand that their programming is geared toward making money. The only argument Anita was making is that they’re not really a news station...it’s not just their commentators, but a lot of their news programming. It’s really not news--it’s pushing a point of view."
Axelrod was backing up Dunn's manifesto in a New York Times interview: “We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent. As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.”
A Times analysis sniffs that a White House web site called Reality Check with a "truth-o-meter" to correct Glenn Beck lies "sounds a bit like the blog of some unemployed guy living in his parents’ basement, not an official communiqué from Pennsylvania Avenue."
The new combative Obama may not be to everyone's liking, but it would be well to remember how the President-to-be reacted to Dowd's prodding. “When I get into a tussle,” he said, “I want it to be over something real, not something manufactured."
His tussles these days are as real as it gets.
Saturday, July 04, 2009
Palin: Media Martyr's Revenge
The self-styled victim of "the politics of personal destruction" has struck back at her tormenters by leaving Alaska's statehouse with trademark twinkly, crinkly aggression.
Sarah Palin dropped her bombshell on the eve of a holiday weekend, sending TV's talking heads scrambling back from vacation to studios or huffing over long-distance phone lines to parse her resignation.
Their puzzled but predictable responses ranged from William Kristol and Mary Matalin hailing the move as a masterstroke toward the 2012 presidential nomination to the consensus about it as bizarre and, in the words of Republican strategist Ed Rollins, "terribly inept."
In ten months on the national scene, Palin has tried to make ineptness an asset by equating competence with "politics as usual" and picturing herself as champion of the resentful and inarticulate from Joe the Plumber down
Palin's complaints about the media notwithstanding, her next logical move will be to follow the folk wisdom, "If you can't lick 'em, join 'em," and become a commentator for Fox News, where Rupert Murdoch will surely be happy to provide her with an income and national platform to ease the pain of her abuse by David Letterman and Vanity Fair.
In that role, and in lucrative lectures to right-wing Republican faithful, the former Governor will be free to exhibit her 21st century Animal Farm--from the pit bull with lipstick through yesterday's additions, the lame duck who milks a paycheck and dead fish who go with the flow.
In that ramble, Gov. Palin asserted that it would be "tempting and more comfortable to just kind of keep your head down and plod along and appease those who are demanding, hey, just sit down and shut up. But that’s a worthless, easy path out. That’s a quitter’s way out."
Then she quit.
Her future colleague, Mike Huckabee, was rushed onto Fox News to hail her "spunk." Unlike Mary Tyler Moore's old TV boss Ed Asner, Huckabee was both collegially and politically restrained from a more understandable reaction, "I hate spunk."
Sarah Palin dropped her bombshell on the eve of a holiday weekend, sending TV's talking heads scrambling back from vacation to studios or huffing over long-distance phone lines to parse her resignation.
Their puzzled but predictable responses ranged from William Kristol and Mary Matalin hailing the move as a masterstroke toward the 2012 presidential nomination to the consensus about it as bizarre and, in the words of Republican strategist Ed Rollins, "terribly inept."
In ten months on the national scene, Palin has tried to make ineptness an asset by equating competence with "politics as usual" and picturing herself as champion of the resentful and inarticulate from Joe the Plumber down
Palin's complaints about the media notwithstanding, her next logical move will be to follow the folk wisdom, "If you can't lick 'em, join 'em," and become a commentator for Fox News, where Rupert Murdoch will surely be happy to provide her with an income and national platform to ease the pain of her abuse by David Letterman and Vanity Fair.
In that role, and in lucrative lectures to right-wing Republican faithful, the former Governor will be free to exhibit her 21st century Animal Farm--from the pit bull with lipstick through yesterday's additions, the lame duck who milks a paycheck and dead fish who go with the flow.
In that ramble, Gov. Palin asserted that it would be "tempting and more comfortable to just kind of keep your head down and plod along and appease those who are demanding, hey, just sit down and shut up. But that’s a worthless, easy path out. That’s a quitter’s way out."
Then she quit.
Her future colleague, Mike Huckabee, was rushed onto Fox News to hail her "spunk." Unlike Mary Tyler Moore's old TV boss Ed Asner, Huckabee was both collegially and politically restrained from a more understandable reaction, "I hate spunk."
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Upstaging McCain's Acceptance Speech
Pass the smelling salts to Keith Olbermann, when he finds out that Barack Obama will be appearing on Fox News with Bill O'Reilly Thursday night just before John McCain's big moment at the Republican Convention.
