 |
Do we now have *Government by Distraction*?
Do we now have *Government by Distraction*?
This story from the examiner.com, Atlanta is an example but my main question is about tactics and manipulation. Distractions.
Think back on the battle over amnesty for illegals. Once we bacame distracted and moved on, they didn't give up the fight. They've simply 'attached' pieces of the original bill to other legislation. Sort of the 'death by a thousand cuts' approach.
Cap n Trade, Universal Health Care, etc...these will probably be handled in the same 'back door' way once we drop our defenses and become distracted with something like, oh Idon't know....an investigation of CIA abuse. Just a thought.
for example only.....
In spite of the fact that there is no movement in Congress to re-implement the 'Fairness Doctrine' that would silence conservative talk radio, the Obama administration and Democrats on The Hill are working behind the scenes to accomplish that very goal without the Doctrine.
With the appointment of Mark Loyd to the FCC as the nation's very first 'Chief Diversity Officer,' Obama hopes to accomplish the very things that the Fairness Doctrine would mandate.
The main focus would be to force commercial radio stations to offer a 'diversity of opinion,' meaning of course that liberals would get equal time to promote their causes and concepts. Rather than get mired in the swampland of rules and regulations concerning how to do that, radio stations will simply cancel programs such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck.
But this is not the only thing Loyd would do as Chief Diversity Officer.
Loyd wants public broadcasting to be the dominant force in radio, overshadowing commercial stations. And, as we have cited before, he would do this by forcing commercial radio stations to pay a fee equal to their entire operating cost to the government in order to directly benefit NPR.
However, more danger lurks just under the surface with regard to Loyd.
Today, we discovered this:
Lloyd draws on his experience lobbying the FCC during the Clinton administration, counseling would-be revolutionaries to follow the tactics used by other left-wing movements, such as the followers of Saul Alinsky and the people who ran the campaign to block Republican Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork.
"We understood at the beginning, and were certainly reminded in the course of the campaign," wrote Lloyd, "that our work was not simply convincing policy makers of the logic or morality of our arguments. We understood that we were in a struggle for power against an opponent, the commercial broadcasters ...."
In addition, Loyd makes it clear that the concepts pushed by extremist Saul Alinsky in his book, Rules for Radicals, would serve as the inspiration for his war on commercial broadcasting:
"We looked to successful political campaigns and organizers as a guide, especially the civil rights movement, Saul Alinsky, and the campaign to prevent the Supreme Court nomination of the ultra-conservative jurist Robert Bork," wrote Lloyd. "From those sources we drew inspiration and guidance."
In order to wrest control of broadcasting from private commercial interests to place it under government control, Loyd outlines 6 goals, which include vastly expanding NPR with money collected from commercial radio stations, expanding the FCC by setting up powerful regional hubs, and 'clear regulations over political commentary and advertising.'
In other words, good-bye freedom of speech.
But Loyd has an answer to critics who cry foul over his plan to muzzle First Amendment rights. He thinks that concern over the First Amendment is 'exaggerated':
“It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press,” he said. “This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.”
These examples make it clear that Obama intends to wage all-out war on conservative talk radio, free speech, free commerce through private radio broadcasting corporations, and new government regulations that control broadcast content. The First Amendment is simply an exaggerated concern that gets in the way.
**********************************************************
So...Do we now have Government by distraction?
@ David - http://www.examiner.com/x-3704-Columbia-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m8d26-Obamas-diversity-officer-at-FCC-to-use-Alinskys-confrontational-tactics
Thanks Cat
Thanks people. Gotta go to work but I'm interested in reading your responses this evening.
Man I'm in trouble on this one. Too many good answers to choose from! I know I'm not telling you folks anything you don't already know. Great answers..thanks! We're gonna to have to work overtime to beat this crowd. They may be fools but they're energetic fools!
This story from the examiner.com, Atlanta is an example but my main question is about tactics and...
