The lefty "media watchdog" Media Matters seems to spend an awful lot of time watching and deconstructing Fox News. I understand why they spend many hours absorbing the most watched news network out there, but their discussion of what transpires at Fox is routinely disingenuous. Media Matters gleefully points out any mistake or misrepresentation that Fox News may present, but at the same time they misrepresent, by omission, the analysis that takes place on Fox and elsewhere.
In a classic lefty fallacious turning the tables move, where lefties adopt the same rhetoric that is directed against them and direct it back at conservatives, Media Matters accuses conservatives of directing "vitriol" at the New York Times.(because they published of a story which went into detail about a top secret and totally legal program known as the Terrorist Finace Tracking Program.)
Bush-bashing lefty vitriol is a staple of the modern American left, yet here Media Matters claims that conservatives are directing "vitriol" at the New York Times. The video presentation on this particular page of Media Matters shows a series of conservative pudits taking the New York Times to task because of thier arguably treasonous and at the very least unpatriotic, behavior of late, up to and including this latest fiasco. After seeing the clip It is clear that the usage of the term "vitriol" is simply incorrect , not to mention borrowed. A factual analysis of the New York Times' jaw dropping lack of judgment vis a vis revealing the details of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program does not constitute "vitriol". As usual, when the left tries to simply level the same complaint leveled against them back at their opposition it fails to pass logical muster.
In Media Matters’ discussion of this latest affront perpetrated by the NYT they claim,
"Conservatives have directed their vitriol almost entirely at The New York Times, despite the fact that the Los Angeles Times and The Wall Street Journal also posted articles on the subject on their web pages on the same day -- June 22 -- as the New York Times, and both published articles on it in their June 23 print editions."
Here we have a classic example of disingenuous reporting by omission. Media matters fails to anywhere mention the fact the Wall Street Journal and the LA Times chose to run the story on TFTP after they had learned that the NYT was going ahead with publication of said story despite being asked not to do so by many public officials including even Jack Murtha. (Even Murtha knows that the publication of details on this program will harm America.)
When will lefty outfits like Media Matters learn? Anyone in the know is aware that the New York Times lead the charge on reporting this story, which by the way the 'Times' is now claiming is not really news because “terrorists already knew that we were tracking their funds”.
Again I ask, if everyone already knew the intimate details on this program then; how is that news? Unfortunately, applying a logical standard to almost any lefty stance is a fool’s errand, so why bother. (Oops, was that vitriol... or a statement of fact?)
But it is this sanctimonious attitude that Media Matters adopts which really takes the cake for me at the moment. If Media Matters truly wants to be seen as objective like Fox New strives to be, will they ever learn to present the full story and not omit certain key facts that anyone who has looked into anything is aware of?
As long as Media Matters is here to attack Fox News and conservative pundits, bloggers like me will be here to logically refute Media Matters and the legion of other lefty spin merchants.
20 comments:
We are all liberal in heignsight, it is those of us who are liberal in forsight who will be remembered as great.
Lincoln
Jesus
Ghandi
Martin Luther King Jr.
Thomas Paine
John Wilkes
FDR
Nelson Mandela
Now for those people's conservative counterparts
Jefferson Davis and other slave holders
Evil in man
The British governor of India
The KKK and other racists
King George III
King George III
HItler
South African racists
Which list would you rather be on?
Yo- Activist,
Do you care to present either the name of the organization who sponsored the "non partisan study" or perhaps list any examples of the "lies " that Fox News tells?
Let me guess, you also believe the liberal mantra, "Bush lied about WMD".
Lincoln was a Republican.
Republicans where liberal up until TR left office!
Activist,
I’ll just take your word for it that this first thing happened. However, if it did, I imagine it could be more accurately characterized as a mistake rather than a “lie”. Remember, your position is that Fox routinely “lies”. The usage of the word “lie” is right out of the lefty talking point playbook, as in “Bush lied about WMD”. Now either liberals have a bizarre definition of the word “lie” or they (and you in this case) are using the word incorrectly. Why would Fox News willingly and purposely present falsehoods that could easily be pointed out the next day by any other news source familiar with the facts? I still defy you to cite an example where Fox News knowingly presented an untrue statement or report for the purposes of deceiving their audience. They are not such a success because they routinely abuse their own audience.
Also, remember that the various commentators such that appear on the “all star panel” speak for themselves and not for the organization itself. I’m glad you are familiar with Special Report and Fox News Sunday. Two excellent shows, which are far superior to the low-rated other network alternatives like “Hardball” or “Meet the Press”. You give a pretty good run down of regular panel contributors, however I’m not sure what your point is.
