diadoumenos

Over the summer, James Pinkerton was paid by Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann to write her new book. At the same time, Pinkerton was also paid by Fox News to offer commentary on the presidential campaign, without disclosing his role in the Bachmann campaign.

Making matters slightly worse, Fox News knew about this, and urged Pinkerton to hide the truth about his role from the public.

Pinkerton said this week, “They said, ‘Don’t tell anybody,’ I said, ‘Okay.’ I told my superiors at Fox and they knew.”

Remember, Fox News presents itself as a legitimate, independent news organization.

apoplecticskeptic
Today television news is watched more often than people read newspapers, than people listen to the radio, than people read or gather any other form of communication. The reason: People are lazy. With television you just sit—watch—listen. The thinking is done for you.
Roger Ailes in a Gawker exclusive: Roger Ailes’ Secret Nixon-Era Blueprint for Fox News (via soupsoup)
diadoumenos

…[T]here’s plenty of evidence that Fox News does deliberately slant its news coverage. For the past few months, Media Matters has released a series of internal emails from Fox News Washington managing editor Bill Sammon that show Sammon pushing the network to take conservative and/or anti-Obama positions. During the 2008 election, Sammon spearheaded the notion on the air that Obama is a “socialist,” even though he privately admitted that the accusation was “far-fetched.” Sammon told Fox employees to refer to the “public option” as the “government option” during the debate over the Affordable Care Act, echoing the advice of Republican pollster Frank Luntz.

Following Obama’s 2009 speech in Cairo, Sammon suggested the network focus on the fact that the president hadn’t used the word “terrorism,” even though he had discussed the issue. Sammon urged Fox News employees to present climate change data as controversial. The network’s coverage of the issue is incredibly slanted: 81 percent of Fox News guests oppose the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulation of greenhouse gases.

One can discern Fox News’ conservative slant merely by watching the network itself, of course. But the leaks offer concrete evidence of how that slant is developed. Stewart pointed out that the end result of all this is that Fox News viewers are consistently the most misinformed — an assertion Wallace didn’t challenge. As Steve Benen points out, that’s because it’s an assertion that happens to be true. When Stewart says the network follows “ideological marching orders,” he’s on pretty solid ground.

diadoumenos

It appears that the Fox News graphic department doesn’t know what their own employees look like.

During a segment reporting that Sarah Palin was undecided on whether or not to jump into the 2012 presidential race, the news channel showed a photo of Tina Fey imitating the former Republican vice presidential candidate in 2008.

In 2009, Fox News management sent out a memo to employees saying that on-screen errors would no longer be tolerated.

Fox News uses Tina Fey photo for Sarah Palin report

Video at the link.

(via ryking)

OR…maybe someone at Fox did it intentionally…if so, I heart that person.  X-D

"It’s a fascinating article, to see how someone has so effectively manipulated how we think."

Howard Stern’s analysis of the Rolling Stone piece on Roger Ailes.  He compares Ailes’ manipulation to a vampire glamoring his victims, and in typical Stern fashion, details his views on Ailes’ Machiavellian ‘brilliance’.  As one of the smartest, most effective broadcasters in history himself, Stern has a fascinating way of expressing his thoughts.

diadoumenos

Media Matters, as part of its guerrilla-style operation against Fox News, may have uncovered one of the most damaging revelations yet: Audio of the Fox exec in charge of political coverage admitting that he repeatedly speculated on the air during the 2008 campaign about Obama’s alleged socialist tendencies, even though he privately found the notion “far fetched…”

That’s pretty remarkable. Sammon is conceding that the idea did indeed strike him as far fetched in 2008, even though he and his network aggressively promoted it day in and day out throughout the campaign. And he’s defending this by pointing out that the idea ended up gaining traction, as if this somehow justifies the original act of dishonesty!