Excellent question - at first, they underestimated the American people and didn't expect the outpouring of anger over their proposals. So they are now on Plan B - back door everything, like you said - they're doing the same thing with the international bankers in secret meetings between Bernanke and Geithner in Belgium and Switzerland.
We're being deceived and lied to about everything - including their most important issue - global government. Everything that has been going on is merely groundwork for integration into a global system and you are absolutely correct - no First Amendment, in fact, no Constitution - only what the global authority approves, and free speech is not on the agenda!
|
|
How can we get more people to choose the conservative media over the liberal media?
How can we get more people to choose the conservative media over the liberal media?
The liberal media has followers with their propaganda disseminated through:
1. The New York Times
2. The Nation
3. CBS
4. MSNBC
5. PBS
6. ABC
7. Rachel Maddow
8. Keith Olbermann
9. Chris Matthews
10. Mother Jones
11. Z Magazine
12. The New York Review of Books
13. The Progressive
14. Noam Chomsky's publications
15. Utne Reader
16. NPR
But, we have a great media, but why are we so neglected when we have the following to offer:
1. The National Review
2. Rush Limbaugh (I know he's kind of underground, a marginal figure, but why do so few listen to him?)
3. Sean Hannity (he has a radio show, and it's good ---why don't more people listen to him?)
4. Michelle Malkin
5. Ann Coulter (she's a columnist and deserves attention, but gets nearly none)
6. The American Conservative (almost impossible-to-find magazine, suppressed and banned in many places)
7. Michael Savage (he has a lot to say but he is not given an outlet)
8. Pat Buchanan (no one carries his books and he's censored from TV)
9. The Christian Science Monitor (because it's a Christian publication, it's not allowed in libraries or on the Internet)
10. David Horowitz (he's never allowed to speak these days)
11. Bill O' Reilly (constantly censored, never allowed to broadcast, you have to go to the ends of the Earth to find him)
12. Glenn Beck (same thing, a lot of common sense, but the liberal media won't allow him a place to promote his views, so he's stuck with an audience of only a few hundred people)
13. The American Spectator (banned in most states for its pro-Christian point of view)
14. Charles Krauthammer (a great mind, but never allowed to present his views on any television channels thanks to liberal censorship)
I don't understand it. Noam Chomsky is on the TV every single night spewing his left-wing garbage all over the mainstream networks, but a person like Hannity or Beck or Limbaugh is not allowed access to broadcasting stations and is limited to an audience of only a few hundred, thus making sure that real American viewpoints are never expressed to the general public. This is criminal. How can we get conservative viewpoints across when we are banned, not allowed to broadcast anywhere on television and we're not allowed to publish?
The liberal media has followers with their propaganda disseminated through:
1. The New York Times...
The profit and loss statements along with viewer percentage numbers have already sounded the warning to those who constantly deliver editorializing as news. Several large media entities have already failed and some on the list are near the same position. People will decide on who the survivors are by their reading and viewing choices.
There has to be a recognition of the difference between news programs and opinion shows. The fastest growing news station up to now has been Fox and the left wing is very unhappy about that because they only want the lies and the agenda of the left delivered to the public, they cannot abide little things like the truth getting in the way of their agenda. The popularity of Fox stems from the news programs that present both sides, and people prefer to make up their own minds on what to believe.
Until Obama bans free speech, people will find a way to the truth, so watch Fox continue to grow.
|
|
Why are British news networks (BBC, ITN) so professional and informative, whereas ours (FOX News, MSNBC) are..?
Why are British news networks (BBC, ITN) so professional and informative, whereas ours (FOX News, MSNBC) are..?
basically stupid talking-heads who over-sensationalize and dramatize everything?
Like, if you put on someone like Glenn Beck or Keith Olbermann, you basically get the sense that the "other side" is going to destroy civilization as we know it.
But I've been watching BBC New's Newsnight online, and it's kind of remarkable how much I learn about the world, without all this "spin" and pseudo-analysis.
