Friday, November 28, 2008

Fox Decides To Discard "Fair And Balanced" Mantra

FOX News' motto is "fair and balanced." For the most part, it was the only television news source this past election which even attempted to be fair in its coverage of the presidential race, although the network had a complete news blackout like the other media on the glaring issue of Obama's inability to satisfy the constitutional requirement for being president. CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS and ABC all threw in with the Obama campaign earlier in the year when Obama was still fending off a challenge from Sen. Hillary Clinton. The New York Daily News' Rush & Malloy reports that FOX News Director Roger Ailes has ordered the network's top news folks to lay off of Obama:

Fox News boss Roger Ailes doesn't want to spoil Barack Obama's political honeymoon, we hear. A source says Ailes has told prime-time hosts , Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Greta Van Susteren to lay off the President-elect - at least for a while. "WeLink're not going to have any personal attacks on Obama," a network insider says. "The public has spoken - we must treat him with respect."

This news comes as we get further confirmation that censorship is already occurring on the Internet to protect Obama from his critics. The latest censorship victim is Atlas Shrugs' Pamela Geller, an outspoken conservative who blew the lid off of Obama's birth certificate problem and his flagrant violation of federal campaign finance laws. Both issues have become popular Internet search items, but Google has decided to "sandbox" posts that Obama and his supporters find offensive. "I was in the top five search results before the story got legs," Geller told WorldNetDaily. "These stories drove 12,000 to 15,000 people to my site every day." Traffic to her site plummeted over night after Google took steps to block access to her posts. Google CEO Eric Schmidt is an unabashed supporter of Obama during the campaign, even hitting the campaign stump for him.

It is absolutely incredible that in America, "Land of the Free", an important constitutional issue that has been the subject of no fewer than a dozen lawsuits, including one that is pending before our U.S. Supreme Court as I write, has received virtually no coverage in the mainstream media. If you hadn't bothered to tune in conservative talk radio shows or surf Internet blogs, you would have no idea the issue even exists. Then again, very few Americans know anything about the U.S. Constitution anymore thanks to the declining state of public education in this country. Why should we expect the news media to care?


bobisimo said...

I'm not at all an advocate of censorship but I LIKE the fact that if I type in "Obama birth certificate" the first few hits are popular, reportedly-objective research sites like FactCheck, Snopes, and PolitiFact.

It comes across to me that Google is doing its part to keep its search engine tool relevant and educational.

However, add "forged" to the keyword search and your Atlas Shrugs site is the TOP ITEM on the list (and the second). So it's not like Google is squelching anything.

As to Fox, I'm not going to cry that they feel *pressed* into being respectful. All media should be against personal attacks.

Shofar said...

Wait until the "Fairness Doctrine" returns. It will not only be aimed at radio, but watch out, the blogosphere will be next.

Look for a return to BBs and usenet for any real info on what is going on across the nation and around the world.

artfuggins said...

Fox...fair and balanced...that has been proven to NOT be the case so many times.........I think they were too embarrassed to continue using that false slogan.

jbargeusa said...

I feel your pain.
Though perhaps you've noticed the country has been going down the tubes for the last 3 months?
At some point we have to pitch in and save it.
Maybe Roger Ailes wants America to be successful, no matter who is in charge.
Times are bad, and people are, honest to gosh, struggling.
You might not like Barack Obama, and maybe it is unfair Fox News won't launch personal attacks on him (?), but in the end.....he's going to get inaugarated and be there for 4 long years.
Do we really want him not to be able to govern?
Sure, blunt the liberal agenda (like his cabinet picks don't already do that).
But just because you're hate the injustice of it all and hope that the conservatives will join you, that doesn't mean we should let the world go up in flames and let the economy grind to a complete halt and let families lose their homes by the hundreds of thousands, all to protest the unfairness of it all.
That strikes me as lacking perspective here.
Terrorists are killing innocent people, the housing market has imploded, unemployment could very well sky rocket and you just want politicians to sit on their hands and refuse to accept the election result?
I mean, maybe he's not a "natural born" citizen.
Maybe he is.
In the end it's just opinions being tossed around and not even Rush Limbaugh is joining this parade.
Advance Indiana, there's comes a time when all good men and women come to the aid of their country.
There's a time for political brawling and a time to work together and get things straightened out.
You don't need to drink the kool aid.
But I will suggest you unclinch your jaw, do some deep breathing, take a hot bath, and maybe have some sleepy time tea.
Life's unfair. Politics is unfair (why, sometimes the President can even lose the popular vote!)
But the country is off track and we only have one president at a time.
So don't begrudge the grown ups if they decide to let bygones be bygones.
Maybe they're not the ones making a mistake.
Maybe it is you.
Happy Thanksgiving.

