[Slugman]

Liberals Step Up Political Assault Against Fox News
By JULIA ANGWIN Staff Reporter, The Wall Street Journal

(July 20) - During presidential election years, conservative politicians have often attacked the media for their liberal bias. But during this year's campaign, liberals are fighting back with what they see as a powerful issue -- the alleged conservative slant of the Fox News Channel, a unit of the media conglomerate News Corp.

The assault on Fox News started on July 8, with a report from media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting claiming that in the six months through Dec. 19, 2003, 57% of guests on Fox News's popular evening news show, "Special Report with Brit Hume" were conservatives.

The next week, left-leaning advocacy groups MoveOn.Org and Center for American Progress sponsored the release of a documentary "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism," which uses clips from the cable channel to show what the filmmakers claim is a pattern of right-wing bias and support for the Republican agenda.

Yesterday, MoveOn.Org and political watchdog Common Cause filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission claiming that Fox News Channel's slogan "fair and balanced" violates the federal agency's prohibition against deceptive advertising. At the same time, the Independent Media Institute, an advocacy group for alternative journalism, announced it had filed a challenge against Fox News' trademark on the term "fair and balanced."

This type of concerted campaign against a single news outlet is rare, but not surprising given the tenor of this year's hotly contested presidential election. "In a razor-thin race like this, you need to fire up your base," says Thomas Hollihan, professor at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Southern California. "An issue like this gets those hard-core liberals focused and attentive. It's a kind of issue that people can talk about at work."

In New York and elsewhere, small groups are screening 'Outfoxed,' an independent film making the case that Fox News Channel carries a conservative bias.
Read Review

The campaign against Fox News Channel partly reflects the growing importance of cable news channels as the main arena in which these elections are played out. Four years ago, more Americans said they got their political news from the broadcast evening news than cable news, according to a study by Pew Research Center, an independent opinion research group based in Washington, D.C. But this year, the study shows that the cable channels have eclipsed the nightly network news. And among cable channels, Fox News Channel wins the highest ratings.

Fox News Channel was founded in 1996 by Roger Ailes, a former Republican political consultant, who wanted to create an alternative to what he believed was the liberal bias of mainstream media such as CNN. Mr. Ailes loaded up the prime-time schedule with conservative commentators such as Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, but focused on straight news during the daytime lineup.

"If they can attack Fox News to this extreme, then all news organizations are at risk to be targeted by similar attacks," says Fox News Spokesman Rob Zimmerman. "It's best to ignore nuts."

Critics such as MoveOn.Org and Common Cause charge that Fox News leans to the right even during its straight news segments. "We think Fox News is really the poster child for how the concept of journalism in media has been deconstructed," says MoveOn.Org Co-Founder Wes Boyd. "It's no longer about the search for the truth. Fox has taken up a truly partisan role."

Numbers indicate the percentages of people of each political affiliation who say they regularly watch these news programs.

From "News Audiences Increasingly Politicized, Online News Audience Larger, More Diverse" Pew Research Center for the People and The Press. Washington, DC. June 8, 2004.

Common Cause President Chellie Pingree adds that the campaign against Fox News is meant to highlight increasing media consolidation, which many feel threatens to limit diversity. "That goes well beyond one news network," she says. Both Ms. Pingree and Mr. Boyd point out that their campaign is not linked to the Democratic party.

But conservative strategists say they aren't buying it. "They're doing the dirty work of the Democratic party and everybody knows it," says Brent Bozell, a conservative media watchdog. Mark Tapscott, director of the Center for Media and Public Policy at the conservative Heritage Foundation, calls the anti-Fox News campaign "corporate guerilla harassment."

Democratic consultants and strategists say they are pleased that MoveOn.Org is taking a page from the conservative playbook. In 1970, Vice President Spiro Agnew famously attacked the press as "nattering nabobs of negativism," helping boost President Richard Nixon's popularity. Since then, many conservative politicians have found that attacking the liberal media strikes a chord with voters.

"For years, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly and the other right-wing bozos have been rabble-rousing people on the right," says Karl Struble, a Democratic media adviser. "Now, Democrats and progressives are fighting back."

