Fox News is Biased and Inaccurate Reporting

Megyn Kelly to Bill Burton:

"You attack, I'll defend."

"You save that for your friends on the other channels."

"Fox News has it fair and balanced, as always."

This interview / clash is a perfect example of why Fox News is most certainly not a bipartisan source of news.

Kelly literally shouts-down Burton as if it was talk radio, and then repeats the corporate motto like a good little Fox-minion.

I have been a long-time viewer (on and off) of Fox News and they have never been "fair and balanced." Recently they have become nothing more than the media-wing of the GOP; these people make up the “news” to suit their now very obvious political agenda.

I love how they all try to excuse their lack of evidence by the fact that their are a million-plus viewers of Fox.

As if their credibility record and their ratings scores are one and the same. It's just pure comedy to this as the retort from the Fox News Loyalists.

Almost everything Megyn Kelly said in fact applies were I to be speaking to the network-at-large:

You just keep attacking the truth, I'll just keep defending the truth.

You save this racist code language & these fearmonger-screeds for your friends in the White Supremacy movement and the zany antics of talk radio, where it belongs.

No element of Fox News, Fox News Talk, & the NY Post is in any way "fair and balanced." False advertising from the top-down. The network can repair it’s image by simply stating itself to be in favor toward the anti-Obama movement and in disfavor of the liberal-progressive movement. It is that simple.

And you guys just can't help yourselves, you just can't stand to ethical when being unethical is just so much more provocative!

Fox News has a long way to go before it can say it does anything but promote preconceived notions as reality and sell a pro-conservative, anti-Obama narrative.

These neoconservatives always talk about the "media is in the tank for Obama" but not one of them is willing to address just how heavily Fox News is in the tank for Palin / McCain / Bush / Cheney. They won't even address all these times when clearly, under review, Fox News failed to cover the story with the widely available credible evidence and footage.

Dishonesty and misinformation are the currency Fox News chooses to deal in.

Partisanship and political pandering is all the other networks are guilty of.

Add to that the matter of the New York Post being taken to court over allegations of promoting a hostile environment toward African-Americans and promoting a workplace environment friendly to sexual harassment and you have some of the final elements of this puzzle that the people at Fox Broadcasting are trying their hardest to scramble up before anyone takes a close look.

--

If I spread enough American Flags and say "God" enough times on this weblog, will I also be unchallengeable in the value in all of my blog-content and all of my internet-claims?

I'd like that very much.

If that were so it would be pure statement of fact to say that TEA Party members mainly did not vote in the Presidential 2008 Election.

I like where this is going…

Drudge is no good! (Then everyone just ignores Drudge from here out because I said so.)

--

Who the heck started The News Wars, anyway?

Oppositional Research certainly didn't start with Fox News, but they most certainly fired the first shot in this "war" of the commercialized-news.

What I detect is the same thing again and again that I heard expressed by Keith Olbermann of MSNBC:

"When we do, we're cool, but when you do you're Hitler." (In regards to some of Glenn Beck comments)

When they bring in oppositional researcher--Inside Edition smear merchant--Bill O'Reilly in and start letting him call himself a "journalist," the dam began to crack and when a Democratic President took office we then finally saw the true colors of Fox Broadcasting Company.

They will use any tactic they see fit to push through their political-social agenda and when called out on their actions they intend to label all who point out their inaccurate & biased coverage as the source of the problem instead of focusing on the issue.

An example: When I used a Beck-tactic on my weblog, and clearly labeled it as "satire," some people took huge offense and some tried to claim I was using the very tactic of "defamation" that I was decrying so often.

But it's a "comedic roast" on Glenn Beck, nothing more.

It was a "joke" when I said you should tell everyone.

The only reason I did it, is to show how very easy it is to just throw around wild rumors and place anybody you want on the “hot-seat” to explain themselves.

Some people were trying to say to me in course of throwing up red flags as Glenn Beck crusades against America that it: “doesn‘t matter.”

Oh, it matters. Who will they come after next? Who is the next target for them to demonize and spin? Maybe tomorrow it will be just everyone who is not in a “tea party” who is a “racist,” trying to “destroy” this nation with “socialism / communism.” If one dares to even call themselves a Republican instead of TEA Party or Conservative Party then they will have the attack-dogs unleashed to sew fear about them?

