How DARE the White House publicly state reality?? How horribly PARTISAN!!

It is very upsetting that Obama seems to get no credit in this country for anything he does, I read a report on Russia's reaction to Obama's Nobel Prize, Russia says it is well deserved and they also say that Obama is credited with stopping the second cold war, he managed to get Russia and other countries to stop production of nuclear arms, and run down stocks, this is a great achievement.
When I speak to my friends in England they say they have seen on TV the evil and nasty partisan and racist attacks on the president and they are speechless that Americans could act this way.

Sadly second JS's comments about President Obama getting no recognition for any achievements. I have long puzzled about this -- a mirror image scenario to Bush's never-take-responsibility for anything that was actively aided by the media.

Now they never let Obama get credit for anything...

"[FoxNews is] widely viewed as, you know, a part of the Republican Party -- take their talking points, put them on the air, take their opposition research, put them on the air, and that's fine. But let's not pretend they're a news network they way CNN is."

Yes, and water is wet.

If only the dems were organized enough that this was their singular, shared talking point when it comes to Fox-- it's really undeniable. Even the folks who watch FoxNews admit that they watch it because it tells them what they want to hear.

Fair and balanced, my ass.

I'm in the minority among my journalistic colleagues (I'm a retired editorial exec at a major news organization), who are concerned about precedent, but I think Fox ought to have all its press credentials pulled from the White House and other departments of the executive branch. They really are nothing more than propagandists for right-wing Republicanism, and don't deserve to be treated the same way as a bona-fide news organization. I even think Fox should lose its broadcasting license - the evidence is clear that regular Fox viewers are the LEAST informed of the American electorate and are by far more likely to believe information that is patently false. That news organization does palpable harm to the United States, and in its current incarnation shouldn't have access to public airwaves. But at the very least the White House should stop participating in the fiction that what Fox offers is "News," by cancelling Fox's press credentials. I think that act might have a salutary effect on news coverage in general, and probably even have a positive effect on our national life and politics.

Why would her remarks be seen as controversial? Everybody knows it's true, even FOX. Nobody even cares. It's just the way things are. The GOP has its own network — owned by a foreigner. Maybe we ought to play that up: "Foreign-owned Fox News announced today..."

Why would her remarks be seen as controversial? Everybody knows it's true, even FOX. Nobody even cares. It's just the way things are. The GOP has its own network — owned by a foreigner. Maybe we ought to play that up: "Foreign-owned Fox News announced today..."

The White House woke up to the fact that FOX news is going to be the voice of the opposition and go so far as to gin up opposition as they did w/the teabaggers and the 9/12 project.

That was just blatant and I'm shocked no one at CNN or MSNBC called them out; if only for the ratings.

The White House has a lot of power in this fight and they're using it; this is a fight they've decided to have after FOX pushed them to the wall this summer. One thing I've noticed, the Obama team doesn't look for fights but when they lock in one they're very good.

I'm looking forward to the fallout of this during the week; this wasn't just at FOX. It was about the WashPo op-ed page, the inaccuracies in reports, and the blatant stenography of opposition claims that has taken place.

Ms. Dunn also gave good examples to support her assertion. She talked about the fact that during the campaign two of the biggest stories facing the country were the wars and the financial crisis. However, if a viewer turned on Fox all they heard about was Bill Ayers and "something called ACORN." After laying out the details of the Ensign scandal (very nice summary), she asked Kurtz do you know how many times Fox mentioned it. He didn't know the answer and didn't give her the time to provide it. She also said that she talked to Chris Wallace before the Sunday show diss and asked him to provide her with data that showed how many times Fox had fact-checked an administration official on his show like they did to an Obama admin official and she hasn't heard from him yet.

Overally, Ms. Dunn did an excellent job. More of this please.

You know, if Obama had just LISTENED TO THE BLOGOSPHERE he would have known that this would be the case before he was ever elected.

Once again, the blogosphere has been right 9/10 times but do people ever take that into account? No they follow the Mustache of Understanding or the Bobo.

Good. They've stepped up to the plate.

Next they have to deal with the fact that the president and his co-players are sought sidelined, with the GOP "babysitting" him on crucial decisions; with the GOP stating Pelosi isn't up to the challenges and has to be put in her place; with Steele stating "what has Obama done" - when he knows very well that the US is a very different place already from the madness Cheney wrought.

Let's have some fire in the Dem's, when it matters. Not for the town halls, but for the coming votes.

Excellent.

The advantage is that people now understand the GOP was never willing to collaborate.

What Sheldon said. Let Fox cover the White House from the sidewalk in front of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

@Sheldon: The problem with your suggestions is that if they were acted upon, there would be a huge outcry about how the mean horrible totalitarian socialist communist fascist Democrats are trying to muzzle free speech.

And this outcry would be heard on every single other broadcast channel and read in every single major newspaper.

I'm not actually sure how we've come to this sorry pass. I blame the poor quality of our Fourth Estate on much of our decline as a nation (if we weren't so damn big, that decline would have been even faster, but unless Obama & (especially) the Congress does a lot better than they've done thus far, we will see things speed up fast). I know that corporatism -- naked greed really -- is responsible for a lot of it, but I suspect there are other reasons as well.

I read stuff in the Washington Post and the New York Times (and now even the Boston Globe, which should know better) and am frankly appalled that in place of actual fact-based news, we get a distinct rightward slant toward absurd right-wing sloganeering and talking points. (A recent example would be Chip Reid of CBS & his assertions that Reagan ended the Cold War. History and facts do not back up this assertion, but it seems to be accepted as fact. Too many Republican talking points are given a validity they do not deserve by our esteemed "journalists" regardless of who signs their paychecks.)

I'm Liking the "foreign owned Fox news" idea from Buddy66.

To the White House:

More like this, please!

Very, very good. I'd love to hear more from this. Did Howie push back at all?

buddy, Murdoch may be foreign-born but he's a naturalized American citizen now. Tho it must be that the bought his way in. I can't imagine any other reason we'd accept him except that he is rich.

Slightly off topic- well, maybe not:

Right now on C-SPAN, a 'bunch' (Somewhere between ten thousand and four million) rowdy folks, mostly 'gay' are in DC, on the Mall, speaking out.

If you have a moment, check it out. (it's Half Time, NFL fans).

And, tomorrow, check out the "coverage" of the event on your TeeVee. . .

Let's get it on! Its time to put Fox in its place: The Ministry of Truth.

Given that Fox News has described itself has the voice of the opposition, here's hoping Dunn's blunt and honest assessment doesn't become too controversial.
===============================

Lots of luck with that. Drop me a postcard; let me know how it works out.

The teabaggers call themselves teabaggers. Doesn't stop them from screaming that calling them teabaggers is an insult.

The right-wingers call themselves right-wingers. Doesn't stop them from screaming that calling them right-wingers is tanatamount to treason.

If they were two-year-olds coming off a sugar high, I could understand their screaming about absobloodylutely everything, and hope that they would calm down again as they got back to normal. But screaming and shit-flinging is normal for the right, and Our Nation's Only Media loves a fight. You bet it'll be "controversial."

Also, it is October of 2009 -- how is it even possible that the WH is only just now waking up to this? If they're grown-ups now, they must have been old enough to at least read for the last 10 or 15 years. How can this possibly come as news to them?

I have to agree with MNPundit. If someone at the White House were charged with reading the major blogs, especially this one, and reporting back to WH Communications, Policy or whatever, the WH would be up on this stuff far, far earlier. For a team that used the internet so skillfully during the campaign, they're not doing a good job with that resource now.

"Also, it is October of 2009 -- how is it even possible that the WH is only just now waking up to this? If they're grown-ups now, they must have been old enough to at least read for the last 10 or 15 years. How can this possibly come as news to them?"

Seeing it and having a lever for a working counter strategy might be two different things.

The push back is great, but the problem, the BIG problem is that it feeds into exactly what FOX News and the news media (as it exists today) wants. They don't deliver the news...they ARE the news. They want nothing more than to be the center of attention and to be seen as the power broker. Limbaugh and his ilk feed off of this as well. As long as they're the headline they don't care what's being said about them.

I don't know what the answer is but we're in for a month of FOX News victimization and the other news outlest running 24 hours a day with the adminstration attacking the media.

Its not about news or information anymore. Its about what anderson Cooper said about this or that, or Sean Hannity or Rachel Maddow or Blen Beck or any of them. They're the focus, not the news. That's a big fucking problem.

Again the key quote in the article is missed, the one where the author tells a lie by framing the issue as, what is Obama's problem?

"The take-no-prisoners turn has come as a surprise to some in the press, considering the largely favorable coverage that candidate Obama received last fall and given the President's vows to lower the rhetorical temperature in Washington and not pay attention to cable hyperbole. "

I guess Time magazine does not have the resources and the reporter doesn't have the balls to actually report on whether the press is giving Obama favorable coverage. The fact is there has been a mainlined attack on Obama basically every day since before the election. They are slowly having effect. This "Gosh what is Obama's problem?" bullshit is exactly why many of us who have nothing else in common in terms of what we want in terms of policy agree that the main stream media of the Village is a contemptible, dishonest, narcissitic, ship of fools. They can't even be bothered to read their own stories over the last year before wondering why it is that Obama has decided to take on the media because he is going to start defending his administration a little bit.....

Pathetic.

And another thing.

"Take no prisoners turn"!!!!!

Are you high Mike? On the take? You are a disgrace. Bet your proud that you ability to lie proves you are fair and balanced. Take no prisoners my ass. If only.

Things that should be added to these analyses:

(1) Reagan's avuncular good-nature no longer works for promulgating nonsense -- because the flaws in the policies are apparent; the Republicans are in an evolutionary cul-de-sac -- and shrillness is all they've got remaining.

(2) The internet is making mind-control by one-way mass media less effective: in reality, Fox has poured a lot of money into the wrong approach for our times.

The real news is that the U.S. may be heading toward becoming a real democracy, but it isn't there yet, and it's going to be a bumpy ride.

The ONLY thing you've got going for you now is telling the truth and having integrity. Even if the truth sometimes goes against you! Because everyone is going to be found out, and then you are dismissed.

Also, it is October of 2009 -- how is it even possible that the WH is only just now waking up to this? If they're grown-ups now, they must have been old enough to at least read for the last 10 or 15 years. How can this possibly come as news to them?

I think a lot of people drawn to Obama were drinking their own kool-aid... they really believed all of this stuff about "changing the tone" and had the idea that if a bunch of high-minded people came to power with the desire to "listen to all sides," then the era of partisan wrangling could be overcome with this "new politics," and the anti-partisan technocrats could do their work in peace. Keep in mind that it wasn't until sometime around fall of 2007 that the Obama campaign started a "war room"... his campaign really thought it could win on the basis of high-minded rhetoric along, rather than responding in kind to attacks.

Also, I suspect that those in the White House are somewhat isolated from the freaky-crazy right wingers, or at least those right-wingers butter up the officials in private even when they say "the socialist fascist Obama is going to destroy America" in public, and they feel reluctant to respond in kind to those who are ostensibly nice to them. It's not in their nature.

Whenever I speak of people who work for Fox News (and realy, this applies to Republicans in general), I think of an X-Y chart. X represents "buying the bullsh*t" and Y represents "selling the bullsh*t." Because there are Republicans who buy the "culture war" crap completely. Democrats are not just an opposing party; they're an enemy preventing America from achieving its inherent place as God's Favorite Place To Visit. That in fact, if it weren't for the Dems, and the libs, and the fence sitters and the people who don't vote and the gays and the Jews and the Muslims and so on and so on and so on, America would be just perfect.

And there are also Republicans who know it's all a line of bullsh*t. And they don't care. It's FUN to hate. It's FUN to get other people to hate. It's SO MUCH EASIER to point at a group whose opinions or lifestlyes or beliefs differ from yours and blame them for all the ills you yourselves all perpetrate. For them, national politics is no different than high school politics. It's quite acceptable - hilarious, even - to lie and cheat and tease and mock and do whatever you have to do to win, and brag about it at the same time. It's not enough to win, you have to treat your enemy as losers (even if they wind up winning and you wind up losing). And as we saw during the era of the ultimate traitor Karl Rove, the ultimate goal is to take so much power, elections are a formality (a formality where it's easy to convince your sheep that a man who got 53 percent of the popular vote and who won more than twice the electoral votes of your candidate is somehow illegitimate and this ain't your Murka no more).

THAT'S how I see many Republicans in general, and Fox News in particular. Some are strictly buying the bullsh*t, some are strictly selling the bullsh*t, and most of them are somewhere in the middle. The problem is, they're ALL acting like frothing idiots nowadays, so who's to say who's just acting? Rush Limbaugh toes the party line more than damn near anybody. but he's also a dopey drug addict who likes to party in nations where sex with underage prostitutes is the norm, so who's to say? Glenn Beck? Hell, he's always been crazy, next week he can believe Obama's a crazy moon man, so who's to say? Sean Hannity? He seems the most sincere about his jackassery, but then he tries to pull a stunt like he did with Michael Moore last week - showing a hospital (or at least a wing of a hospital) not in use, dilapidated, with no doctors no nurses, no staff and (except for one shot from CLEARLY a different hospital) no patients, and pretend that THAT'S a typical Cuban hospital and therefore Michael Moore's assertions in Sicko about the Cuban helath care system is a farce because he only showed what Castro wanted him to see. That's NOT the tactics of a man who believes his line of bullsh*t; that's what you do when you not only believe what you're selling, but you hold your audience in such contempt, you'll figure they'll fall for anything (and you'd be right). Coulter? I'm sure she's a sociopath who's been selling her line of bullsh*t for so long she'll believe it for a time, at the moment she's selling it, she's buying it herself. But as soon as she's off camera, she couldn't care less who's right or wrong as long as the checks clear.

It's a little like the Evangelicals. Some of them are in it for the con, some of them believe theirs is the One True Way. But if everyone's acting like it's the One True Way, you have to assume they're all just as fervent, just as devout, and treat them all the same way.

In the case of Fox News, the way you treat them, is to mock them, ridicule them, make sure no one you know EVER treats them seriously. Don't dismiss them, because they're preaching more to the choir (while thumbing their nose in your direction: "can't prove nothin' bitch!") and what they're preaching is hate, violence, and a borderline call to arms (sometimes, it's not even that borderline). But never believe them, and never let anyone you love believe them. If their impact can be minimalized, their hatred neutralized, then Dems are in for a generation or more.

Fair and Balanced? Is that their catchphrase? I always thought it was "Fair, Imbalanced," as in fair-skinned and crazy...

I even think Fox should lose its broadcasting license...

And there hasn't been a terrestrial TV license lifted for failure to operate in the public interest since Noah shut the door on the arc.

Provided Fox meet the technical specs on their satellite uplinks, the FCC haven't got any leverage against them.

Nice summary assessment of the current state of right-wing politics, Mr. Magoo.

Re: Obama never getting the credit that he deserves. This is an ancient trope in American white culture. The notion that black people are used to getting and demand what they have not earned, as opposed to white people who work for everything they have, goes way way back. The pro-slavery white workers in New York City during the Civil War thought that slavery was unfair because the blacks got "free" housing and food from their owners, while wage-earning whites had to pay for everything. This is bone-deep stuff.

There is an extra irony of calling out FOX Republican media to the right wing enabling Howard Kurtz.

Howard Kurtz might as well be married to a Republican media strategist (oh, wait...), Kurtz regularly pushes right wing talking points and regularly engages in false equivalency when some right winger pushes the boundary of common decency.

Howard Kurtz regularly tried to mainstream right wing extremist Michelle "Interment Camp Advocate" Malkin.

Kurtz is an obscene embarrassment to both CNN and the WashingtonPost.

Davis X, an excellent point - I'd forgotten that. I guess I will have to settle for having their credentials pulled. And perhaps a boycott of their advertisers, which is another way to generate pressure.

Apparently Davis (fo)X apologist doesn't understand that Fox terroristrial broadcasting is intimately tied into Murdoch's News Corp, many of the foX-tv broadcast stations are directly owned by Rupert "Fascist China Appeaser" Murdoch.

http://www.newscorp.com/operations/tvstations.html

Fox is worse than Hezbollah tv, Fox hosts have openly called for terrorism (O'Reilly called for a terrorist attack on an American city) and even suggested murdering Americans (Beck has openly fantasized about murdering Americans on air).

Fox is not just the voice of the opposition, they are the voice of sedition, divisiveness and destruction.

The nation would be able to carry on it's discussions and debates without all the anger, divisiveness and condemnation if Fox didn't exist.

Fox is poison to the nation. They feed on the worst of American's fears and profiteer from anger and hatred. Who can say America would not be better off without Fox News? They bring nothing to the table of democracy but hatred divisiveness and fear. Beck, O'Reilly and Hannity are egomaniacs looking to glorify their own hatred and insecurities. Talk to anyone who listens to them daily and you'll soon learn how full of misinformation and condemnation they have become. Just because you can legally get away with lying doesn't mean you should. Fox news doesn't care. Dems should not even recognize them or give them any credibility what so ever.
They should just laugh whenever the name of Fox is mentioned seeing them as a notch below Mad magazine.

Also, it is October of 2009 -- how is it even possible that the WH is only just now waking up to this? If they're grown-ups now, they must have been old enough to at least read for the last 10 or 15 years. How can this possibly come as news to them?

I don't excuse the Obama people but you do have to remember that he got quite favorable coverage during the campaign. One can argue whether that was the result of his superior strategies, his opponent's blunders, or the fact that he was really seen as number 3 of the top 3 Democratic candidates until Iowa. Recall that the AP trained their fire on Edwards early on and HRC drew the typical media craziness. Once Obama won Iowa the story lines were 1)the Obama campaign's effectiveness, 2)the media's desire to understand the "Obama phenomenon," and 3)why won't HRC quit?

The McCain campaign was a bit of a shambles. Recall that the GOP convention looked like an AARP fundraising gala.

Perhaps Obama and crew really believed that previous Democratic presidents had brought bad press upon themselves. Obama has certainly governed (until recently at least) like he believes that there are Republican elected officials that will work with him in good faith.

Obama has had two advantages. 1)The blogosphere is out there defending him where previous Democratic presidents had no one. 2)The blogosphere is hammering his administration with the messages that the GOP is insane and that the media sees things through a GOP frame. Its getting through both to the Obama administration and to other elected officials (e.g., Alan Grayson).

Obama hasn't been in office a year yet, there are going to be some false starts. The bad news is that those false starts are costly (watering down the stimulus bill, delaying and watering down health care reform). The good news is that he has some time to accomplish things and the GOP is still quite discredited.

I guess that Ailes Axelrod meeting the other week went well!

"I don't excuse the Obama people but you do have to remember that he got quite favorable coverage during the campaign."

*snort*

When did that happen, exactly? I must have been asleep, because I don't remember that at all. But I do distinctly remember the media going through several distinct phases, none of them particularly complimentary. First, Obama was the third-rate nobody of the Democratic primary. Then, he was the second-rater who was going to lose to Clinton even though he was solidly in the lead. Then, he was the snot-nosed kid going up against the respected elder statesman McCain. Then, he was the come-from-behinder who was still going to fall short even though, again, he was solidly in the lead.

Where, exactly, was this mythical favorable coverage? How could Obama have possibly believed that the media and the GOP were going to go easy on him after the election?

Have you considered the reality that most other "news networks" are terribly partisan towards Democrats? Is that such a stretch for you to fathom?

I'd also like to hear your comments on the fact that FNC's ratings beat all the others, combined.

If you look at certain facts, it is easily demonstrated that the majority of news sources are left-leaning and partisan. For example, look at which party the majority of journalists make the majority of their campaign donations.

While Fox Republican propaganda channel has 23.9 hours of right wing nonsense aired daily, the other channels have:

GE/MSNBC has had former Republican politician Joe Scarborough on three hours daily for years before the "balanced" it with the three hours of Schultz/Olbermann/&Maddow.

GE/CNBC is right wing corporatism 23.5 hours a day.

Time-Warner/CNN hired right wing extremist Glenn Beck after he'd fantasized about murdering someone onair. It was CNN that launched Beck's TV career.

CNN is still airing the right wing racist Lou Dobbs.

CNN's Howard Kurtz pushes right wing memes all the time and regularly hosted right wing extremist Michelle Malkin (and is _literally_ married to a Republican media strategist).

Viacom/CBS's Bob Schieffer is a right wing sycophant, he's been so far up Republican McCain's nether regions for so long that he literally defers to everything McCain says even when McCain is talking asinine nonsense.

CBS's Katie Couric gave right winger Rush Limbaugh her microphone the first week she was on the air as anchor. Limbaugh spouted his right wing nonsense without any opposing viewpoints on CBS.

And Disney/ABC? Good lord, ABC seems to be trying to be more Fox like every day. ABC is so out of the mainstream and parrots so many right wing talking points it's hard to know where to start. Though global climate change denier George Will's regular spot on ABC's This Week? Because what is a right wing hack who isn't denying basic science.

When half-bright right wingers falsely claim there is a "liberal bias" to network tv, what they are really complaining about is that ANY factual reporting is "liberal bias".

Jim Bob --

"FNC's ratings beat all the others, combined."

The Fox audience goes to Fox; everyone else splits between the other options.

"...look at which party the majority of journalists make the majority of their campaign donations."

Perhaps you should consider owners, advertisers' interests, editors etc.? In other words, a complete systemic analysis. That'd put the journalists' party affiliations in perspective. Mass media is corporate, it's conservative in ways you don't account for.

Your points have been addressed before, so I won't elaborate any further. The myth of the liberal media relies on studiously avoiding a full view of how the systems work.

Social terrorism and Hate TV

Any discussion of the foreign-born Murdoch, his network, and its effects on our empire is incomplete without a definition of social terrorism:

A powerful network, or an association of influential people, who use their power and influence to encourage groups within a culture or nation to hate other groups within that culture or nation.

That's my definition of social terrorism.
Feel free to think about the idea and flesh it out. It is nascent.