Paul Maslin, a Democratic pollster who was an adviser to former presidential candidate Howard Dean, says that progressives are finally capitalizing on the fact that "people don't like the media in general." Mr. Maslin says that when Mr. Dean criticized the media conglomerates that control much of the nation's news outlets, his standing in the polls soared.

"We think Fox News is really the poster child for how the concept of journalism in media has been deconstructed." -- MoveOn.Org Cofounder Wes Boyd

"If they can attack Fox News to this extreme, then all news organizations are at risk to be targeted by similar attacks. It's best to ignore nuts." -- Fox News Spokesman Rob Zimmerman

"Fair and balanced is like the big lie. When [Fox] sued me on my book, I didn't know if they were suing for infringement of the trademark or stealing the joke of using fair and balanced ironically." -- Al Franken

"While this is clearly a transparent publicity stunt, we recognize all forms of free speech and wish them well.'' -- Fox News Spokeswoman Irena Briganti, referring to an FTC complaint lodged by MoveOn.org and Common Cause

''This [complaint] is not just one little stunt for us. This is a long-standing concern of our organization.''
-- Common Cause President Chellie Pingree Hear It | More From Pingree

"That was one of the most popular things he ever said," Mr. Maslin says. "I wish he'd said it even more. The fact is it's potent."

Comedian Al Franken also found bashing Fox News to be lucrative. His book, "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right," became a bestseller last year after Fox News sued him for trademark infringement. Fox later dropped the suit after a federal judge ruled the title was protected by the First Amendment.

In an interview, Mr. Franken says he is pleased with the current campaign against Fox News. "Fair and balanced is like the big lie," he says. "When they sued me on my book, I didn't know if they were suing for infringement of the trademark or stealing the joke of using fair and balanced ironically."

But others say the campaign against Fox News may be misguided. After all, Fox News's top-rated program, "The O'Reilly Factor," only attracts about two million viewers on an average night.

Thomas Mann, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, an independent Washington, D.C., think tank says the public doesn't care much about the issue. "This is about elite politics. It's about shaping the way in which politics is covered rather than directly trying to influence the public."

And MoveOn.org's legal complaints may not go far. In a statement issued last night, FTC Chairman Timothy Muris said, "I am not aware of any instance in which the Federal Trade Commission has investigated the slogan of a news organization. There is no way to evaluate this petition without evaluating the content of the news at issue. That is a task the First Amendment leaves to the American people, not a government agency."

 

[N8 v2.0]

I thought you were gonna post this:

AL FRANKEN KNOCKS DOWN DEAN HECKLER
By VINCENT MORRIS
NY Post

January 27, 2004 -- EXETER, N.H. - Wise-cracking funnyman Al Franken yesterday body-slammed a demonstrator to the ground after the man tried to shout down Gov. Howard Dean.

The tussle left Franken's trademark thick-rim glasses broken, but he said he was not injured.

Franken - who seemed in a state of shock and out of breath after the incident - was helped back to his feet by several people who watched the tussle. Police arrived soon after.

"I got down low and took his legs out," said Franken afterwards.

Franken said he's not backing Dean but merely wanted to protect the right of people to speak freely. "I would have done it if he was a Dean supporter at a Kerry rally," he said.

"I'm neutral in this race but I'm for freedom of speech, which means people should be able to assemble and speak without being shouted down."

The trouble started when several supporters of fringe presidential candidate Lyndon Larouche began shouting accusations at Dean.

Franken emerged from the crowd and charged one male protester, grabbing him with a bear hug from behind and slamming him onto the floor.

"I was a wrestler so I used a wrestling move," Franken said.

 

[Changleen]

N8, Don't change the subject. Tell us how much you love Fox, the news channel that needs to tell you it's fair and balanced.

Seriously, just take a look at the headlines on Google news and then compare them to Fox's Headlines. Today's top stories on Fox (as of right now) don't include the UN resolution against Isreal, the story about Jack Idema being sponsored by Rummy and the White House, any of the stories about Iraqi insurgency, or any coverage of Isreal's little spat with France. Some of these storis are covered if you look through the third layer of reporting, but of course with certain details ommited.

The US and world headline section features only 2 'international' stories, one of which is about video of the 9/11 hijackers passing security. Wow. Stay scared people. The other is about the Saudis playing along in the 'War on Terror'.