Opinions are great, but pure political-extremism combined with the bitter rejection of looking at the issue from multiple sources of information gathering is just plain willful ignorance. Not an opinion. Glenn Beck is an enabler for fringe anti-government groups, anti-black groups, anti-liberal groups and other hate-based organizations.

I once said I might sot down and talk broadcasting with him and other of the conservative-media feed. I take it back.

I have nothing to learn from these broadcasting-jackals that I could not learn reading Mad Magazine or listening to late-night AM Radio.

...

The News Wars started before there even was such a beast as MSNBC to bite back at that wild dog of "Fox News."

The News Wars started with people like me, and much more importantly people like LiberalViewer, who spoke truth to network-power and demanded better coverage from any network that would make such a bold claim as to be "fair & balanced news."

It may not be clear to millions of Americans what a "fabricated conspiracy theory" is, exactly.

But it is perfectly clear to me.

Barack Obama is no more a "socialist," than George W. Bush is a "fascist."

If people in the public insist on extremist labeling then so be it, but no recognized network should be promoting this notion that extremist political labeling is an action of "fairness" or an element of "balance."

--

The irony of satire...

I have put on my "Colbert-suit" for a blog post, or two.

They circulated (to the best of my knowledge) in conservative-internet circles rather quickly.

But if I mimic the vile tactics of their new poster-boy Glenn Beck, I am a naughty & vile person.

I believe my form of internet-satire has some small value only that I will admit outright that is satire thereby meaning entirely ambiguous information. However, I believe I will lean away from internet-satire in that it goes greatly misunderstood even when clearly declared as just pure hyperbolic nonsense.

Unbeknownst to them of course that the one they were linking to would much such statements as:

The monopolistic-corporate power structure in companies like Monsanto and Fox pose a threat to the public if left unchecked and buried with corporate dollars at every turn.

--

I recently checked the pay-outs to Democrats versus Republicans in terms of Monsanto campaign slush-money, and while the totals are not significant the individual contributions to Congressmen are quite significant.

Two Democratic Congressmen took $500 each, one from my home state, and two Republican took $10,000+ each. Both in states where the corn market is more significant to the "big-agriculture" industry.

The fact remains that Canada has discussed banning the use of GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) in their food and Britain has a labeling procedure in place while North America continues to ignore the matter by and large.

Like many of a somewhat scientific persuasion, I believe further research is needed on the usefulness of GMOs and primarily concerned the matter of the repeated failure to disclose both sides of the story on the matter by major news outlets across the U.S.

I see now the great failing in alarmism and it more important to have a public making informed decisions on matters regarding our food, or even matters regarding our health care insurance, rather than being given misleading and omitted coverage from any news group.

It is important to note in a discussion of media-finance and corporate hush-money that the Public Broadcasting Station (PBS) recently started receiving corporate-donations from Monsanto. I am of the persuasion to believe that an entity like PBS would likely graciously turn down the money if only they had the public support in donations to do such a thing.

As it stands PBS remains a credible news source despite some amount of corporate funding and Fox (News Corp) is the least credible of any television broadcasting to date.

James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles are Liars (ACORN)

 

These shameful people who commited a propaganda campaign against the poor and against blacks just got finished being soft-ball interviewed by Fox News broadcaster Sean Hannity.

These people both lied on this same exact program in regards to the matter of being asked to leave ACORN offices in the process of their so-called "expose" which was in fact a racist-propaganda crusade funded by anti-Obama dollars.

These are the elements in which I would say that the Fox Broadcasting Company is not a "news agency" and is rightly banned from the White House press-pool.

This radical right wing lobby has proven its anti-society stance in that it refuses to retract the lies of O'Keefe and Giles even with hard evidence of this being part of the story at this stage. This group of anti-American slander artists are promiting the worse kind of coverage one could possibly create.

This agency may have bits and fractions of non-biased journalism but when a story that hurts their political agenda rears its head they care nothing for covering the facts and keeping the guests honest.

These people are enemies of American families and enemies of the truth.

 O'Keefe and Giles claim to have a "new video" coming out that Sean Hannity "can't wait to see." No doubt more anti-black propaganda designed specifically to wage war on the poor.

