"Fox 'Lies R Us' 'News?' With An Agenda" Is Actually Liberal...
...according to their own definition of 'liberal'.
I wrote this blog just because Jon Stewart does such an excellent job in making the case for this here (after the Barney Frank snaps) by demonstrating how they are 'being' liberals according to the way 'they' have defined liberal.
I do not believe that they qualify as liberal or conservative but are somewhere more in the insane cult category along with the pseudo-christian self proclaimed 'mafia' 'The Family'.
But as you know they have always had a very liberal policy when it comes to:
Lies, Distortions, Inciting Violence in favor of their policies, Manipulation of facts, video, and the viewing public, etc.
And they liberally apply this policy:
When we do it and/or it serves our 'agenda', it is patriotic, good, and we are always right.
When you do it, it is unpatriotic, socialist, fascist (and any other 'ist' that might scare or shock viewers) and you are always wrong.
Basically "Fox 'Lies R Us' 'News?' With An Agenda" reserves the right to do, say, or be anything no matter how untrue, non factual, unethical, and dangerous to and for the public because like many politicians they hold themselvs as elite, aristocracy, and above the law.
(I mean who's going to sue Murdoch, right?)
And everyone who is not "Fox 'Lies R Us' 'News?' With An Agenda" and does not agree with or support their political or ideological goals is 'the rest of you people out there who are just ignorant and don't really matter' or as Bill O'Reilly would say 'loons':)
I think that far more people around the world laugh hysterically at Fox News than take it seriously. They have their loyal following, sure. But the more Jon Stewart advertises their laughable pretense of credibility, the more the likes of Beck and O'Reilly and Hannity and Krauthammer and Kristol and Doucey and Cavuto and Ingraham will cement their reputations as flat-earthers.
August 21, 2009 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
From a previous Faux News watcher - I think the less said about Fox and it's idiotic show hosts and hostesses, the less attention they receive. So much publicity, regardless of its negative outlook, just brings Murdoch's folly more to the forefront. Sometimes ignoring is better than fighting, especially when one is trying to follow a more moralistic and high road. My late brother teased me unmercifully when we were young and my father always said, ignore him and he won't get your attention.
August 21, 2009 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't watch Fox "Lies R Us 'News? With An Agenda' Maggie. I am sharing this clip by Jon Stewart because he does an excellent job of demonstrating their ironic behavior.
Sometimes it works to just avoid ignorance. Sometimes we need to point out the abuse and ignorance to others. Sometimes ignoring works sometimes it doesn't.
August 21, 2009 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
True Synch - I have done that with friends and family who are ardent Fox fans - I try to point out the lies, distortions and outright idiocy of that channel - it may fall on deaf ears but it doesn't hurt, does it? Thanks!
August 21, 2009 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you don't watch it but you can criticize it? Fox is no different from MSNBC. Both cater to extremists on both sides of the aisle. O'Reilly is no worse than Olbermann. Hannity is no worse than Maddow.
PS - Jon Stewart is a comedian and it is his job to make fun of other people. I hope you don't take him to be a fair, balanced reporter
August 21, 2009 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have seen enough of "Fox 'Lies R Us' 'News?' With An Agenda" to know exactly why I don't want to watch them. Having parents that used to listen to their garbage, I know very well exactly what they do. Fortunately my parents learned to see the agenda and sickness of their "reporting" and stopped watching.
We don't watch "Fox 'Lies Are Us' 'News?' With An Agenda" because it is bad for our health, intelligence, and sanity.
They are worthy of extreme criticism and all of the reasons I have already mentioned. They should have been kicked off the air for their lies, deceit, distortions, inciting of violence, etc. It is outrageous to me that they have been allowed to continue to misinform the public for so long. The fact that you defend Fox tells me more than I ever wanted to know about you Bill.
I suspect that the station and its pundits exist solely to serve agendas of sick and twisted people that prefer to keep the public misinformed and afraid. It is criminal as far as I am concerned.
August 21, 2009 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not defending Fox. They have their point of view. So does MSNBC. Both are very slanted. You may disagree with them but it's a stretch to call their activitiy "criminal" or accusing them of inciting violence.
August 22, 2009 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excuse me but I do consider pretending to poison i.e kill the speaker of the house 'inciting voilence'. Absolutely. There have been a multitude of examples of inciting of violence on Fox.
And when it comes to criminal. As far as I am concerned 'any' time you take video, and crop it to make it appear that someone has done or said something they have not and report it as 'news' THAT is criminal.
August 22, 2009 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Olberman was calling Bush a fascist. I guess they were both joking so it's OK?
August 22, 2009 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's like your focusing on minutia to make a point that it's all the same when in comparison to the agenda at FOX it is in no way the same.