I guess the closest thing we have to that in the US is NPR, and even then, the content's kinda lacking.
What ever happened to content-rich professional news?
Western Europe has market-driven economies, too, so why haven't their media gone low-class and dumbed down like ours?
basically stupid talking-heads who over-sensationalize and dramatize everything?
Like, if you put...
"Content-rich professional news" does not attract sponsors who buy advertising.
Profit-driven media tend to go for the 'lowest common denominator" among TV watchers, which means it runs at about a Grade 4 level. Content is monitored to please most people, and not to upset the rest. This scarcely makes for a vigorous give-and-take of ideas.
Britain's BBC, Canada's CBC, and US NPR are not commercially-driven systems: they don't have to attract Homer Simpson and his friends. Late at night, I also listen to very interesting shortwave-derived transmissions out of many European countries, sometimes from various African countries, too.
I guess the answer is that market-driven media are 'dumbed down' as far as possible. You will find intelligent radio (and good health care, and many other aspects of civilization) in systems that that many US people call 'socialist'.
|
|
What do you think of the new 10 commandments?
What do you think of the new 10 commandments?
Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not be a:
- Secular humanist
- Muslim
- Hindu or Buddist or any of those others
- Thou mayest be a Jew, as long as thou realizest that thou art going to Hell. Think thou not upon the fact that the Jews were the ones who received these commandments in the first place.
Thou shall not make unto thee a graven image, unless thou makest Me look really cool like in the Sistine Chapel. Do not painteth My image upon black velvet.
Thou shalt not take my name in vain. Only utter the words God Damn when thou smitest thy thumb with a hammer.
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Joinest thou to one of those mega churches with the onsite Starbucks and watchest thou the games of football and basketball and baseball. Soccer thou mayest watch, but it is really boring.
Honor thy father and mother, unless they art tie-dye wearing ex-hippies. Then quotest thou Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck unto them.
Thou shall not kill, unless thou art at war, or thou shootest a trespasser with thy Second Amendment guaranteed gun. Execution countest not at all, but abortion countest double. Think not upon that too much.
Thou shall not bear false witness against they neighbor. False witness thou may bear against thine enemies Planned Parenthood, Rachael Maddow and NPR.
And, most important, thou shall not covet another man’s ass.
- Ken Butler (Facebook)
Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not be a:
- Secular humanist
- ...
Some people actually follow this list and don't believe in the original set of ten commandments.
|
|
Keith Olbermann and NPR or Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck?
Keith Olbermann and NPR or Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck?
If you were forced to watch/listen to one of these which one would you choose.
If you were forced to watch/listen to one of these which one would you choose.
That is a real bad one. Could O'Reilly be a choice?
|
|
Per NPR this morning, rest of country is ignoring the California disaster.?
Per NPR this morning, rest of country is ignoring the California disaster.?
Apparently the donations to the Red Cross and other relief orgs are tiny from other states. The vast majority of the money used to help is coming from California residents.
What's the reason for this? A general hatred for this state and its people (As conservative Glenn Beck said, "I think there is a handful of people who hate America," Beck said. "Unfortunately for them, a lot of them are losing their homes in a forest fire today.") Or is it the media's fault for showing so many pictures of vast hillside mansions, confusing the public into thinking that the entire state lives in luxury?
Any thoughts?
Apparently the donations to the Red Cross and other relief orgs are tiny from other states. The v...
Actually, I'm just tired of people living in flood- or fire-prone areas expecting a handout every time they get whacked...and I think a lot of people feel the same way...if they think they're going to get "Katrina-like" aid, they are in for a surprise.
|
|
What is so "Liberal" about NPR?
What is so "Liberal" about NPR?
this is primarily for those who actually regard NPR as being substantially biased to the left.
