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.

The Fearmonger-in-Chief is Glenn Beck of Fox News

The Anti-Defamation League has joined with me in trying to raise awareness over a violent propagandist spreading anti-Americanism on a low credibility network.

Here is an excerpt from the ADL report:

Glenn Beck's linkage of Hitler's plan to round up and exterminate Jews with Al Gore's efforts to raise awareness of global warming is outrageous, insensitive and deeply offensive. Unfortunately, his remarks are just the latest example of a troubling epidemic on the airwaves, where comparisons to Hitler and the Holocaust are becoming all-too facile.

It has become almost commonplace for talk-show pundits to use comparisons to the Holocaust and Nazi imagery to attack people whose views they disagree with, whether the issue is global warming or immigration, as we witnessed when CNN's Lou Dobbs recently suggested on his program that immigrant rights groups use tactics similar to those of Nazi propagandists.

The six million Jewish victims and millions of other victims of Hitler deserve a measure of respect. Their deaths should not be used for political points or sloganeering. Every time a radio or television personality takes that unique event in history and twists it for their own political agenda, it cheapens the public debate and distorts and trivializes the Holocaust.

It is more important than ever before to speak openly about the culture of dishonesty, fear and violence promoted by the likes of Glenn Beck and held in place by the likes of Fox Broadcasting Company.

The element to understand here is that there will always be some wild shock-jock to spread falsehoods, incite fear and violence, scare the public with fabricated theories, and just plain be an unpatriotic American.

The problem lies with making the radicalism and fervor of the fringe of any movement the mainstream of the same movement. Glenn Beck accomplishes this everyday with the help of the pseudo-credibility of Fox News (television) and Fox News Talk (radio.)

A Leggy Sara Palin Newsweek Cover

Politically-speaking I could not disagree with Sara Palin any more.

However, I would like to say that this woman has taken an amazing amount of hard-blows from the left. It would be more impressive in her own personal character if she refused to play the victim over the matter, but there is no doubt these things occur.

I am for focusing on the facts, as I see them at this time.

The fact is it makes no sense what Sara Palin said to Oprah about her reasons for leaving the governor’s office in Alaska.

This notion that her political advocacy would be hampered by resigning from office due to fact that ethical violations would have been filed is absurd.

The only logical conclusion that can be drawn from her statement is that her political advocacy would promoting something widely recognized as unethical due to fact that if your cause is just and more motives only non-violent advocacy of ideals you have nothing to fear in defending your case should you be called to question for your actions.

The Governor of Alaska has many, many times the ability to effect social change and promote political advocacy of a private citizen relying on namesake leftover from the 2008 Campaign.

The facts of the matter are that the former-Governor of Alaska still refuses to give a cogent or logical reply to a simple question.

Sara Palin also retains that the simple question, “What do you read?” is somehow an insult on her.

This was a great opportunity for Sara Palin to promote her local newspaper and other press outlets that may go under-looked. She instead continues to only be vague about rather simple questions.

Now putting all that aside, I don’t think that taking an image from Runner’s World on the cover of Newsweek was a very wise move.

This just feeds into the false notion that Sara Palin doesn’t get a “fair shake” in the “liberal media.”

If anything the “liberal media,” which is a misnomer, doesn’t get enough objective critics who focus on facts where many are clear to raise.
In a previous post I said that people should pick up a copy of that Newsweek with the Anna Quindlen and disgraced Governor Mark Sanford to read, so you could get a grip on what the heck is going on right not in politics.

As for this issue of Newsweek, I suggest instead buying a National Inquirer instead.

MediaMatters.org has covered this issue quite well:

Making matters worse is the equally offensive headline Newsweek editors chose to run alongside the photo -- "How Do You Solve a Problem like Sarah?" -- presumably a reference to the Sound of Music song, "Maria," in which nuns fret about "how" to "solve a problem like Maria," a "girl" who "climbs trees" and whose "dress has a tear."

Now, this photograph may have been completely appropriate for the cover of the magazine for which the picture was apparently intended, Runners World. But Newsweek is supposed to be a serious newsmagazine, and the magazine is certainly not reporting on Palin's exercise habits.

I don’t believe Sara Palin is a viable candidate for any major political office.

Her disinterest in facts and honesty being the reason for this.

Call me strange, but I don’t think Sara Palin’s legs are “news worthy.”

