From the "About the Book" section of the RH page for The Fox Effect:
Based on the meticulous research of the news watchdog organization Media Matters for America, David Brock and Ari Rabin-Havt show how Fox News, under its president Roger Ailes, changed from a right-leaning news network into a partisan advocate for the Republican Party.
The Fox Effect follows the career of Ailes from his early work as a television producer and media consultant for Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H.W. Bush. Consequently, when he was hired in 1996 as the president of Rupert Murdoch’s flagship conservative cable news network, Ailes had little journalism experience, but brought to the job the mindset of a political operative. As Brock and Rabin-Havt demonstrate through numerous examples, Ailes used his extraordinary power and influence to spread a partisan political agenda that is at odds with long-established, widely held standards of fairness and objectivity in news reporting.
Featuring transcripts of leaked audio and memos from Fox News reporters and executives, The Fox Effect is a damning indictment of how the network’s news coverage and commentators have biased reporting, drummed up marginal stories, and even consciously manipulated established facts in their efforts to attack the Obama administration.
To pre-order the book, click here.
Fox already appears to be in damage control mode because on at least two of its programs (The O'Reilly Factor and Fox & Friends) there have been negative segments on MMFA. Expect Fox to step up its attacks against MMFA once the book comes out.
The following clip is the book trailer for The Fox Effect: How Roger Ailes Turned a Network into a Propaganda Machine:
31 comments:
"Based on the meticulous research of the news watchdog organization Media Matters for America"
LMMFAO!
As a writer, however, I enjoy reading. I'm not necessarily opposed to a book just because I expect it to be the most partisan thing I've ever read, turning mosquito bites into Kilimanjaro while feigning a neutral stance no one in the world keeps a straight over.
I expect it to be quite interesting. Illuminating? I highly doubt there's anything revealing about the book that Media Matters hasn't been dishing out for years, either through home base or through lackeys whose careers are boosted by using MM as their personal take on Deep Throat (the informant too).
Thanks for the post. I would have never heard about this otherwise. I won't pay for it; maybe I can pirate it before the government shuts down all my good sites.
I often hear righties such as yourself take digs at the fine work done my MMFA. However, they never provide any evidence to back up their claims. The floor is yours dude.
I think you should be able to pirate the book. After all, that socialist Kenyan Muslim of a president doesn't plan on coming for the guns, Bibles, and websites until June 19th 2012!
LMAO!
Way to let the wing-tip out, Malcolm!
You know, because I'm just all over the place in my right wing, bible-thumping, gun-toting insanity claiming that Obama's a Kenyan Muslim. (GFY.)
Media Matters' sole purpose is anti-right-wing. WTF else needs to be said? I'm confused.
I had no idea that you had such adoration for such an unabashedly biased organization - so much so that you'd lose your shit.
Good luck with all that.
I Googled author David Brock to see if he was the same who wrote "Blinded By The Right.." years ago and, yes, he was. He must be doing something right because the first search that came up was Fox 'News' questioning whether Brock was a "dangerous man" and a video discussing a "mental breakdown". Pretty much proves your post title.
Josh: Because I'm not a big fan of the "smiley face" emoticon, I only use it sparingly. Apparently, I should have used it in my previous comment because you completely misread the intent of what I was trying to say.
When you said, "maybe I can pirate it before the government shuts down all my good sites", I took that as a joke. As a result, I was being sarcastic when I said President Obama was coming for the guns, Bibles, and websites. I thought that would have been clear because you've never given any indication you are the "cling to your guns and Bible" type. Also, you've been quite clear what you think of religion so it wouldn't make sense for me to stereotype you as a Bible thumper.
I intentionally went over the top by referring to him as a "socialist Kenyan Muslim" because I don't think you view him that way. Although you and I have had our differences, I give you a little more credit than to think you believe the "Kenyan Muslim" nonsense. It never occurred to me that you would take my comments seriously.
Because you took me seriously, now I'm wondering if you really think the government is going to shut down your fave sites. Do you think that's true?
Your use of the term "GFY" has me wondering. Please clarify what you meant.
As for MM being anti-right-wing, their mission is to call out conservative misinformation. That doesn't make them anti-right-wing. After all, it is possible to be an honest right-wing pundit (although they seem to be a rarity these days).
