Although this incident happened in April (I meant to post it then, but was too busy), I still wanted to share because it's funny and timeless. During the "Great American Panel" segment of a recent installment of Hannity, Fox "News" personality Bob Beckel (who appears on various programs on the network as the token liberal), apparently didn't realize he was on live TV when he told fellow panelist Jennifer Stefano what he thought of her opinion on whatever it was they were discussing during the break. Although I don't know what Stefano said that got Beckel heated, I'm willing to bet he was right in his assertion that she didn't know what the fuck she was talking about.
15 comments:
No quotes necessary around news. Despite the fact that you want to insult Fox News for not being perfectly in tune with your ideological preferences and reporting and airing views you disagree with.
I respect free speech, journalism, and the First Amendment. You won't catch me making cutesy insults of news sources I happen to not agree completely with.
dmarks: Although I've explained this to you before, I'll try again. I don't insult Fox "News" because I disagree with their point of view. I put them down because they lie and distort on a consistent basis. Whether you want to face it or not, the fact that they lie and distort has been well-documented. There's nothing wrong with a news outlet having a conservative point of view. However, I do have a problem with them telling half truths, telling outright lies, etc. in order to sway their core audience. I don't see why conservatives such as yourself stand for it.
It's quite clear you use silly insults against them because you disagree with their point of view. They lie and distort no more than other news sources. Yet, you don't taunt those because you happen to agree with them.
"Whether you want to face it or not, the fact that they lie and distort has been well-documented."
Once you factor out the bogus studies by Media Matters (which make up quotes, slam Fox for mistakes they apologized for quickly, or criticize Fox for getting something incorrect when they were actually correct), you do get a small number of lies/inaccuracies. Like with any news channel.
"I don't see why conservatives such as yourself stand for it."
Because I am not a kook who demands censoring someone just for presenting information I don't like.
I similarly defend CNN, MSNBC, and the others when people who don't respect the First Amendment bash them also.
dmarks: "It's quite clear you use silly insults against them because you disagree with their point of view."
That couldn't be further from the truth. If I had a tendency to insult those simply because they have differing points of view than mine, I'd be all over people like Joe Scarborough, David Frum, and George Will. If Fox "News" was a legit news channel, I wouldn't have to use so-called "silly" insults. It is possible for a news outlet to put forth a conservative point of view without resorting to lies, distortions, and half truths. When Fox "News" starts doing that, I and the countless other critics will lay off them.
"Once you factor out the bogus studies by Media Matters (which make up quotes, slam Fox for mistakes they apologized for quickly, or criticize Fox for getting something incorrect when they were actually correct), you do get a small number of lies/inaccuracies. Like with any news channel."
Your accusation that I insult Fox "News" because I disagree with their viewpoint is quite ironic. It seems this is why you have a problem with Media Matters. I have provided several examples (here and on other blogs) of how Fox regularly lies and distorts. All I've seen you do is make assertions about MM without any facts to back them up.
I have a challenge for you. I'll let you write a guest post in which you provide detailed, factual examples of how Media Matters has done the things you've accused them of doing. Since I don't read MM everyday, maybe you can enlighten me. At any rate, it's put up or shut up time for you.
"If Fox "News" was a legit news channel, I wouldn't have to use so-called "silly" insults"
They are a legit news channel, no more and no less than the others.
"It seems this is why you have a problem with Media Matters."
I do have a problem with them. They have no credibility as journalists, and are engaged in running nothing but partisan attack pieces that leave out facts. However, I have a problem with Rush Limbaugh for the exact same reason (although if there is a big difference, it is that he is one man, and Media Matters is a corporation.
As for this challenge, it did not take me long to come up with Media Matters presenting a whopper of a lie about Fox:
this one.
"Fox News is downplaying the role Bush policies continue to play in driving debt and deficit spending and attacking President Obama for accurately noting that the high debt and deficit spending was "baked into the cake" when he took office"
No spending is "baked in". Obama in fact took over the budget and made it his own when he took office. He could have pushed for anything he wanted: his party had control. He chose to increase the deficit. Bush is responsible for his own spending, and Obama is responsible for his. Fox told it like it is. MM, a purely partisan political pressure group that is basically nothing but campaign ads, tries to divert from the fast that Obama chose to increase the national debt by 50% with his 5 trillion dollar deficits.
(Of course, Hannity and Limbaugh are the MM of the left. I have heard them flat out lie about the debt actually caused by Bush during the 8 years when he was actually responsible for this... very similar to how MM is making stuff up about Obama's debt. But I won't defend them).
dmarks: I asked you if you were interested in writing a guest post. That didn't mean I wanted to continue going back and forth in this thread about Media Matters. If you wanna do a guest post about MM, send it to me in an email and I'll eagerly put it up. Just so we're clear, we aren't gonna do it in this thread.
So what you are saying is that you won't let me call you on your mischaracterization of Fox News? For the record, I also call conservatives on it when they bash CNN or MSNBC. I have more tolerance for free speech and dissenting journalism than them also.