I’m just saying that things like this Newsweek cover are fodder for all these false-news hounds out there painting on their wild canvas.

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.

Chris Wallace and FOX News are Lying to You

(Image from: The Osterley Times)

Chris Wallace and The FOX Broadcasting Company have proven to me personally that not only do they work in a direct effort to both intentionally under-report and under-disclose vital information to the stories they cover, but also to outright lie in the name of presenting their case.

 

Wallace attempted to defend the ACORN slander atrist, James O'Keefe III, by repeating false claims that have irrefutable evidence stating otherwise.

 

As is the par for the course, nobody cares to speak out against these truth-spinners and defenders of McCarthyism in the US.

 

MediaMatters.org has covered the story far better than I ever could hope to, but I think it needs to be understood that when FOX News reports via Megyn Kelly that O'Keefe and Giles were in fact asked to leave ACORN offices, while O'Keefe and Giles have previously denied these claims on the air of FOX News, it is the obvious responsibility of Chris Wallace to inform you of this lack of credibility native to these people along with any other claims or assertions he would like to make.

 

That failure to report this information, and the failure of FOX News to hold their employees responsible, is an affront to American democracy as much as it is to journalism in the modern age. If these people continue to lie to the public there may need to be some serious consideration made toward the goal of civilly disrupting and peacefully dismantling an agency dedicated to spreading misinformation, racist sentiments and un-American propaganda.

 

--

 

This video is pertaining to another matter entirely but I draw your attention to the FOX News-ticker at approximately 2:10.

 

.. Carter, who said racism accounts for most criticism of Obama, but says "That's not what's driving" Obama's detractors ..

 

Words are important. To lie about the words of a former United States President, even in a cable news-ticker, is an insult to this nation and there is no doubt to me that this is far from some minor accident.

 

Look carefully at that sentence.

The whole statement is designed to make Jimmy Carter look like he is talking in circles, when in fact the FOX News organization is using their own language "most criticism" to put words in Carter's mouth. A shameful and un-American thing to do.

 

Now look carefully at Carter's actual quote:

 

"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man,"

 

Carter was quite clear and not all ambiguous like the false and downright slanderous FOX News-version of events.

 

The words are "intense animosity", not "criticism". And "overwhelming portion", not "most".

 

Jimmy Carter can defend himself. I will not dissect every angle of this for the sake of this singular posting.

 

I am simply saying you look at the words someone spoke for what they are, not twist them around until they say what you want them to say.

 

And it amounts to a simple, and for some hard to accept, fact:

FOX News is in the business of promoting and advocating racist ideals in the US.

 

Until I see clear examples of the end of their unwillingness to accurately report on scandals like ACORN, the controversy over Jimmy Carter's words or something to the issue of finally questioning the wisdom in keeping an avowed racist like Glenn Beck on the payroll, I see no reason to think or say otherwise.

 

There are some good people who work at FOX News. But there are good people who work at the IRS, too.

 

Doesn't mean they're not working in a cesspool.

Colmes Interviews

Jimmy Carter and The Race Card

"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American," Carter told NBC News. "I live in the South, and I've seen the South come a long way, and I've seen the rest of the country that shares the South's attitude toward minority groups at that time, particularly African-Americans."

"That racism inclination still exists, and I think it's bubbled up to the surface because of belief among many white people -- not just in the South but around the country -- that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country. It's an abominable circumstance, and it grieves me and concerns me very deeply," Carter said.

--

The oldest son of U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson, Alan Wilson, has come to his father's defense in regards to a racial motivation to the uncouth interruption of President Obama during an address to a Joint-Session of Congress.

"There is not a racist bone in my dad's body," said Alan Wilson, an Iraq veteran who is running for state attorney general in South Carolina. "He doesn't even laugh at distasteful jokes. I won't comment on former President Carter, because I don't know President Carter. But I know my dad, and it's just not in him."

"It's unfortunate people make that jump. People can disagree — and appropriately disagree — on issues of substance, but when they make the jump to race it's absolutely ludicrous. My brothers and I were raised by our parents to respect everyone regardless of background or race."

--

I personally believe that former President Carter's words were the absolute truth. I doubt that Rep. Wilson was motivated by a direct, personal hatred for Barack Obama based on his skin color but rather that he chose to be so disrespectful and chose to insult the nation in the way he did because of the exact principals that Carter touched on in the above quote.