 There are not strong enough words to express my distaste for these spreaders of ungodly and racist lies in the public, and then to have this carade of a man on his comedy-program disguised as a news show still refuse to retract their venomous lies.

 It is obvious that Fox News is an enemy of the truth and an enemy of the poor. Shame on their false-Christian network. 

Am I Too Liberal For “Liberaland”?

Pretty much since the thing started I have been a member of Alan Colmes’ website “Liberaland” as the user: EricG.

Both this username and all other usernames I create linked to my email have been deleted, or so it would seem.

Recently, I have tried posting on this website under my Facebook account under different usernames. All these attempts at posting on the this supposedly “come one, come all” political-talk website have been removed by website moderators, or so it would seem.

I seem to be free to access the Alan Colmes' Facebook page, as of now, and comment in that fashion rather than on the original blog post.

I sent an angry email that I already feel bad about. The Alan Colmes Radio Show is one of the few worthwhile programs on all of Fox News Talk, entirely thanks to the primary author of the blog in question. In terms of confronting real social issues and covering politics, I have no issue whatsoever with Alan Colmes or his website.

What I am saying is rather simple: warn me or block me. Don’t let me post my truthful thoughts and then continuously delete all my comments because I expressed opinions you didn’t enjoy. (Not like web-admins give a damn anyway.)

This is very much like my problems with Fox News (that seem to be the real reason I am being moderated while neoconservatives are perfectly welcome) in that it is fine to be exclusionary and rigid in your website / radio show / television show but completely dishonest and completely unethical to claim you have open doors when in fact you close them shut if you see specific issues being brought to the forum.

The Alan Colmes Radio Show is another matter entirely.

If I want to whine in Alan’s ear about this later tonight, nothing is stopping me.

If you call that show, most likely, you will be on Fox News Talk not long thereafter. Alan puts everyone on the air, just about.

I commend his radio efforts, fully.

However, I warn other liberal-bloggers out there that you may be moderated in your comments as I have and fed the round-about in terms of the whole matter.

I am not removing Alan Colmes from my Blogroll, but I might suggest only that the website is not as much as an open-forum on politics & issues as my own blog is. Which is a shame because it is an excellent website in every other respect.

--

The unspoken big rule here is:

Don’t talk about the network.

Hush child.

Didn’t you hear? Fox News and Fox News Talk are not held accountable to the public like the rest. They get a special pass to spread misinformation, misquote former-presidents, spread hatred and race bait.

Here is what disturbs me:

Liberalism is about speaking truth to power.

So what does one do when that power is wielded by the network?

I’m supposed to ignore that, am I?

No thanks. I love this country and love the truth too much to stand silent as a radical right-wing lobby disguised as a news network lies to public in every promo, in every slogan, and in any possible clever way they can.

--

It is always possible I am mistaken, but I believe “Liberaland” has become one more Fox News Apologist Hotbed. You are welcome to come and chat stream or comment on a post, but if you want to talk about Fox News or any version of it you will be pulled without notice.

I suppose I am making a Net-Neutrality argument more than I am trying to drive anyone away from a fun blog. Hardcore Net-Neutrality, though, it most certainly is not.

--

I cannot control another’s work nor would I want to, but my weblog is entirely open-forum and I practice Net-Neutrality. The only thing I truly moderate would be spam and the incitement of violence against others. As you may or may not have noticed, I have comments of all types of opinions other than my own approved. I leave them open as long as possible and try to reply to everyone.

I can claim the “come one, come all” were I ever to promote this website the way Alan Colmes does on his Fox Radio time-slot.

This is also true of his radio show as well.

But my experiences with his website are more like: “come here, go away.”

Perhaps they should re-name it: “Don‘tTalkAboutFoxLand”

…

It just rings to me of this Fox-Conservative way of politics and dealing with people:

You came come in the tent and even not fawn all over me too, but if you say certain things I believe are not true with stern conviction then you are banned.

And like I’ve said before many times: you just hear people out and if they have nothing but flames to share they have nothing to say and the people who are making fact-based arguments that you don’t like are very, and obviously, different from screaming nut-jobs.

Anyway, that’s my beef. I feel it to be a very dishonest thing to do.

Some people do need to be called out when they have the facts plain wrong and refuse to even address the matter rationally, but they are merely misinformed and adamant about remaining as such.

