Saturday, October 24, 2009

This Is A Rhodes Scholar?

Last night, Rhodes Scholar, MSNBC host, and Obama lapdog Rachel Maddow went on quite a rant, describing how in her well educated opinion Fox News Channel is not news.

Maddow began by discussing the White House's "War on Fox," which by now we all understand means that they have said FNC is not a legitimate news agency. She then described how the rest of the media "does consider Fox a news agency."

She also discussed the fact that the White House tried to single out FNC and exempt them from a media pool interview with one of Obama's Czars, a request that the pool unanimously denied. Rather than recognizing and applauding this event as a victory was over those who clearly wish to repress our First Amendment rights, Maddow offered snarky commentary about how FNC was "trumpeting" this as a victory over the White House.

She then offered a fair presentation, showing how it is possible to offer an opinion and cover the news responsibly. She offered the perennial example of Walter Cronkite as he opined on Vietnam, as well as CNN's Anderson Cooper and Shep Smith from FNC and their heartfelt coverage of Katrina.

While I must say I agree with her in these instances, as well as her use of Laura Logan from CBS discussing Iraq in a negative light, I must call her out on the fact that she used examples that tug at the heart strings of her liberal choir by using these examples. Why she could not use a powerful example of a FNC reporter showing some of the bravery of our troops in Iraq or Afghanistan is obvious; while those instances exist, they would diminish the emotional effect of her point because they would be validating an issue that liberals do not agree with in principle.

Next Maddow came to the focal point of her misguided argument: the idea that Fox News Channel is somehow completely responsible for the April 15th 'Tea Party' rallies, as well as the 9/12 'March on DC' and related gatherings nationwide. Her belief, as is now the belief of all of the sheeple who watched her show last night, is that Glenn Beck and FNC actively organized these patriotic gatherings at which Americans expressed their displeasure for the behavior in Washington, DC. On more than one occasion she called these events "anti-government," which plays right into the fallacy that some patriotic Americans do not want a government; that we are anarchists who wish to pay no taxes, and that we would have others "die quickly" rather than giving them 'free' health care.

Maddow framed her entire discussion in the model of the old Sesame Street segment "One of these things is not like the other." Interestingly, as she does this she fails to mention the fact that her own employer MSNBC is a division of General Electric, which is important on a couple of levels, and that MSNBC truly is the thing that is not like the others.

First, and more important than can be expressed, is the fact that the CEO of GE, Jeffrey Immelt, is on an "economic advisory board" for President Obama which has great influence over every decision the president makes regarding our economy. It has already been discovered that Obama's budget includes plans for "climate change revenues" which will greatly benefit GE, a company that has actively planned for the enactment of "cap and trade" and has lobbied for its passage to the tune of millions of dollars. Additionally, GE employees and executives gave $1.35 million to politicians in the past election while GE’s political action committee shelled out $1.55 million. About 64 percent of this $2.9 million went to Democrats, with Obama easily the top recipient of GE money.

Additionally, it is a widely held opinion that during the 2008 election, the media openly conspired to help Barack Obama become president. Media Research Center offers information that shows 69 percent of those interviewed remain convinced that reporters try to help the candidate they want to win, and this year by a nearly five-to-one margin voters believe they are trying to help Barack Obama. Specifically, 50 percent of voters think most reporters are trying to help Obama win versus 11 percent who believe they are trying to help his Republican opponent John McCain" with 26 percent saying "reporters offer unbiased coverage.

Furthermore, Pew Research Center conducted a study regarding actual coverage over one month of the campaign. From September 8th through October 16th, Pew found that while the tone of coverage of Barack Obama was generally even (negative to positive) with a difference of about 5 percent, coverage of John McCain during the same period was incredibly biased, with only 14 percent of coverage positive and 57 percent negative.

Additionally, Pew also studied the coverage from each individual network, and offered these results:

TOTAL COVERAGE (all media added together - 2,412 stories from 48 outlets)
Positive Obama Stories 36%
Positive McCain Stories 14%
Negative Obama Stories 29%
Negative McCain Stories 57%

Specifically, breaking down coverage between these two networks:

Positive Obama Stories 25%
Positive McCain Stories 22%
Negative Obama Stories 40%
Negative McCain Stories 40%

Positive Obama Stories 73%
Positive McCain Stories 10%
Negative Obama Stories 14%
Negative McCain Stories 43%

In conclusion, while this was an interesting attempt by Rachel Maddow to carry on President Obama's apparent marginalization of Fox News Channel, Maddow's diatribe falls short in the fact department. While there are many facts that prove MSNBC has a vested interest in Barack Obama's agenda finding success, and that the media on a whole certainly promoted Obama's candidacy in a positive manner, nowhere did Maddow offer any conclusive proof that Fox did anything beyond reporting with regards to the 'Tea Party' and '9/12' rallies.

And while the discussion brought forward by Maddow had nothing to do with MSNBC individually, it is well known that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones, and MSNBC is clearly a glass house.


tammy said...

"One of these things is not like the others" - thanks to Fox for not being like the others! I get tired of conservatives being called the sheeples. We aren't the ones following blindly along. We are the ones asking the questions and calling b.s. when we see it.

Mike said...

That Pew study shows that the MSM is clearly a mouthpiece for Obama, with Obama's lapdog (MSNBC) leading the way - and Obama wants it to stay that way. This is why he attacked Fox News, to send a message to the MSM to not report what Fox News digs up on him or his administration. If they do, they will also be attacked and get the shaft like Fox News.