I've been listening to NPR for a while now, and I find most of the reporting to be quite fair and reasonably unbiased.
in the recent events, the Juan Williams thing, from what I've read, hes been pushing the limits of what he agreed to and what the network could tolerate from him, for a long time. and he finally went over the line in a way that would make NPR look bad, and that was against their policies. why is that unreasonable?
and on the issue of not allowing employees who aren't reporting on it, to go to the Stewart/Colbert rally, that was an old policy that was in place to MAINTAIN NEUTRALITY. and it was only brought up because some people were unclear if THAT rally counted under that policy due to it being held by a comedian, not a political figure or primarily political commentator. the same policy applied to Glenn Beck's rally. its just that it was unquestionably applicable in that case, and not so much for the Stewart/Colbert one.
and if you regard NPR as being left wing or whatever you want to describe it as, do you admit that Fox is certainly not *actually* "fair and balanced" but has an EXTREME right wing bias?
freedom of speech has nothing to do with this.
Freedom of speech does not have "without consequences" in small print after it.
if you are a personality for an organization, you are a representative of them. notice how sometimes people make a big point of being somewhere as a private citizen, and disclaiming their views as their own and not that of their employer?
thats because if you are introduced as a reporter for XYZ, and then you say something, what you say, is correlated to XYZ. if XYZ is trying to maintain neutrality and has policies to maintain that neturality, and the statement in question is decidedly un-neutral and against the policies of XYZ.... AND if that behavior is repeated, it only makes sense to can them.
El Tecolote, have you considered the possibility that YOU are so far RIGHT that anything that is neutral, appears substantially left-biased?
can you give me an example? because I'm certainly not "far left" at all, and I have a reasonable understanding of politics. and I just don't see it.
Johnny Rico, what makes you think that?
I could even go with there being a slight left lean to NPR, but certainly not a serious bias. and really if the extreme right wasn't trying so hard at making a laughing stock of themselves, I doubt that leaning I conceded to, would even be there.
I see. so basically the complaint is that Democrats don't have enough extremists making fools of themselves to be reported on.
would you rather they ignore the Tea Party entirely, since theres not a democratic counterpoint, or try to report democratic behavior in an equivalent light? (which, IMO would make the tea party look even more crazy and extreme)
if the Tea Party is making news, and the other side isn't, how should they report that in a more balanced way?
Spooky, well technically no, its not a violation of your free speech. free speech deals with the government infringing on your speech, not private entitys.
though if the statements and such have nothing to do with your job, then that may be an illegitimate reason for the firing. but in this case the statements are quite relevant.
Tecolote, will you at least agree that Fox has far more Right-wing bias, than NPR does to the left?
Surge, but is it reasonably POSSIBLE to have NO leaning at all? particularly in the current environment, is it not inevitable that some people will intepret any reporting as biased one way or the other? I mean is it POSSIBLE to report about the antics of Palin and O'Donnel without appearing at least a little left-leaning?
I appriciate that its "different" with it getting public funding. but I am not sure its really possible to be completely neutral. in general, but especially in the current environment.
this is primarily for those who actually regard NPR as being substantially biased to the left.
I...
I have a very strange love/hate relationship with National Public Radio. I have been a regular daily listener for more than 20 years. I *love* NPR Science Friday, and so many other regular radio broadcasts, however, I know for a fact that it is *far* from being an unbiased source of news. I am a third generation liberal, in the traditional sense of what that used to mean in the United States, and I’m an outspoken advocate for environmental issues, human rights, civil rights and other traditional liberal causes for decades. I am not *far left*..some liberals left me a while back when they left traditional liberal values. I’m not going to focus on that but , I do wish to focus on something I see that has been increasingly disturbing to me over the past 20 years.