Seriously, a fair and balanced look at the world.

 

[syadasti]

Oh yeah, N8's really going to change his ways when you say that...

Its like telling a paranoid hypochondriac he's not sick - it will only make it worse

 

[Changleen]

More from Fox - A fair and balanced look at Stem Cell Research...

Ron Reagan Wrong on Stem Cells

Ron Reagan, the younger son of the late Republican president, announced this week that he would give a prime-time address in support of stem cell research (search) at the Democratic National Convention in Boston later this month.

"Ron Reagan's courageous pleas for stem cell research add a powerful voice to the millions of Americans hoping for cures for their children, for their parents and for their grandparents," said a spokesman for John Kerry to the Associated Press.

Reagan told the Philadelphia Inquirer that the speech was intended "to educate people about stem cell research" rather than be critical of President George Bush. But the Kerry campaign seems to want to scare people by having the son of the revered late President Ronald Reagan decry President Bush and his pro-life supporters as the major roadblocks to a host of supposedly just-around-the-corner miracle cures for cancer, Alzheimer's, diabetes and other dreaded diseases.

It will be a junk science-fueled spectacle.

The controversy centers around the use of stem cells derived from destroyed human embryos. So-called "embryonic stem cells (search)" give rise to all other cells and tissues in the human body and have been touted as possibly yielding treatments for a variety of diseases.

Moral concerns over the destruction of human embryos caused President Bush to limit taxpayer funding for embryonic stem cell research to stem cell lines already in existence. Researchers who were counting on taxpayer funding to conduct research on embryonic stem cells — and then rake in millions of dollars from naive investors — were enraged and began a campaign to pressure the President into opening the taxpayer spigots for embryonic stem cell research on the basis of a wide-eyed hope that cures are near at hand.

Though embryonic stem cell research advocates euphemistically refer to the current state of research as an "early stage," the unfortunate reality is the goal of embryonic stem cell therapies is, at this point, more accurately described as a pipe dream. No researcher is anywhere close to significant progress in developing practical embryonic stem cell therapies.

Mouse embryonic stem cells were first grown in a laboratory in 1981. It took 20 years to make similar achievements with human embryonic stem cells — and merely growing stem cells is no where close to employing those cells in therapies. Embryonic stem cells must be directed to grow into specific cell types and that growth must be controlled — they can proliferate indefinitely in the lab. Uncontrolled stem cell growth may have tumor-forming potential. Because embryonic stem cells don't come from the patient being treated, there may also be problems associated with immune system rejection following transplantation of foreign stem cells.

The difficulty of embryonic stem cell research is underscored by the lack of progress in cancer research. Despite a 30-year, $40-billion "War on Cancer" launched by President Nixon, researchers continue to have great difficulty in controlling, let alone eradicating, the vast majority of cancer cell growth. Conceptually, controlled deployment of "good" stem cells should be vastly more complex than simply destroying "bad" cancer cells.

None of this is to say that embryonic stem cell research can't possibly lead to some improvements in biological understanding or future therapeutic treatments, but such speculative progress of who-knows-what value isn't in the foreseeable future. The only thing certain is that the cost of that research will be high. If embryonic stem cell research had real and imminent possibilities, private investors would be pouring capital into research hoping for real and imminent profits. Instead, venture capital firms are contributing to political efforts to get taxpayers to fund research.

A proposed ballot initiative in California known as Proposition 71 (search) would provide $3 billion in taxpayer money for stem cell research. Supporters hope to raise $20 million to get the initiative passed. What the venture capitalists seem to be hoping for is that taxpayer funding of stem cell research will increase the value of their stakes in biotech companies. The venture capitalists can then cash out at a hefty profit, leaving taxpayers holding the bag of fruitless research.

The spectacle of Ron Reagan at the Democratic Convention will be sad — the disgruntled son of the beloved former president misleading the public with naive hopes while being exploited for political gain by opponents of his father's party. That cynical strategy may get John Kerry a few more votes in November, but it's not going to produce any medical miracles anytime soon, if at all.

What a bunch of ****. Written from the perspective of someone who is 'correct' about the matter. Vast leaps from half truth to distortion to bull****.