That there are perhaps more conservative contributors to the various panels that go on does not amount to Fox News “lying”. Not that I have previously mentioned this in this post, but I believe that Fox does a good job presenting and discussing both sides of a given issue. That is what makes Fox compelling. The fact that the discussion is fully hashed out from both sides of the aisle on a given issue is what makes the programming interesting. It would be far less compelling, and the ratings would no doubt be negatively affected, if Fox only presented a conservative side to every given discussion. It’s rather simple, good debate makes good TV. The other lame cable news stations would be better served to take notice of this fact.
You say that Juan Williams makes a rare appearance here or there. The guy is a paid fox news regular contributor seen all over the network occasionally co hosting the “Beltway Boys” and other programs. I’m glad you seem to respect Juan Williams’s opinion at least. I’m not sure he spends his time bashing Fox as you do however. Mara Liaison, hardly a neo-con, is a regular member of the “all star” panel. On Fox, Beyond NPR’s regular contributors, I get to hear the best and brightest left leaning pundits that exist. I probably listen carefully to more lefty pundits than many lefties themselves do. I am familiar with their talking points before they are even trotted out in a given discussion. Here's just a few of the names of left leaning pundits that I listen to on a regular basis: the thoughtful Bob Beckel, former Clintonite Lanny Davis, the wild eyed Susan Estrich, the shrill Mary Anne Marsh, The Boston Globe's Nina Easton, The Washington Post's Cece Connolly, Louisiana's James Carville and Senator Carl Levin are just a few names which spring to mind of lefties I can respect that appear regularly on Fox News.
I mean, whom do you imagine Fox should retain in order to be even more fair and balanced. Should Howard Dean be hosting a program? I guess Fox should have a show hosted by George Soros and Michael Moore to make you happy. If left leaning politicos have a coherent point to be made, it will be heard on Fox.
As for the rest of this stuff that you have cut and pasted, I’m not sure it even goes to your point that Fox News is either routinely “lying” or that they are overwhelmingly and one sidedly conservative. The study you grafted into your comment seems to be drawing a conclusion about the nature of cable news itself as opposed to other forms of News presentation like the internet.
The bottom line is that Fox News annoys libs like you because it is the one alternative to the mainstream media that for years held a stranglehold over all news and is/was demonstrably left leaning. Those days are over. The Walter Cronkite “…and that’s the way it is” Paradigm no longer exists and it ticks lefties off. Don’t be afraid or embittered at new sources of information my friend, just embrace them. If hearing both sides of an issue vigorously discussed bothers you, perhaps you should just go watch a Michael Moore movie.
mmmm....lists. So, Jaz, "if you had to choose" which list WOULD you want to be on?
Also, young_activist, aside from being maybe the longest comment I've ever read (it really is too bad the tables don't read correctly), I can say with certainty that you found and provided numbers to back up what we all know already: FOX News' claim of "We report. You decide" is false and misleading (unless they have a different definition of the word 'report'), as is the laughable claim that Bill O'Reilly's show is "Fair and Balanced".
Now, don't get me wrong, I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion, but what I think is an underlying and disturbing consequence here is that many people who watch this channel think it IS unbiased reporting and don't see it as opinion at all, adopting (perhaps unwittingly) the same approach to news themselves. Before you know it the actual facts of an issue are smothered underneath a lefty-this and righty-that, us-vs-them, we-are-right-and-you-are-wrong maelstrom of false truth.
Oh, and then there's the little bonus of being able to subtly push some policy too.....
“GWB saying there where WMD when the experts, the weapons inspectors advised him honestly that there where not?”
So I finally got an answer. You do believe the liberal mantra of “Bush Lied about WMD”. I wonder just how far wacky left you want to be, Activist. Do you also believe that, “Bush planned 9-11”, or "Bush knew about 9-11”? How far into the grassy knoll black helicopter conspiracy theory side of things to you go? As a rule, the more conspiracy theories a person buys into, the less credibility they have.
And as for this childish list:
Here’s the formula for this list: Just take a name of all bad things and people throughout history and consider them conservatives. Then on the other side of list just take all good people and call them liberals. And there you have it, instant condemnation and repudiation of the conservative philosophy.
In which case, you forgot to put Superman and Batman on the liberal list and you might as well throw Charles Manson, Lex Luther, Joseph Stalin, Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden on the conservative list.
The concept behind this list can be summarized in two words: Conservatives=Bad. Sometimes keeping it simple is stupid.
And no more cutting and pasting from liberal blogs, you rookies.
To fhold:
Your commentary is even handed as usual; the other two zealots should try to adopt your temperament.