It depends on the political leanings of the corporation or executives at the head of networks, what kind of biased language is used to skew the news. There is little in the way of unbiased *news* reporting that the public hears. That’s not conspiracy theory, this is based upon careful listening and comparison to how the same news items are reported by different sources in different countries. I’ve noticed this in particular with regard to the Middle East and terrorism. It has also used very biased language even with regard to news items regarding corporate abuses of finance and the environment that were shockingly very *right* leaning, and has often used biased language against indigenous peoples in many lands ( North and South America, Australia, and the Middle East) Awareness of these facts I cannot deny any longer came long and painfully to me, who once thought I’d discovered such a wonderful source of news and information. The first few times I heard bigoted language unchallenged I thought..ok they’re just trying to be “balanced” and someone will come along and correct it…but time and time again I was shocked and disappointed to find that was not ever going to be the case. Most people think that it’s far closer to the PBS of television since it’s “public radio”, however, it appears to be a mouthpiece for the interests of it’s executives.
There have been times when I was listening to NPR that I literally had chills from the level of bias and sometimes outright antisemitism that was being spoken, not in commentaries such as the Juan Williams case, but in news reporting…and shock that a source of *news* permitted this to go unchallenged. I’ll just give you a small clue as to some of the more insidious biased language, Start listening to their news about the Middle East and note how often any military action to retaliate or circumvent terrorist attack upon civilian targets includes either “humiliate” or “humiliation” towards the “militants” (never terrorists) when either Israel or the United States military is involved. For us in the “West” that phrase..to be humiliated or humiliation does *not* carry the same connotation. This language is used to inflame their Arab listeners whose paradigm includes being raised in a culture that humiliation is often worse than death.
I began to notice open and often hostile bias against Israel in the early 1990’s and then it escalated to such a point that in 1998 CAMERA ( link below) submitted” a complaint about the network to members of the Senate and House Committees that oversee public networks and to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the agency that dispenses tax dollars to public networks. The Boston-based media-monitoring organization has sent a detailed letter of protest to the network about recent broadcasts.”
After several highly publicised protests around the country, NPR appeared to try to clean up it’s act a bit by sometimes correcting misinformation it had avoided before, even though bias still appeared. From the end of 98, until 2001 it appeared to be better..but since at least 2002..it’s gotten as bad as it ever was. Don’t take my word for it..start listening very carefully and compare the same news stories to each of the networks and foreign press.
I hope this question does not close soon, I’ve much more I want to say regarding the Juan Williams affair that IMHO has been mischaracterized as NPR trying to do the right thing to fire a bigot. Over the years I have heard many NPR commentators and guests say far more biased and bigoted phrases against Jews and Israel without so much as a correction or question or mention, that has sometimes left me slack-jawed in shock, so it was actually no surprise at all that someone saying anything *resembling* something negative to Islam was censured, but unfortunately I stumbled upon this question moments before I need to take a new dog ( rescue ) to the veterinarian.
I’ll try to give a few supporting references here before I go.
EDIT more than 12 hours later I return..and will now add the little bit I couldn't this morning. IMHO Juan Williams was fired as much for his *relationship* with FOX and Bill O'Reilly as for that comment. ( I reaaallly can't stand O'Reilly or FOX news, either) Juan Williams made NPR *look bad* IMHO in that Juan Williams was fired over bias to Muslims when none of it's reporters or commentators who have said far more biased thngs against Israel and Jews going back at least the two decades I've been listening, and the majority were never even corrected.
Juan William may well have deserved to be fired for any number of reasons, I am not defending him. Employers can legally fire employees for many reasons, in some instances they don't even need one. I'm voicing my disgust that the claimed reason he was fired was for that bigoted statement, and that doesn't make them look good since they obviously do not hold all parties accountable to the same standards. It is a proper thing to fire a reporter for bigoted/biased reporting. I have no sympathy for any bigot. However, was this genuine bigotry, or is it a bias that has come from a climate of fear in this country fostered by terrorism, so, is it proper to fire a *commentator* for openly expressing an opinion that may reveal bias, but expresses what many people fear? Was it the right thing to fire someone for a bigoted statement when baised comments have apparently not been a concern of NPR for many years?
|
|
Politically speaking, isn't it time for a divorce?