If you know anything about stem cell research at all, you'll know of the huge strides that have been taken in medicine in the field. Have a look at this for example:

http://www.stemcellresearch.org/stemcellreport/

And the Political angle! "Moral concerns over the destruction of human embryos caused President Bush to limit taxpayer funding for embryonic stem cell research" What a crock of ****. Nothing to do with the fact that having actual cures for disases would put Bush's pharmaceutical friends at a serious disadvange, not being able to charge people thaousands of Dollars for pills anymore.

I could go on, but it pisses me off too much. Just take a look at Rupert Murdoch's contributions to American Politics and you'll see where his bread is buttered.

Fox News - Where the truth takes a back seat to Republican and Far-Right Spin.

 

[syadasti]

Thank God for the Howard Huges Medical Institute. They are a multi-billion dollar cutting edge research institute. They can do all the stem cell research they want - they don't need anything from the federal government :eviltongu

 

[Tashi]

Not Fox News but it better 'cause it's not:
When Wolf Blitzer responds to John Stewart asking why the mainstream media didn't ask more questions about problems with the Iraq mission (ie that the reasons for going to war were all found to be untrue) with "everyone makes mistakes"

Wolf, you crack me up. I wish we got Fox News in Canada, I'd be in stitches 24-7.

 

[N8 v2.0]

.....

 

[ridetoofast]

even if its not 'fair and balanced' as the whiny a$$ lib's proclaim....boo fvking hoo....who's had control of the media for god knows how long.

trying to say the othe big three ARE balanced is like saying slick willie is gonna
tell the truth

get fvcking over it, its about time the other side of the fence had some representation in the media

 

[Tashi]

So you actually believe that there's a "liberal media bias"? I've started to believe that there is a "momentum media bias" where the media's bias is determined by the direction of the story, it seems to make for a more reliable interpretation of bias.

 

[Changleen]

There has never a liberal media bias in the US. Even the most 'left leaning' outlets such as NPR could only be described as centerist. Tashi is probaby right - which means media is basicaly lazy. Sad.

Ridetoofast, I'd like to see some evidence of this bias.

 

[ridetoofast]

you know what we aren't ever going to agree....i could provide a litany of points for which, provided you felt sufficiently motivated, could provide counterpoints. all i can say is do a google search for liberal media bias and you will get a plethora of hits...take it for what you will. i've come to the conclusion that no matter what arguement a conservative provides to a liberal it will be discounted as a 'rant', 'howl', 'derision' blah, blah, blah. if a liberal makes a point its a 'passionate' discourse, if a conservative makes a point its a 'right wing, war mongering, conspiratorial retort'.

having said that i'll leave this forum and let you continue to deride conservatives for whatever point they choose to make however benign it might be. i have observed this forum for some time making little commentary, and have come to the DISTINCT conclusion that as a conservative i am very much a minority on this board, and as such will recieve little to no support.

i will pose one final question that liberals consider a 'holy grail' of political philosphy and that is abortion....

why is it that scott peterson, or any other male for that matter, that commits an act of battery which subsequentally results in the death of the FETUS!!, is murder, yet when the woman exercises her CHOICE to commit abortion, it just that a CHOICE.

Please explain to me how you differentiate when a woman does it...its choice, yet if a man does it, its murder. i MUST!!!!!!! emphasize that i do NOT condone this behavior, i just find it ironic the difference that you seem to apply between the two.

im sure you will discard this as a rant, however if you don't, i'd genuinely like to see a reasonable explanation for your rationale.

 

[LordOpie]

why is it that scott peterson, or any other male for that matter, that commits an act of battery which subsequentally results in the death of the FETUS!!, is murder, yet when the woman exercises her CHOICE to commit abortion, it just that a CHOICE.

Did the courts actually rule that way? I thought they were trying to avoid that cuz that would open up a whole mess of problems?

 

[ridetoofast]

i believe the lacy peterson bill was just recently singed. (it might be named after the unborn child i don't remember, but you get the point) i don't know the specifics of it, but im sure the title should be sufficiently expressive to it's content. (dubya is hammering kerry on his absence to vote on this issue in one of his adds by the way)

the NOW, NARAL (I think thats the proper acronym for them??), and other feminists organizations expressed outrage at the potentially encroaching effects that it would have on abortion rights....