August 22, 2009 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you're taking the Beck comment regarding Pelosi as worse than calling Bush a fascist?
August 22, 2009 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
And if you go to the link and 'watch it' you'll see that what he does is show the hypocrisy of
"Fox 'Lies R Us''News?' With An Agenda', it speaks for itself and has nothing to do with any need to be fair and balanced.
AND "Fox'Lies R Us''News?' With An Agenda" tries to program your brain into believing that is 'fair and balanced' by using that phrase. It is an attempt at brainwashing because there is nothing 'fair and balanced about what they offer'.
August 21, 2009 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, FOX news and the right are trying to get the President murdered.People bring guns to his rallies.We have new N-words, communist, socialist, and Marxist.Now they are equating a black man with Hitler. Hitler killed black people too.
August 22, 2009 4:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I see. But it was OK for Olberman to call the President a fascist?
August 22, 2009 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is no frickin way you believe this. Not with lie after lie after lie almost 24 hours a day.
I mean there is that good lookin guy who really is attempting to be fair and balanced.
Come on. Nobody believes this stuff. At least not people who read and write.
I thought that it was so clear what fox is doing that there would be little reason to write about it.
You can certainly take a conservative position. But come on............
August 22, 2009 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you have a particular point, I'd be happy to discuss it. But funk's comments are pretty outlandish - that Fox is trying to get the President killed? And the comments about Hitler - I was saying that Olberman also accused Bush of being a fascist...
August 22, 2009 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
We have tuned into the enemy and
IT IS FOX
August 21, 2009 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
S,
My question is this why do Democrats even bother to appear on FUX? Really I can't figure it out. If I was an elected Democrat I would avoid them like the plague they are, because it gives them the ability to claim the moniker of a real news organization. If I were king of the Democrats I would forbid any Democrat from appearing on it.
How can Kent Conrad or any other Dem be that starved for attention?
August 21, 2009 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no idea face. My point was just to show the excellent job Stewart did of demonstrating that they are doing what they accused 'liberals' of being which according to them must make them liberals.
What is going on with democrats seems like an incredibly high level of impotence. Maybe we should all send them a box of oysters or something?:)
August 21, 2009 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fox and Limbaugh et all are the capitalist's Basiji. The farther right they push the dialog the better for them. Occasionally they will do a show sacrifice to show they are still civilized (e.g. glen beck in a few months) this gives cover to the more congenial liars (you know OReilly, Hannity, and those hot blond anchors) to pretend to be
'balanced'.
Meanwhile taking an assault rifle to see the president is now perfectly okay.
Shit, sorry what did I do with those meds they gave me.
August 22, 2009 1:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Donated my TV a couple of years ago (felt like leaving toxic waste on a kindergarden doorstep in gift wrapping), so I'm out of date. I disagreed with Fox' editorial slant and was shall we say unmoved by commentators such as O'Reilly. Must say however that opinions given honestly should be respected and refuted. Name-calling: the Capitalist's Basij, FUX, the enemy, flat-earthers, congenital liars; accusations of conspiracy to assassinate the President, incitement of violence; calling for censorship, what does any of this accomplish?
For one, it takes the sting out of the progressive duty to condemn hatred in all of its forms. Someone coming to this site for the first time would think herself in the very middle of an "hour of hate", complete with screaming at the TV. For another, let's not forget that moderates are more skeptical of progressive positions than they have been for years. They could appreciate rhetorical flamboyance against the party in power, especially when directed at that particular administration. But with power comes a new standard, what might be called the "Cheney Test": what if Dick or his defenders had said it? If progressives play the "now the jackboot is on the other foot" game we'll lose them again.
A suggestion if I may: if you are troubled, exasperated, or angered by a Fox story or commentary, refute it by means of an argument. Start with an account of it that a reasonable person would find both accurate and in context, then demonstrate how they got it wrong. Yes, I know, where to begin? Somewhere, anywhere, any day of the week, any piece. Expressions of loathing in politics are just noise, even worse distractions, and worst of all ammunition for the other side. Small but persuasive critiques will advance the progressive agenda far more. Pull together enough of them and the moderates we need will start paying attention again.
And that assault rifle at a political rally? If it was legal it is legit: no matter how offensive or ridiculous political symbolism may be let the other side bear the full burden of it. Bring it to public attention, condemn it, but the moment you go overboard is the moment you relieve them of it. No one here has called for using the resources of the state to suppress such idiocy, but others have, a political error in too many ways to count. Also, that public we need to elect more progressives is listening. Obvious examples of logical fallacies (Fox supports anti-administration rallies, an assault rifle was brandished at a rally, therefore Fox encourages threats of assassination) only have them pushing the mute button.
August 22, 2009 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
First of all you are projecting a lot into this blog and comments that is not there. And you are proporting to speak on behalf of many groups of people.
