The Fox News Agenda, Exposed!


You've read all about it on the blue blogs. Now, revealed before your own eyes, the Fox News Channel's secret agenda.

In case you didn't notice, the War on Fox is on in earnest. The Fox haters' echo chamber on the internet is cranking into high gear:

That last is from the premier Fox haters, the newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed gang). While most of the Fox-hating cabal don't watch what they condemn, the newsmutts do claim to monitor the channel. But when the aim is propaganda, it's not so much what you say as what you don't say. The hounds, like other smear sites, can lie without working up a sweat, simply by cherry-picking what they say, and what they don't say.

So once again we thought it was time to reveal the rampant GOP propaganda on Fox for all to see. We revved up our tivo and started with Fox & Friends this morning, straight through to Studio-B with Shep. Prepare yourself for an onslaught of conservative "misinformation".



On Fox & Friends we find a Democrat Congresswoman talking about vote fraud. Newspup Judy supposedly writes on this show, as when she howled when they interviewed a Republican but did not "invite any Democrat to respond". Yet here we had a Democrat without any Republican to respond. What did Judy say about that? Um, well, she neglected to report it at all.



That would be a former employee of President Bill Clinton. By an amazing coincidence, his appearance was also not reported by the mongrels.



Mr Roehmer was interviewed on Fox News Live. Doggie Donna once complained when FNL interviewed a Republican: "Where is the fair and balanced they are always claiming? There was no one to answer for the Democrats." So today, a Democrat was interviewed, with no one to answer for the Republicans. What did Donna have to say about that? Oh, wait, nothing.



Another Democrat? What kind of GOP propaganda channel is this anyhow? Needless to say, the tail-waggers carefully refrained from mentioning Rep Cooper.



There's a familiar face. This is another one of those "conservatives" on Fox. When Bill Frist appeared on Fox News Live Donna wailed that "there was no Democratic Senator to speak up". So what did she say when there was no Republican Senator to counter Durbin? Another dog that did not bark.



It was just yesterday that Donna was blasting Bill Hemmer for talking to a Republican Senator "with no counterpart". Today, fair and balanced, he had a Democrat Senator with no counterpart. What did Donna say to that? Well, nothing. She ignored it completely!



Who's this? A liberal speaking out against the Iraq War and calling for Rumsfeld to resign? On the GOP propaganda channel? When Ms MacCallum talked to Dan Bartlett yesterday, Judy fumed, even though top Democrats had been asked to appear and refused. So how did she report on Batiste's appearance today, with no one to rebut his viewpoint? The usual way: she didn't.



Another prime purveyor of GOP propaganda! Judy complained when FNL interviewed Kay Bailey Hutchinson but "offered Democrats no chance to rebut". What was her reaction today when FNL featured Boxer and no Republicans to rebut? "Shhhhh. Quiet. We can't let the readers know that Fox has these Democrats on the air. We just won't tell them."



Is there a more authentic liberal than one from the CAP? Surely the newspups, who complain when Studio B talks to a Republican and "there was no Democrat" present, will admit when the opposite happens? Um, no. Their report on today's program just happens to omit any mention of Crowley.

These are just some of the Dems we spotted, but you get the point. There they are: the faces of Fox propaganda. The newshounds, who watch Fox "so you don't have to", put up article after article. And yet not one of these appearances got so much as a mention by the biased bowsers. They have refined cherry-picking and lying by omission into an art form.

posted: Tue - September 26, 2006 at 11:23 PM       j$p  send 

Fox Fan
It's always amusing when you cryptically comment on their site saying things like "Who was on/what happened at 7:34PM during that segment?"
 
They feign ignorance when confronted with exact times that prove their claims of bias wrong, sparing their audience the shame of having their articles completely debunked.
September 27, 2006, 8:57:41 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Mike
Also, they seem to have TV/VCR/computer failures at critical times and "miss" some of FOX's reporting.
September 27, 2006, 10:41:04 AM EDT – Like – Reply

OverHere
They probably don't even bother recording anything that happens on FNC, that way they don't have to be burdened with looking for what actually happened.
 