Call it payback for springing Sarah Palin on the media the next day to overshadow the afterglow of Obama's acceptance speech last week, but Olbermann, who has been Obama's most ardent media fan, is learning the hard way about the axiom, "No good deed goes unpunished."
Being interviewed by Olbermann to counterprogram the Republicans would be fairly ho-hum, but making his first appearance with O'Reilly qualifies as man-bites-dog news for Obama. And if past history is any guide, O'Reilly will turn into a pussycat in the face of real star power.
Call it payback for springing Sarah Palin on the media the next day to overshadow the afterglow of Obama's acceptance speech last week, but Olbermann, who has been Obama's most ardent media fan, is learning the hard way about the axiom, "No good deed goes unpunished."
Being interviewed by Olbermann to counterprogram the Republicans would be fairly ho-hum, but making his first appearance with O'Reilly qualifies as man-bites-dog news for Obama. And if past history is any guide, O'Reilly will turn into a pussycat in the face of real star power.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Opinionated Polling
The friendly folks at Fox News have developed a sudden strong interest in the concept of friendship, and today their pollster reports:
"All in all, Americans think your choice in friends says a lot about you: Almost 7 of 10 say they think the people you choose to be your friends reflect on you and your values. And 39 percent say your friends reflect on you 'a lot.'"
These philosophical reflections arise from their poll that shows that "57 percent of Americans do not believe Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama shares the controversial views of his former spiritual mentor the Rev. Jeremiah Wright," but "a sizable minority has doubts about Obama because of his pastor’s comments."
This follows last month's revelation that Hillary Clinton is the candidate who would "do anything," including something unethical, to win the presidency and, if elected, the most likely to embarrass the country by her actions in the Oval Office.
No word yet about a poll that solicits voters' views on aging candidates who can't keep the names of our enemies in Iraq straight.
"All in all, Americans think your choice in friends says a lot about you: Almost 7 of 10 say they think the people you choose to be your friends reflect on you and your values. And 39 percent say your friends reflect on you 'a lot.'"
These philosophical reflections arise from their poll that shows that "57 percent of Americans do not believe Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama shares the controversial views of his former spiritual mentor the Rev. Jeremiah Wright," but "a sizable minority has doubts about Obama because of his pastor’s comments."
This follows last month's revelation that Hillary Clinton is the candidate who would "do anything," including something unethical, to win the presidency and, if elected, the most likely to embarrass the country by her actions in the Oval Office.
No word yet about a poll that solicits voters' views on aging candidates who can't keep the names of our enemies in Iraq straight.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Pimping Out the News
Last week's Chelsea Clinton furor marks a low point in cable network competition for eyeballs and ears during the 24/7 news cycle and raises broader questions about their prime-time "journalism," which has degenerated into a babble of idiot ids vying for attention.
David Shuster's "pimped out" remark exemplifies a trend reported almost a year ago by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, that "cable news channels...are moving more toward personalities, often opinionated ones, to win audiences.
"The most strident voices, such as Keith Olbermann and Glenn Beck, are among the biggest successes in winning viewers, as is CNN’s new crusader, Lou Dobbs. How much those individual shows affect a channel’s overall audience is harder to gauge. Their growth in 2006 was substantial, particularly among 25-to-54-year-olds, but those gains were not enough to stanch the overall declines.
"The shifts toward even edgier opinion are also probably a response to another change. Cable is beginning to lose its claim as the primary destination for what was once its main appeal: news on demand. That is something the Internet can now provide more efficiently."
Something even more basic is involved as well. Unlike newspapers, magazines and even blogs, TV news has always been a zero-sum game. If a viewer loses interest and switches channels, it's over, so the premium is on attention-getting and holding. Blowhards and gasbags are the means of choice.
So Olbermann, as much as he rants at Bill O'Reilly, is driven to his own extremes as are Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough and the trash-talking heads they assemble every night.
Only when there is immediate news to analyze, as on election nights, are the more rational voices heard--the Andrea Mitchells, Candy Crowleys, Jeffrey Toobins, Jeff Greenfields and even the Tom Brokaws of TV's greatest generation.
The rest of the time, it's hyperbole and hype, with the news, you might say, being pimped out.
David Shuster's "pimped out" remark exemplifies a trend reported almost a year ago by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, that "cable news channels...are moving more toward personalities, often opinionated ones, to win audiences.
