Posts tagged fox news
Posts tagged fox news
A new poll taken by Hufpost/YouGov reports that of all six cable and broadcast news outlets, CNN ranked at the top of networks considered the least believable during the almost non-stop coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing and the intense 5-day manhunt that followed. Fox News, on the other hand, was ranked as most believable.When asked how believable the news was on CNN during coverage of the Boston bombings, only 38% said it was “very” or “somewhat believable.” MSNBC fared even worse at 35%. Fox News, however, beat all five of its cable and broadcast competitors with a 50% ranking.
But…but Fox News are nothing but liars!! All the liberals tell me so!
To hear the left tell it, Fox News has a “history of inciting Islamophobia and racial and ethic animosity" and tries to "race bait its viewers." One staffer is called a "hit man," while his network is accused of "attack politics." A highly questionable study is hyped by numerous outlets claiming that it "confirms that Fox News makes you stupid." Fox is called simply: “The Liars’ Network.”
Sure, liberals have it in for Fox News, but that deep-seated, anti-Fox agenda isn’t just an organic response from the left. It’s a George Soros-funded "echo chamber" “in which a message pushes the larger public or the mainstream media to acknowledge, respond, and give airtime to progressive ideas because it is repeated many times.” That’s how the strategy was described in a report by the Soros-funded Media Consortium called “The Big Thaw.”
The goal is "Taking Down Fox News," as “Mother Jones,” a member of the consortium, described it in a headline. That article, about another Soros-funded operation called Color of Change, explained how “it successfully urged several advertisers, including Best Buy, Wal-Mart, and RadioShack, to pull their ads from Beck’s show.” In all, nearly 30 organizations have attacked Fox News in the six months since the beginning of December, 2010.
Think Progress, the heavily Soros-funded blog for the Center for American Progress, slammed Fox more than 30 times in six months. AlterNet, an especially unhinged liberal outlet, went after the network at least 18 times in those months. It is one of 45 organizations aided by Soros’ support of the Media Consortium - “a network of the country’s leading, progressive, independent media outlets.”
These outlets are all part of Soros’ web of media organizations that mirror his view of Fox as their enemy. That’s the way he describes it in the new book, “The Philanthropy of George Soros.” “Those in charge of Fox News, Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes, have done well in identifying me as their adversary,” he wrote. “They have done less well in the methods they used to attack me: Their lies shall not stand and their techniques shall not endure.”
That anti-Fox agenda is reflected in plans by another group in Soros’ pocket to target the network specifically. Media Matters founder David Brock said his Soros-funded operation ($1.1 million) will “focus on [News Corp. CEO Rupert] Murdoch and trying to disrupt his commercial interests.”
This information is part of an upcoming report by the Media Research Center’s Business & Media Institute, which has been looking into George Soros and his influence on the media.
The left hating Fox isn’t new. But the efforts of the different groups take on an amazing similarity. Take the University of Maryland study that seemed so critical of Fox News. The study itself included this nugget: “This suggests that misinformation cannot simply be attributed to news sources, but are part of the larger information environment that includes statements by candidates, political ads and so on.” That didn’t stop any of the groups from using it against Fox News. AlterNet, Washington Monthly, Think Progress and The Nation. It quickly moved into the mainstream media from there.
That’s just part of Soros’ influence. He denies having a media empire, despite spending easily more than $48 million on that empire and having top journalists from more than 30 major news organizations serving on the boards of groups he funds. It reaches at least 180 media organizations, and many other groups he funds include a media component in what they do.
Media Matters, the George Soros-backed legion of liberal agit-prop shock troops based in the nation’s capital, has declared war on Fox News, and in the process quite possibly stepped across the line of legality.
David Brock, MM’s founder, was quoted Saturday by Politico promising that his organization is mounting “guerrila warfare and sabotage” against Fox News, which he said “is not a news organization. It is the de facto leader of the GOP, and it is long past time that it is treated as such by the media, elected officials and the public.”
To that end, Brock told Politico that MM will “focus on [News Corp. CEO Rupert] Murdoch and trying to disrupt his commercial interests …” Murdoch is the founder of Fox News and a media titan with newspaper, broadcast, Internet and other media countries around the world.
There is nothing in the Politico article to suggest that Brock, who was paid just under $300,000 in 2009, according to the group’s most recently available tax return, plans to ask the IRS to change his organization’s tax status as a 501(C)(3) tax-exempt educational foundation.
Being a C3 puts MM in the non-profit, non-commercial sector, and it also bars the organzation from participating in partisan political activity. This new, more aggressive stance, however, appears to run directly counter to the government’s requirements for maintaining a C3 tax status.
Since Brock classifies Fox News as the “leader” of the Republican Party, by his own description he is involving his organization in a partisan battle. High-priced K Street lawyers can probably find a federal judge or a sympathetic IRS bureaucrat willing to either look the other way or accept some sort of MM rationale such as that it is merely providing educational information about a partisan group.
But in the IRS application for 501(C)(3) tax-exempt educational foundation status, Section VIII, Question I asks the applicant: “Do you support or oppose candidates in political campaigns in any way?" (Emphasis added).
Under Brock’s definition of Fox News, it appears he is setting MM on a course of actively opposing all Republican candidates. Brandon Kiser at The Right Sphere blog argues that this new statement of MM’s mission means it must change its tax status.