Someone should do an "Outfoxed"-style expose on the Newspooches. Then again that would make them seem much more important than they really are.
September 27, 2006, 11:32:56 AM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
> They seem to have TV/VCR/computer failures at critical times
 
I know that stale excuse gets trotted out, but how to explain when they write up a particular program and rail about how unbalanced it is, and in the process leave out the fact that Joe Biden was interviewed, or Barbara Boxer, or whoever? There are several of examples of that very thing from yesterday noted in the article. Did their VCR conk out just before the Democrat came on, and then miraculously recover afterward?
 
I'd ask the pooches why they left out all of these appearances, but why bother? They wipe my posts off their site with one press of the delete key.
September 27, 2006, 12:42:53 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Fox Fan
Did their VCR conk out just before the Democrat came on, and then miraculously recover afterward?
J$P
 
I bet they really do use VCRs. They're pretty low tech, judging by the video "Outfoxed" itself. It's a single layer, unencrypted DVD with a paper CD cover. Anyone who burns DVDs understands that those are characteristics of a low quality home movie. It is a bottom of the barrel low budget hack film.
 
I admit I watched it, I burned it, then I brought it to a conservative friend's house to watch it and laugh at the terrible editing and production of the comedy.
 
No money was spent in the process, no poodles profited. The DVD was borrowed.
September 27, 2006, 3:23:52 PM EDT – Like – Reply

BushIsOurRuination
I find it "interesting" how you prove your assertion of "cherry picking" by the NH by - er, uh, "cherry picking" segments and screen shots yourself... 
 
So... um, you're saying Fox gives "equal" time to Democrats, overall? (How they are questioned and the ratio of R to D is curiously overlooked in your laughable little "analysis") 
 
By the way, do you really expect to "prove" this assertion simply by showing a couple screen shots of democrats that appear on Fox?
 
Nawwww, Fox "News" doesn't "lean a weee bit to the right". Course not! They're "fair-n-balanced" donchya know. Geez, one DOES wonder why they're so popular with cancervative idiots, though, since they're such a "straight" cable news channel. Quite curious. 
 
I imagine Fox can't have 100% cancervatives on ALL the time - the stupidity levels might even get to the most brainless of cancervative bobble-heads. The also have to at least "give the illusion" of being fair-n-blanced...
 
The rules of "logic" and argumentation sure are weird in this bizarro-world cancervative idiot alternate universe... 
 
This is performance art, right? You're really Andy Kauffman, and he never died. Is that it?
September 27, 2006, 5:38:08 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
> I find it "interesting" how you prove your assertion of "cherry picking" by the NH
 
It's more than interesting. It is iron-clad proof. The newspooches complain when there's a Republican with no Democrat being interviewed (an assinine, ignorant complaint, since there is no rule in journalism that all interviews have to be conducted in pairs). But when it's a Democrat getting the interview, well they just skip over it. Even when they write an article on the show, they find it so easy to avoid telling anyone about the Democrat.
 
And far from "cherry-picking" segments, I started with Fox & Friends and went straight through to 4:00 pm. Every program. I got all the Democrats shown, and a few I didn't show. So there were MORE Dems on than are pictured here. Taking a block of time on one day and pointing out how many Dems were interviewed: how exactly is that cherry-picking?
 
If you want cherry-picking, head over to the newsmutts and search for any report of ANY of those interviews. Good luck.
September 27, 2006, 5:58:54 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Fox Fan
Hey BIORsGhost, it's not cherry picking if the entire tree is made of cherries. It's making a valid example of the content of the newshounds' site. johnny's examples are few of many.
 
If he was cherry picking, he would be avoiding posts from their site that deviate from his point- posts that would have to show Fox News interviewing democrats on equal ground with republicans. Where are those posts over there? That's right, they don't exist.
 
If you want to see perfect examples of cherry picking, or choosing to report only what supports a claim among other data that refutes it (since you don't appear to understand the phrase), go back to your silly little hate-Fox webpage where all the mutts have selective eyes and ears.
September 27, 2006, 6:36:14 PM EDT – Like – Reply

BG
Look, you can't simply throw up screenshots of a handful of Dems, then say "look, see?" The head count doesn't matter so much as the context. This doesn't prove anything; the support for your case case is painfully weak...
 