Although I love the work that MM does, I hope I've made it clear that I didn't "lose my shit" over your dig at them. All I was asking of you was to back up your dig with some evidence that they don't do a good job when it comes to research.
Judi: I had forgotten that Brock was a right-wing operative in the 90s until I read his Wiki page last night. If the book is successful, who knows what other negativity the right-wing noise machine will throw Brock's way.
I apologize. I didn't realize you were trying to be humorous. I figured my laughing at Media Matters sent you over the edge.
My bad.
As to me backing up my dig with evidence, I'm not sure what you mean.
I classified them as anti-right-wing. I should have clarified more by stating that MM's sole purpose is anti-right-wing media.
Evidence: mediamatters.org
They don't hide it. The biggest difference we'd have is that I see them as barely hanging on to the leftmost piece of real estate left, and you'd probably view that more as neutral/middle of the road/normality.
I don't mind MM. But reading the line "meticulous research" caused me to burst out in laughter. When it's their chosen position to keep the channel on Fox and the radio on Rush, and then just decorate their site with every single statement made that they don't approve of, I hardly consider that meticulous or research. I consider it compulsive and self-satisfying.
Also, I found it to be funny because I highly doubt there's any sort of smoking gun or information in the book that hasn't been talked about constantly via their site, its many offspring, and its many commenters.
I fully expect it to be a longwinded version of the par-for-the-course we-hate-Fox sentiment.
But I won't know for sure until I read it.
I'm reading MM right now. The vast majority of what I see is people who disagree with the right's take, so they spin it in reverse and then claim it's a lie when told the other way.
That's how they wanna carry it. I'm not mad at 'em. But LMMFAO @ "meticulous research."
Again, my bad for taking your seriously there. I honestly thought you were trying to paint me as one of those nut cases. (I'm nutty enough in other beliefs; I don't need that type of mess attributed to me!)
Josh: I'll ask you again, what did you mean by "GFY"?
Josh: "Go fudge yourself?" Although I'm aware Chef had a book with this title in a "South Park" episode and that it is also the name of a Ben & Jerry's flavor, I have never heard anyone tell someone to "go fudge yourself".
I do know that in internet slang the acronym "GFY" generally means one of two things: "good for you" or "go fuck yourself". Given the fact that you originally took my 1st comment as a slam, I think you meant the latter.
Josh said: ""Based on the meticulous research of the news watchdog organization Media Matters for America"
Oh wow. Media Matters is a political pressure group. Not a watchdog of any kind. They love to lie about such things. It's their business.
Remember, according to them "propaganda" means information thay dislike and would rather have not heard, or even censored.
It's hardly "newsworthy" that a hardline leftist political opinion site has an opinion that "if it isn't leftist, it is bad".
There's no reasoning with a cult member. They will cling to their beliefs no matter how much verifiable contrary evidence is presented.
FOX(R) is a Right Wing political indoctrination outlet. Their true believers will cling to their cult to the death.
They will refuse an honest comparison of accuracy from FOX(R) and Media Matters.
FOX(R) is gospel to them and any questioning of their propaganda is "leftist", or communist. After all, anyone who disagrees with their cult is a commie.
Who needs facts when you have FOX(R) to protect us from "death panels"?
I know you don't mind a few "bullshits" or "damns" or "ass" or the like, but I didn't want to be too vulgar with it.
Plus I already knew you knew what it meant. So it seemed kinda pointless.
As to another question I missed: Yes. I think government's going to shut down a lot of the sites I use.
And that's a government thing; not a D, R, Obama, his eventual replacement thing.
For a "free" country, we can't gamble legally online. We can't share movies or music legally. And there will probably come a time when porn is more strictly guarded.
dmarks thinks Media Matters is a "political pressure group" but Fox Nooz is a real news outlet the Lefties just happen to disagree with. He's totally serious and not joking either. I don't know how he rationalizes it.
Great blog btw... I'll have to look into purchasing that book. I like David Brock.
WD: It's a not a matter of me merely "thinking" it. I happen to be informed on it, is all. And you don't even know how it is spelled. Just part of general ignorance.
Yes, I am serious and not joking. I've researched these matters.
No quotes needed around political pressure group Media Matters.
isdmarks, I know how to spell "news". Fox is not a news organization which is why I refuse to call them that. They're a conservative political propaganda outfit. If you actually had done your research you'd know that.
Media Matters debunks Conservative propaganda from organizations like Fox. They've never lied about being "fair and balanced". I don't know who you think they're politically pressuring.
Josh: Apology accepted. Actually, I didn't know what you meant by "GFY". Since it stands for one of two things, I asked before assuming. With that being said, if you do something like that again, you're done over here. Even if the acronym is used, the sentiment is the same as if you spelled it out and I'm not having it here.
Let me also apologize for not making it more clear that my original comment was a joke. I should know better that humor often gets lost when communicated non-verbally.
Classifying MM as anti-right-wing media isn’t correct either. Their main purpose is to expose conservative misinformation. If they were anti-right-wing media, they wouldn’t do reports when conservative misinformation is put out by pundits on outlets such as CBS, ABC, and CNBC. Also, if your assessment were true, MM would do more reporting on such mags as The Weekly Standard and National Review. The reason Fox is such a big target is simple… they are in a class all by themselves when it comes to lies and distortions.
Based on your sentence which begins “When it's their chosen position to keep the channel on Fox and the radio on Rush…”, it sounds as if you’re only focusing on the MMtv section of the MM site. If you click on the “Research” link, maybe you’ll gain a better respect for the work they do to expose conservative misinformation.
I don’t see what’s so confusing about me asking you to back up your dig with some evidence. Simply providing the link to MM doesn’t come close to cutting it. When I accuse Fox of lying and distorting, for the sake of brevity, I don’t always include links or provide examples. However, I can back up my claim w/o having to do a whole lot of digging.
dmarks: I think you misread Josh's comment. He doesn't think MM does "meticulous research". He was quoting the description of the book "The Fox Effect" from the Random House web page.
I disagree with your claim that MM is a political pressure group. Who do you think they are pressuring and what are they pressuring them to do? I guess one could argue that in a roundabout way, MM is pressuring the media not to spread conservative misinformation by exposing them when they do. If so, what's wrong with that?! Everyone (regardless of political viewpoint) should demand that the media tell the truth.
Dave Dubya: Thanks for stopping by. It’s sad how the Fox followers will defend "The Most Powerful Name in News” regardless. If I were the typical Fox viewer, I’d be pissed because the network insults their intelligence on a regular basis. The typical Fox viewer (as well as many of the Fox personalities) lose all credibility when they talk about facts because it’s obvious they don’t give a damn about them.
w-dervish: Given the fact that the lies/distortions by Fox have been well-documented, the blind allegiance by viewers such as dmarks is inexcusable. If a conservative feels their views aren’t being equally represented in the media, I can respect that (even if I disagree with their sentiment). I don’t see anything wrong with a conservative news outlet. However, it’s a disservice to the viewers when the news outlet relies on dishonesty, fear, race baiting, demonizing, etc. to sway public opinion.
By the way, thanks for visiting and for the positive feedback about the blog.
I have no "blind allegiance". I have many news sources. I listen to NPR far more than Fox. I think we are better off when we have many sources. And I don't want a single one hounded off the air.
As for race baiting, don't forget the racist liberal commentator who bashed Herman Cain on NBC for representing aggressive black male sexuality. No, I don't want people to turn them off either. Or CBS News which ran with a hoax about George W. Bush going AWOL for weeks before they had to let Dan Rather go.
To want to turn off Fox, or turn off CBS, or NPR, or the others, shows a disrespect for the free press.
"MM is pressuring the media not to spread conservative misinformation by exposing them when they do."
Not at all. MM is pushing a hard left ideological view. That is all they do. It has nothing to do with misinformation. Of course, right-wing pressure groups do this also.
Not that FOX itself is one. It's a news source. I did a check on their headlines, compared to what is on NPR.
And what did I find on MM? A hard left editorial piece which bashes "the right" for opposing Obamas multi-million dollar gift to two auto companies. It's all editorial opinion there, and derision upon other sources which don't buy into their ideology.
Other left-wing media get a pass from MM when it comes to "distortions". It's all about ideological correctness, not accuracy.
I call it confusing because you consider it a dig. I don't consider it a dig. I consider it an observation.
I'm not attacking them for anything. I don't care about MM. I just know what I see, and what I see is a service set up to spin news considered conservative/right wing into progressive gold.
How do you provide evidence for something like that considering that our ideologies would never allow a consensus or probably even middle ground? That's how I see it; that's not how you see it.
When they pluck something like Dick Morris' job numbers, spin it in reverse, call his numbers a lie and theirs truth, what's to be done? It's spin either way.
= confusion
I certainly don't mind if you or anyone else believe MM does fine work. So goes opinion.
Rock out with your socks out.
And the "GFY" was obviously in the context of thinking you were attacking me as a right wing loon whose days were spent trying to prove Obama's a Muslim.
That's going to earn the same response every time. I'd just have to find another libnest to spam!
Fox Nooz has the right to lie, but Media Matters has the right to expose those lies. If Fox's lie telling gets them "hounded" off the air... that's the free market speaking, I say. Do you think that people who say Fox lies should be censored?
I don't know what "racist liberal commentator" you're talking about. Are you talking about a commentator covering Cain's sexual harassing? Cain is a scumbag who thought he could pressure women into doing what he wanted because he was in a position of power.
I'm sure that most people who were offended by his sexual harassing... his being black had nothing to do with why they were offended.
Fox is a Right-wing propaganda organization that covers the news, often adding Right-wing commentary. But the fact that there is some straight news on Fox is apparently enough to fool dmarks.
Media Matters doesn't pretend that it's doing the news.
FYI, bush was AWOL. It wasn't a "hoax".
"But the fact that there is some straight news on Fox is apparently enough to fool dmarks."
I'm not fooled at all. I'm just not some interolant twit who wants reporting organizations that do not share his ideology 100% to be "hounded off the air".
If you were lying about and bashing "Democracy Now" the same way you do about Fox News, I'd be defending them also.
"FYI, bush was AWOL"
He wasn't. There's no evidence other than the forged documents.
Ignoring the forged documents, there's the reality. He got an honorary discharge. He didn't get charged with going AWOL. That's matter of public record.
There is a lot of other evidence beside the "forged" documents... that's what the link I provided was to... a story that details what all the evidence is. In my opinion it's fairly evident that the charges are accurate. He was AWOL.
Also, why do you keep using the phrased "hounded off the air"? I doubt anyone here wants Fox "hounded" off the air. Programs/stations with different ideological viewpoints are fine. It's the lying those of us who don't like Fox have a problem with.
He wasn't charged because of who his daddy was. That's how he got into the Texas air national guard (instead of being sent to Vietnam) to begin with. The wealthy live by a different set of rules then the rest of us.
dmarks: I'm aware that you seek out various news sources. However, that doesn't mean you don't have a blind allegiance when it comes to Fox. How can you defend the many lies and distortions told by Fox?
dmarks said:
"As for race baiting, don't forget the racist liberal commentator who bashed Herman Cain on NBC for representing aggressive black male sexuality."
The two of us have gone down this road and as I believe I said before, it's a dead end. You think Touré was race baiting, I disagree. It's pointless to keep rehashing this incident. As for your description of Touré, why do you consider him racist? Even if he was race baiting, that doesn't make him a racist.
Also, if all you're finding on MM is editorial opinion, you're not looking hard enough. They do fine research in which they provide credible links, use factual data, etc. to debunk conservative misinformation. You may not like the work they do, but I don't see how you can deny they use facts to back up their claims.
dmarks said:
"Other left-wing media get a pass from MM when it comes to "distortions"."
In the "About Us" section of MM, they clearly state they are a "progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."
I don't understand your complaint about them giving the so-called left-wing media a pass. It would be like me griping because Newsbusters.org doesn't expose and combat conservative bias!
Josh: You're playing semantics now. A dig can also be an observation and you should know it.
Spin is one thing, but lies are another thing entirely. For example, Ann Coulter lied when she said Fox never mentioned the “birther” story:
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201106110006
The right-wing media’s lies about the cost of President Obama’s India trip back in 2010:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201011030032
Those are just two of the many instances of conservative misinformation being called out by MM.