Normally I do like lists, but this one is a little too foolish to bother addressing.
You make a good point about Fox when you say, “…many people who watch this channel think it IS unbiased reporting and don't see it as opinion at all, adopting (perhaps unwittingly) the same approach to news themselves.” From this statement I glean the idea that; Take everything with a grain of salt, don’t necessarily take things at face value and if you want to find the answers and/or question the veracity of any particular piece of reporting, nowadays there are many sources of news to cross reference.
That said, it would not be in Fox News’s interest to intentionally mislead or lie to their own audience. Subtle spin and harping on certain stories perhaps, but blatant falsehoods that are not genuine mistakes, I think not.
You do have a good addition to the list Osoma bin Laden, unfortunatly he doesn;t have a liberal counterpart. Joseph Stalin, and Saddam Hussein wouldn;t make either list because to be a conservative you must have certain princibles, there only princible is self interest so they wouldn't qualify for either list.
If you do not think that the people I called liberal where liberal or the conservatives conservative than I would invite you to back up your opinion with evidence. Also, perhaps you could come up with some conservatives who worked against liberals that are today deemed to be evil.
The fact that you are using name calling shows that you have little evidence to back up your opinion.
Anonymous,
Will you please at least create a profile and a name for yourself? It only takes seconds.
When I attack your ideas, I’m not necessarily personally attacking you (if that’s what you mean by “name calling”). I don’t know a thing about you personally and so launching a strictly ad hominem attack against you serves no purpose.
Also, the word is “their” when expressing ownership, not “there”.
The dichotomy you have set up is somewhat simplistic I’m afraid. I’m not sure that you can go back through history and assign all historical figures on either one or the other side; liberal or conservative, and I categorically reject the notion that conservatism represents “the evil in men” as you put it. You seem to imagine that liberals hold a monopoly on moral righteousness and conservatives are all depraved monsters. It is difficult, although not impossible, to have a discussion with such a Kool-Aid drinker like yourself.
Activist,
That you are unaware that the word is irrational rather than “unrational” tells me, at the very least, that you still have a lot to learn.
As Winston Churchill said, "If you're not Liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not Conservative when you're 35, you have no brain."
For me at age 30, I consider myself ahead of the curve that I have already arrived at the conclusion that conservatism is the more intelligent choice.
If you notice, most conservative arguments appeal to logic and reason, whereas liberal arguments largely rely on an emotional appeal.
For example, take the current illegal immigration debate taking place in America. The Liberal rationale, if you can call it that, seems to amount to, “Look at the poor downtrodden illegals, don’t they deserve to be American.”
It’s a nice thought, but unfortunately logic dictates that we should have some sort of immigration policy. Therefore we have the right, as Americans, to decide how many immigrants we allow into our country and from which countries.
You probably believe that we do not have that right and should simply do the compassionate thing and allow unchecked mass immigration.
Also, you seem to be adopting the very same rhetoric that I have directed against your ally here, anonymous, when you imagine out of thin air that someone here claimed that, “…you are asserting that Democrats are inherently evil by virtue of their beliefs.”
Not only is that a straw man argument because no one came anywhere close to asserting any such thing, but you are using the classic liberal tactic I highlighted in the initial post. In this phenomenon, Libs hear a piece of rhetoric used effectively against them and they simply turn around and level it right back against their opposition. As usual however it doesn’t make nearly as much sense as when it was originally used.
The only thing in the comment section close to your claim that Drunken Samurai believes, “…that democrats are inherently evil.” Was when I said to anonymous, “I categorically reject the notion that conservatism represents “the evil in men” as you put it. You seem to imagine that liberals hold a monopoly on moral righteousness and conservatives are all depraved monsters.”
I believe you read this, saw that it was effective and then imagined that any one here claimed, “Democrats are inherently evil.”
Foolish and misguided perhaps, but no one would bother charging dems with being evil. That’s one piece of rhetoric leveled against conservatives all the time that doesn’t even deserve a response, let alone be adopted and leveled back at dems. Not that conservatives generally engage in this rhetorical turning the tables move that libs love to try to employ. Generally conservatives try to generate their own original arguments.
Hilary Clinton, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi, do this all the time. For example, they see that it is effective for Republicans to charge dems with “not having a plan in Iraq” and they then simply turn around a week later and level the exact same charge back at Republicans. Unfortunately for them, as usual the argument does not pass logical muster. Clearly dems are all over the map as to what should be done in Iraq, yet the Bush administration has published a lengthy document entitled: “Strategy for victory in Iraq”. It is available for download on the White House web cite. If any lib wants to bother downloading and reading the PDF file they will found out which side of this debate is well thought out and which side just makes idle and fanciful charges.
