September 20, 2009
I am loving the spat between CNN and Fox News this week. That ad went waaaay too far.
Rick Sanchez’ Stewart-wannabe rant is actually quite thorough. The best part is when he says:
We extensively covered the event, we didn’t PROMOTE the event. That’s not what real news organizations are supposed to do…. I would invite you to look at that distinction between those two words: promote and cover. Cover is kinda like a ‘fair and balanced’ way of doing things. You get it?
Which is really the heart of the argument, no?
And then of course, right on cue, as if to illustrate Sanchez’ point, comes video of a Fox producer rallying the crowd.
August 12, 2009
The constant comparisons between the current healthcare push and the Clintons’ are superficial and misguided. It is actually much more like last year’s presidential campaign.
First off, the Clintons wrote the bill behind closed doors and then sent it to congress to rubberstamp. When it came time to sell it congress was MIA, so it was left to Hilary alone. A lady driving around in a bus. This time around there are 200+ salesmen with skin in the game, that know their respective constituents and what moves them. That means every day we are going to have dozens of advocates on local radio, network TV, morning shows, op-eds, etc.
On top of that you’ve got the best explainer in chief the White House has ever seen, a great communications machine, and an organizing arm.
Now think back to the presidential campaign: Early on McCain made outrageous accusations and fabrications about Obama. That gave him an initial bump, but strategically it was a huge mistake because it gave Obama months to disprove each and every one. Independents started seeing through the lies and distortions, and by election day nothing McCain could throw stuck.
Same thing is happening now. Lies, misrepresentations and innuendos are scaring the beejesus out of grandma, but after a couple weeks of further silliness, and disproving from proponents, this tactic will lose teeth.
In the end public support will be split very much as in the election: 100% of Fox viewers (i.e. Republicans) will hate it. Independents will lean in favor and Democrats will all support it (even though many will have to swallow hard). Only difference is that since the election Republicans have bled members.
Of course this isn’t a popular vote, so it remains to be seen what a 57/43 opinion split will do to move Blue Dogs and the Maine Twins.
April 16, 2009
Fox anchor Megyn Kelly: “Fox News covered these Tea Parties, and we were one of the only organizations to give it any publicity or p.r. …”
Not that anyone watching Fox would get the significance of this.
via TPM. TDS used the clip, but didn’t dwell on it.
January 24, 2009
While on the subject of Fox News, I think I just figured what their name stands for.
Doesn’t that just capture it perfectly?
January 24, 2009
The WSJ has now been fully integrated into the right-wing echo-chamber.
Recently I briefly caught Bill O’Reilly discussing the Minnesota recount. He cited a WSJ article that “suggested” there was “cheating” in the recount, but presented it in a way that implied it was proof. As if to say that the journal says it, therefore it’s true.
To make matters worse, he didn’t bother to mention that the Journal and Fox News are both properties of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation.
While we can’t stop Mr. Murdoch from destroying an American institution’s journalistic integrity, or Mr. O’Reilly from spouting utter nonsense, we can demand that they inform their viewers about this grave conflict of interest.
Not doing so each and every time is to grossly mislead viewers.