Anonymous said...

What is the name of the case that is "pending" in front of the US Supreme Court that you speak of? I would like to look at the docket and the all the briefs, lower court and otherwise.

Ted said...

Seems clear cut to me, Barack Obama cannot become President of the United States under Article II of the Constitution. Please listen to the linked youtube, and if you can, point out exactly where its conclusion is erroneous. Since the United States Supreme Court will be under the same Constitutional constraints with regard to the cases now before it, I don't see HOW the Supreme Court can find otherwise. But, again, if anyone's got a legal theory Obama can use to get out of checkmate, have at it:

stringchopper said...

It's doubtful to me that Google, as a company, would do something that might hamper customer loyalty and affect profits.

However, the media was so obviously behind Obama, and all the Sheeple learned only what the media wanted them to learn.

It is funny to me when I hear the flaming liberal fascists (like Sean Penn) cry and mock Fox News, because they are mostly conservative... yet Sean Penn won't say a thing about CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, NAT. GEO., DISCOVERY, HISTORY, BRAVO, LIFETIME, et al.

I also will not personally accept this "it's over and let's be nice now" philosophy. Did the liberals do that 8 years ago? 6 years ago? 4 years ago? 2 years ago? NOPE!

So conservatives should not pay any attention to the idea of "laying off Obama".

Obama deserves to be criticized sharply every moment of every day for the next four years. This won't happen because the "6 big media" companies have the same agenda and control all the news. I fully expect to hear a couple of "Seig Heils" on CNN in the next four years.

Do not buy this crap:
"Advance Indiana, there's comes a time when all good men and women come to the aid of their country.
There's a time for political brawling and a time to work together and get things straightened out."

If that were true, the socialists would have done it every day of the Bush administration. Instead, they sought to tear Bush down every day, little by little.

I won't drink jbargusa's kool-aid.

When we live in a society where we are expected to be part-time slaves for our government, there is always a need for political brawling.

Downtown Indy said...

I am convinced there is a coordinated effort up and down the line, even to the very lowest ranks of internet users. I visit several forum-style sites regularly, and in every case there seems to be one person who's never heard from until something Obama-related comes up. Then these people are all over the threads with basically two messages: 'Get over it, you lost', 'how dare you say anything bad about Obama.'

At first it seemed just random, but now it's clearly not. I am convinced there are people assigned to jump in and start attacking the 'nonbelievers.' Why would anyone hold to a routine of checking forums everyday and never - NEVER - initiating a single word in praise of Obama, yet they leap to their feet the moment someone brings up any of the unanswered Obama questions for discussionelifie?

It's eerily predictable and consistent. I've never seen anything like it before.

Gary R. Welsh said...

Well said, Brian.

Downtown Indy, you aren't just imagining that. What you describe is how David Axelrod operates. You bet the campaign had people employed full time to pour cold water on anything negative about their man. Axelrod also employs a favorite trick of the CIA to discredit critics. He'll send someone out with information that sort of fits with what is being said about Obama elsewhere, allow that person to gain Obama critics' trust enough to rely on the information he/she is feeding, then feed the critics a completely bogus piece of information, which is then used to discredit the claims of Obama's critics in their entirety. Axelrod has deployed this tactic repeatedly throughout his years in political consulting.

Anonymous said...

Do we really want him not to be able to govern?

Government not being able to govern? Please, tell me it will come to this!! Enjoy what is left of individual freedom.

I visit several forum-style sites regularly, and in every case there seems to be one person who's never heard from until something Obama-related comes up. Then these people are all over the threads with basically two messages: 'Get over it, you lost', 'how dare you say anything bad about Obama.'

I also visit a lot of forums that would be called "right leaning." These forums range from survivalist ideals to a forum for cops. Ironically, all the pro-ObamaNation supporters seemed to have join dates from March to May of 2008. Given that it seems the left is much more active on-line, I honestly think there was a push for volunteers to go to various forums, register, and get a feel for the mood. Since ObamaNation is a politician, meaning liar, no one really knows what he feels about anything. He voted one way in Chicago, claimed to believe something to one person, then turns around and says the exact opposite to another person. These trolls _always_ use the Obama as a centrist "facts" when defending him.