(http://philosofix.blogspot.com/2005/11/stop-nonsense.html)
However I digress. My main point to you, Young Activist, is that you seem to be part of what I call the Totalitarian Left. You don’t seem to even believe that there is room for debate on some of these issues. It’s your way or the highway. The Totalitarian Left would rather force Americans to adopt their philosophy and policies rather than convince or persuade.
Mandating that people pay higher taxes for yet more infective social programs is the only way it would work anyway. You cannot convince or persuade the average American that they should cede more of their paycheck to the government, so you and your ilk try to simply impose your will on the rest of us rather than respecting our individual right to possess more of our own money! Perhaps by age 35 your idealistic liberalism will be tempered with wisdom and you will become a conservative.
Republicans were not liberal until TR left office. I think you'll find that the original parties were the Republicans and Federalists. And How Come Liberals are always fast to say "a non-partisan unbiased" but never name a name, reference, or link?
First of all, in your last comment it is unclear as to whom you are addressing. Is this another straw man argument? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) Where do you find this quote?
In Your more coherent previous comment you say,
“We are trying to get you to respect our right to our money.”
What sort of doublespeak is this? The translation of this amounts to, “We are trying to get you to respect our right to your money”
As far I know, my money is mine up until the moment the government appropriates approximately one third to a half of it to then go and squander.
The founding fathers fought a revolution to have more control over their own money and they would be rolling in their graves to find out that such a high percentage of one’s own earned income was confiscated by the government.
This is where the charge of communism comes into play. Under communism, the government essentially confiscates 100 percent of an individual’s income and then redistributes it “according to need”. In America, we are not at communism yet, but the higher the percentage of personal income that the government appropriates, the closer we get.
And so, the term "communist" and evil are not one in the same, as you suggest.
The modern American left does espouse very similar ideas to those associated with communism, e.g. higher taxes and income redistribution. This is not a value judgment as calling something good or evil would be, rather a statement of fact.
On the political spectrum, Liberalism is close to socialism, which is close to communism. It is simply a matter of how far left we are talking about. The modern American democrat is closer to the center than a communist would be, but if they get their way, America will progress further and faster towards communism.
This other anonymous is most likely a different person than the previous ‘anonymous’ commentator, maybe not. Who knows? I may have to do away with anonymous comments for clarity's sake.
If you are not a fan of taxes, then you, as a liberal, are on the wrong team. Take the political compass quiz (politicalcompass.org) and post the results in a comment.
Jaz, may I recommend you look in the mirror. All you do is repeat the same old tired rightie line. Liberal biased media, bush bashing, higher taxes blah blah blah.
Do you bother to ever watch anything NOT Fox news? The most watched news station. [cough] bwhahahaha
It's not just the liberals who detest bush, his lies and corruption why don't you try the world.
You continue to bleat that the liberals keep using the same play book about bushes lying about Saddams WMD's. Well, tell me bucko, when he/cheney/rice/rumsfeld kept beating the war drums and claiming that Iraq was months away from making a nuclear weapon and that they must be stopped before the mushroom cloud appeared, I ask you where is they're proof for that? You, like most republicans always want proof of what liberals are saying without you ever providing your own. So let's see it...what ya got? Prove to me that bush was telling the truth when he said Saddam had WMDs.
You can't stand the fact that Media Matters has proven time and time again the rightwingnutbiasedMSM is in fact a fact. Just because you and all of the other sheep keep bleating that they're wrong over and over again doesn't make it so. MM...has...proven...it! But I think it's really sweet how you excuse Fox for their lies and propaganda.
Btw, bush is the one whining vitriol at the NYT for reporting about the banking tracking program but he gives the WSJ a pass for reporting the exact same story. Now, why do you suppose that is? I'll just bet you can't figure that one out...huh?
Really sad that you are one of the, what, 29% who still think bush is doing a good job. lol
Oh and on that higher taxes BS you repukes keep bitching about. Interesting you don't mind bush wasting trillions of your tax dollars on...what? A war with a country who had nothing to do with 9/11? Hey and how about that deficit? Oh, but the economy is gettin better, right? sure it is uh huh.
Oh the lies you people love to tell. Love bush but don't try to make us believe he isn't corrupt, we know he is along with all of those who support him and his media.
Liberals can't stand it when Conservative ideas are presented because it makes them look and sound like idiots.
Again with the Fox News diatribes. It's easy. Two sides presented and at the end of the segment the audience makes up their own mind.
Liberals don't trust people to agree with them after both sides have been presented.
BTW, now that Fox is so popular, I notice that CNN and MSNBC are now doing the exact same 'fair and balanced' thing.
