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.