Politically speaking, isn't it time for a divorce?
(I modified this only slightly from the original.)
DIVORCE AGREEMENT 2010
(Expanded slightly from the original by John J. Wall)
Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists, Obama supporters, et al:
We have stuck together since the late 1950’s, but the culmination of events since this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. Though we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, it's time to admit this relationship has run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right so let’s just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.
Here is a model separation agreement:
Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass, each taking a portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy; our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.
We don’t like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges, the ACLU, and abortion clinics. Since you hate guns and war, we’ll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA, and the military.
We’ll keep the capitalism, "greedy" corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart, and Wall Street. You can have your beloved homeless, homeboys, hippies, and illegal aliens. We’ll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms and rednecks. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore, and Rosie O’Donnell. We’ll keep the Bibles and you can have Heather has Two Mommies. We'll take FOX News, the Washington Times, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck and give you CNN, NPR, ABC, NBC, Hollywood, the New York Times, and all your other liberal propaganda sources.
You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we’ll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have all the peaceniks and war protesters. Meanwhile, when our allies or our way of life are under assault, we’ll continue to provide them security.
We’ll keep our Judeo-Christian values and the Bill of Rights. Feel free to ban whatever offends you in your own nation. You're also welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, and Shirley McClain. You can have the U.N., too, but we will no longer be paying the bill.
We’ll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks, and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find.
We'll take the hard sciences, which industry has had to take over developing as you phased them out of Academia in favor of feminist classes and minority studies. You're welcome to all those programs you've developed producing brilliant theories like "white privilege," "racial microaggressions," and such.
You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors. We’ll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right. We’ll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I’m sure you’ll be happy to substitute I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing, Kum Ba Ya, or We Are the World.
We’ll practice trickle down economics and you can give trickle up poverty your best shot. Since it often so offends you, we’ll keep our history, our name, and our flag.
Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along. In the spirit of friendly parting, I’ll wager I know which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.
Sincerely,
American Conservatives
P.S. Also, please take Barbara Streisand, Jane Fonda, and Nancy Pelosi with you.
(I modified this only slightly from the original.)
DIVORCE AGREEMENT 2010
(Expanded slightly fro...
And don't forget to take welfare with you also. We will work for a living. Giving much higher moral character and self asteem, while you can decide who should work to support who. You can also keep your "life in prison" (camp snoopy) , and we will be happy to keep our death penalty for rapists and molesters.
|
|
Is the Tea Party "racist" and "xenophobic"?
Is the Tea Party "racist" and "xenophobic"?
An NPR executive was found to have made that accusation via hidden video this week.
The CEO of NPR was fired or quit depending on the source.
Glenn Beck called Barack Obama a racist but he did not resign.
An NPR executive was found to have made that accusation via hidden video this week.
The CEO of NP...
|
|
FOX cable 'news' #1, but never a Peabody Award; O'Reilly calls himself a commentator..so where's the 'news'?
FOX cable 'news' #1, but never a Peabody Award; O'Reilly calls himself a commentator..so where's the 'news'?
News Hounds
We watch FOX so you don't have to.
No Peabody Awards For Fox News? But They’re #1 In Cable News!
Reported by Priscilla - April 2, 2009 - 33 comments
While media ratings are important for advertising revenue, they don’t necessarily imply quality. Compare any program on NPR with the highly rated Fox&Friends and you know what I’m talking about. Thus, we have Fox News, ”real journalism, fair and balanced,” being #1 in cable news while not receiving any awards from an organization that values real journalism. It’s also funny that the Fox apologists, when faced with the evidence of Fox partisanship and right wing demagoguery (Beck, O’Reilly, Hannity, Fox&Friends), claim that these right wing talking sockpuppets are “conservative commentators” and, thus, not subject to the proper protocol for “real” journalism – which is how Fox defines itself. So, the lack of a Peabody Award might be because the Peabody people don’t value what Fox presents as “real journalism, fair and balanced.” Ya think?!
First, let’s dispense with the notion that the shows are “commentary” shows and not connected to journalism. While the Fox apologists might say so, that’s not how the journalistic community views them because the reports about the ratings talk about Fox News programming as news -with no exceptions for any programs which might be viewed as anything other than news. Real Clear Politics has this to say about the “big three” conservative “commentators:” The article, “Fox News Continues Reign with Big Three” begins with "Led by the trio of Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and newcomer Glenn Beck, Fox News maintained its hold as the leading cable news…O'Reilly celebrated his 100th consecutive month as the leading cable news program…” (Bill O’Reilly’s news – for whom, the brain dead?) And we have this about Glenn Beck: “Glenn Beck has top cable news show Website last week.” (Glenn Beck news – for whom, those with paranoid personality disorders?) In other words, say what you want, the Fox shoutfests are considered “news” shows.
Second, let’s talk about the Peabody Awards – which Bill O’Reilly didn’t receive despite what the Paris Business Review said. I went back to 2000 and scanned the list of Peabody Awards and could find nary a one for Fox News. The Fox TV Network got one for “House.” According to Peabody Director Horace Newcomb, “this year's winners reflect new ways to distribute information, as well as diversity of content and genre...” (Comment: Well, golly gosh gee wiz, if “Lost” can get a Peabody, why not Glenn Beck?) The winners, this year, include NBC’s (They’re out to get Bill O’Reilly) Richard Engle’s “Tip of the Spear” which was about the conflict in Afghanistan. (Now, why won’t they give an award to Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity for their Middle East on site reporting – oh, wait a minute, they haven’t done any!) CNN won an award for their coverage of the primaries. Washington Week in Review, moderated by the fabulous Gwen Ifill won an award. (What, no award for the fabulous – just kidding - Brit Hume?) I say good for Gwen, especially after the right wing tried to trash her for having, as Fox News’ Juan Williams said, a “perception problem.” The HBO biopic “John Adams” also received the prize. (If Fox did biopics, what would they do? MLK as a radical communist, Augusto Pinochet as a humanitarian, Phyllis Schlafly as an advocate for women’s rights?) PBS did a documentary on “Depression, Out of the Shadows.” (If Fox had done it, the title would have been “Depression – quite your bitching”) Bill O’Reilly will be upset that the NY Times won an award. HBO got an award for a documentary on the Cristo “Gates” exhibit in Central Park. (If Fox covered art, it would geared towards Hallmark Cards as great American art or Michelangelo as offensive to family values.) Documentaries on Fox seem to be either right wing films, from dubious sources, like the be scared of Muslims documentary “Obsession,” suck up pieces like Bret Baier’s infomercial on Don Rumsfeld.
Fox doesn’t really fit well into the Peabody Award criterion because their way of distributing information is in keeping with the Joe McCarthy methodology and that’s old school. And a network that is geared to white, Christian, right wing conservatives can’t do much with diversity of content. Presenting lies as facts in order to promote a right wing agenda while bashing liberals, democrats, immigrants, Islam, minorities, gays, etc, doesn’t seem to fit the Peabody’s mission which is to “recognize the most outstanding achievements in electronic media…The Award is determined by one criterion – ‘Excellence’...” But Fox “News” is #1 in cable ratings so it’s all good. I’m sure that Fox’s reality challenged audience thinks that the Peabody, like the Nobel, is a left wing, commie plot. Fox leads in cable “news” – but in “excellence,” not so much. Ya think?! And if SNL can win a Peabody for comedy, why can’t Fox News as its entire programming is a joke!"
Catego
News Hounds
We watch FOX so you don't have to.
No Peabody Awards For Fox News? But They’re #1 In...
excellent point by your avatar's picture is.............
|