Now, Sammon is also claiming here that Obama’s behavior in office ultimately persuaded him that the original diagnosis of Obama as a socialist turned out to be correct after all. That in itself, of course, is also a ridiculous falsehood. But the bottom line is that he doesn’t regret having spread an idea he personally found far-fetched, because so doing helped ensure that the far-fetched idea ultimately gained widespread acceptance. That’s a peculiar attitude for a “news” executive, isn’t it?

Last week, Newt Gingrich jumped on the far right-wing crazy train over plans to build a Muslim community center near the 9/11 site in New York City. He’s weirdly putting forth, “There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia.” Then last night on Faux News, he called NYC Mosque supporters “hostile to our civilization,” as if freedom of religion wasn’t one of the core values of the Founders of this nation. Gingrich is following a familiar pattern of right-wing demagogues before him.  For Joe McCarthy it was communists; for Benito Mussolini it was trade unionists; for Pol Pot and Mao Tse Tzung it was people who had an education or knew how to read.  In every case, the pattern is the same.  Identify a minority, claim that they’re a super-evil force with supernatural powers to destroy the nation, and then use the hate and fear for them that you’ve helped whip up to grab your own political power.  In Newt’s case, he’s hoping his fear-mongering about the world’s largest religion will cause people to forget that he handed divorce papers to his second wife - who had been his high-school math teacher - when she was coming out of anesthesia after cancer surgery, and that his third wife is the House staffer he was having sex with in the back room in the Capitol between his excursions to the floor of the House to lead the prosecution of Bill Clinton for having sex with a consenting adult.  Will it work?  So far, Faux News groupies are lapping it up.  But will Newt succeed in fooling the rest of America?  Newt was my congressman back in the days when he was going after Clinton and I lived in Georgia, and he left Congress because he couldn’t even fool his own constituents.  I’m betting this latest gambit won’t gain much traction beyond Fox News groupies.

~ emphasis mine ~whyinthehell

diadoumenos

…FOX News is a real threat to the democratic process in America. PERIOD. I’m not just talking about having a conservative point of view. They created an entire political movement called the tea party movement and not a word from the media about this. Even on TV today, pundits and pols call [teabaggers] a wild card in politics, but that’s silly, they make Newt Gingrich look like a moderate republican. When has a media outlet ever turned into an activist organization for one political party and recruited members by sending their hosts on location to do so?

I haven’t heard the media complain either that FOX is the only network that has access to the teabagger convention. Once again the Ailes machine chugs along and our country suffers for it as the MSM remains mute.

savagemike

savagemike:

eyeofpolyphemus:

savagemike

The thing about his comments that gets my goat is he’s assuming that Christianity is somehow superior to Buddhism, or any other religion for that matter. He’s talking from some high horse which most likely does not even exist. His smugness is disgusting, and disrespectful to the many millions of Buddhists in the world.


Brit Hume is a Christian, so he *does* think his religion is superior to Tiger woods’.

I am also curious if the hypocrisy of your own smugness is lost on you.  In one sentence, you say the Christian God likely does not exist, thereby disrespecting millions of Christians around the world, then complain hume has disrected millions of Buddhists by doig the same thing you did.

Or can one only safely “disrespect” religions you do not like? 

I didn’t say Buddhists are right either. I simply said that for him to elevate one religion above another is ridiculous.

I think no gods of any sort exist, not just the Christian god. If I sounded smug, it wasn’t intentional.

First, I don’t see a sentence in SavageMike’s remarks saying that “the Christian god likely does not exist”.

Second, SavageMike didn’t go on national TV proselytizing about a man whose life happens to be in shambles at the moment, not only criticizing his religious beliefs, but announcing to everyone that they can only obtain forgiveness via a specific religion. Hume did, and he was out of line - there is no question about that IMO.

Third, Buddhists follow a philosophy, not a deity. And they *are* better, even if only for the fact that they don’t go around sticking their noses in others’ business, especially proselytizing on a public stage.

Fourth, if Hume wants to be a Televangelist he should get a Televangelist show or go on a Televangelist network.

Oh wait…I forgot - he was on Fox news, right? Nevermind that last point….