If you watch the video that I attached to this blog this was Jon Stewart showing pundits at Fox accusing 'liberals' of all kinds of things that were 'wrong' that they are now doing themselves.
It seems to me your comment here is somewhat misplaced in part, not sure why you wrote it here. Some of your statements read like accusations that don't fit anything that was said in the blog or comments.
But "Fox 'Lies R Us' 'News?' With An Agenda' has earned its status completely and I am not going to play nice guy when they are allowed to get away with acting out killing the speaker of the house on live television and lying deliberately and consistently to serve an agenda. So, while I respect your right to express yourself and share your opinions. I disagree with you. This is a form of calling them out for their outrageous behavior.
I agree that being nice and pragmatic has value but being nice and pragmatic about everything really doesn't seem to be working in entirety out there and in fact is part of the problem.
August 22, 2009 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Syncronicity: I've searched my post for any hint that I claimed to speak for anyone but myself, can't find it. I worry about moderates as indeed should we all, in my view, but am not one, in the American definition of the term at least. As this was one left/progressive's attempt at friendly criticism of other progressives I can hardly simultaneously claim to address, critique, and speak for other commentators. I recognized that my comments might be unwelcome, but took care to be pertinent, all but one in conversation with other posters, and that one underlined as off-topic. I should have thanked you for the video, which in my view is a masterful demonstration of how to respond to Fox.
Outlawing the brandishing of firearms, even if non-functional, at political events could well be a good idea (my view, off topic, but in direct response to a poster above). Perhaps my suggestion that such acts are offensive, ridiculous, and idiotic can come across as meaning "normal". From me these are harsh words, I assure you.
Back on topic, or rather dealing with more than one point above: I'd be wary of arguing for punitive measures against Fox and especially of reviving the Fairness Doctrine. From my own (individual) perspective, the stars have never been so favorably aligned. But (in my view), especially when on top, one should be mindful of two political constants: fortune plays tricks, and the censor always rings twice.
See you all, please be assured that though I took issue with some of your posts, everything was offered in a friendly spirit, with the sole aim of being constructive. And if I didn't address your post you can take it as an endorsement, for what it's worth - I thought quite a few were excellent. Good discussion.
August 22, 2009 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, I went looking for my meds didn't I?
I have nothing against legitimate conservative voices. In fact I read many of them regularly (e.g. frum, will, brooks, krauthammer) and count conservatives such as paul johnson among my favorite historians. However these are fact based conservatives arguing legitimate and often valid points. That is not what Fox or Limbaugh do. They are explicitly trying to mold a new narrative of reality to control the political discourse.
Their threat to public discourse is more insidious. Their goal is not as highminded as you might think but is simply to control the terms of the debate. Once you allow them to frame the question they have already half won. Once you start with their faulty premises you will lose. They do not know history (aside from a very loose idea of nazi=evil, and soviets=Reagan kicked ass!). They are not seeking to bring new ideas to the debate but to propagandize simple messages repeatedly and create fear. To be frank, intellectually they are nihlists- they don't really care about the truth. You can't have a healthy discourse with someone who doesn't care.
My comparison with the Basiji was somewhat deliberate hyperbole. They are like rightest paramility forces in that they are able to summon up a swell of irrational discontent on demand in order to reframe the debate at will. The squeaky wheel gets the oil. Without Fox trumpeting these few nuters many of the mainstream media likely would have covered these few
In the meantime for a country that has had several assassinations to regress to where assault rifles are okay at political meetings is troubling. That they are legal and considered normal by comments like you is beyond troubling.
I am not claiming to have the answer, but civic discourse is a requirement for democracy. Our discourse is growing less civil due to their outsized influence, arguing with them under their terms will not change that. Something must change for the Center cannot hold.
Perhaps bringing back a fairness doctrine would work, or maybe we should give John Stewart a network.
August 22, 2009 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I gave up satellite years ago, so my only source of information--other than local stations--is the internet.
My question: does Fox have a liberally oriented program comparable to MSNBC's Morning Joe? If they do, what's it called? If they don't, the two networks are definitely not cookie cutter equivalents.
August 22, 2009 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
The big difference in fact is that one manufactures 'news' and in my perception engages in activities that should be illegal or sanctioned like cropping video to make it appear as though someone has said something they have not, and incites violence in overt ways like acting out poisoning the speaker of the house. After watching that piece of video, I could not believe that there was not an outcry throughout the country that Beck be fired on the spot. No, Fox pushes the limits because they are owned by Murdoch who has enough money to bankrupt most companies and people that might try to sue them.
The two stations are not comparable. It is not simply left right. Fox is absolutely and almost entirely corrupt.
August 22, 2009 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink