Hud found a list of ridiculous media quotes. I'm still reading them all, but my favorite so far is this one from MSNBC's Keith Olberman after Hurricane Katrina:

For many of this country’s citizens, the mantra has been, as we were taught in social studies it should always be, whether or not I voted for this President, he is still my President. I suspect anybody who had to give him that benefit of the doubt stopped doing so last week. I suspect, also, a lot of his supporters, looking ahead to ‘08, are wondering how they can distance themselves from the two words which will define his government, our government: New Orleans. For him, it is a shame, in all senses of the word. A few changes of pronouns in there and he might not have looked so much like a 21st century Marie Antoinette.

Bwahahahahaha.

Posted by: Sarah at 07:35 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 148 words, total size 1 kb.

I think most people on the left think that we right-wingers love Fox News. Fox is always trotted out as the one example of ultra-conservative views, and several times when I have repeated something I read online, people have said, "What, did you hear that on Fox?" when they don't believe me. For the record, I know many right-wingers who don't like Fox. My husband and I enjoy watching Forbes on Fox and Cavuto on Business, but that's about it.

I personally see very little difference in the way Fox reports the news. For example, on Iraqi election day last week, the Fox reporter said, "This is the day Bush has been waiting for...", which really burned me up. Why not the day the Iraqi people have been waiting for, or the day the world has been waiting to see, or the day the American public, or anything but always placing the emphasis on Bush? Fox is just as crappy, and it drives me nuts. In fact, the day after Iraqi election day, my husband sat down and checked all websites of the major networks. MSNBC, ABC, CNN, they all had that stupid freezing rain as their top story. My husband said, "I bet Fox got it right," as he typed in the URL. Nope, they also went with freezing rain, though at least the Iraqi election was the second story; the other news sources didn't even have it on their main pages.

Therefore, I wasn't that surprised to find that Brit Hume on Fox only ranks as slightly right of center on that new media study from UCLA. Fox isn't nearly as far right as people like to pretend.

Take a few minutes to read the results of that study. They seem to have done a good job trying to filter out bias in their study. Interesting stuff.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:17 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 311 words, total size 2 kb.

1 As you might have guessed, invoking Fox News is simply a way some people handwave away views they don't agree with. I hardly watch network or cable news and I keep getting told that all I watch is Fox News, or if they're really trying to get cute: "Faux" News. Ooo... isn't that so clever to spell it that way?

Posted by: Patrick Chester at December 19, 2005 09:35 AM (MKaa5)

2 Sarah, Agree with you wholeheartedly. Although Fox tries harder to be fair and balanced, they frequently allow total idiots to put out what any engineer, philosopher. or military historian could debunk as untruths of the Left and touchy feely liberals. For instance, how many times can a Dhimmicrat claim there is no plan, when there obviously is one. Maybe it isn't going perfectly, but what war ever has? Or how about the discussion about how oil companies are gouging folks deliberately. I lived in Texas during the oil bust of the 80s. My high school friends' fathers were losing their businesses, homes, jobs, and the shirts off their backs because they couldn't make enough drilling because the oil was too cheap. My old girlfriend's new husband was in the oil business, and got laid off with 2 kids to feed. He had to take a loan officer job at the bank -- foreclosing on the rigs and equipment of the folks he used to work with. He hated what he had to do so much he spent all his spare time training to be a sheriff and eventually join the FBI. He never wanted to go back to hurting his friends again. The oil companies laid off thousands of folks in Houston just because oil was so cheap they couldn't afford to pay their employees and still keep from bankruptcy. So because oil is now a commodity, we pay whatever Hugo Chavez wants to charge us, and that is somehow Exxon's fault when he jacks up the price to cheat his own people out of their revenue and line his cronies' pockets? Fox isn't perfect. It is still too far left for most common sense military folks who know what war is about and how to fight one. They try to distill an entire epic down to a 10 second sound bite. But they're better than most, so we watch them instead of SeeBS. Keep on keepin' on, gal. You are doin' fine. Subsunk

Posted by: Subsunk at December 19, 2005 11:30 PM (6RsXX)

3 We also lived in Houston during the 80's. It was a horrible time. People would pack up and leave their homes in the middle of the night. We went from a very comfortable way of life to barely making ends meet. We left in 1990, and I still miss the good people of Texas. Sarah's Mama

Posted by: Nancy at December 20, 2005 02:04 PM (Z+RCN)

4 Yeah, they're not right-wing, they're simply not virulently left wing. Then again, for many leftists that's the same thing as being a right-wing extremist. Probably the same for right-wing extremists, but they're marginalized, whereas the other side is aggrandized. Kalroy

Posted by: Kalroy at December 20, 2005 08:25 PM (AwOS7)

5 Kalroy stole what I was planning to say. Because FOX is not in total lockstep with the main alphabet soup folks, they get branded as ultra-conservative. Also because Brit dares to have people like Fred Barnes or Bill Kristol on panels (balanced by Mara Liasson and Juan Williams) - surely they must be neocons, right?

Posted by: Barb at December 21, 2005 01:55 AM (g9qHI)

6 To say Fox "is still far too left" of anything shows how far the scale has moved in this country. The people you decry as "far left fringe" are actually moderates in any other democracy. Some people need to pick up a book or two and realize that buzzwords and propaganda don't change the actual definition of political positions. They can be fluid but weren't meant to be splashed onto the wall and called whatever your talking points says they should be called.