The notion that Obama is not qualified to state facts as a President addressing the Congress and that one must not even hear out his entire address before rebuking him, is so outrageous and unheard of up until this point, that few other explanations remain. Joe Wilson continues to defend his un-American slander and claim that he was truthful in his statements when in fact he was, and is, completely misguided.


The notion that all strong resistance to Obama coming from the middle and the right is pure racism is also inaccurate, in my view.


However, the people who constantly use the argument that not everyone opposed to Obama is a racist are very often the same people who fail to point out the racists on the right and fail to be honest about the reasons for their outrage. Or they fail to give any rational explanation that makes any kind of sense for their intense fear and willingness to believe wild claims about Barack Obama.

Dick Cheney Fails To Understand American Values

Former Vice President Dick Cheney continues to obfuscate the truth and tarnish the name of all Republicans by means of standing up for cruel and unusual punishment of military detainees.

Appearing on FOX News Sunday recently, the former Vice President continued to advocate a dangerous and sick agenda by claiming pride for the torture and prisoner mistreatment that occurred under The Bush Administration.

Beyond this outrageous fact Cheney made a statement that I see as a direct affront to very heart of American Values, like he has never done before.


WALLACE: “So even these cases [of interrogation] where they went beyond the specific legal authorization, you're OK with it.”


CHENEY: “I am.”

This was a true testament to how divorced Dick Cheney remains from any understanding of our national standards of justice and our mutual values as a people.

Cheney clearly declares that he cares nothing as to the pursuit of justice to those that break the law under the blanket of authority claiming to pursue justice themselves.

This country does not accept any person or body to be beyond the law and Cheney insulted this nation by supporting the notion that supporting illegal actions under government supervision are acceptable in a free nation of laws.

Republican Obstructionism in Health Care Reform

I see these God-forsaken ads running on my blog about how people are supposed to “Stop Obama-care Now!” and I would like to metaphorically spit on this nonsense once and for all. Anyone attaching the misnomer of “socialized medicine” or using the phrase “Obama-care” has already labeled themselves as part of the partisan agenda weakening this country from within everyday.

I contend that if we witnessed these same bills moving through Congress proposed my Republicans instead of Democrats that many of the same harsh opponents of reform would flip-flop their stance entirely. Almost anyone questioned on their position in the media or otherwise states that they think there should be “some kind” of reform.

I am left to think that a vast majority of the resistance to the passage of these measures is simply playing politics on behalf of Republicans, in that if President Obama signs a successful humanitarian bill that enhances the lives of so many American families the political consequences to their party will be too severe to manage.

At least the televised and media punditry are motivated by this end, if noting else.

This ’Party of No’ mentality is dangerous to us all. If anyone has a valid objection or concern by all means they should make themselves known. But when a person simply stands on the legs of right wing talking points and shaky numbers I tend to think they would be a strong advocate for “McCain-care” if the universe where all flipped upside down.

Partisanship Revisited

It occurs to me that many people in America care little to perceive and discern political partisanship in both the media and coming from representatives of their party.

Partisanship, better described as political hatred, is the driving force in the televised media and has been the bread and butter of radio broadcasting for as long as one cares to recall.

No person who advocates bipartisan coverage in the media is asking others to forego their own conclusions nor to silence their tongue in terms of political commentary.

Those who request a more bipartisan government and a more bipartisan media are only asking that the rancor and untruths spread by both sides be called out as such. We only ask that a person of any political stance be mindful of the simple fact that using slander, propaganda, and biased reporting does not contribute to the body politic of the nation.

The need to declare one’s self as part of any group is also an element of bipartisanship known as ‘full disclosure.’ This fact does not allow any person to call themselves ‘balanced’ and ‘fair’ in their dialogue while they proceed to make vast assumptions and baseless assertions about another group that they do not belong to nor share any common ideologies with.

The value to the nation is lost. These endless left versus right debates with no mutual respect and no interest in reviewing facts in the process is only serving to tear the nation further away from attaining mutual goals.

We the people did this to ourselves, lest someone feels the urge to blame the media.

The people of America seem to enjoy staying perfectly ‘safe’ within their respective spheres of politics and dare not to stray away from the ‘status quo’ generated by whatever biased programming they choose to absorb.

The media only responds to what it perceives the public wants. The public seems to want to drowned in slanderous, untrue, and vague reporting coming from pundits who make their careers off of lying and obfuscating facts about politics.

