'We Will Play It a Lot'


J$P Audio! What are those new public service announcements on Fox? Yep, more of their GOP propaganda!

From Fox News Radio, July 19 2007:

Fox's new PSAs are causing a stir. You can hear them for yourself, as well as an email to John Gibson about them. First, here are three of the PSAs [mp3 audio]:



Gibby responded to an emailer about the spots [mp3 audio]:



Special bonus YouTube edition:



posted: Fri - July 20, 2007 at 01:05 AM       j$p  send 

AndrewGurn
So.. a PSA that tells you to read Al Gore's book is a GOP propaganda? Wow.
 
I guess in my case, the very mention of Al Gore reminds me to vote republican, but I don't think it works that way for everyone else.
July 20, 2007, 4:47:01 AM EDT – Like – Reply

AndrewGurn
OK, I'm obviously an idiot for listening to the PSAs and reading the headline of this post and not listening to the Gibson clip before posting my original comment. I GET THE JOKE NOW! Yay me.
July 20, 2007, 4:50:04 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Ira
Johnny: Thanks for spotlighting these PSAs. 
 
I am in agreement with Gibson's emailer. Immediately after the "Live Earth" concerts, Fox News Talk aired one "cool change" spot at every break. It got so bad, I began listening to The Radio Factor on KABC instead of Fox News Talk. 
 
Now the frequency is about one every 30 minutes.
 
Maybe Laurie David has some dirty pictures of Rupert Murdoch!
July 20, 2007, 11:59:06 AM EDT – Like – Reply

monique
Listening to that sort of crap just MAKES me want to do a some polluting.
July 21, 2007, 1:21:50 AM EDT – Like – Reply

sknabt
J$,
 
How desperate are you to put up the pretense Fox News isn't a right-wing megaphone? 
 
Your post is pretty much self-parody. You have Fox News radio running some pro-environmental PSAs. Then you post a clip where a fan of right-wing Gibby's show is so mad he claims blood is spurting from his eyes over them. Good night man, can't you see the delicious irony here? It's the best example yet of who the Fox News consumers are. 
 
Rupert Murdoch is a self-admitted libertarian. His media empire largely reflects his political views. So how do we explain the PSA? Assuming it isn't a ruse to stir up conversation, it probably plugs directly into Rupert's thin attempt at putting on some corporate make-up. He's already talked up some ideas on making Fox News green:
 
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2007/05/09/murdoch/
 
Is he sincere? Fox fans will say "but of course." Me, I think he's just polishing the corporate apple. It reminds me of Rupert hedging his political bet by sponsoring a Hillary Clinton fundraiser:
 
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/09/politics/main1600694.shtml
 
It's all window dressing. The fact remains, Fox News Channel with the election looming is spinning harder to the right than ever. Yesterday, I saw E.D. Hill interviewing Peter King (R). At the end of the piece - critical of Democrats in Congress without presenting their side - Hill told viewers to write their Congressmen to support King's call to arms. So, we now have Foxies actively supporting conservative write-in campaigns.  
.
July 21, 2007, 10:46:06 AM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
More thoughtful hit-and-run commentary from sknabt, who has yet to document numerous things he has charged on this site, despite being asked over and over to do so.
 
And we have the amazing observation that an interview with a (R) congressman was "critical of Democrats". No, really? That's what usually happens when (R) congressmen are interviewed. What about when (D) congressmen are interviewed? Oh, snkabt is silent on that. Are you aware that when they are, they are "critical of Republicans", and furthermore "without presenting their side"? None of that matters, because E.D. Hill interviewed Peter King. Who gives a damn about anyone else who was interviewed or anything else that happened?
 
And just to wrap it all up with that perfect touch so often used by Fox haters--misrepresentation--our sknabt claims Hill told viewers to write to Congress in support of King's position. FALSE! But hey, every story needs a good punch line. Who cares if it ain't true?
July 21, 2007, 11:07:57 AM EDT – Like – Reply

sknabt
"Wow more thoughtful hit-and-run commentary from sknabt..."
 
Speaking on the topic of thoughtfulness, if you're going to use the lame debate tactic of trash-mouthing me to discredit my argument at least come up with something credible. As you're well aware, despite this pretense to the contrary, I'm quite willing to hang around and go toe-to-toe with you and we've had quite a number of beat-it-into the ground discussions. 
 
"...who has yet to document nearly a half-dozen things he has charged on this site, despite being asked over and over to do so."
 
The old post the evidence ruse. Do you happen to be a Usenet (past or present) junkie?
 
"And here we have the amazing observation that an interview with a (R) congressman was 'critical of Democrats'. No, really?"
 
