Repost: Fox “Not-a-news-agency” News is Banned From White House Porch

Obama on FOX-thumb-340x229(Chicago Tribune: 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 News alone when all the news agencies screw something up.

Fox News 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 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.”

Advertisements

Emailing Alan Colmes of Fox News

I doubt anyone cares but I spent a bit of time on this email and perhaps there are some interested in hear about all this:


“You’ve Lost a Customer, Not Like One Customer Ever Mattered”

Alan Colmes,

You’ve lost a customer, but not a friend or a fan of your witty radio banter.

I will not be renewing my Fox News Talk podcast subscription when it ends this year.

I have always believed that one votes with their money in a capitalistic society and I will not “vote” for your program any longer. I have to retract it like I was saying that I believe strongly in ethical journalism and would have resigned from Fox, were I you, in the ACORN racist-crusade. You make your own career decisions, but broadcasting inaccurate information was what I trying to avoid by subscribing to your show out of the Fox News Talk selections.

In 2008, with W. in the White House, you were absolutely right about Fox News in regards to the straight-news being honest and you served to clear up misconceptions spread on the internet or by commercialized news-media.

Things change, my friend. Just as the NY Post has made it their singular agenda to “destroy Barack Obama” this is also true for Fox News as evident in endless cases of failure to report facts.

If you, as a broadcaster, refuse to do any research and refuse to look at any objective data on the matter then you have no credibility on the issue. Period.

As an example: you said on the air that you never get vaccines but you never advocated against getting vaccines on the air. Do you understand? If you had done the latter I would also be unsubscribing in the future. All this political crap we all talk about is no different. You and everyone else can believe whatever the **** you want, but when you spread inaccurate information as “fact” you can bet you drive the intelligent / educated people out of the tent and you also drive the loudmouth assholes like me crazy as hell.

This mindless defense of Glenn Beck (he should have finished college if he was going to claim to a “historian“ on the air) and of Fox News as a network when the line was crossed many lines between individual bias and network bias then you are not standing up for the truth.

There was a time you were not making crap up and when you didn’t know one way or another you would say as such. Now you have several times lied on the air and the only reason I don’t call up tonight to grill you on it is because that would serve to feed the right-wingers that are trying to destroy what is left of your credibility.

By the way: the credibility scale is internet then radio then television then print. You have three and I have barely two. I should just pornography in between paragraphs and you have an existing audience, no matter what network you are under.

I like to save your credibility and enhance your lack of credibility but now that I have had it out with your producer and thought on it more than that childish angry-email I first sent: I would only like to inform you that it is an accurate statement that you have “lost a fan.”

The only real difference I can make, other than speaking out, is to not feed into the process any longer.

I like the show, and your internet-work.

I just demand honesty, outright with no exceptions. I refuse to tolerate corporate lies coming from you or anyone else.

I want to be clear: I am not pandering to get back on Liberaland. I used my knowledge of psychology to make an awful, mean-spirited joke on Joel’s expense and I was so out-of-line I myself think I should be banned. Any rational person would agree.

I just want you, as the author of this blog, to understand that I thought every-goes because you posted words like “f***” and allowed endless verbal assaults on other users through an obviously moderated site.

I was under the false impression it was like my blog with Net-Neutrality intact. A simple misconception on my part.

So I’ll be enjoying the show via podcast and surely call in sometime soon (statistics show I‘ll call in the next few months or years after listening for about three years at this point, every night) but I’m not going to keep paying when I’m done with this round.

It’s kind of funny because you are the “clean-up crew” on almost every single other issue I can think you that you bring up on the show.

But I’d just be the caller that would hound you about “Fox-this, Fox-that” that actually had the capability to go out get a degree in Media Studies.

Basically, I’m not f***ing around. I thought you weren’t either but I was wrong and it doesn’t change your value as a broadcaster but your value as a social activist.

When I create a network out of thin air like Fox did in ‘94, I’ll hire you. I’d bring you in as Senior Staffer even on the first day.

I get it by the way. I know you just don’t want to attack fellow broadcasters and people in the news-room. It’s just crossed that line, my friend. It’s fully inaccurate to make any case for credibility from Fox Broadcasting as a corporate entity, and if don’t I think the facts are working against you that’s fine. But it’s like the tea-baggers, if you just shove your head in the sand we have nothing else to talk about and I have to just talk over your shoulder.

I believe I’ve said it before: If you are a liberal and not so angry you can barely stand it right now, then you are just not really paying attention to politics.

My suggestion is to have a full segment, perhaps reoccurring, dedicated to previous-guest Joe Conason of Salon talking about matters pertaining to Glenn Beck and Barack Obama.

I have the feeling he would not start screaming in talking about the racism being spread by both your former partner on television and this “rodeo clown” Glenn Beck.

I’m talking about shaking hands with the devil and still trying to make a better case than that. Joe Conason has it wrapped up, you need to talk to him.

“Truth to power.”

It was very cool when I first that in a promo for your show was impressed by your ability to tackle radical right-wing extremism with tact and intelligence. But my real enemy are the corporations and those who promote lies, or dishonesty, in the guise of “journalism.”

The truth comes out, with or without you aboard.

You do your thing, great radio entertainment, and I’ll do mine.

I am not here to question your motives, only to state mine: I follow the guidance of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. in that I feel I must speak out rather than remain silent about racism and bigotry.

Those evil idiots who tried to spread lies about you and your “Radio Graffiti” are an example of what qualifies as something I will continue to fight against. But just like you told them “learn your Radio History and call me back” it’s pretty much the same thing here except to you.

Learn your Modern-Media History studies a little better and then we’ll talk about me continuing to promote your product online, and buying it at future dates.

November 16th 2009

Bipartisan Blogging Dies at Birth

blogging-300x210

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

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

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

Blogger tis I:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pointing Fingers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Such statements embody my current stage in blogging evolution.

Finale:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eric Lightborn

http://ericlightborn.blogspot.com

http://twitter.com/EricLightborn

September 29th 2009

Chris Wallace and Fox News are Lying to You

blog-chris-wallace-large

(Image: 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 artist, 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 in this clip:

.. 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, in my view.

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 appears to be in the business of promoting and advocating for racist ideals in the U.S.

Until I see clear examples of the end of their unwillingness to accurately report on fabricated-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.

Kudos to LiberalViewer of YouTube

Have you ever seen this YouTube Channel called "LiberalViewer"?

I personally would aspire toward having a blog more to the nature of the work of LiberalViewer in days to come.

See for yourself.

The O’Reilly Factor Disgraces The Nation

o_reilly_doing_it_wrong

Lara Ingram just referred to the President of The United States as having a “notoriously anti-life agenda.”

I am sick of these disgraceful and partisan pundits using their platforms to sling arrows and rocks instead of intelligent commentary.

The war-mongering and anti-gay agendas of conservatives aside, this is a perfect example of what equates to simply irresponsible broadcasting on behalf of FOX News.

If this is the standard of debate set upon me I would like to restate myself that The O’Reilly Factor is a format that supports domestic terrorism against US citizens by means of untrue and inflamatory rhetoric designed to specifically urge Americans toward acts of violence against other Americans.

 They are not only Anti-Choice, they are Anti-Freedom.

Let the true patriots stand tall against this dangerous and unintelligent programming.

 Whatever opinion a person holds of President Barack Obama, there is no excuse for this kind of hateful and untrue horse-play. Shame on the network.

Druge Report Cover Slanders Obama

3356552547

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.