Although Fox Nation claims to be "committed to the core principles of tolerance, open debate, civil discourse, and fair and balanced coverage of the news," their headlines indicate that their bigger commitment is to hate mongering against President Obama. As the United States faces thorny problems in the Middle East, Fox gives you the idea that the only real enemy is President Obama.
Pictures are worth thousands of words:
The one below, captured by the Maddow Blog is similar in that they both overtly suggest President Obama is a traitor.
Maddow's Steve Benen wrote:
I should note that the headline not only seems to accuse the president of being some kind of traitor, it also underscores a striking ignorance -- Libyan officials are mortified by Tuesday night's violence, support the U.S. presence in the country, and have begun making arrests as part of the investigation into the murders. Under the circumstances, having the U.S. president call his Libyan counterpart to reinforce the diplomatic ties is hardly controversial -- it's no different from George W. Bush calling Iraqi leaders after violence that killed Americans during the war in Iraq.
But the truth is neither provocative nor scandalous, so Fox Nation has to give reality a little touch up. At most news organizations, a headline like this would lead to dismissals. At Fox Nation, a headline like this is called "Thursday."
Here's more "Thursday:"
Glad to oblige but you shouldn’t pretend you’re guessing that he’s at UCLA: that’s written in big letters everywhere I looked. Or at least was: the most recent hits I found were posted in 2005.
Brendan Nyhan’s article was the best, because he lays down in clear terms what’s wrong with Groseclose’s methodology. (I liked the Media Matters one, too, but you probably wouldn’t accept it as an authority).
Three aspects in Nyhan’s article were of particular epistemological interest, IMO: 1) the ranking scale used by Groseclose et al. is based on value judgements on the “leanings” of the various sources; i.e. opinions not facts; 2) the periods covered by Groseclose’s research on media sources range from a few months to several years, raising doubts about cherry-picking; I believe serious scientists would frown; 3) the book pretty much ignores the huge body of research work done on media bias and there is no bibliography or list of references in the book (serious scientists would probably sneer)
I’d never heard of Dr. Nyhan before but those three criticisms are enough for me NOT to look for the book. And – as I said earlier – nobody seems to have written anything on it since his article was written in 2005.
I must go now as I have a book to translate. It’s been fun meeting a civilised person with your views: it’s so rare but also somewhat perplexing.
Actually, we’re just a tad more bloody-minded than that. It’s a well-known trait (or failing) of liberals. I decided to see what I could find on Dr. Groseclose who has a talent for getting money from conservative financiers. Found the following analysis of his methodology.K presume you’ve already read the somewhat unflattering article by Media Matters.
BTW: you, yourself, had said you’d found less hate-speech among the right-wingers; now you say you don’t waste time over there.
Are you Timothy Groseclose by any chance?
“Second, Iâm just holding up a mirror here, I donât hear this type of hate coming from the other side . . . "
Uh-huh. As I said, it’s strange how the concern trolls ALWAYS feel they have to scold the left-leaning blogs, the ones “nobody visits”.
Also strange that Hank R. doesn’t think this type of hate exists on, say, Stormfront . . .
“If you show me, I will not deny the obvious, but Iâm not going to search it out as has been suggested I do.”
Of course not — Hank R. would much rather spend his time chastising us mean ole libruls who have the audacity to get indignant when FoKKKs nation calls for the President’s assassination, Crazy Annie Coulter jokes about assassinating a president and poisoning a SC Justice, and Allen West says all Democrats should “get the hell out of the country” . . .
But Hank, if you can tear yourself away from that activity for a moment, here are links to a couple of FoxNation threads calling for the death of President Obama for you to peruse — consider it me leading you by the hand, since you don’t want to “search them out yourself”:
“I think the liberal slant of the mainstream media is demonstrable. Calling something a myth does not make it so, again all I am given are naked assertions to rebut.”
YAAWWWNN . . . and you quoting some guy who says the media is liberal doesn’t make it so . . . all Grossclose or whoever the hell he is did was spout his opinion — and opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. Hell, I can quote too:
1. A reminder of how few people visit this or any other left-leaning blogs, compared to Fox News.
Example: “Bill OâReilly has the highest rated cable news show on television. Here, this article has 2 reactions. So, there is that.”
2. The old playground-level “you guys do it, too!” argument.
Example: “@<a class=“tweet-url username” href=“http://twitter.com/intent/user?screen_name=truman”>truman â are you being ironic? View the comments below ‘racist pukes’; ‘flies attracted to the stinkiest shit’; ‘stoopit’; ‘mindless’; ‘crap’: ‘crazy uncle’. Iâd say we are swimming in the cesspool here, arenât we?"
3. Bringing up the time-honored myth of “the liberal media”, and how it is so pervasive, or claiming that the conservative slant of Fox is less so than that of the liberal slant of MSNBC, NYT, etc.