Actually, my observation was that they present only one side of the argument but I should be grateful you at least made an attempt to report at least half of what I said (like Fox News?!?). 
 
"What about when (D) congressmen are interviewed? Oh, snkabt is silent on that."
 
I have absolutely no problem with a news organization only interviewing a Democrat or a Republican on a topic. However, they need to ask the right questions. Don't softball. Don't just hammer the person. Ask the questions that informs the audience versus steering them.
 
E.D. Hill didn't present the other side. She openly agreed with Peter King's assessment that the Democrats were doing an end-run around the voters and she openly called for viewers to write their representatives because she was outraged. 
 
"Who gives a damn about anything else that happened."
 
I learned something. "Damn" doesn't violate your rules. Cool. I'll be sure to add it to my vocabulary here. 
 
"And just to wrap it all up with that perfect touch so often used by Fox haters--misrepresentation--our sknabt claims Hill told viewers to write to Congress in support of King's position. FALSE! But hey, every story needs a good punch line. Who cares if it ain't true?"
 
So, you're saying E.D. Hill didn't tell viewers to write their representatives? Or are you saying she did but supporting policies contrary to Congressman King's stance?
 
And, of course, to your glee, I didn't tape Hill. I just had Fox News running in the background so this'll have to be another case of me being unable to document my claims. 
.
July 21, 2007, 12:31:52 PM EDT – Like – Reply

sknabt
J$,
 
Oh, I got so sidetracked by you going after a side issue, I'm curious about the main topic of the thread: Fox News being a mouth organ of the RNC.
 
Do you claim that Fox News is "fair and balanced"? Does the radio PSA somehow prove that Fox News isn't a conservative echo chamber? Is the listener having the violent reaction to the PSAs atypical of the average Fox devotee? Is the fan who posted here he's changed his dial to ABC atypical as well?
July 21, 2007, 12:36:57 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
To take your last post first, the PSAs don't "prove" anything. But they do demonstrate the empty shallowness of the "GOP propaganda" charge. As for the listener's reaction, it is what one would expect to a listener to a right-leaning RADIO TALK SHOW. The same PSAs play during Alan Colmes's radio show too (his radio show gets just as much air time as Gibson's, more if you count replays). Are you going to cite the reaction of one of Alan's listeners as that of the "average Fox devotee"? See, things aren't always as simplistic as you paint them.
 
As for E.D. Hill, she did not encourage people to write to Congress in support of King. She said if you are concerned about this issue then you should contact your representative. Something I've heard anchors on just about every news channel say at one point or another. That's a far cry from her calling for people to write in to back up King, which she never did.
 
> I'm quite willing to hang around and go toe-to-toe with you
 
Until you get cornered. I can go all the way back to where you defended newshounds deleting my posts because you claimed I was posting "foaming conservative" comments. (That's an easy one to remember because that bizarre phrase of yours stuck in my mind!) I asked for an example--just one--of a "foaming conservative" comment from me that I posted there. Funny, you never came up with one. In fact, you disappeared entirely from that conversation.
 
If you think I was "trash-mouthing" you, then please accept my apologies. My only intention was to show that you have made charges in the past that you were unable to document. And yes, I think a history of that does impact on one's credibility.
July 21, 2007, 1:15:06 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Fox Fan
Somehow sknabt regularly visits this site, claims to watch the videos and read the articles that denounce the Fox haters and expose their agenda-driven propaganda and lies, and still believes that Fox News is not fair and balanced.
 
Talk about unbalanced. How about unhinged?
July 21, 2007, 9:47:17 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Ira
It's the best example yet of who the Fox News consumers are. 
 
Is the fan who posted here he's changed his dial to ABC atypical as well?
 
sknabt: I'm curious (and I'm also the person referenced in that second sentence.) And I know you are a smart guy, a graduate of Virginia Tech. 
 
So please tell us: who is the typical Fox News consumer? 
 
By age, education level, annual income, family status etc, please.
 
This inquiring mind wants to know.
 
Thank you.
July 21, 2007, 10:38:07 PM EDT – Like – Reply

sknabt
"Somehow sknabt regularly visits this site, claims to watch the videos and read the articles that denounce the Fox haters and expose their agenda-driven propaganda and lies, and still believes that Fox News is not fair and balanced."
 
Talk about unbalanced. How about unhinged?"
 
Add senile to the list because I don't recall making said claims. As J$ is whining about, my participation here is sporadic. I usually check the site a number of times during the week but make no guarantees of digging beyond a quick read of the headlines.
 