M Theory said...

Gary you hit the mark once again.

Downtown Indy, you are right about the coordinated effort in regard to Obama.

Hoosiers For Fair Taxation gets about 250 unique hits per day.

Recently I wrote posts about Obama's citizenship and in popped some unknown character who left comments designed to harass and intimidate me.

Guess where a quick trace to where the hits came from during the time the comments were left?

They were left by someone inside a U.S. Congressional office. My guess is Carson's office.

IndyPaul said...

Ted, I'd direct you to the discussion under the post from a few days ago, "another view of natural born". The claim that the COLB is incorrect just because Hawaii allowed residents to register their child's birth later is erroneous. The COLB is still the state's certification of the place of birth, and relies upon the original birth certificate for that. For that reason, it is referred to as the 'short form' and the original certificate 'the long form.' Also, while Obama was considered a citizen by the British Commonwealth at the time of his birth due to his father's citizenship, he was also a natural born US citizen by virtue of being born in the USA, and his British citizenship expired.

Nice post, jbarg. I can't help recalling that Gore himself had to shutdown numerous objections by Representatives during the counting of the electoral votes in 2000, as no Senator would support them. This is the method laid out by law for objections to a candidate's qualifications.

Gary R. Welsh said...

Nice try, IndyPaul, but the certificate is worthless if the law at that time in Hawaii permitted a parent to fill out a birth certificate instead of the attending physician. That came in handy, later, when Stanley Ann Dunham collected food stamps for she and Barry as an unwed mother, even though the grandparents were raising Barry and paying for his costs.

Unknown said...

To think of any mainstream media outlet as "fair and balanced" is not only naive, but foolish as well, especially considering the fact that Rupert Murdoch gave Hillary Clinton a sizeable amount of money for her campaign during the primaries. Oh, and not to worry concerning Obama. Meet the new boss: same as the old boss. When the president-elect is related to the current vice president, one should be wondering if they had a real choice at all in 2008.

IndyPaul said...

"the certificate is worthless if the law at that time in Hawaii permitted a parent to fill out a birth certificate instead of the attending physician." Thats a mighty big IF. Your implication is that Hawaii allowed parents to fill out the cerificate themselves, with no reference to birth documentation. The law allows parents to register births in Hawaii, but there is no support for the suggestion that a Certificate of Live Birth would reflect Hawaii as the state of birth without proof that Hawaii was, indeed, the state of birth. The state has said it has the birth certificate. The COLB is, as it has been repeatedly been referred to, the 'short form', based upon the long form.

jbargeusa said...

Brian Phillips: Yes, you should stand up for your beliefs. That is exactly right.
I'm not saying for small timers like yourself to stop hating the President.
In all honesty it won't really matter all that much what you say or do to the holder of the most important office in the nation, so knock yourself out.
I feel your pain; I understand the rage and frustration at the recent turn of events, the bitterness in your soul, the realization that besides the best efforts of Fox News (number one cable news show) and Rush Limbaugh (tens of millions of daily listeners) and right wing bloggers all over the internet, you still lost.
How unfair.
What I did say was if the grown ups want to move on - like Roger Ailes for example- don't begrudge them.
They have a role in running the country - you know, stopping innocent people being slaughtered by terrorists, keeping families from losing life savings in foreclosures, minor things like that.
I'm fascinated by your argument "Did the liberals do that 8 years ago? 6 years ago? 4 years ago? 2 years ago? NOPE!"
So are you saying that 2 wrongs DO make a right?
You're unhappy at someone else's juvenile behaviour, so therefore it is okay to act like a spoiled child?
Thanks for clearing that up.
It's funny, I always thought if someone else acted poorly that I should not return the favor.
I heard it called "maturity" but apparently I had it backward.
But you know, I always learn something when a far right winger talks, and now I know that I am supposed to react in kind if someone acts churlish.
What a great lesson to pass on to our children.
Thank you for that, Brian.
You're like a little shining star among the darkness.
Oh wait, I'm supposed to be mad at you - man, this whole "DON'T treat people how you want to be treated" angle is so confusing......

stringchopper said...

thanks jbargeusa for your trolling comments. I'll look you up when I want to add vitriol, ad hominem attacks, straw-man arguments, condescension, and other mature behaviors to my resume.

For now though, I'm satisfied letting you be the grown-up. ;)

Do svidaniya,