We all know hate speech is protected right in the United States under the First Amendment. But realize this: Most other countries in the world have various bans and prohibitions on hate speech. Ultimately the broadcasting of hate will not be completely tolerated by any civilized country.

Regarding Davis X. Machina argument up above that so long as

Fox meets the technical specs on their satellite uplinks, the FCC haven't got any leverage against them.

So I call bullshit on the argument that nothing can be done to stop Hate TV.

Something can be done.
And something should be done.
Here are some ideas:

1) Do not underestimate the nature of this internal threat to empire. Here, for example, is a quote from David Brin's (perhaps the top living science fiction author) most recent blog post, A rant about stupidity... and the coming civil war:

Given their lack of any other tangible accomplishments across the last fifteen years, one must to conclude that the core agenda of Rush Limbaugh, Rupert Murdoch and their petroprince backers really is quite simple. To find out just how far they can push "culture war" toward a repeat of 1861.

2) Focus all blame on the snake head at the top. It isn't Hannity, O'Reilly, or Beck per se. They are mouthpieces. The person to accuse of social terrorism is the bloke at the top. And do not be timid in your accusations: Murdoch, the foreign-born is actively seeking to destroy US culture and civility. Shine a light on the head of the snake and watch him squirm. Murdoch does not like morality shining in his eyes. He prefers to do his deeds in tall grass.

3) It is about social terrorism not the republican party. This shouldn't become a partisan food fight. What Murdoch is doing is profiting off getting one sort of American to hate another. The meme against Fox News has got to be about hate. Tht Murdoch in fact trades in hate. Suggestion: Start calling it Hate TV. Calling it an arm of the republican party doesn't disvalue it accordingly.

4) A web site needs to be created totally dedicated to recording Fox News hate. It should be nonpartisan and objective.

You are so right. When Chris Mathews said (on-air, no less) that his job was to make sure that President Obama succeeded, That was only being fair and balanced. I also remember when all those Democrats fought to keep Terri Schiavo alive, because those Evil Republicans wanted to 'Pull the Plug' on her life-support. OH WAIT !!! It was the Democrats who wanted her DEAD, A.S.A.P. I'm sure that that was only a 'One-Time' political fight.
Oh, and the Government-sanctioned 'Assisted-Suicide' in Oregon --- Oh, RATS, more Democrats!!!
And, how EVIL of Fox to discover that many of Obama's "Czars" are..COMMUNISTS!!! Well, at least the NY Times never printed anyting about those facts. You know, "All the News That Fits the Left-Wing Agenda" If it's TRUE, but damages Obama, you won't read it in the NY Times.
I could go on, but your small mind is probably already over-heating.

how is it even possible that the WH is only just now waking up to this? If they're grown-ups now, they must have been old enough to at least read for the last 10 or 15 years. How can this possibly come as news to them?

For heaven's sake, it ISN'T news to them! This is just the right theatrical moment to challenge FOX (right after the spectacles of the right wing cheering the Olympics loss and booing the Nobel Prize). The administration allowed the right wing to get absolutely ridiculous this summer and fall. Now the evidence has piled up and the case is so clear that even previously clueless bystanders can see it. They've also observed that Obama's slide in the polls has stopped.

So they're seizing the moment, as smart people should.

OK, going after fux nuz, and by implication the whole plutocratic, Big Media political influence infotainment industry, now that IS something I can believe in and support. If they keep it up and even spread it to the rest of the shithead republican/conservative axis of hate, violence, and misinformation, that really would be change (a first for obamadmin if it happens).

Buzzy Fine must be a direct relation to the Stooges:
Paging Dr. Fine, Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine..

Referring to a brain dead woman as alive (a large percentage of her brain had been replaced by water) and perpetuating the vile hatred of the ignorant AM listeners fully voids any reasonable argument he may make later.

Buzzy - Got to hell, you asshole!

If your brain had more function than parroting the asshattery of the wingnuts, if you had any possibility of doing more than Squak! Rush is right! Squak, Sean is a great American! Squak, liberals are bad, Squak! Wingnut wants some red meat! this may get through to you, but I have no hope of that.

Hooray for Anita Dunn! More, please!

If the truth be told, it will take clever courageous people.

Read Lee A. Arnold above.

I should have said "Obama's slight slide in the polls."

Any discussion of the foreign-born Murdoch

What's the objection to immigrants? Or was that intended as indirect praise?

Murdoch's terrorists:

Fox host Bill O'Reilly advocated a terrorist attack on an American city on-air.