As for the "GFY" incident, I just wanted to make it clear where you stand. Considering the fact that I had never referred to you as a right-wing loon who thinks President Obama is a Muslim (because you never gave me a reason to), what's the harm in asking for clarification before you assume the worst?
To all: I wanted to share with you the one time a right-winger (Teresa) took me up on my challenge to prove that MM lies.
As you'll see, the post is about a teen mother in Oklahoma who shot and killed an intruder. However, the comments section went into a different direction when some of the commenters let their Obama Derangement Syndrome get the best of them. In case you don't want to sift through all 56 comments, here is the link where I first make the challenge to Teresa:
http://leticiasworld.blogspot.com/2012/01/911-tells-mom-do-what-you-have-to-do.html?showComment=1326678764371#c4290105006047570900
There's no other way to say it... Teresa's attempt to prove MM lied about Planned Parenthood was an epic failure.
Broken clocks...
Awesome rebuttal Josh!
Back and forth is usually fun. We've done it enough. But you've just lost me on this one. I didn't take a dig at them; they admit what they stand for.
"Misinformation" in itself is semantics in a political context; it's relative. Like your previous Al Sharpton vs. Newt post. They both gave misinformation.
So I'll have to wait for the next topic to break into a 500-word rant.
I got nothing further for this topic about an admittedly progressive organization whose goal is to target right-wing media.
I'll let Tucker Carlson rail on about MM.
(A word of advice, though: Never fight a man in a bow tie. Even if you win, you don't win.)
Josh: Although MM makes it clear their mission is to monitor/analyze/correct conservative misinformation, you're continuing to inaccurately describe them as being "anti-right-wing media". When it comes to conservative misinformation, MM doesn't give a damn about the source. If it's coming from MSNBC, CBS, or any other so-called "liberal" media outlet, MM is going to cover it.
It was tempting to give examples of some of the other lies MM has exposed just to see how you would have backtracked on your "broken clocks" crack. As for Dick Morris' job numbers, it's funny how he and others on the right have spun themselves dizzy trying to discredit the drop in the unemployment rate.
"As for your description of Touré, why do you consider him racist?"
He made a very bad racist statement about Herman Cain. That makes him a racist.
Of course, he tried to distance himself from it by attributing this view to others. However, there was no evidence that these others had his view. It ends up being his own, forcefully stated.
It's sort of like someone telling a nasty racist joke, then waiting while people laugh, and then saying. "Well, it's not my joke. I don't think it's even funny/. I just heard it from some guy."
Yes, I defend Fox News, despite its small number of inaccuracies in its reporting. I defend MSNBC for this, and NPR, and even CBS News. Everyone gets stuff wrong from time to time.
I don't have a blind allegiance to Fox News. But I do defend any news outfit from misinformed pushes to censor them. If I run across on a right-wing blog a push to get people to turn off CBS, have the government censor it, or push advertisers to pull out so it will collapse, I will likely tell them to "Get a life" and respect diversity of opinion in news and media.
"I don't understand your complaint about them giving the so-called left-wing media a pass"
It means that they are a hardline political pressure group out to run down anyone that does not share their ideology. They aren't any kind of watchdog, as they won't bite burglars they like (to use the dog analogy).
I hold the same view of "Accuracy in Media", a similar worthless right-wing pressure group that does that MM does from the other side.
None of what groups like this do is notable, convincing, or newsworthy. They hate those who do not share their ideology, and will and do readily crank out slanted "factual" editorial rants to bash those who do not conform to their rigid demands of what media should and should not say.
And both MM and AIM, and other similar groups (like FAIR) use "credible links, use factual data" and debunk, but always in a sly and self-serving fashion, leaving out facts that go against their case.
dmarks: I couldn't disagree with you more. Since you and I have been down this road before, for me to refute you point-by-point would be futile. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
Hi My Fellow blogger,
I'm kindly asking for your approval of this comment as a link to my blogspot blog, no spam intended.
Many thanks in advance.
Dwayne Fr: Higgington Post
_____________________
Higgington Post
Post a Comment