“Groseclose is a very interesting read. Although finding Fox News has a conservative ‘slant quotient’ it is not nearly as pronounced as the liberal slant quotient of all major network news. ‘Among his conclusions are (i) all mainstream media outlets have a liberal bias, and (ii) while some supposedly conservative outletsâsuch as the Washington Times or Fox News Special Reportâdo lean right, their conservative bias is less than the liberal bias of most mainstream outlets.’”
“@<a class=“tweet-url username” href=“http://twitter.com/intent/user?screen_name=Lakeview”>Lakeview Greg â Youâll learn of Grosecloseâs leanings very early if you read it, there is maximum disclosure. Of course, if he said two plus two is four (an important developmental milestone for visitor 55), he would be correct, not simply reflecting his own conservative or libertarian bias. The methodology is pretty solid (IMO), so donât attack dismissively without investigating. FOX and MSNBC are more fun, but I do regret the loss of objectivity. Of course, it was the Left that caused that, attacking the very idea that objectivity was even a possible, or worthwhile pursuit."
4. Related to the above, the belief that it is ONLY those on the left who need to refrain from name-calling and ad hominem attacks; as much as Hank and other concern trolls like to wag their finger at and scold posters on “blogs that nobody reads”, they never seem to have any equivalent outrage for the denizens of places like FoxNation.
“Even if it comes from a semi-intelligent perpetual adolescent snark like Colbert, I will at least take heart that some of you believe in the concept of TRUTH.”
" . . . semi-intelligent perpetual adolescent snark like Colbert . . ."
If Stephen Colbert is “semi-intelligent” and a “perpetual adolescent” simply for using satire against the right wing media, I wonder what Hank thinks Rush Limpballs was for referring to Sandra Fluke as a “slut” — or what the citizens of FoKKKsNation were for making repeated death threats against the President . . .
“Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism”
It was published in 2005 but Fox News had not evolved much until very recently (more or less since the polls show Obama as likely to be re-elected). What used to be a deliberate slamming of anything and everything Democratic has morphed into a headline rush to smear, slur and denigrate. It’s not pretty, but mesmerizing: like watching a train wreck in progress.
Time for an update of the above book (assuming that FoxNews will survive the ongoing meltdown).
“Of course, it was the Left that caused that, attacking the very idea that objectivity was even a possible, or worthwhile pursuit. Even if it comes from a semi-intelligent perpetual adolescent snark like Colbert, I will at least take heart that some of you believe in the concept of TRUTH. "
Self-appointed substitute teacher, eh Hank? Being so superior to us, you do realise (of course) that you come across like an insufferable prig giving out grades and pontificating. Fact is, dearie, that FoxNews S-A-Y-S it is fair and balanced, full stop. It does NOT say that it is MORE fair and balanced than others. Their claim is that they ARE and it doesn’t take much nous to realise that they are off the cliff on that one.
While I agree with you that total objectivity is not possible (simply by selecting which stories to cover is a judgement call), journalists are actually supposed to TRY to be as objective as possible. It’s all make-believe on FNC where the agenda from on high determines which guest is ignored or lauded.
If you want to see some real journalism try watching Al Jazeera (assuming it is available in the land of freedom of speech). Or are you one of those who hyperventilates on hearing that very name?
“They had some Congressman from Michigan (I didnât catch his name, and I assume he was a Republican) but this guy gave me the impression that he was attempting to calm the trio into remembering that itâs important that we know all the facts before we come to any conclusions. They didnât seem very interested in hearing that and just quickly moved on.”
The congressman was indeed a republican named Mike Rogers, who’s chairman of the House (?) Security Committee. After trying to calm the raging trio down he ended by getting on the election wagon to waffle on a bit about “the last four years”.
The trio completely ignored what their guests said if it didn’t fit their agenda. And that’s including the WSJ reporter on the ground in Cairo.
But, then, we already knew that, didn’t we?
Go away, Hankster. You aren’t doing your side any good, nor our side any harm.
They had some Congressman from Michigan (I didnât catch his name, and I assume he was a Republican) but this guy gave me the impression that he was attempting to calm the trio into remembering that itâs important that we know all the facts before we come to any conclusions. They didnât seem very interested in hearing that and just quickly moved on.
I sat through today’s F&F show from start to finish. The trio on the couch ignored each and every guest who said something they did not want to hear. The WSJ reporter based in Cairo said that the protests had little if anything to do with anti-americanism but all one heard about afterwards was “anti-American rage”. The trio was repeatedly rebuked by guests for asking leading questions. Did that change the tone? Of course not, because FNC has an agenda and that agenda is dictated from on high (Ailes and Murdoch, not God or any other deity).
Usually its sex that sells, but at Fox Nation it’s hate. Just imagine what we can look forward to if the President wins re-election. We’ll probably have to read the comments quickly since they’ll have to shut them down.
Dumbya was warned of attacks on America and took Vacation.