"The most strident voices, such as Keith Olbermann and Glenn Beck, are among the biggest successes in winning viewers, as is CNN’s new crusader, Lou Dobbs. How much those individual shows affect a channel’s overall audience is harder to gauge. Their growth in 2006 was substantial, particularly among 25-to-54-year-olds, but those gains were not enough to stanch the overall declines.
"The shifts toward even edgier opinion are also probably a response to another change. Cable is beginning to lose its claim as the primary destination for what was once its main appeal: news on demand. That is something the Internet can now provide more efficiently."
Something even more basic is involved as well. Unlike newspapers, magazines and even blogs, TV news has always been a zero-sum game. If a viewer loses interest and switches channels, it's over, so the premium is on attention-getting and holding. Blowhards and gasbags are the means of choice.
So Olbermann, as much as he rants at Bill O'Reilly, is driven to his own extremes as are Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough and the trash-talking heads they assemble every night.
Only when there is immediate news to analyze, as on election nights, are the more rational voices heard--the Andrea Mitchells, Candy Crowleys, Jeffrey Toobins, Jeff Greenfields and even the Tom Brokaws of TV's greatest generation.
The rest of the time, it's hyperbole and hype, with the news, you might say, being pimped out.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Bush: "I'm Just a Simple President"
George W. Bush certified John McCain as a "true conservative" yesterday.
In emeritus mode on Fox News, the President told Chris Wallace his successor-in-waiting "is very strong on national defense" and "tough fiscally. He believes the tax cuts ought to be permanent. He is pro-life. His principles are sound and solid as far as I'm concerned."
Asked about resistance from the Rush Limbaugh-Ann Coulter wing of the GOP, the President was confident McCain can "convince people that he is a solid conservative and I'll be glad to help him if he is the nominee."
In view of Bush's iffy record on the domestic agenda of the Rabid Right, that may not solve McCain's problem, but the Decider is upbeat about the party's prospects for November.
He pooh-poohed Barack Obama's popularity with his customary political acumen and accuracy: "The only foreign policy thing I remember he said was he's going to attack Pakistan and embrace Ahmadinejad."
"Why do you think he's gotten this far if people don't know what he stands for?" Wallace asked.
Bush's answer was on the money. "You're the pundit," he said. "I'm just a simple president."
In emeritus mode on Fox News, the President told Chris Wallace his successor-in-waiting "is very strong on national defense" and "tough fiscally. He believes the tax cuts ought to be permanent. He is pro-life. His principles are sound and solid as far as I'm concerned."
Asked about resistance from the Rush Limbaugh-Ann Coulter wing of the GOP, the President was confident McCain can "convince people that he is a solid conservative and I'll be glad to help him if he is the nominee."
In view of Bush's iffy record on the domestic agenda of the Rabid Right, that may not solve McCain's problem, but the Decider is upbeat about the party's prospects for November.
He pooh-poohed Barack Obama's popularity with his customary political acumen and accuracy: "The only foreign policy thing I remember he said was he's going to attack Pakistan and embrace Ahmadinejad."
"Why do you think he's gotten this far if people don't know what he stands for?" Wallace asked.
Bush's answer was on the money. "You're the pundit," he said. "I'm just a simple president."
Saturday, February 02, 2008
Fox News' Push Polling
Hillary Clinton is the candidate who would "do anything," including something unethical, to win the presidency and, if elected, the most likely to embarrass the country by her actions in the Oval Office.
You can take Fox News' word for it. Nobody asked them, but their pollsters have been questioning voters in what looks very much like a push poll, designed to score points against a candidate rather than elicit information.
"These results," says Ernest Paicopolos of Opinion Dynamics, "suggest that Clinton still faces the challenge of shedding the image of a politician who puts electoral victory ahead of everything else." His organization also solicited voter opinion about such core issues as the bickering between Bill Clinton and Obama and the injection of race into the South Carolina primary.
If Rupert Murdoch's minions are impartial in their studies of candidates' images, they might next ask which candidate is seen as most likely to blow his top in the White House and nuke everybody, which is most willing to falsify his previous stands on every issue, which would hold revival meetings in the Rose Garden and which might take drugs and give the State of the Union address in a ghetto stupor.
In its previous polling for Fox News, Opinion Dynamics unearthed such trends as the 2006 pre-Surge public perception of "victories in Iraq," leading to a sharp rise in the approval ratings of President Bush and Don Rumsfeld.
