Tuesday, June 22, 2010

How It Works

Sadly, there are still those who watch Fox "news" and consider it a reliable news source. Ethical, even. A couple of them drop by here once in a while to sing their praises and leave a mess. I keep hoping I could convince those people to peel the scale from their eyes. As if.

Anyway, here's but one small -- and recent -- example of what they do. (I believe the term is "lie." But since it's all they do, no matter the issue, there ought to be a stronger word, wouldn't you think?)

In 2006, the Bush Administration closed off a five-square-mile stretch of the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge to the public to allow the Border Patrol to improve security. Owing to mission creep of sorts, this section stayed closed. And how does Fox interpret this? That President Obama is giving vast stretches of land back to Mexico.

I have to admit I'd never before visited the Fox "news" website. I just did. It's really quite astounding. One after another, relentlessly, article after article attacking President Obama, liberals, government policy in the most slanted language. It's not as if this stuff isn't ubiquitous on right-wing websites. But this is the network that calls itself fair and balanced. We report, they claim, allowing "you" to decide. Even the Huffington Post has articles critical of Democrats, and of the president, and it regularly posts commentary from such wingers as Tony Blankley.

But Fox... well, they're in a category alone. I don't begrudge them their bias and their right to lie through their pixels. It's just that I'm continuously boggled by the fact that anyone -- even teabaggers and others of such limited critical skills -- could call them a useful source of news. Of confirmation bias, sure. Of reinforcing prejudice and fact-free belief, of course. A place to go to get lubed and stroked, the best.

But, c'mon: a fair news source? A news source by any definition? It's pathetic, if laughable.


  1. Like NPR/PBS/CBS/ABC/NBC/CNN/PMSNBC are any better...
    OK, I admit, Rachel Madcow is sorta attractive in that "I wonder if she's really a lesbian" kind of way, but Chris Mathew is annoying, and Ken Olbermann is just a big Penis with Ears.
    again with the T-word?, your like an 8 year old with the potty mouth, must be that whole Alzheimer's thing.

  2. Tell you what, Frankie: find me examples of the sort of lie about which I wrote, on the outlets you list, and I'll consider them.

    And, from where I sit, as it were, Olbermann is a medium size penis at best. Guess it matters with what you have to compare.

  3. Too easy:


    Although Fox's comment is, strictly speaking, oe of interpretation. CBS just makes up stuff out of whole cloth...uh...paper.

    Could it still be "fake but accurate???"

    And, it's pretty clear, Maddow's penis is larger than Olbermann's.

  4. First of all, Blue, CBS admits it was taken in by the fakery, and fired the guy -- their biggest start -- who did the story. Or hadn't you noticed. Second: it was an outlier for CBS. For Fox "news" it's their admitted modus operandi.

    I don't know you at all, but since you seem to know how to operate a computer, I'm guessing you knew the difference without my pointing it out. But, a better effort than usual. At least it was relevant to what I posted, and based on an actual event. So thanks for that.

  5. Not even a good try. It was the managing editor of CBS news--in effect, the news division itself, that couldn't wait to air that story. And a big fat lie late in a pres campaign--even a simple man like you might admit that that's an egregious foul.

    An outlier? Outliar, maybe.

    How about this chestnut:


    "News organizations including ABC, The Associated Press, The Washington Monthly and MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann reported the claim"

    Yes, yes, I know--they were "only reporting a claim". Sure--how many reported that the "claim" was a lie?

  6. See, Blue, here's the thing: there's a difference between reporting stories that turn out to be false (and I totally agree that with the 24/7 news cycle it's become all too common -- want examples from Fox "news"?) and just making shit up. Or editing news footage to make it appear that the opposite of what happened, happened. Fox does it routinely. And that was my point. Y'know. The point.

    You should check out the term "anosognosia." It'll be like looking in a mirror. Except that, by definition, it won't.

  7. OK, Sid, I don't watch much TV News, except for the local reports, cause I just have this thing for Apartment Fires(Do they have Apartment Fires(we call em "Fars") in the Pacific Northwest? Seems one burns down every day here...
    But I did listen to NPR once in the early 90's, and the Reporters were just Flabbergasted that the KGB had released some secret files that revealed the Russ-Kies knew that KAL 007 was an innocent Civillian Airliner, and not a Spy Plane...
    I mean, they talked for a good 5 minutes about how amazing it was that the Russians would actually murder innocent women and children...
    Of course Ronaldus Magnus had announced the same thing 2 days after the actual event...
    and thats the last time I listened to NPR.
    Maybe if PBS would start reporting on Apartment Fars...


  8. Interesting that you have to go back 20 years, and I have to go back, like, five minutes. And, once again, slowly...THERE'S.....A......DIFFERENCE.....BETWEEN......BEING......WRONG.....OCCASIONALLY......AND.....MAKING.....SHIT......UP.

  9. Sid, Frank, and Blue Would like your "Hannity and Colmes" discussion on Obama and McChrystal.

  10. Sid:,
    thats because I can remember 20 years back, and you can only remember 5 minutes.


  11. Read some Sung Tzu Sid...
    you leave your back side more wide open than Barney Frank....

    Frank "Man with Hemmorhoids Smile Little" Drackman

  12. Hey, a new design for your blog! Nice, except Dorkman is still here.

  13. Yeah, well, the template doesn't include a space-based laser option; otherwise...


Comments back, moderated. Preference given for those who stay on topic.

Popular posts