The bottom line is that media pundits have tied their own noose around their neck. If even one of them were to admit that they say these slanderous remarks and hateful comments to boost their ratings or book sales they would be thrown away by the very people who currently pay them respect.

I assert that if true honesty and true patriotism were to be included in the modern political media that people would reject these current figures in the media and exchange them so others who would not ever be honest and straight forward with the public could take their place.

In a world where each political camp is dedicated to the notion that the other is ‘evil’ and ‘immoral’ we shall never do anything worthy of the name American in this country.

We shall forever be a nation divided and shall never be a nation united.

Drudge Report Cover Slanders Obama

Today on The Drudge Report we see the latest example of bias and slander against the president by means of using a misleading photo of Barack Obama above the title of the wbsite.

ABC has the whole video, in which you can see what truly transpired.

Yahoo News is where the link provided by Drudge leads you, but the headline "The Second Stimulus" has nothing to do with the article on Yahoo from which this image originated from.

Mike Drudge knows exactly what he is doing by only posting that photo above and then linking into an article that not enabled with the video version thus the 'whole story.'

It is clear to me, and everyone who did more than giggle at the cover piece, that Drudge will use any excuse to slander and degrade the image of President Barack Obama. Even at the cost of his own credibility.

Todd Venezia of The Washington Post managed to squeeze the truth of the matter into the very last paragraph of his piece.

It was in fact Sarkozy taking a look at the young lady's behind, and not Obama. But such facts mean nothing to people care to do nothing but demean Obama's character with their every breath.

The only person affliated with FOX News to accurately report on this issue has been Greta Van Susteren. Further enforcing the concept that FOX News is a network mainly dedicated to this style of misleading coverage of news events and utterly biased content.

How Responsible is O’Reilly in Tiller’s Murder?

Crooks & Liars: Bill O’Reilly uses Private Long’s murder to try and justify his demonization of Dr. Tiller by John Amato

Raw Replay: Howard Kurtz excuses Bill O’Reilly’s incitement of violence against George Tiller by David Edwards

--

In terms of criminal responsibility to Bill O’Reilly or FOX Broadcasting in the murder of Dr. George Tiller, I can see none.

In terms of moral and civic responsibility, I see plenty. I believe it to a shameful state of affairs in America today that I am a ‘far left’ blogger for demanding responsible broadcasting and moral standards in addressing social issues like abortion and women’s reproductive health.
The crazies will do what they do.

Bill O’Reilly is not responsible when a lunatic reads his book and murders fourteen people in a church, nor is he responsible when a man watches his broadcasts and goes out and kills a man over it. In a legal sense this is true. In a moral sense Bill O’Reilly has blood on his hands for passing along biased and jaded perspectives on liberalism in America and his outrageously dangerous and slanderous coverage of Dr. Tiller.

The responsibility of a broadcaster is vapid in terms of serious social issues and FOX News is just part of a much larger problem. This is not in anyway exclusive to The O’Reilly Factor.

Just tonight Geraldo Rivera made insinuations of vigilante violence against a child molester in Oklahoma in the course of denouncing vigilante violence himself.

The fact remains that the both the network and the broadcasters themselves have a responsibility to the public they serve to protect the lives of all citizens and protect the due process of law.

By calling Dr. Tiller a "killer" repeatedly on the air Bill O’Reilly risked inciting violence.

By vaguely insinuating that the Oklahoma child molester might be killed and have his body dumped on the side of the road Geraldo Rivera risked inciting violence.

The responsibility to the community for news broadcasting that does not risk the incitement of violence in the nation is fundamental to our domestic security as a nation.

This entire issue has absolutely nothing to do with an individual political agenda on my accord and I am willing to retract my provocative statements in regards to Mr. O’Reilly provided he states clearly to the public that he will no longer use his media platform to play dangerous games with people’s lives and then follows through on this promise.

Mine is a cry for an end to irresponsible broadcasting coming from FOX News.

For whatever failures of bias to found on vast quantity both on MSNBC and FOX, there is only one network inciting violence and using radical rightwing propaganda to do more than simply share an alternative perspective. Quite often the network is used as an agent for unscrupulous pundits to gamble with the safety of physicians and the liberal population of America.

Ultimately, I believe these people have become drunk off their own power and will never admit their own misdeeds let alone their own inability to recognize their contributions to a climate of violence in America.