Fox News' social science is as fair and impartial as its news coverage, telling us everything the godfather of "American Idol" wants us to know.
You can take Fox News' word for it. Nobody asked them, but their pollsters have been questioning voters in what looks very much like a push poll, designed to score points against a candidate rather than elicit information.
"These results," says Ernest Paicopolos of Opinion Dynamics, "suggest that Clinton still faces the challenge of shedding the image of a politician who puts electoral victory ahead of everything else." His organization also solicited voter opinion about such core issues as the bickering between Bill Clinton and Obama and the injection of race into the South Carolina primary.
If Rupert Murdoch's minions are impartial in their studies of candidates' images, they might next ask which candidate is seen as most likely to blow his top in the White House and nuke everybody, which is most willing to falsify his previous stands on every issue, which would hold revival meetings in the Rose Garden and which might take drugs and give the State of the Union address in a ghetto stupor.
In its previous polling for Fox News, Opinion Dynamics unearthed such trends as the 2006 pre-Surge public perception of "victories in Iraq," leading to a sharp rise in the approval ratings of President Bush and Don Rumsfeld.
Fox News' social science is as fair and impartial as its news coverage, telling us everything the godfather of "American Idol" wants us to know.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Rupert Murdoch's Funny Valentine
Who knew that the Fox News media mogul had such a sense of humor? His New York Post's editorial endorsing Barack Obama should become a comedy classic.
"For all his charisma and his eloquence," the Post writes, "the rookie senator sorely lacks seasoning: Regarding national security, his worldview is beyond naïve...
"His all-things-to-all-people approach to complicated domestic issues also arouses scant confidence. 'Change!' for the sake of change does not a credible campaign platform make."
But what sterling qualities does Obama possess that would make him a good choice for president on Super Tuesday? "(H)e is not Team Clinton."
Not being a Clinton is a supreme virtue: "His opponent, and her husband, stand for déjà vu all over again--a return to the opportunistic, scandal-scarred, morally muddled years of the almost infinitely self-indulgent Clinton co-presidency...
"A return to Sen. Clinton's cattle-futures deal, Travelgate, Whitewater, Filegate, the Lincoln Bedroom Fire Sale, Pardongate--and the inevitable replay of the Monica Mess?
"No, thank you."
From this guarded assessment of the Clinton years emerges a ringing endorsement: "At least Obama has the ability to inspire. Again, we don't agree much with Obama on substantive issues. But many Democrats will."
With friends like Murdoch, a candidate could go far. Did Bill O'Reilly get the memo?
"For all his charisma and his eloquence," the Post writes, "the rookie senator sorely lacks seasoning: Regarding national security, his worldview is beyond naïve...
"His all-things-to-all-people approach to complicated domestic issues also arouses scant confidence. 'Change!' for the sake of change does not a credible campaign platform make."
But what sterling qualities does Obama possess that would make him a good choice for president on Super Tuesday? "(H)e is not Team Clinton."
Not being a Clinton is a supreme virtue: "His opponent, and her husband, stand for déjà vu all over again--a return to the opportunistic, scandal-scarred, morally muddled years of the almost infinitely self-indulgent Clinton co-presidency...
"A return to Sen. Clinton's cattle-futures deal, Travelgate, Whitewater, Filegate, the Lincoln Bedroom Fire Sale, Pardongate--and the inevitable replay of the Monica Mess?
"No, thank you."
From this guarded assessment of the Clinton years emerges a ringing endorsement: "At least Obama has the ability to inspire. Again, we don't agree much with Obama on substantive issues. But many Democrats will."
With friends like Murdoch, a candidate could go far. Did Bill O'Reilly get the memo?
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Damming the Mainstream Media
Alberto Gonzalez, Monica Goodling and others of the Bush Brigade who worked so hard to subvert American freedoms are gone, but their mission is moving forward. After chipping away at our legal rights, next on the agenda is control of our minds through mass media.
A House Committee will turn the spotlight today on FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin, who has been busy trying to concentrate ownership more than ever before into the hands of Rupert Murdoch and a few other corporate chieftains.
Like all loyal Bushies, Martin has not let legal niceties get in his way.
