Fox News: Partisan Propaganda Machine

[one...two...tree 2,762]

In fairness Gary, highlighting the guy's background isn't necessary to refuting the claims of the article.

It *could* be true, but the guy doesn't make a very good case for what he's saying.

He most certainly did. He made the case that the anti-war protesters were pretty much ignore or vilified on Fox News when Bush was in office, but now, if you sponsor a tea bag party in your backyard, you get a special invitation as a guest on the Fox. Murdoch knows exactly what he's doing. That's why he put a Right Wing political operative in charge of Fox News - Roger Ailles. The man knows nothing but how to be a political hack and propagandist.

Its all anecdotal, Steve. You or I could have written that.

You're acting as if there's no way to tell whether a particular news organization is being propagandist rather than merely reporting the news.

There are many media watchdog groups who have essentially said the same thing Mr. Sirota has said, and they've got the stats to prove it.

[natty bumppo 297]

In fairness Gary, highlighting the guy's background isn't necessary to refuting the claims of the article.

It *could* be true, but the guy doesn't make a very good case for what he's saying.

He most certainly did. He made the case that the anti-war protesters were pretty much ignore or vilified on Fox News when Bush was in office, but now, if you sponsor a tea bag party in your backyard, you get a special invitation as a guest on the Fox. Murdoch knows exactly what he's doing. That's why he put a Right Wing political operative in charge of Fox News - Roger Ailles. The man knows nothing but how to be a political hack and propagandist.

Its all anecdotal, Steve. You or I could have written that.

You're acting as if there's no way to tell whether a particular news organization is being propagandist rather than merely reporting the news.

There are many media watchdog groups who have essentially said the same thing Mr. Sirota has said, and they've got the stats to prove it.

... there again you hail for a state that gave us one of the creators of yellow journalism ...

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

In fairness Gary, highlighting the guy's background isn't necessary to refuting the claims of the article.

It *could* be true, but the guy doesn't make a very good case for what he's saying.

He most certainly did. He made the case that the anti-war protesters were pretty much ignore or vilified on Fox News when Bush was in office, but now, if you sponsor a tea bag party in your backyard, you get a special invitation as a guest on the Fox. Murdoch knows exactly what he's doing. That's why he put a Right Wing political operative in charge of Fox News - Roger Ailles. The man knows nothing but how to be a political hack and propagandist.

Its all anecdotal, Steve. You or I could have written that.

You're acting as if there's no way to tell whether a particular news organization is being propagandist rather than merely reporting the news.

There are many media watchdog groups who have essentially said the same thing Mr. Sirota has said, and they've got the stats to prove it.

... there again you hail for a state that gave us one of the creators of yellow journalism ...

Is Steve whinin cuz hes got stats and nobody cares about them?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

In fairness Gary, highlighting the guy's background isn't necessary to refuting the claims of the article.

It *could* be true, but the guy doesn't make a very good case for what he's saying.

He most certainly did. He made the case that the anti-war protesters were pretty much ignore or vilified on Fox News when Bush was in office, but now, if you sponsor a tea bag party in your backyard, you get a special invitation as a guest on the Fox. Murdoch knows exactly what he's doing. That's why he put a Right Wing political operative in charge of Fox News - Roger Ailles. The man knows nothing but how to be a political hack and propagandist.

Its all anecdotal, Steve. You or I could have written that.

You're acting as if there's no way to tell whether a particular news organization is being propagandist rather than merely reporting the news.

There are many media watchdog groups who have essentially said the same thing Mr. Sirota has said, and they've got the stats to prove it.

There are. But Mr Sirota's article doesn't.

[alienlovechild 75]

Let's be clear: I have absolutely no problem with conservative protestors - even those organized by corporate lobbyists - expressing their strong opposition to health care reform. While I happen to think most of these people are motivated from raw selfishness, and while polls show these people represent a tiny minority of Americans, I sincerely believe they have every right to make their voice heard.

This guy can't be believed as he isn't even close on the polls.

He's missing the point that there are a lot of Americans that disagree with Obama and may not yell in townhalls but they understand why someone might get pissed as the healthcare bill was about to be shoved down their throats with little debate outside Congress. Ok, it's the silent majority again and they're starting to get their voice again.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

So what, Steve? So what? Fox isn't going anywhere. It's ratings are growing while the Lefist networks are holding on by their fingernails. That's what all the fuss is about, demonizing Fox. Your kool-aid news outlets can't beat 'em, so you may as well accept that they strike a responsive chord in the populace.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So its not about getting the news - its about "winning" some obscure ideological battle.

Stranger and stranger.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Fox leans to the right.

All the others lean to the left. The others complain because the one network that leans right is that way. Have to laugh at the sheep again.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If you get your news solely from network television, the jokes on you.

Edited August 12, 2009 by Private Pike

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

2. Whenever one member of the protestors in the Khaki Pants Offensive makes an especially circus-like scene, Fox then has that particular protestor on for an interview - all under the pretense that the protestor has made him/herself "news." In the last two days alone, I've seen Fox aggressively promote "exclusive" interviews with screaming protestors from Rep. John Dingell's (D-MI) and Rep. David Scott's (D-GA) town meetings. Fox dutifully promotes these people as persecuted martyrs, and their actual claims about health care are barely - if ever - explored for their veracity (or lack thereof).