None of this involves throwing them out of the tent. It’s more about addressing matters like Joe Wilson’s unpatriotic outburst and venomous tongue, and the blind-hatred stewed up for liberals everywhere than it is about whatever the tea-baggers have to say.

--

This is just my little internet-tale of woe.

It is a minor one, at that.

Chances are they want me transferred to the Facebook section of his internet handiwork because I am a self-admitted “radical.”

Radical peace and radical disarmament.

So all this label-bashing coming from the people that Alan Colmes sits across the table from on Fox News applies to me just fine.

Here I am destroying his whole point about “liberals are not radicals.”

I realized long ago there are many definitions and degrees of liberalism.

I guess I am just too liberal for Liberaland these days.

So be it.

=========================================

UPDATE:

Joel, the moderator who "could give a damn" according to me, has sent me an email that closes the matter for me.

If anyone reads my comments you'll see this was what I was asking for the moment they started treating me differently than the other users of the website.

Joel is a good man. I wish him well.

Here are his words to me:

Eric, You’re not helping your case by falsely claiming that you were banned because of comments about Fox. That claim is easily disproven by countless posts that have been allowed – and continue to be allowed – on Alan.com by people of all views about the network. You were warned that you were crossing the line
on a post that had absolutely nothing to do with Fox. When another commenter mentioned that to you on another post, after you again went overboard, your response – instead of considering whether your own behavior was appropriate – was to make a personal insult about me. Obviously you have no interest in civil discourse, so your comments are no longer welcome.

Joel

We see here that he is stating that I am indeed banned but I have posted recently and admitted to my bad behavior.

Essentially I forgot that it wasn't time to impersonate Glenn Beck and I should reserve such banter for this website.

The truth is I was out of line in the first place, but I have also endured vicious attacks on that same website.

One does not negate the other any more than my feelings of justification only in my anger over the hate I allowed myself to spew forth.

--

So am I too liberal for "Liberaland"?

We'll see ... looks like "no" but maybe not.

Fox "Not-a-news-agency" News is Banned From White House Porch

(Image: Chicago Tribune's "Swamp Politics")

Is it a good idea to single out just one outlet in the manner that The Obama White House recently has in the case of removing Fox Broadcasting from the press pool?




--

At first, I was in favor of the move to ignore the Fox Broadcasting Company by Barack Obama.

His efforts to clear his name on the website "Fight The Smears" stem almost entirely from Fox. He has every right to defend himself from these smear-merchants and radical right-wing propagandist supporters.

The right-wing lobby called "Fox News" (as in the cable pseudo-news) and "Fox News Talk" (as in the radio pseudo-news) is still "not a news organization" in my opinion. But I think this label should include everyone from COMEDY CENTRAL to HLN to CNN to MSNBC, everyone except PBS and C-SPAN.

It's been televised tabloidism in place of televised journalism for far too long. In my view.

Any White House that would send a clear signal that The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, Countdown, The O'Reilly Factor, and The Glenn Beck Show are all the same thing would be nothing but a benefit in this age of media-hate & mass misinformation.

These programs are not news, they are purely entertainment-television.

Each of these programs has an agenda, as does the network behind each.

There is nothing wrong with doing agenized-news. But it is dishonest and unethical to claim objectivity if you are playing toward a specific political wing, or any specific agenda. This is the greatest offense of the so-called "Fair & Balanced" Fox Broadcasting. As a network they cater to right-wing political agendas and refuse to declare themselves as a format that promotes conservative ideology. In that case I see it as a function of false advertising on behalf of the network.

All these programs, it‘s important to point out, are television-propaganda toward that agenda. Which might be only the agenda to make you laugh.

The broadcasting produced by this political lobby / news agency / entertainment format in only the viewing of it is not dangerous. It is taking these kinds of broadcasts as serious news formats that is problematic in a democratic society.

The informed viewing of propaganda is merely educational. However, to those who refuse to see the difference between opinions and facts the viewing of the propaganda of reckless liars, there is a dangerous situation produced.

Mine is a somewhat complex argument in regards to The News Wars between The Obama White House and Fox Broadcasting Company:

It is a good move that Obama is standing up to bad journalism mixed with bad business practices, but a bad move that he singled out FOX alone when all the news agencies screw something up.

FOX is just the biggest offender of the smears.