We DID FIND WMD in Iraq. Since '04 we've located over 500 munitions of illegal sarin and vx nerve gas. Anyone who says otherwise only makes themselves sound ignorant.
Here's the DNC slogan for '06: 'We Have No Plan, But Vote For Us Because Bush Sucks.'
It’s amazing that you are not willing to see that mainstream media news outlets like NBC have traditional slanted to the left. Do you imagine that Katie Couric and Matt Lauer are not left leaning?
While I have witnessed and discussed (http://philosofix.blogspot.com/2005/01/cnn-sux_30.html) the fact that CNN exhibits a left leaning, or at least anti-bush bias, I’ll concede that they are somewhat objective. I really do not have a problem with CNN. I simply find that FOX provides more insightful and interesting commentary, discussion, and analysis. That’s my opinion, last time I checked I was entitled to have one. As member of the totalitarian Left it must bother you that Americans are allowed to determine their own opinions and draw their own conclusions.
It’s not that perhaps the majority of commentary on Fox is right leaning that bothers you the most. What bothers you the most about Fox is simply that it exists. As Kent brilliantly surmised, “Liberals don't trust people to agree with them after both sides [of an argument] have been presented.”
Furthermore, your conclusion about Fox, based on all of these studies that you are citing, seems to rely on the idea that is it somehow underhanded to even present conservative ideas at all. That people are perhaps not able to discern the difference between reporting and opinion is not the fault of Fox news. The argument against Fox seems to boil down to: That people are stupid, Fox is evil. As I have pointed about before, any coherent liberal idea that exists is presented on Fox News. Do you feel that the liberal message is not getting out? Plenty of people are familiar with liberal ideas on the issues, its just simply that the majority of Americans reject them.
It strikes me that you imagine that more people would become left leaning if only the message of lefty thought was getting a fair presentation. You can’t fathom the idea that the ideas are out there, but are simply rejected. Therefore, you see Fox News as one these imagined impediments to the presentation of liberal thought. Liberal and progressive viewpoints have plenty of outlets. It is not that liberal philosophy is not getting exposure that more Americans are not libs, it’s that the philosophy of international appeasement of our enemies and cradle to grave social wellfare are unsound in most peoples estimation in a post 9-11 world.
What of Air America? The faltering Liberal radio network is not going off the airwaves because Fox News exists or because of any conservative conspiracy to stifle the liberal/progressive message. Air America is struggling because ultimately having and entire network devoted to the spewing of anti American and lefty venom is not a viable business model. There are no advertising dollars to be found in or on a network that no one cares to listen to. Virtually no one cares to tune into 24 hours a day of America and Bush Bashing. Based on the numbers, it seems that even hardcore lefties don’t even spend much time listening to such drivel, otherwise ratings for the network would at least exist. Even the roughly one third of the population who represent the hate Bush, hate America crowd apparently are not tuning in the Network. It makes sense to me. From all of the interest that this post has generated amongst liberals it strikes me that liberals seem to be spending more time with and are more concerned with Fox News than their own flagship network, Air America. Could it possibly be that the discussions that take place on Fox News are more compelling because both sides of the argument are presented?
If all you libs hate Fox News so much, I implore you to simply stop watching it as much as you apparently do. Please, go listen to Genie Garafolo and Al Franken on Air America and leave Fox News to us reasonable and fair-minded Americans.
Fox being biased isn't an opinion, it's fact. Everyone is entitled to a well informed opinion and Fox denies that to its viewers. As far as NBC goes the last time I watched them was when I got to see the cast being made live in Chicago. In the same study that said 68% of Fox's stories where biased I found the 24% of NBC's stories where biased, that's a little too high for me. I did flip on NBC for a couple of minutes and I agree that while not as bad as Fox it is very opinionated and is unfair to the true story.
Another media organazation that has drawn critisim from conservatives for being too biased is NPR, however when I listend to NPR I fond them to be fair to both sides, not to argue with their guests, and to be as unbiased as possible. I have found that there are even many conservatives who get their news from NPR. As far as liberal bias goes the claim against NBC is entirely valid, the ones against CNN and NPR are baseless.
JAZ, GET ONE THING STRAIGHT, JUST BECAUSE LIBERALS DISAGREE WITH YOU AND THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE ANY LESS PATRIOTIC THAN YOU OR THE PRESIDENT.
The "if you're not with us you're with the terrorists" stand has got to stop.
"If tyrrany and oppresion come to this Land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy"
James Madison
"Dissent Is the Highest Form of Patriotism"
Thomas Jefferson
"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
George W. Bush
Post a Comment