Fox host Glenn Beck has repeatedly fantasized about murdering Americans on-air (fantasized about murdering an American filmmaker, discussed poisoning an American politician, said he wanted to kill an American politician with a shovel).

Fox guests have repeatedly advocated for terrorism while the Fox hosts have listened without interruption.

Fox guest Liz Trotta said the President should be murdered.

Fox guest Michael Scheuer advocated a terrorist attack on American soil.

These aren't isolated incidents.

Rupert Murdoch's terrorist TV network is worse than Hezbollah TV.

Radha: Sadly second JS's comments about President Obama getting no recognition for any achievements.

He did get elected president of the U.S., and he set the record for the number of times in one year to appear on the cover of Time magazine.

It isn't the case that he got "no recognition"; he gets excess criticism (perhaps) because he has gotten such strong praise ("my leg tingles", Nobel Peace Prize) for such a light record of achievement.

Obama said he'd stop torture.

And the Republican Torture Party whined.

Obama said he'd end the Iraq war.

And the Republican Warmongers whined.

Obama said he'd push to provide American's with health care.

And the Republican Anti-Healht Party called him a Nazi.

Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Act promising that women couldn't be systematically robbed by their employers.

And the Republican Crime Party cried that their corporate masters couldn't steal from women.

But, hey, this is the same Republican Party that just voted to allow corporations to rape women.

And complicit in enabling this right wing sickness has been Murdoch's Terrorist Network Fox.

Hannah: "If someone at the White House were charged with reading the major blogs ..."

... then the White House would know conclusively that Larry Johnson thinks they're hiding Michele Obama's "Whitey Tape" in the same place as her husband's Kenyan birth certificate.

Ptsargent:

You are of course entitled to your views, but IMHO they are seriously skewed. Yes, Olbermann and Maddow are leftist and they make no secret of it. Matthews can sometimes express leftist viewpoints but has often expressed rightist viewpoints in the past, or at least not questioned statements put out by the Bush Administration.

Obama inherited a mess: 2 failing wars (which should never have been engaged in to start with), a domestic economy in shambles, Guantanamo, cancellation of writ of habeas corpus, etc. He is slowly acting to reverse some of this, and the economy is not truly under his control (to be fair, neither was it under Bush). It shows some signs of slowly starting to reverse its free fall but it's really too early to say that for sure.

Obama has had some foreign policy successes. Modest? Yes, but compared to Bush's record...

It's early days in his presidency. I think he will have more successes than failures. You think he is failing on all fronts. I suspect that your and my definition of failure and success differ rather radically. In any case, we can revisit this in a couple of years and see who is more correct.

Oh, and ACORN didn't help Obama steal anything. No invalid VOTES were cast as a result of ACORN's registration efforts and it was ACORN who flagged the bogus registration lists to various state voting registrars, as ACORN is required to do by law. People not qualified to vote, or imaginary characters like Mickey Mouse, never got registered.

And Ayers simply has NO influence over Obama and almost none over the Democratic Party or anyone else. You claim to consult a variety of news resources, but you're somehow not processing them if so.

" I think Fox ought to have all its press credentials pulled from the White House and other departments of the executive branch"

If the Roberts Supreme Court allows corporate personhood to be expanded this term and thereby allows the free speech defence for corporate "persons" to let them influence politics, then not only Fox news should be persona non grata, for all sorts of corporations will be asserting their rights to the nth degree. American politics will be Fox news gone wild with huge amounts being spent to influence policies. It seems to be a probable conservative strategy that might be a game changer.

"Have you considered the reality that most other "news networks" are terribly partisan towards Democrats? "

No. Because, you see, that is self-evidently not true. And when something isn't true, it isn't "reality".

[Using Murdoch's Fox host Glenn Beck logic:]

Corporations can own other corporations.

Murdoch's right wing hosts and right wing guests think corporations are people.

Therefore: The right wing thinks people can own people.

Therefore: Rupert Murdoch supports slavery.

Why does Rupert Murdoch hate Americans?

[Spamming the threads here with links to your own site will result in your IP being banned. -Mod]

@ Not Jack Bauer at 8:13 PM

Powerful.

That's a very nice beginnings of a list.
Can you imagine what a full rendering might look like...

It'd be enough to make any sane person blanch and vomit.