Citing "complaints from the public and professionals within the communications industry," Rep. Bart Stupak, who heads the Energy and Commerce subcommittee that is investigating the FCC head, says, "It is one thing to be an aggressive leader, but many of the allegations indicate possible abuse of power and an attempt to intentionally keep fellow commissioners in the dark."
Martin and other FCC members will testify about his efforts to bulldoze through the easing of rules limiting cross-ownership of newspapers and TV stations in the same city as well as "cooking the books" to push through regulations to crack down on cable TV which, outside of Fix News, has not been as servile as the Administration would like.
To do so, Martin has used what media watchdogs call "a rigged process" designed to produce a "predetermined outcome."
The FCC chairman came to his position of overseeing free speech in America at the age of 33 with no communications experience whatsoever after working on the legal team that blocked the 2000 Florida vote recount to put Bush in the White House.
In 1961, President Kennedy's FCC chairman, Newt Minow, famously called commercial TV a "vast wasteland" and worked to expand its range of content by enabling UHF stations and public television.
His 2007 counterpart is less interested in what's on than who controls it. "America Idol" and reality shows are high art as long as the right people profit and keep the medium from sending the wrong political message.
A House Committee will turn the spotlight today on FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin, who has been busy trying to concentrate ownership more than ever before into the hands of Rupert Murdoch and a few other corporate chieftains.
Like all loyal Bushies, Martin has not let legal niceties get in his way.
Citing "complaints from the public and professionals within the communications industry," Rep. Bart Stupak, who heads the Energy and Commerce subcommittee that is investigating the FCC head, says, "It is one thing to be an aggressive leader, but many of the allegations indicate possible abuse of power and an attempt to intentionally keep fellow commissioners in the dark."
Martin and other FCC members will testify about his efforts to bulldoze through the easing of rules limiting cross-ownership of newspapers and TV stations in the same city as well as "cooking the books" to push through regulations to crack down on cable TV which, outside of Fix News, has not been as servile as the Administration would like.
To do so, Martin has used what media watchdogs call "a rigged process" designed to produce a "predetermined outcome."
The FCC chairman came to his position of overseeing free speech in America at the age of 33 with no communications experience whatsoever after working on the legal team that blocked the 2000 Florida vote recount to put Bush in the White House.
In 1961, President Kennedy's FCC chairman, Newt Minow, famously called commercial TV a "vast wasteland" and worked to expand its range of content by enabling UHF stations and public television.
His 2007 counterpart is less interested in what's on than who controls it. "America Idol" and reality shows are high art as long as the right people profit and keep the medium from sending the wrong political message.
Sunday, September 02, 2007
Rolling Out the Iran War
In 2002, Andrew Card, then Bush’s Chief of Staff, told the New York Times why the drumbeat for war against Iraq started in September: "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August.”
It’s September again, this year’s product is war against Iran and the sales pitches have started.
“Iran’s pursuit of...nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust,” President Bush told war veterans last week. Promising to apply diplomatic pressures first (sound familiar?), he nonetheless vowed, “We will confront this danger before it is too late.”
In the U.K. Telegraph, a story is planted about war-gaming a blockade of Iran: “"The results were impressive. The policy recommendations eliminated virtually all of the negative outcomes."
Ever-faithful John Bolton, our unconfirmable former ambassador to the U.N. is telling Israelis via video hookup that President Bush “has made clear that a nuclear Iran is not acceptable."
Even Gen. Petraeus is not too busy surging in Iraq to observe the “malign involvement of the Iranian Quds force with the militia extremists that have been supported by them, trained, equipped, armed, funded and even in some cases directed.”
Sen. Bernie Sanders, pointing out that the “Fox propaganda machine” is at work again on the Iran campaign, urges “the mass media not to play the same craven role that they played in Iraq, where they essentially collapsed and became a megaphone for Bush's policies."
In five years, it is clear the Bush-Cheney Administration has learned nothing. Have the American people and their media?
It’s September again, this year’s product is war against Iran and the sales pitches have started.
“Iran’s pursuit of...nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust,” President Bush told war veterans last week. Promising to apply diplomatic pressures first (sound familiar?), he nonetheless vowed, “We will confront this danger before it is too late.”
In the U.K. Telegraph, a story is planted about war-gaming a blockade of Iran: “"The results were impressive. The policy recommendations eliminated virtually all of the negative outcomes."
Ever-faithful John Bolton, our unconfirmable former ambassador to the U.N. is telling Israelis via video hookup that President Bush “has made clear that a nuclear Iran is not acceptable."