I believe radio and satellite should remain untouched by sweeping regulations, but televised broadcasting of race baiting and McCarthyism is just too much tabloidism for me to handle.

This sensationalist-reporting on politics that has been going almost entirely due to FOX NEWS is not exclusive to them, so I think it would be wise to pick out a few other agencies, perhaps CLEARCHANNEL and COMEDY CENTRAL, to also declare as non-news formats.

It is clear to me when a news group is run by an agenda, thus becoming more like a political lobby than a news group, but it is not clear to everyone.

A President who stands for educating the public should seek to educate people on what exactly "bias" is, and hopefully shed some light on the issue.

The specific near-criminal acts of failure to disclose vital information of a story committed by FOX NEWS should be spoken of plainly and openly if not handled more severely. This tactic of isolation is my only qualm with Obama's approach to dealing with fake news.

If it is the desire of this White House to tackle the specific crimes against society that Fox has committed, then I would hope the case was made in specifics.

It is my personal view that a news group, of any sort, can lose it's status as “press” if they fail to uphold the journalistic truth as a matter of course.

I only believe Obama did not go far enough to fight unethical journalism and false reporting.

But I certainly agree with the point that FOX has become something other than a news agency when they promote bad journalism that is not related to their opinion-makers.

Bipartisan Blogging Dies at Birth

When I first set forth to imprint myself upon the wildly evolving beast of the blogosphere I held with me a tenuous goal: to create a fully bipartisan blog.

A place that would be both policy and ideology neutral, yet dealt in real news topics.

While the value of this concept in itself still appears quite sound in my mind, I discovered through personal experience that throwing that concept away was the best thing I ever did for my blog as a rank amateur in the mix. (Still working on that.)


Blogger tis I:

My posting entitled “Ann Coulter Still Sucks” was one of first impressions unto this wild animal of internet-posting that I can claim to my credit. Every word of that is partisanship, I am completely unashamed.

My posting entitled “The Libra-Scorpio Cusp” is enjoyed by many. I point out an internet inconsistency between websites and briefly address my feelings on Astrology.

Recently I was honored to have received an Editor’s Pick on Open Salon for what accounts to the end result of these bipartisan efforts of mine.

I thank the Editors of Open Salon for the honor in being selected.

In course of presenting the issue of Jimmy Carter’s words concerning race in America, I unconsciously fell into my routine of trying to revive the lost art of bipartisanship.

I presented the words of Alan Wilson rebuking the words of Carter directly as to any racial motives in his father Rep. Joe Wilson’s outburst.

I withheld the words of what I view as righteous indignation and retained myself to news-commentary.

However, my truly Bipartisan Blogging is dead. I fully intend to address every issue that I view as significant regardless of the possible offense drawn from that perspective.

Once you mix an opinion with a platform, you get punditry. Once the opinion is interjected into the Left versus Right Debate, it is already too late.

What remains within me though are the principals of striving toward fair play and equal consideration of alternative perspectives, and still with my own case intact. The value of this bipartisanship effort is lost, but the spirit remains intact. The reason being for this loss, in my view, has to do this the source from which it comes.

Despite all reports to the contrary, I am not a big deal.

The person to revive journalistic standards in the United States, is not I.

I instead must cry out into the wilderness to capture this beast, while those within the press need only touch a laptop. So is the way of things. But while ‘truth’ can be subjective, the facts are not.

--

“You can have your own opinion, but you don’t get to chose your own facts.”

--

I make a great many declarative statements in the course of blogging, formed primarily from simple political and media analysis, which accounts to online punditry.

But I believe strongly in full disclosure of the fact that I am a liberal and freely admit it may alter my world view in some cases.

But the facts don’t lie, and I believe in the growing majority of cases the facts are on my side.


Pointing Fingers:

It could be said that I am extremely critical of the right wing in US Politics.

If one were to ever take the time to read backwards into my blog it can be found that I have tried to draw a line between "Thinking Conservatives" and "Limited Conservatives".

Other times I have directly defended the specific quotes of both Carrie Prejean and Rick Warren.

Treading this line in not some political game on my part, but rather my honest opinion on those matters.

I believe that is what we have escaped from in the madness of mass computing and super-fast news-cycles. Partisanship sells books as much as it moves blog-hits, so perhaps some of these political shock jocks like Ann Coulter would rather be reasonable in her arguments, but it simply doesn’t pay the bills.