As long as the public continues to support their "crusades" they will remained deluded and ignorant to the harm they cause in their wake. When the veil of public approval is lifted it becomes clear that these men will say anything to get ratings and if that means risking inciting violence, then so be it.

Read Some News & Instantly Talk About It!

In my opinion, all these news-blogging websites are the same thing wrapped up in a different package. This age of faster and faster news-cycles combining with worldwide communications expanding to new heights has spawned a new phenomena of people like myself feeling the need to respond to every single news story in all the world.

Then expound upon some line of thought in some blog and someone comments-back: “Keep it short and sweet.” Sometimes there is none of that. Sometimes I run out anything and we end up with the new and famous and amazing micro-blogging (Tweet)!

--

The FOX Nation

The ‘protectors’ of the freedom of speech and ’balanced’ media have opened up a talking-back-at-you website. They let my liberal stuff through just like anyone else.

Huffington Post

This site has morphed from comment moderation taken to new tyrannical heights and has landed right back where all the internet is, sanity. Though I’ll the first to admit that almost every post on the website is written by a liberal.

The Guardian

I don’t live in the UK but this news-site has always caught my eye. I just think they have better articles than a lot of American media to discuss or reference.

Your Blog

I might have promoted you and you never knew it. I try and point out anything I think is great in both credible source and just pure internet source. If you have a blog I am the one who just randomly spread it around on Facebook or maybe Stumble.

YouTube Threads

I have no idea why people do this but YouTube comment threads often become beyond the limits of sanity in terms of length, and the dialogue goes beyond any measure of civility in about 90% of the cases. I can barely ever help myself, I’ve allowed myself to childish and tawdry while speaking to vile and hostile people. If you like car-crashes and Jerry Springer … you might want to just read the comments under a video without even bothering with whatever the original post was.

--

It’s just my point of view.

That it all fits in the same pale. One big not-so happy family and internet traffic.

The only credibility on most internet posting is attached to the credibility of the domain combined with the author. I’ll listen to anybody, but I’m not about to try and attach any level of credibility to myself. This is all just my opinion. But I think some certain few out there somehow manage to get opinion and real news confused in all the commotion of the New Media.

Bill O'Reilly versus Joan Walsh

YouTube of Joan vs. Bill

“This Tiller thing is bogus. And I think you know it‘s bogus. And if not I‘m gonna show you a sound byte that‘s gonna prove it to you.”

How many sound bytes do you have to show people to fix what they read in textbooks and newspapers?

If it’s in the Constitution, he has a sound byte for that. No need to read it yourself.

If it’s the truth of ideology that he claims to hold and only perverts and twists to his own ends, he has a sound byte for that. No need to speak to the people involved.

If he promotes domestic terrorism via lies about Americans and invasions of privacy in his ‘just crusade,’ he has a sound byte for that. No need to look at reality.

He has a sound byte ready for the day he starts getting right down to it and promoting violence against liberals and terrorism on the city of San Francisco. And another one ready as they fit him for an orange jumpsuit.

All of it to carefully explain away why he is not at fault, ever, and has nothing to do with anything except the so-called ‘truth.’ All it to make sure nobody in his audience ever actually reads anything except what he tells them to.

To me, this is proof of what I’ve always said about Bill O’Reilly:

This man cares nothing for facts and only for own personal set of biases.

--
The O’Reilly Tactic of Dirty Pool Debate revealed one of his trademark spin artist moves in the opening moments of this clip.

Bill’O brings up as a side-line, and states himself very quickly, in mentioning what Joan wrote on her website was “unconscionable” and then says he is going to “stick to it” by addressing the matter at hand.

This is classic Dirty Pool Debate. You slander your opponent and before they get a chance to respond then quickly you move to the ’real issue at hand.’ The whole point of Dirty Pool Debate is to demean the character of your opponent instead of argue the point with them.
Bill O’Reilly is a master at doing just this. Keeping the truth of a real debate away from his audience and helping them maintain narrow-minded thinking while feeling like they are ‘learning’ about politics, media and the nation.
Just screaming like an idiot into the camera and refusing the recognize the damage he does to society at large with this brand of partisan hate and untruthful propaganda on serious social issues in America.
--
Joan: “You crusaded against him.”
Bill: “You bet!”
Joan: “He had been shot twice already.”
Bill: “And I‘m sorry about that.”