Edit to add: Based on what I saw on TV last night - that's not far off the mark.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

<h3 class="title">Fox News Interrupts Obama Town Hall To Spin And Distort It And Complain Not Enough "Screaming And Yelling"</h3>

“Fair and balanced" Fox News interrupted its coverage of President Obama’s health care town hall meeting to mischaracterize Obama’s position on health care, mischaracterize Nancy Pelosi’s criticisms of town hall disruptions, and, after developing a sudden interest in making sure that an audience had not been staged, complain that there wasn’t enough “screaming and yelling” in opposition. With video.

Evidently disappointed that there weren’t the kinds of disruptions that Fox News has been <a href="http://www.newshounds.us/2009/08/11/dick_morris_urges_viewers_to_act_up_at_town_hall_meetings_and_terrorize_blue_dog

_democrats.php">drooling over in other town halls, Trace Gallagher interrupted Obama’s town hall after just a few questions.

“We told you this was not a pre-screened crowd,” Gallagher said. “The White House said they expected people to come in and sometimes maybe yell and shout a little bit. We’ve not seen that. We’ve seen a very friendly crowd here so far.”

Perhaps to compensate for that disappointment, Gallagher immediately moved to discredit Obama with a false suggestion that the upcoming health care bill puts forth a single payer system. “One of the many concerns that people have is that whole single payer issue. Right? Universal health care? The government run with no choice or competition?” Gallagher could have and should have laid those concerns immediately to rest with the facts: that there is no single payer system on the table, but a public option designed to compete with private health insurance plans.

Gallagher should have also noted that universal health care does not necessarily mean a single payer plan. Massachusetts has such a system, for example. Instead, Gallagher perpetuated the false conflation by highlighting a quote from Obama in 2007, saying, “I believe that by the end of my first term in office we will have a universal healthcare system instituted in this country. That is a commitment that I’ve made and a commitment that I want to be held accountable for.”

The first guest, was a News Corp. VP and Wall Street Journal columnist, William McGurn.

“It seemed like very friendly surroundings,” Gallagher began pointedly. I’m sure that it was just a coincidence that Gallagher was giving validity to the talking points of New Hampshire Republicans, that the town hall would be staged, talking points that would be echoed throughout the segment, without offering any evidence whatsoever.

McGurn admitted, “I don’t know the mechanics of the distribution (of tickets)” before adding that no White House would want the president to go before an unfriendly crowd.

“There’s got to be a happy medium,” Gallagher said, though nobody on Fox seemed to feel that way about the heated, angry town halls. “We’ve seen these (other) town halls… and all of a sudden the president holds a town hall and it looks like it could be a campaign stop.”

Co-host Juliette Huddy jumped in with some spin and distortions of her own. “On the heels of Nancy Pelosi, and you know, calling some of these protesters ‘un-American.’” As Huddy ought to know, though Fox keeps spinning it otherwise, is that Pelosi said the DISRUPTIONS to town halls are un-American.

Predictably, nobody corrected the unwarranted attack of supposedly neutral Huddy, but McGurn went on to characterize Obama’s rhetoric as “not very presidential.”

Noting the “somewhat tame audience,” Huddy asked, “Don’t you think (Americans) want to see a real, a real, honest-to-goodness town hall? …This looks like theater.” She later said, “You want to hear President Obama answer a fiery opponent.”

I so wish I had been around Fox in 2003 during the run up to the Iraq war. Something tells me this passion for spirited debate was notably absent when it would have been a Republican administration in the hot seat.

Gallagher got back in with further distortions. “The President… says that he’s got the American Medical Association on board, the American Nurses Association on board. What he doesn’t have, it seems like, according to polls, is the American people on board.”

Is Gallagher trying to be the next Hannity? This is nothing more than a further distortion. Polls clearly show that while Americans have doubts, they just as clearly want health care reform and very often want a public option.

Next up was an unbalanced panel consisting of conservative Tucker Carlson, conservative Stephen Hayes and lone Democrat Alicia Menendez. That’s two-to-one against the Democrats, not counting the hosts.

Gallagher reiterated his earlier complaint by saying snidely, “This town hall looks very, very friendly, indeed.”

“All presidents try to manage the audience or their staff tries to manage the audience,” Carlson replied. “And all presidents lie about it. This one clearly is following in that grand tradition!” He chuckled heartily at his own observation. Neither Carlson nor any of the “impartial” hosts noted that no evidence to prove such an accusation had been put forth.

Gallagher asked Menendez, “Don’t you want the president to have a little bit of screaming and yelling? Don’t you want the president to answer some of these heated questions?”

It’s funny how these pundits keep fixing on “staged audiences” in Obama’s town hall and keep disregarding the same issue when the audiences are on the verge of violence. Unfortunately, Menendez never addressed the blatant bias staring her in the face during this discussion.

http://www.newshounds.us/2009/08/11/fox_ne...elling.php#more

[SMOKE 1,426]

So what, Steve? So what? Fox isn't going anywhere. It's ratings are growing while the Lefist networks are holding on by their fingernails. That's what all the fuss is about, demonizing Fox. Your kool-aid news outlets can't beat 'em, so you may as well accept that they strike a responsive chord in the populace.

+ the constant whinning about them not participating in the obama suck-a-thon does nothing. except get people to watch it in search of the truth. because we all know. Fox reports & lets you decide.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

They report, you decide.

Indeed.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Guess who's on Hannity right now.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Guess who's on Hannity right now.

A Town Hall screamer?