Your exact counterparts among that group are those who called CNN "Clinton News Network".
As for the guest post, I've never done that before, and have no idea what is involved. I've blogged for years and have never been offered.
dmarks: Since I've offered to let you write a guest post, your assertion that I won't let you call me on my so-called mischaracterization of Fox is a bit puzzling. All I said is that we weren't going to do it in this thread.
For the guest post, all you have to do is write it, give it a title and email it to me. I will post it. My email is ultfan@gmail.com. Once you write it, I will invite bloggers I know who are politically inclined to comment on it. Feel free to do the same. If you are interested, give me a rough time table on when you think it'll be finished. Although there's no rush, I just want a general idea on when I can expect it. Do we have a deal?
I don't feel I could write it as well as Will on this blog. He's a moderate without any partisan agenda. And yes he voted for Obama in the past election, and likely will in the upcoming one. His blog title comes from an anti Bill O'Reilly thing he has going. He pulls no punches when it comes to the problems of MSNBC and Fox and oters. One recent post is this one about Rachel Maddow using fake numbers for Wisconsin budget discussions.
Problems like this are completely ignored by "Media Matters". A search on Maddow only comes up with this list, in which here name comes up only in one-sided bashing of conservatives on their site. Maddow gets a free pass.
A lot of the "Media Matters" I agree with, actually. But it is all partisan editorializing, and not news, and all done to serve one political side. To exclude any facts that make their side look bad. It's their perogative, of course. Rush Limbaugh and MM's mirrors on the Right do this same sort of thing too.
I'm disappointed you won't take me up on my offer. Thanks for the links to Will's blog. I'll check them out when time permits.
Considering the fact MM is very clear that their mission is to monitor conservative misinformation, your complaint that they don't go after people like Rachel Maddow doesn't make sense.
http://mediamatters.org/p/about_us/
Although I have my criticisms of Newsbusters.org, I won't slam them for not exposing conservative bias. Just like MM, they are upfront about their mission. Also, since you're put off by MM's so-called one-sided bashing, I assume you must feel the same way about Fox's "conservative=good, liberal=evil" style of reporting.
As for your comparison of MM and Rush Limbaugh, I go back to the Beatles/Milli Vanilli analogy I used in a comment thread at Leticia's blog. In case you forgot, MM are The Beatles in my analogy.
I haven't refused, but it will take a long time, maybe until the end of July.
"your complaint that they don't go after people like Rachel Maddow doesn't make sense."
This is extremely important: it's the difference between an authentic media watchdog, and partisan hacks making a predictably misleading report.
Whatever their mission, when they bash 'the other side' for doing stuff and give 'their side' a free pass, they are being hypocrites. The mission statement does nothing to blunt this, except perhaps to say "so we are going to be hypocrites, so what?".
And yes, I hold "Newsbusters" to the same standard, and I similarly shun them as worthless and hypocritical also.
As for MM's one-sided bashing being "so called".... the mission statement you summarized removes any doubt. There's no "so called".
Thank you for clarifying that are interested in writing a guest post. I look forward to seeing it.
Again, we'll have to agree to disagree on MM's focus on conservative misinformation. If their mission statement purported that they took a critical look at the media regardless of ideology, I'd be with you in criticizing them.
As a heads up, I plan on writing about two of the media watchdog programs that air on cable... stay tuned.
I'm not sure there would be a point to such a post now, since you have short circuited my main point and have accepted that MM is biased, and cannot be expected to evaluate its targets with any sort of objectivity.
I refer to this:
"Considering the fact MM is very clear that their mission is to monitor conservative.... [information]...., your complaint that they don't go after people like Rachel Maddow doesn't make sense."
I find such one-sidedness to be a big problem, no matter which side is doing it. Since you see no problem with it, is there any point in a post which would mainly point out how one-sided and hypocritical they are?
"Again, we'll have to agree to disagree on MM's focus on conservative misinformation"
Their focus is on information. Whether or not it is misinformation. Plenty of times they object to valid information and opinions, just declaring something invalid because they happen to disagree with it.
dmarks: If the focus of your post is going to be how MM is one-sided and hypocritical then yes, it would be pointless. However, in one of your previous comments, you made some specific criticisms about MM that I'd like to see you back up by writing a guest post. They are as follows:
* Bogus studies by Media Matters (which make up quotes)
* Slam Fox for mistakes they apologized for quickly
* Criticize Fox for getting something incorrect when they were actually correct
In regards to the 2nd bullet point, just because a news outlet, individual, etc. apologizes for an error doesn't mean it still shouldn't be called out. Now, you laid some heavy accusations against MM. Were you just caught up in the heat of the moment or do you have solid evidence to support what you said? Like I said earlier, I don't read MM everyday so it's possible they have made mistakes. However, the burden of proof is on you.
By the way, if you're going to quote me, don't change what I said just because you disagree. I said MM's job is to monitor conservative misinformation and I stand by that.
Post a Comment