In the end, this study goes a long way in dispelling the lies that idiot liberals spew when they attack Fox News and defend the MSM's bias.

Meadow said...

The GE connection to the WH is one of the big reasons I won't have any GE products in my home. There used to be a law.....

This is an excellent piece, Soloman! Worthy of wide distribution.

Hazaa Blue-Eyes said...

She's hard to listen to... But "one of these isn't like the other" is kind of ironic... Wonder if she considers herself a "news program"? She was invited to the White House as one...

And odd how Fox was the only one to cover the Tea Parties (accurately) but they are the ones who created it... And who smeared it? The 'real' news networks??

Geez, they just need to keep patting themselves on the back, don't they?

Mike said...

BTW, Pew's study also revealed that CNN's coverage of McCain was 61% negative, while their coverage of Obama was 39% negative.

FOX NEWS: Obama 40% negative, McCain 40% negative. 0 pt. gap.

CNN: Obama 39% negative, McCain 61% negative. 22 pt. gap.

MSDNC: Obama 14% negative, McCain 73% negative. 59 pt. gap.

Anonymous said...

The damage is done, merely with the original consideration of such an imbecilic act of "investigation" and its announcement. Now the fat is in the fire. No one will be foolish enough to do their patriotic duty for this moronic democrat administration or future ones of any stripe!

The_Kid said...

Professor of Life, Maybe I misread, but for my money there will be plenty of people 100% on board the Obama/Democrat train not only in 2010, but 2012. I talk to them all the time. No problemo as far as they are concerned.

Soloman - Just a quick note. When the state run media scores itself on positive -negative / Democrat - Republican, how many of the positive McCain offerings came out in prime time versus non-prime time when very few would be exposed to it.

CNN touts itself as having a balanced mix, but from what I can see they balance themselves off-prime.
Plus they get some ringer dolt to pretend he/she speaks for the right and sure enough crys uncle every time when they have their pretend fair and balanced debate.

Soloman said...

Tammy - currently I agree.

During the Bush years there may have been some cause for people to call Republicans out, but I think the fascinating element of that is the now blatant hypocrisy.

Those same people who were screaming about WMD's and the Patriot Act are now all in favor of allowing Iran to gain nukes, and take no issue whatsoever with things like 'net neutrality' and the privacy invasions of the health care "reform" going on in Congress.

On the other side, I think we (Conservatives) were concerned about many things Bush was doing, but most of it came very near the end of his time so we knew he was on his way out. Plus... he did do a lot of good things, and I'm yet to see one thing Obama's done good for America. Not one.

Soloman said...

"This is why he attacked Fox News, to send a message to the MSM to not report what Fox News digs up on him or his administration. If they do, they will also be attacked and get the shaft like Fox News."

Mike - I agree wholeheartedly. I also see the numbers you present regarding CNN as important. Specifically in this post I was focused on MSNBC, but there's no doubt whatsoever that CNN is guilty of bias as well.

Soloman said...

Meadow... Thanks for the compliment :^)

I've made the same pledge, no GE whatsoever. No way, no how.

Soloman said...

Hazaa - the irony is what killed me as I watched her show, and therefore what I tried to display in this post.

However.. unless I misunderstood you - FNC didn't 'create' the tea parties. From what I remember, Glenn Beck had a show in March where people gathered across the country, and he introduced what he called the '9-12 project' and started a website. About month before that, Rick Santelli on CNBC went on a rant about the Obama plan to subsidize losing mortgages, and during that show he talked about a 'Chicago Tea Party in July.'

FNC was just the one news outlet willing to see the tea parties for what they really were, which was people expressing legitimate concerns about an out of control government.

Soloman said...

Professor.. I'll be honest, I'm not quite sure what point you were making, but I'll agree with what Kid said about there being little problem for the 'D' party finding voters.

Sadly they have a message that is more easy to accept, and by nature people will look for an easy path. Combine these thoughts and it is not surprising that liberalism is so pervasive.

Soloman said...

Kid, that's an interesting point you make about the time of day such stories would run. I don't know if the concept has been studied so specifically.

You are also correct about the quality of debate put forward on CNN. I find the same level of problem on MSNBC from time to time.

I've also noticed that on both networks, when the Conservative guest has the debate won the liberal host and guest tend to gang up on them and start personal attacks and red herrings go flying, as was evident in that Chris Matthews clip I posted the other day.

The_Kid said...

Ganging up. Yep, Insult and complain. That's the liberal's staple of life. When the SRM get into a corner they can pull that tactic out and know that they haven't lost anyone.

j summ said...

i think you are looking at this all wrong. facts have had nothing to do with the news since like walter cronkite. yeah i'm old enough to remember him on t.v., he was pretty good at putting out the propaganda too.

Soloman said...

j summ, there is still news with integrity available.

I think ultimately it is up to the consumer to be intelligent enough to understand news from opinion, and opinion from propaganda.

Therein lies our problem... in the mainstream media, there is too much propaganda on the opinion shows, and too much opinion subtly expressed in the news, and too many people being educated by a leftist educational system that are taught from childhood to accept certain criteria as real.

Therefore, Arianna Huffington is making a fortune on an internet website that offers more fiction than fact and more Obama fluff and puff than substance, and the White House is trying to shut out the one news agency that dare question them.