So, you side-step the number of republicans on, the amount of airtime each got, and how they were treated: with acromny like Wallace's interview of Clinton, or given a metophoric televised BJ like Cavuto's interview with Bush. 
 
But let's give you the benefit of the doubt.
 
...And, so TODAY ("perhaps"), the head count was even or even /favored/ the Dems... dunno, didn't see it, I don't/won't watch Fox; it's crap. 
 
But there is such a thing as a statistically valid sample - ever hear of the concept? ...and a few screen shots on a particular day - independent of the fact that no context was whatsoever, simply doesn't cut it...
It's still a purely anecdotal case; it don't prove Jack S**t about anything...
 
However, let's shift gears and look at a more detailed analysis:
 
Convention opening night comparison: FOX's live speech coverage of Republicans almost doubled that of Dems
 
Media Matters for America found that FOX News Channel showed 74 total minutes of live primetime speech coverage on the first night of the Republican National Convention (RNC) -- 33 minutes more than the network showed of speeches on the first night of the Democratic National Convention (DNC)...
 
http://mediamatters.org/items/200409010001
------
 
So, we have a major political event - the conventions, and Fox gives 80% more air time to the Republican POV... 
 
Nah, they ain't a right wing propaganda network or part of the right-wing noise machine, now are they???
 
Your thread is silly.
September 27, 2006, 7:51:00 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Fox Fan
"And, so TODAY ("perhaps"), the head count was even or even /favored/ the Dems... dunno, didn't see it, I don't/won't watch Fox; it's crap. 
 
But there is such a thing as a statistically valid sample"
BIORsGhost
**********************
You know the sample is statistically valid how, is it directly from the newshounds? You obviously don't know from experience because you "won't watch Fox"!
 
As for mediamatters- it doesn't matter. It's right on par with newshounds, cherry picked and packed with pathetic barking moonbats.
September 27, 2006, 8:01:03 PM EDT – Like – Reply

BG
Fox Fan | 09.27.06 - 8:06 pm | #
-----
 
2004 Conventions:
 
Fox news gave 74 minutes of Prime Time to Republicans
 
Only 41 minutes to Democrats... 
 
Nawww, Fox isn't a GOP propaganda network...
 
That's just one of many "fer instances"...
 
And so tell me, "Fox Fan", why are you a "Fox Fan"??? Because of their "Fair-n-Balanced-ness"???
September 27, 2006, 8:18:40 PM EDT – Like – Reply

sknabt
That's why, as J$ realizes, I show the tape. And when someone tries to refute it with their own highly edited video spin, I show the entire thing.
 
I find it hilarious this site uses the Wallace/Clinton interview as an example of Fox News balance because some liberals are cheering when a liberal guest getting ambushed fights back and lands some good punches.
 
And, scorched, Chris strikes back http://www.eyesonfox.org/?p=103 in this fine example of 'balance.'
September 27, 2006, 8:36:12 PM EDT – Like – Reply

BG
http://www.eyesonfox.org/?p=103
 
Nice site, good analysis...
September 27, 2006, 10:08:19 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
> Didn't see it, I don't/won't watch Fox
 
So you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about? Thanks for telling me. You can site nonsense from Media Matters (the reason the coverage was longer for the Republicans is because the SPEECHES were longer and some ran overtime, past 11:00 pm). If you want to read the truth:
 
http://johnnydollar.us/2004a/C1049953760/E1447108850/index.html
 
Still, by your own admission, you don't have an opinion on Fox because you don't watch it. What you have is an opinion of someone else's opinion. Which in law is kind of like double hearsay: worthless. I can save a lot of time knowing that there is no reason to rebut statements by someone who brags that he is ignorant on the topic at hand.
September 27, 2006, 10:21:16 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Fox Fan
"I can save a lot of time knowing that there is no reason to rebut statements by someone who brags that he is ignorant on the topic at hand."
J$P
 
If only that could be said without deletion over at BG's favorite site. Words of a wise man, they are guaranteed censorship at an unwise site.
September 27, 2006, 10:34:38 PM EDT – Like – Reply

OverHere
Wow BG, congratulations on shooting yourself right in the foot, and proving that your comments are not worth spending another second reading. You know SO MUCH about FNC, yet you don't even bother to watch? Gimme a break.
 
Why don't you next tell us how it was to be in the Civil War, since you have just as much experience with that as you do with what appears on FNC...
September 28, 2006, 8:13:50 AM EDT – Like – Reply

BG
Boy, you guys are lame... really going for that "gotchya" - eh? Failing miserabley. But thanks for the laugh.
 
Regarding your laughable and pathetic "gotchya" attempt regarding my admission that I don't watch Fox - after laughing my ass off at your piss poor argumentation skills, all I have to say is: 
 
I don't have to stick my nose up an elephant's ass to know it "probably" stinks...
 
But if /you/ think it's necessary to have your nose permanently lodged up and elephants ass to draw the conclusion that "it stinks"... be my guest. 
 
As far as your attempt to conclude that Fox was "fair-n-balanced" in its coverage of the 2004 Presidental elections, here's a nice table that shows how much Fox devoted relative to CNN and MSNBC
|
|
|
V
 
FOX aired significantly less of Dem convention speeches than other cables
 
During the Democratic National Convention, which took place between July 26 and July 29, Media Matters for America monitored coverage by FOX News Channel, CNN, and MSNBC and calculated the amount of time each aired convention speeches live. FOX News Channel aired one hour and 16 minutes less of speeches from the convention live than did CNN and one hour and 47 minutes less than did MSNBC.
 
LIVE CONVENTION SPEECH AIRTIME
 
FOX    CNN    MSNBC
July 26    0:41    1:10    1:07
July 27    1:05    1:23    1:39
July 28    0:42    1:08    1:05
July 29    1:12    1:15    1:36
 
Totals
Fox: 3 hours, 40 minutes
CNN: 4 hours, 56 minutes
MSNBC: 5 hours, 27 minutes
 
http://johnnydollar.us/2004a/
-------------------------------
 
Back to the drawing board cancervative cretins... Thanks for the laugh. Cancervative bizarro-world sure is funny!
September 28, 2006, 6:56:12 PM EDT – Like – Reply

BG
Opps, strike that link, should be:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200408020002
September 28, 2006, 6:56:56 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
BG you should call people cretins, considering I gave you a link that addresses (and debunks) the MM "analysis" and you apparently didn't even bother to click on it.
 
Bye.
September 28, 2006, 7:26:27 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Fox Fan
I can't believe he's still taking info from notoriously misleading/completely false websites that claim 0 credibility.
 
Might as well link to newshounds for the facts.
 
Nice knowing ya BG.
September 28, 2006, 8:36:02 PM EDT – Like – Reply

OverHere
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
September 29, 2006, 12:01:10 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Fox Fan
I hate to beat a dead horse, but I'd like it if BG could do a report on how mediamatters covered the election. 
 
Why research- 100% anti-Bush, anti-morals, anti-American principles; it's BG's sort of crowd.
September 29, 2006, 7:20:52 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Mike
The left is cranked into high gear.
 
Panic mode - they are about to lose again and the prospect is killing them.
September 29, 2006, 8:24:57 PM EDT – Like – Reply

OverHere
Fox Fan, it's ok when the left is biased, it's only wrong when someone points out BOTH sides and doesn't just press the liberal agenda all the time... I guess FNC should have replayed the Democrats' speeches to equal out the time.
September 30, 2006, 5:45:28 PM EDT – Like – Reply

jerziegrl
When you compare Fox to all the other MSM outlets out there, they are the ONLY one's who, on a consistent basis, present BOTH sides. Rarely, if at all, do you see any other news channel interview both sides regarding a particular issue in the news.
 
And even if they were a "right wing outlet" as they have been accused to be (which I do not feel they are, nor do I think anyone could come up with legitimate proof proving so), how would that be ANY different or less acceptible then the rest of the MSM leaning so far left and doing what ever they can to support the liberal agenda and smear the right? Does being a Democrat/liberal afford you more rights to be heard or represented in the media?
 
What does that say about how far left the American MSM is, if being "Fair and Balanced" means catering to the right? 
 
I just don't get it.
October 2, 2006, 2:11:33 PM EDT – Like – Reply