On Murdoch's (ahem) US citizenship

MURDOCH THE ABUSER OF TAX LOOPHOLES: Even though Murdoch changed his citizenship in order to comply with U.S. media ownership rules, many of his companies have remained Australian, allowing them "to utilize arcane accounting rules that have pumped up reported profits and greatly aided Murdoch's periodic acquisition sprees." IRS officials point out that "U.S.-based companies face U.S. taxes on their offshore subsidiaries in the Caymans and elsewhere if more than 50 percent of the subsidiary is controlled by American shareholders. But that doesn't apply to News Corp., an Australian company." [Source: Congressional Testimony, 5/8/03; Washington Post, 12/7/97]

Murdoch no more pledges allegiance to the United States of America than does a garden slug. He cares less than nothing about the future of this country.

Jim Bob is either the biggest liar or most stupid comminatory on any reasonable blog. He must the canard about “liberal’ press, even worse than Buzzy Fine! FYI ‘Jim Bob Joe Bubba Alfred’ and Buzzy, a canard is a lie.

"...look at which party the majority of journalists make the majority of their campaign donations."

Why? Wouldn't it make more sense to look at the way the majority of journalists cover stories day to day? Really, if I thought someone at the store was robbing the cash register, I'd count the money in the drawer first and chase after the clerks personal lives later.

Start with something obvious, such as conservatives being given leave to lie as much as they care too on any given network. Note again that riduculous personal smears, like those about Obama being too uppity, or talking too much, are being secretly too dumb to speak without a teleprompter, are given air time everywhere. You could also note that conservative commentators on issues such as the war, the stimulus package, and health reform are given two, three, and four times as much air time as liberal commentators. In fact, on a lot of these issues, actual liberal comments are entirely absent. The debate is presented as conservatives vs moderates or establishment apologists.

Why chase conspiracy theories when you can tally the evidence right in front of you, on the TV screen?

it is refreshing to find out that there actually is another side to every story.

Yes, indeed, Fox always gives another side. It's called "falsehood."

Why chase conspiracy theories when you can tally the evidence right in front of you, on the TV screen?
===========================

Because according to the evidence they got nothin'? Just at a guess...

"Different staffers came to the realization at different times".

The smart staffers knew the score years ago. But until very recently, they've been too chickenshit (or deferential, or conventional) to push back. It's about time they started talking turkey.

The slower witted ones are simply in over their heads, and should go to work for Harry Reid.

Didn't Obama start this within the last few weeks? He has recently been critical of opinion journalism, I think at the Cronkite memorial.

It is a good sign when the president is begging for good fact based news.

But a few of the comments suggest that Obama didn't know or expect this level of vitriol. I guess they weren't paying attention last year during the election.

My opinion is that he gives his self-appointed enemies all the rope they need to build up a head of steam. Then he puts his foot down, or the collective absurdity of his opponents becomes apparent to everyone. Eventually this strengthens him.

Recently he reversed the steady decline in his poll numbers since January. That means the attacks have worn off. It also means that people are paying attention. They hear bad stuff, believe it for a while, but eventually they come to their senses. The next wave of attacks will be less effective...as long as they remain untrue.

One thing we can count on: his enemies would rather tell a lie than invest any time trying to persuade people that Obama's policies are bad.

Given that Fox News has described itself has the voice of the opposition, here's hoping Dunn's blunt and honest assessment doesn't become too controversial.

Really?

Because this sentiment seems to be at the heart of the pussification of the mainstream reaction to the Birch takeover of the media thus far.

Grow a pair, Benen, you pussy.

Julia Grey gets it.

The problem is that political argument for conservatives these days just consists of hurling invective and epithets at Democrats. They do not know how to do anything else.

Clinton de-regulated the MSM and big money bought it up and controls it's output. Why blame Republicans, just blame big money.

Rather than saying that Fox News is an arm of the Republican Party, I think it'd be more accurate to say that the Republican Party is an arm of Fox News.

Yeah. Reality has a liberal bias! That's why is's just fair and balanced to be nuts!

The hypocrisy of you people is astounding! I guess Olbermann and his buddies on MSNBC always speak the truth and do not just attack Republicans. Keep it up and this country will have another Civil War.

Obviously most of the comments here are from people who have never watch the various FOX programs. Some are very pro GOP, all are conservative based, and all admit they oppose Obama's progressive agenda. How may of you heard about Van Jones on CNN or MSNBC? How many of your are ready to give 67% of your income directly form your paycheck to support the 'new agenda'? I moved from a socialist country, you won't like what is coming!

Obviously most of the comments here are from people who have never watch the various FOX programs. Some are very pro GOP, all are conservative based, and all admit they oppose Obama's progressive agenda. How may of you heard about Van Jones on CNN or MSNBC? How many of your are ready to give 67% of your income directly form your paycheck to support the 'new agenda'? I moved from a socialist country, you won't like what is coming!