 

[LordOpie]

i believe the lacy peterson bill was just recently singed. (it might be named after the unborn child i don't remember, but you get the point) i don't know the specifics of it, but im sure the title should be sufficiently expressive to it's content. (dubya is hammering kerry on his absence to vote on this issue in one of his adds by the way)

the NOW, NARAL (I think thats the proper acronym for them??), and other feminists organizations expressed outrage at the potentially encroaching effects that it would have on abortion rights....

This does present a problem. Is there a timeline in the bill of when the fetus becomes protected by such a law? Maybe it's just "protecting" third term fetuses?

As for Kerry, you do know that the republican controlled congress is screwing with him, right? They'll block voting when he's in town just to make him look bad. And to be fair, if you say that he should resign to run for PotUS, then so should Bush.

 

[ridetoofast]

to be honest i really don't know that content, just that the bill was signed. concerning kerry's absence, i wasn't really slamming him, just pointing out that dubya is slamming him on it, however it does bring up a good point. do BOTH of them continue to do their job, run for a new/current job, or do both...i don't really know. perhaps its something that should be addressed???

i will concede that our esteemed legislators on BOTH sides of the house/senate seem to show up to vote whenever its convenient for them but that is another matter altogether

ive also find it terribly ironic that when its aborted its a fetus but when carried to term its a baby...but maybe thats just me?

 

[Tashi]

I guess I would see the main differance as this: If a person kills another person and her unborn child they can go for a murder charge, because it's one person killing another person and their bodies contents include a potential person. When it's their own fetus that is being killed, it's considered abortion, a form of killing that a significant portion of society can endorse. I don't think that the differance is the sex of the killer, but in the case of murder the action is done to another person and an abortion is a medical procedure done to one's own body. There does seem to be a discontinuity here however with the definition, and I think that it arises from there being no concensus on a specific point where one can fully label a developing fetus a human being.

They're both forms of killing however, it's just that one is found acceptible by a great number of people and the other is almost universally unacceptible. (like murder vs. self defense).

I now take the time to recognize that many people feel that there is no differance between these types of killings, and respect their views. Pause. Now I challange them to understand the position of the 13 year -old rape victim with a sicko's baby in her belly.

 

[Slugman]

If you're going to debate abortions - start your own F'ing thread... this was about policitcal manuvering and some of the silly ways the Dems are trying to attack the Reps main voice.

To bring up abortion as part of this thread shows me that you are a fanatic about it, and that you can't understand where and when to bring up certain subjects.

Start your own thread... and delete your abortion related crap from this one or I'll delete the thread!

 

[LordOpie]

Start your own thread... and delete your abortion related crap from this one or I'll delete the thread!

sounds like someone's having an abortion, err, menstual cramping right now!

 

[Slugman]

Dude just came off like a fanatic... I HATE fanatics.

 

[LordOpie]

I HATE fanatics.

hahhaah

almost as good as Alexis' rant about nukes... governments should be allowed to do what they want, so long as it's not hurting anyone.


I love you people... makes my day go by that much better at work.

 

[Slugman]

hahhaah

almost as good as Alexis' rant about nukes... governments should be allowed to do what they want, so long as it's not hurting anyone.


I love you people... makes my day go by that much better at work.

How do you relate the two (missed Alex's rant)?

Did someone come into his Nuke discussion and start ranting about abortion?

 

[LordOpie]

How do you relate the two (missed Alex's rant)?

Did someone come into his Nuke discussion and start ranting about abortion?

i was relating absurdly funny comments.

 

[Tashi]

Sorry, sir. I promise not to indulge in thread derrailments, I know how that never happens here.

Back to the topic: what was the topic again?

Oh yeah, the "liberal media bias".

Who's a fanatic?

 

[Tashi]

Boy, for the sake of the REpublicans I hope that the Fox New Channel isn't their "main voice" They really should have a better mouthpiece than those guys.

 

[Slugman]

Sorry, sir. I promise not to indulge in thread derrailments, I know how that never happens here.

Proper thread derailment is totally acceptable... I just didn't like the way it was done, way too angry.

 

[Tashi]

I didn't feel angry when I wrote it, are you sure it was an angry post?