Well if he was so sorry why didn’t he stop slandering and misusing his platform to spread lies about Americans that ultimately lead to domestic terrorism incidents?
Because that would have hurt his ratings. Oh, the precious ratings.
He should be sorry. He is the one with blood on his hands, after all.
--
What Bill O’Reilly does on television is wrong. It is a brutal set of lies and conjecture that provides no benefit to the nation whatsoever. FOX Broadcasting Studios should be ashamed to have their name attached to such a disreputable and dishonest man.

--
The need to scream over all that disagrees with your mentality is a clear example of partisanship and intolerance for the opinions of others.

The need to call everyone not aligned with you as "far left"is a clear example of a need to marginalize your opponent because you feel your own position is weak or lacking against theirs.

Considering conservatives are on the wrong side of history in every debate over social issues I can see why Bill O’Reilly is so threatened to use such shallow and childish tactics.
--
Joan is absolutely right about Bill O’Reilly being a vile man. A vile and lowly man who loves his ideologies more than he loves other humans.

He disrespects the nation and the intelligence of his audience with his so-called ‘facts’ and his so-called ‘reporting.’

Time and time again it is the true patriots who must stand up against the charlatans and propagandists who seek to destroy this nation in violence and ignorance.

Let our voices be heard, loud.

A domestic terrorist is in our amidst: Bill O’Reilly. A man who promotes vigilantism and misinformation that gets Americans killed.

Iran Explodes with Unrest

Huffington Post has the latest updates on the Iranian situation.

I would draw your attention to the final video on the post: "12:17 AM ET -- Awe-inspiring courage."

Panetta versus Cheney

CIA Director Leon Panetta is quoted as saying in regards to the recent Cheney media appearances:

"It's almost, a little bit, gallows politics. When you read behind it, it's almost as if he's wishing this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point. I think that's dangerous politics."

Former Vice-President Dick Cheney has responded by saying he hopes Panetta was misquoted in claiming his wish for an attack.

Panetta is absolutely right. The shameful, hawkish media-tour to promote torture policcy and degrade the Obama presidency should be met with even more harsh words than these of Panetta's. But they will do for the time being.

People Who Voted McCain Hate Obama, Big Surprise

I follow politics on both sides of the coin.

In my view the turning point for the McCain Campaign was the selection of Sara Palin.
The Thinking Conservatives removed their support in droves while the Limited Conservatives found a new poster-child for Partisan Logic.

Aside from the racism allowed to crop up in the Republican Campaign and the market crash under a Republican President, the Conservative Americans who actually think about their positions for longer than the span of a thirty second sound byte could not accept the ‘Say it so, Joe’ Logic and the overall presentation of John McCain’s pick for VP.

Many asked themselves and openly begged the question:

“If John McCain made this bad a decision for Vice President, then how can we trust him to make the right decisions on the war on terror.”

I am trying to draw a connection between the Obama-Hate Committee found on right wing radio and FOX Broadcasting with the vague demagogue figure of religious and moral authority found in the Governor of Alaska and her bid for the vice-presidency in 2008.

I think this group is just loud, and well-funded. Most, if not all, popularity of extremist presidential bashing from the Media Republicans comes from people who want theocracy and the destruction of American Liberty in the name of unfounded ideologies.

There are of course exceptions and a rare pack of conservatives can formulate a fair review of the Obama Presidency thus far, but they increasingly move into the minority as Media Hacks and Partisan Pundits rule the conservative-media.

Rush Limbaugh is Dr. Evil

The Radio Comedian Rush Limbaugh is best understood as a real-life version of the character Dr. Evil from Austin Powers.

Plotting and scheming in some ceramic bunker with his inner-circle of minions, his many Snurgly clones of course, gathered round to hear his daily machinations delivered via flashy jumpsuit!

In The Comedian’s case the issue is just to constantly stay in the news and stay relevant to someone, somewhere.

A lot of people seem to think we need an Anti-Limbaugh, or an Austin Powers, to appear and vanquish this foe. I think that Dr. Evil’s Empire falls apart when people start catching on to his game.

It’s all a house of cards of his own making. His own minions would throw him away if he ever had a level-headed view of anything to do with President Obama. The jackals would consume their master in a heartbeat if he stepped off his ‘ordained’ path even in the slightest.

So Dr. Evil plays his game and works his magic but when people can see the same of tired bag of tricks again and again, they tend to catch on.

“Pet my Snurgly! Pet him!”