The truth being what is lost in this exchange, and I think that sort of thing is a shame.

I would much rather have a discussion in disagreement than just label others as “tools”, “fascists”, “un-American”, or “racists”.

But that creation of mine that might cross party lines, and maybe bring sanity to the mix to see what happens will have to wait for a another day. The raw truth of opinion should not replace factual evidence. Such is the road to tyranny.

So I have taken another road. I drew a line in the sand that allows me to say what I will of Republicans, or Democrats.

For instance, the Republican Party is currently self-destructing and the Democratic Party has dropped the ball on health care reform.

Such statements embody my current stage in blogging evolution.


Finale:

The spirit of political bipartisanship and the need for balance remains within me, but the middle ground is now mainly unattainable without the acceptance of false claims and baseless assertions. Any critical review of facts debunks most conservative mantras.

There is much to be said for ideological differences enhancing a debate but when the debate is centered around misrepresentations and sweeping accusations of assumed wrong-doing there simply to no room in which to move in.

I will most likely continue to be mistaken for a conservative by both machines that dictate ad banners and internet users alike, but this just a by-product of my attempt to split everything down the middle.

To me, most these differences are best settled in the voting booth at election time.

But if the accuracy of the information we receive is suspect and unverifiable then we have a responsibility as citizens to recognize this fact.

This tense political and social division has forever been an element of American Life, but I believe that the situation is amplified by media-giants who profit from the repetition of partisan smears of any person or group.

I can only pray for a day of more a more honest and non-biased form of journalism catching the eye of the American public, but I don’t see it happening anytime soon.




Eric Lightborn

http://ericlightborn.blogspot.com

http://twitter.com/EricLightborn

September 29th 2009

Frank Luntz is a Word-Weasel

Rightwing pollster Frank Luntz is out promoting his new book: “What Americans Really Want, Really” and getting his definitions completely wrong in regards to Political Science, which I seriously doubt is an amateurish mistake.

On Alan Colmes Radio, Luntz continued the conservative rhetoric that United States of America is a “center-right country” and his words in explanation of this were very revealing as to his own personal bias against getting the definitions right, even when those words might not serve your own political ends.

“This is a center-right country but the definition of ‘Center-Right‘ has changed. ‘Center-Right’ doesn‘t mean keeping government out of our lives anymore, .. now it means fighting corruption.”

This is the Word-Weasel at work.

Fighting corruption in both government and private sectors has always been the ideals of The Progressive Reformist Movement since it's inception and these ideals have remained as a fact of American Life since then. To attach his own ideological group to these values is outright inaccurate.

Frank Luntz is very good at catering messages that appeal to conservatives and work well for The Republican Party but I find the notion that he is not affected by political bias in most of his statements completely absurd.

Center-Right has, and always will, mean exactly what Luntz claimed on the air that it does not mean.

It is clear to me that he feels free to change the definitions of words as he sees fit in order to further his own personal political agenda. If he cannot admit that the nation obviously shifted to Center-Left with the election of a Democratic President, and the ambitions of sixty House seats being attained by The Democratic Party then I am left to question the very conclusions of his work.

No doubt he has attained a great deal of significant data in his 6,000+ focus groups he used to compile his recent book, but if the standards of recognizing professional bias and personal bias are ignored then the conclusions of the body of work become suspect.

This is a Radio-interview Review, not a Book Review, so that body of work is not my focus and I invite anyone interested to avail themselves of this literature.

My only point is that if Frank Luntz is going to change the definitions of sound science to fit his image on a radio show, it begs to question other matters of credibility as well.

In his credit, I don’t believe he ever joined in the hateful mantra of “socialist” aimed at liberals, Democrats and mainly Obama.

On the list of all the partisans out there, Luntz is a minor offender.

But I still find it the worst of offenses to change the words to fit your needs, and considering they call him ‘The Words That Work Guy’; I think maybe it should be elongated to ‘The Words That Work No Matter What Guy’.

Frank Luntz is a smart cookie. But I’d personally almost compared him to Karl Rove, myself. Dancing around the truth has never been part of The Scientific Approach.

--

What Americans really want, really, is for pollsters to stop telling them what they think when it’s really just what the pollster thinks about what you think.