Even Gen. Petraeus is not too busy surging in Iraq to observe the “malign involvement of the Iranian Quds force with the militia extremists that have been supported by them, trained, equipped, armed, funded and even in some cases directed.”
Sen. Bernie Sanders, pointing out that the “Fox propaganda machine” is at work again on the Iran campaign, urges “the mass media not to play the same craven role that they played in Iraq, where they essentially collapsed and became a megaphone for Bush's policies."
In five years, it is clear the Bush-Cheney Administration has learned nothing. Have the American people and their media?
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Buying Words With Blood
Sen. Carl Levin says the glass in Iraq is more than half-empty, Sen. John Warner says it may be half-full and Fox News sees it brimming over.
“Sens. Warner and Levin Travel to Iraq, Praise Surge Results” is their headline for a story that starts: “Sen. Carl Levin said Monday that the Iraqi Parliament should vote no confidence in the government of Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki because of its sectarian nature and leadership.
"The Maliki government is non-functional," Levin, D-Mich., said.”
Since President Bush, instead of drawing down troops in Iraq at the beginning of this year as 70 percent of Americans wanted him to do, announced the Surge, more than 700 of our young people have died there and thousands have been wounded.
With all this blood, we have bought words--from the White House, Congress and self-appointed experts across the political spectrum. Next month, we will get words from Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, which will lead to even more words from armchair warriors on all sides.
None of them will stop the dying and, if we want to know what for, here are words from a commander on the ground: “This is not black and white here. It’s all shades of grey, and there’s a mixture of extremist elements and terror elements and criminal activity. It’s all of the above,” according to Gen. Rick Lynch, commander of Multinational Division Center and Task Force Marne, whose words are reported on a Department of Defense web site.
“It’s naive to believe that all sorts of violence inside of Iraq is Sunni vs. Shiia or Shiia vs. Sunni; that’s just not true. And when you find intra-Shiia rivalry, it’s primarily a function of the struggle for power and influence.”
How many words will it take to stop the bleeding?
“Sens. Warner and Levin Travel to Iraq, Praise Surge Results” is their headline for a story that starts: “Sen. Carl Levin said Monday that the Iraqi Parliament should vote no confidence in the government of Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki because of its sectarian nature and leadership.
"The Maliki government is non-functional," Levin, D-Mich., said.”
Since President Bush, instead of drawing down troops in Iraq at the beginning of this year as 70 percent of Americans wanted him to do, announced the Surge, more than 700 of our young people have died there and thousands have been wounded.
With all this blood, we have bought words--from the White House, Congress and self-appointed experts across the political spectrum. Next month, we will get words from Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, which will lead to even more words from armchair warriors on all sides.
None of them will stop the dying and, if we want to know what for, here are words from a commander on the ground: “This is not black and white here. It’s all shades of grey, and there’s a mixture of extremist elements and terror elements and criminal activity. It’s all of the above,” according to Gen. Rick Lynch, commander of Multinational Division Center and Task Force Marne, whose words are reported on a Department of Defense web site.
“It’s naive to believe that all sorts of violence inside of Iraq is Sunni vs. Shiia or Shiia vs. Sunni; that’s just not true. And when you find intra-Shiia rivalry, it’s primarily a function of the struggle for power and influence.”
How many words will it take to stop the bleeding?
Friday, August 10, 2007
The Souring of America
Solid majorities of the public criticize them for “political bias, inaccuracy and failing to acknowledge mistakes” with the “harshest indictments...from the growing segment that relies on the internet as its main source for national and international news.”
That’s the conclusion of the Pew Research Center, not about the Bush Administration but the nation’s news organizations. Americans are losing faith not only in the politicians who govern them but the people who report what they are doing.
In the last century we believed truth would be found, as Supreme Court Justice Learned Hand put it, in “a multitude of tongues.” Now that so many voices can be heard, the result is not “truth” but distrust.
George W. Bush and Rupert Murdoch share much of the blame, with those who rely on Fox News as their main source of information leading the way in damning the media, with 63 percent saying news stories are often inaccurate as opposed to less than half of those who cite CNN or network news as their main source.
At the other end of the political spectrum, the report says, “People who rely on the internet as their main news source express relatively unfavorable opinions of mainstream news sources and are among the most critical of press performance.”
In the past five years, this bipartisan divide between press and public has grown much worse, and it reflects a larger loss in American life.
