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.”

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.

Policies Over Personalities in Partisan Politics

 
 

al_gore
Image: SustainAbility.com

 

Al Gore –

“Republicans are the best sellers of the worst products.”

Gore is right about the Republicans, but moreover he made this simple point without the venom we so often see in political right-wing critiques.

Conservative-Republican policy is an awful product, not fit for public consumption.

But they understand how to hard-sell better than they understand how to make good solution-oriented policy and I have long since believed that most Liberal-Democrats have almost none of the much needed ability to sell effective solutions and positive social change in a cogent manner to the public at-large.

I would like to be very clear about this: I am not advocating that the left-wing simply mimic the right-wing. I am advocating shameless theft of their selling-tactics on a both political and news-media levels.

It’s not what you say, it’s how you say it.

Negative political ads and partisan attacks are highly effective.

The key element being here is that any liberal or Democrat doing this must stick to the record and focus on the policies over the personalities. The use of public-misinformation should never be looked kindly upon but wherein the source of your reasoning and the portion that is purely opinion being clearly declared as such there is plenty of room.

Rep. Alan Grayson has provided exactly the kind of example this argument requires.

He confined himself to the policy issue at hand and presented his evidence for believing this.

Make no mistake, I am advocating for partisanship.

But if there is such a beast as “ethical partisanship” then this is what I would promote. Full-disclosure partisanship. (What makes you believe that, where did you hear / see this happening?)

Focus on the facts with the Neoconservative-Tea-Baggers. Focus on the facts with the Pro-Cheney Corporatists. Focus on the facts with the Fox News Loyalists.

To some degree there are elements of labeling that cannot be avoided in politics; the wagging of fingers a near must in some cases and nothing less than shameful to stand silent amidst bigoted sentiments toward minorities or faiths disguised as political commentary. It is possible, however, to attempt to stick to the point in the process rather than degenerating into vileness. Which is a far cry from the totalitarian-ideology of the neoconservatives.

We should all strive to make ourselves and our opinions known, but strive to keep our criticisms based on policy and provable facts as opposed to personalities and wild theories.

New York’s 23rd is a Victory for Democrats

New_York_District_23_109th_US_Congress

For one-hundred and twenty years The State of New York’s 23rd Congressional District has been maintained by The Republican Party.

This has come to an end.

The voters have rejected Conservative-Republican ideals, once again.

This in no small part due to their infamous venom spilling forth unto their own kind in their quest of hatred of all who do not met their standards of ideological purity.

They have destroyed themselves in this district and they will continue with this pattern of crypto-fascist politics to destroy their chances of being taken seriously by any thinking person in the United States.

Some blowhards are crowing about minor Republican victories in races projected for their position to win in the first place.

The fact remains that the NY 23rd was uncertain up until this point.

Then the Conservative Party candidate, Hoffman, could not gather enough votes. He flopped with the voters, just as I had thought he would.

Just as we saw beforehand, America is ready for a change for the tired politics of conservatism.

Be is from the Republican side or the Conservative side, does not matter. People are sick of an ideology that empowers Wall Street at the expense of Main Street, and in the same breath of speaking of war & conflicts they seek to weaken & spread lies about the U.S. Government.

LiberalViewer, October 27th 2009

LiberalViewer on YouTube has touched what I feel is a very important issue facing us today in the U.S.

 

LIBERALVIEWER: Do you agree that the bias at Fox News is quantitatively and qualitatively different from any bias at the other major media outlets?

It’s absolutely different, in every way. The truth of it all, as I see it, is that Fox News just took the model of far right-wing radio and applied it to television broadcasting.

LIBERALVIEWER: Do you think the evidence of political organizing cited by Rachel Maddow is the best evidence Fox News is different or are the combative interview style applied only to one side, the parroting of Republican talking points, and the pattern of partisan distortion of the facts I showed better evidence that Fox News is different?

 

I feel that if 14 members of the GOP truly did write Rodger Ailes hand-written letters about having Glenn Beck retract his comments about race in regards to President Obama and this was ignored for ideological or perhaps commercial interests in place of the common good of the nation by Fox CEO Rodger Ailes himself then that is the best evidence out there. But if that’s a bogus news-story then your analysis without a doubt trumps that of any found on the major networks.

I thought about it and I’m completely against this “boycott Fox” nonsense. I want them to highly reform their television-side and don’t give a hoot about the radio-waves.

If they would just have some level of integrity in the television broadcasting they produce my qualms with them would cease.

I like the “old days” as I call them when Alan Colmes was actually on TV dispelling some of the nonsense. Now he is only really on the radio.

I find it interesting that they uninterested in reviving just the concept of the “CON vs. LIB” television show in a prime-time slot. Little by little all my ability to defend what they are doing as “news” just fades away. I see it as a situation where they are just very big, they have a partial media-monopoly, so they have plenty of room to hire everyone in the world.

I view all radio as morning-zoo, madhouse, boiler-plate, funhouse ride antics. Something happens though with the make-up and the lights and the cameras of television, or at least I think that is what is really going on ‘behind the curtains’ of this issue.

Fox News is more or less playing the role of a criminal while MSNBC operates as a cop.

I would describe the whole situation as: ridiculous.

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 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 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.

I Am The Stone That The Builder Refused

1318020

I am the stone that the builder refused,

I am the visual,

The inspiration that made lady sing the blues,

I am the spark that makes idea bright,

The same spark that lights the dark,

So that you can know your left from your right,

I am the ballot in the box,

The bullet in the gun,

The inner glow that lets you know to call your brother son,

The story that just begun,

The promise of what’s to come,

And I’ll remain a soldier until the war is won.

(Lyrics by Asheru)

These words can be taken many ways and turned to suit the ends of the unjust and the power hungry.

But that is not how these words were writ, not how they were intended.

They are like the mantra of the truth-speakers and the brave souls still fighting for social justice in an age of mainstream racism on media entities like Fox News.

I will remain a soldier until this war is won. I want to make that clear. I am not backing down, nor going away.

They’ll have to kill me to get me to stop spreading the truth about the corruption in our government and our press.