Posted by: mmm...lemonheads at December 21, 2005 03:55 PM (uZuRD)

7 mmm...huh?

Posted by: Sarah at December 21, 2005 04:26 PM (EhEOa)

8 lemmonhead, Gee, I guess the GOP email address book forgot me. I haven't had my talking points today. Can't survive without them. Of course, I survived without them for 47 yrs, so maybe I can struggle on through without them. "The people you decry as "far left fringe" are actually moderates in any other democracy. Some people need to pick up a book or two and realize that buzzwords and propaganda don't change the actual definition of political positions. They can be fluid but weren't meant to be splashed onto the wall and called whatever your talking points says they should be called." A "moderate" in any other democracy would not insist on impeachment without crime, defeat without honor, retreat without failure, and whining and crying about their own defense by better people than said "moderates". Military folks don't get to pick and choose who in the country they will defend. If they did, you can bet there would not be much effort expended to save folks who think the country can't win wars, shouldn't protect its citizens because it violates the terrorists' civil rights, and who insists other Men and Women sacrifice their lives and efforts for the "moderates" safety and well being while denigrating their work. If other democracies believe Howard the Coward, Nancy the Nut Case, and John I'll Retreat Before Battle Is Joined because we just can't win anything, then I guess I don't think they are truly serious moderate democracies who will stand up against tyranny. Can't wait to see how they handle the coming Islamic Caliphate, when the Real "Moderate Islamists" begin stabbing them, beheading them, and beating the women who don't wear hijab. I won't be counting on their support to defend my family from harm. They've never come through before. You are free to hold to your opinion. It merely shows how uneducated and blissfully ignorant of true sacrifice and honor you are. Walk on, bud. Right off the cliff your heading for. Subsunk

Posted by: Subsunk at December 24, 2005 09:53 AM (6RsXX)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Tonight at the dinner table, the husband and I raced to finish each other's sentences as we both realized we'd read the same article and come to the same conclusion. The results of this ABC poll in Iraq are interesting all around, but the most striking thing was how they parallel the American experience. 70% of Iraqis say their own life is going well, but only 44% say that their country is doing well. That sounds almost exactly like something I heard Rush Limbaugh say on the radio a few weeks ago. He said he gets callers who, well, I'll let him say it in his own words:

"[Jack] Welch told Fox News Channel that President Bush has much to be proud of with regard to the economy, but he has to get out there and sell himself - and his accomplishments - to the American people to let them know about it. 'President Bush put a tax bill through that supported capital formation and risk taking,' Welch said. 'We’ve created 2 million jobs a year after the 9/11 attacks. That’s a remarkable accomplishment. Bush has to get out there and talk about it.' Despite the recent natural disasters, such as Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma, the U.S. economy continues to grow, and the stock market seems to weather every storm.'" In fact, last week the stock market was -- well, not at a record high but, I mean, it was at ten seven, the Dow Jones industrial average at 10,700 something. "Welch certainly noticed" all this. "Most business people have noticed. Investors noticed. But, according to the recent polls – which show the president’s approval rating at its lowest level of his presidency – the majority of Americans have not been persuaded of the 'good news economy.'" Now, you know why this is. This is very simple. This is one of the most remarkable phenomena that I recall experiencing as host of this wildly successful program and it is this: We could be in the middle of an economic boom; I get phone calls from people, "Yeah, I'm doing okay, Rush. I am just doing fabulous. But I'm worried about my neighbors."

"Why are you worried about your neighbors? Is the Meals on Wheels showing up at their house every day? What are you worried about?"

"Well, I just see the news on TV and the economy's not doing all that well. People are this and that. I'm just worried about my neighbor."

"Well, do you know that they're doing badly or are you just worried about them?"

"No, I'm doing okay," and then there's some guilt associated with it. So most people's perception of their own economic circumstances are fine but all this negative news makes them think everybody else out there is, you know, eating dirt. They refuse to feel good about it because they think they're going to feel guilty.

I believe the same sort of phenomenon is happening in Iraq, that individual Iraqis feel they are doing well, but they keep hearing about bombs and insurgency, so they think the country is not doing well. I know it's not a perfect comparison, the US economy and the situation in Iraq, but my husband and I couldn't help but notice the parallel.

Anyway, the whole ABC poll is worth a read.

Posted by: Sarah at 02:58 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 557 words, total size 3 kb.

Does it get any better than Varifrank? I submit that it does not.

[The Western mainstream media] compares our actions at abu-ghirab with the saddam regime, as if being held in a compromising position by the ugliest woman from West Kentucky was anything like being killed, butchered and buried with a 1000 people from your hometown.

There's more, much more, on the virtues of propaganda.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:25 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 63 words, total size 1 kb.

There's just something that irked me about this paragraph in this totally finger-pointing article Lieberman's pro-war views concern Dems. I absolutely hate when "journalists" throw stuff like this in (italics mine):

Lieberman, who seems to relish his role as a maverick, is veering far from the Democratic script. His vocal support for the war, a stark and frequent reminder of the deep divisions among Democrats on how to end the war, makes him something of a marked man.

As if Lieberman is purposely trying to tick off Democrats. Ever consider that maybe he really does disagree with his party? Ever consider that he's standing up for what he believes in? Nope, he's just relishing the beat of a different drum. That's not reporting, that's editorializing. I hate the media.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:30 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 141 words, total size 1 kb.