In another Pew poll in 2002, 74 percent felt that "As Americans, we can always find a way to solve our problems and get what we want." Five years later, the number is 58 percent. Other polls show erosion of public confidence in the government's ability to respond to terrorist attacks, natural disasters and health crises over that period.
In all the gabble to come over today’s evidence about growing distrust of the mainstream media, it might help to remember that it may also reflect a loss of faith in ourselves.
That’s the conclusion of the Pew Research Center, not about the Bush Administration but the nation’s news organizations. Americans are losing faith not only in the politicians who govern them but the people who report what they are doing.
In the last century we believed truth would be found, as Supreme Court Justice Learned Hand put it, in “a multitude of tongues.” Now that so many voices can be heard, the result is not “truth” but distrust.
George W. Bush and Rupert Murdoch share much of the blame, with those who rely on Fox News as their main source of information leading the way in damning the media, with 63 percent saying news stories are often inaccurate as opposed to less than half of those who cite CNN or network news as their main source.
At the other end of the political spectrum, the report says, “People who rely on the internet as their main news source express relatively unfavorable opinions of mainstream news sources and are among the most critical of press performance.”
In the past five years, this bipartisan divide between press and public has grown much worse, and it reflects a larger loss in American life.
In another Pew poll in 2002, 74 percent felt that "As Americans, we can always find a way to solve our problems and get what we want." Five years later, the number is 58 percent. Other polls show erosion of public confidence in the government's ability to respond to terrorist attacks, natural disasters and health crises over that period.
In all the gabble to come over today’s evidence about growing distrust of the mainstream media, it might help to remember that it may also reflect a loss of faith in ourselves.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
The Surge: Sunday Talk-Show Smokescreen
As always, the Administration provides distraction for Meet the Press and Fox, while the real news is elsewhere.
Today Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker tell Chris Wallace and Tim Russert that the Surge is working, sort of, but will take longer than planned. They promise to let us know in September.
But on CBS’ Face the Nation, we see what’s really going on when Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell says, "Most members of my conference believe the critical point to evaluate where we are is in September. Everybody anticipates there will be a new strategy...and I don't think we'll have the same level of troops that we have now."
Translation: Republicans, hearing the voters’ footsteps for ’08, will hold ranks only until fall and then head for the hills by supporting timetables for withdrawal.
Carl Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, did not rub it in, saying only, "What's required here is that the president of the United States tell them we're going to reduce those troops...we're going to begin to leave."
Petraeus and Crocker may be in no hurry, but the endangered species of Congressional Republicans is ready to take wing.
Today Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker tell Chris Wallace and Tim Russert that the Surge is working, sort of, but will take longer than planned. They promise to let us know in September.
But on CBS’ Face the Nation, we see what’s really going on when Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell says, "Most members of my conference believe the critical point to evaluate where we are is in September. Everybody anticipates there will be a new strategy...and I don't think we'll have the same level of troops that we have now."
Translation: Republicans, hearing the voters’ footsteps for ’08, will hold ranks only until fall and then head for the hills by supporting timetables for withdrawal.
Carl Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, did not rub it in, saying only, "What's required here is that the president of the United States tell them we're going to reduce those troops...we're going to begin to leave."
Petraeus and Crocker may be in no hurry, but the endangered species of Congressional Republicans is ready to take wing.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Vicious Political Vaudeville
If there is still a line somewhere between journalism and vitriolic jawboning, Dennis Miller doesn’t know where it is. As a Fox News “political commentator,” he is half as funny as he thought he was on “Saturday Night Live” and twice as objectionable.
His diatribe on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, no idol of mine, which is now tickling so many conservative bloggers, makes Keith Olbermann look like Edward R. Murrow. It seems to have escaped Miller’s attention that Olbermann’s commentaries about George Bush are based on facts, not snide gags about his looks and demeanor.
As the current owners of the Wall Street Journal consider selling it to Rupert Murdoch, they may want to take a look at what he considers within the bounds of journalism.
His diatribe on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, no idol of mine, which is now tickling so many conservative bloggers, makes Keith Olbermann look like Edward R. Murrow. It seems to have escaped Miller’s attention that Olbermann’s commentaries about George Bush are based on facts, not snide gags about his looks and demeanor.
As the current owners of the Wall Street Journal consider selling it to Rupert Murdoch, they may want to take a look at what he considers within the bounds of journalism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)