Beyond the partisanship issue, explicitly declaring that your purpose as a tax-exempt non-profit public foundation is to interfere with the commercial interests of somebody else’s legal business enterprise falls nowhere within the scope of purely educational activities.
You think the most essential purpose of journalism and the reason the Founders included freedom of the press in the First Amendment was to insure independent reporting about government, politicians, and public policy issues, right?
Well, you must be wrong because Fox News Washington Bureau Chief Bill Sammon is getting a raft of garbage from liberal activists masquerading as journalists at Media Matters, some liberal bloggers and a scattering of real journalists who ought to know better.
Why? Politico’s headline captures the controversy perfectly: “Fox editor urged climate skepticism.”
A journalist being skeptical? Who would ever have thought such a thing could be. I don’t know, maybe anybody who has heard this (attributed long ago to a crusty desk editor at the illustrious City News Bureau in Chicago): “If your mother tells you she loves you, check it out.”
In other words, we journalists are paid to BE SKEPTICAL.
For the record, here’s what Sammon said in a Dec. 8, 2009, memo to his reporting staff shortly after the Climategate global warming email scandal erupted:
“Given the controversy over the veracity of climate change data, we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies.”
Now I am from out of town and all, but Sammon’s injuction sounds to me exactly like what editors are supposed to tell their charges – report what A claims and what B says about what A claims, but keep your personal views about both A and B out of it.
Note that Sammon includes both those who say the planet has warmed – i.e. global warming advocates – and those who claim the opposite, that the planet has cooled – global warming critics. How much more even-handed – dare I say it, fair and balanced? – can the guy be?
There is also the factual nature of Sammon’s statement that critics question data. Critics DO question the data for a warming planet. He doesn’t demand that his reporters agree with the critics about the data or tell viewers that the critics are right and the global warming advocates are wrong.
Yet, Salon’s headline claims the Fox news executive was “again caught demanding conservative spin.” And the lead that follows makes another false statement, claiming Sammon directed his “anchors and reporters to adopt right-wing spin when discussing the news.”
Are these people so arrogant as to think the rest of us are too stupid to see that Salon totally and completely misrepresented Sammon’s comment?
The back story here, of course, is that Media Matters is doing exactly what billionaire radical liberal financier George Soros paid it $1 million to do, which is to trash Fox News at every opportunity no matter what the facts might be in any given situation.
Watching this campaign unfold, it becomes clear that Fox News drives today’s extremist liberals into the same sort of eye-bulging, irrational, spittle-flying, blind rage that we saw back in the 1950s from the far right whack-jobs in the John Birch Society who claimed Ike was either a fool or a card-carrying commie.
The Washington Post reported Wednesday that Fox News has given a reporting gig to Doug McKelway, a former ABC anchor for the network’s D.C. affiliate.
McKelway took heat from higher-ups after accurately reporting on President Obama’s ties to oil giant BP and on the inevitable effects of the president’s proposed energy policies (higher electricity rates). McKelway was fired after a confrontation with the ABC affiliate’s news director Bill Lord.
As the Post reported it:
WJLA fired McKelway after a verbal confrontation this summer with the station’s news director, Bill Lord. The run-in followed McKelway’s coverage of a Capitol Hill protest by environmental and religious groups that were protesting oil-industry contributions to elected officials.
McKelway focused his coverage on Democrats, reporting that the protest “may be a risky strategy because the one man who has more campaign contributions from BP than anybody else in history is now sitting in the Oval Office, President Barack Obama.”
Lord questioned McKelway’s reporting and asked to meet with him. A shouting match between the men ensued, leading to McKelway’s suspension. He was eventually terminated for what the station called insubordination and misconduct.
McKelway has been critical of what he views as liberal favoritism in TV news reporting. When he left WRC/Channel 4 after nine years to join WJLA in 2001, he said in a newspaper article that the station’s reporting often lacked “balance.”
And the station went right ahead and proved him right by reprimanding him for reporting the truth. McKelway’s comments about BP’s contributions to Obama’s campaign were right on, and Obama himself had admitted that under his cap and trade plan, “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”
In the latest attack on Fox News from the Obama White House, the president himself hinted that the conservative network is actually hurting the United States.
During an interview with Rolling Stone, titled “Obama Fights Back,” an interviewer asks President Obama whether he thinks Fox News is “a good institution for America.” The president responds:
Look, as president, I swore to uphold the Constitution, and part of that Constitution is a free press. We’ve got a tradition in this country of a press that oftentimes is opinionated. The golden age of an objective press was a pretty narrow span of time in our history. Before that, you had folks like Hearst who used their newspapers very intentionally to promote their viewpoints. I think Fox is part of that tradition — it is part of the tradition that has a very clear, undeniable point of view. It’s a point of view that I disagree with. It’s a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world. But as an economic enterprise, it’s been wildly successful. And I suspect that if you ask Mr. Murdoch what his number-one concern is, it’s that Fox is very successful.
Fox wasn‘t the only target of the president’s remarks; he blamed the political divisions on Capitol Hill on the tea party movement:
There’s no doubt that the infrastructure and the financing of the Tea Party come from some very traditional, very powerful, special-interest lobbies. I don’t think this is a secret.