My perceptions of Fox News's right-wing agenda come from actually watching the network.
July 22, 2007, 12:45:53 PM EDT – Like – Reply

sknabt
"sknabt: I'm curious (and I'm also the person referenced in that second sentence.) And I know you are a smart guy, a graduate of Virginia Tech.
 
So please tell us: who is the typical Fox News consumer?
 
By age, education level, annual income, family status etc, please."
 
By age? That's not so hard. Go to TVNewers and look at the so-called "demo" and you'll see, generally speaking, Fox News has struggled in the key 25-54 age group. 
 
Education level, income, marital status, ethnic group, religious affiliation, favorite charities, sports team affiliations, favorite movies, preferred sex position, etc. I can't say.
 
But, being such a "smart" guy, I'll write it all off as baloney in the context I intended. Because I'm looking at political bias. I don't have a statistically valid sample handy. I know I've heard Fox News make claims they have a representative cross-section of viewers.
 
Maybe. 
 
Yet, all the fans here appear to me to be conservatives. Of course, J$ - who's beat SoD and myself up over transparency - likes to dodge the issue. All the Fox addicts I personally know are conservative and also conservative talk show addicts. I used to get a kick out of those non-scientific online opinion polls right-wingers like Bill O'Reilly used to run because usually they displayed an extremely heavy conservative bias.
 
That's my point.
 
But I'll repeat my question directly to you since you've shown an interest. Do you consider yourself a typical Fox News viewer - politically?
.
July 22, 2007, 1:02:35 PM EDT – Like – Reply

sknabt
“To take your last post first, the PSAs don't ‘prove’ anything. But they do demonstrate the empty shallowness of the ‘GOP propaganda’ charge.”
 
Not in the least. Like I said, it fits into Murdoch’s larger environmental corporate apple polishing. He hasn’t given up his Libertarianism. Fox News Channel hasn’t given up their bias. The run “fair and balanced” commercials. Who believes them? Do you?
 
You just ran up the flag pole the observation I’m a hit and run poster who runs from fights when I’m :“cornered.” Never in my life has anything you posted intimidated me in the least. 
 
But here’s a typical response of mine. Nothing you’ve said really has addressed or refuted anything I said. So I just repeat or reinforce what I’ve already said. Of course, if I didn’t just keep cut’n pasting redundant arguments in your mind I’m running away from a fight.
 
All I can say is you must have some ego to think my behavior revolves around your comments.
 
Other than boredom, there are a myriad of reasons why I don’t return. It’s not like I add checking for your replies in my Outlook to-do list. 
 
“As for E.D. Hill, she did not encourage people to write to Congress in support of King. She said if you are concerned about this issue then you should contact your representative. Something I've heard anchors on just about every news channel say at one point or another. That's a far cry from her calling for people to write in to back up King, which she never did.”
 
We’ll just have to agree to disagree on our interpretations of this clip.
July 22, 2007, 1:03:24 PM EDT – Like – Reply

sknabt
“Until you get cornered. I can go all the way back to where you defended newshounds deleting my posts because you claimed I was posting ‘foaming conservative’ comments. (That's an easy one to remember because that bizarre phrase of yours stuck in my mind!) I asked for an example--just one--of a ‘foaming conservative’ comment from me that I posted there. Funny, you never came up with one. In fact, you disappeared entirely from that conversation.”
 
I pretty much address this personal attack but you claim I endorse News Hounds deleting your posts doesn’t pass the smell test. I’m not going to frustrate myself digging through your archives in search of the full context of the data-mined quotes. But as you know very well, I addressed this issue directly with Ellen on my blog. I’m no fan of censorship, and in fact, I’m far more open-minded on the topic than you.
 
For example, you support the curious notion popular with conservative pundits on Fox News that liberal blogs should delete “hate” posts by anonymous commenters. Oh, and before you rush to bash me for promoting “hate” you better take a quick look of some of the extremely nasty stuff Olbermann-bashers over at Olbermann Watch post.
 
“If you think I was ‘trash-mouthing’ you, then please accept my apologies. My only intention was to show that you have made charges in the past that you were unable to document. And yes, I think a history of that does impact on one's credibility.”
 
Given your extensive track record of personal attacks and name-calling, it’s hard for me to read any sincerity in your apology. But the proof is your future behavior so I’ll try to reserve judgment.
 
Most of what you say is hypocrisy. You say you have to repeatedly ask me things. As you’re well aware, I’ve asked you on numerous occasions repeatedly to address issues to little or no avail. You claim I don’t document stuff. A recent example is the Ludz survey stuff. Let’s look at it.
 
I documented Fox News - based on your own clip - they didn’t identify him as a Republican media consultant. In the clip he appeared, he was promoting the pro-Fox stance the Democrats should fully participate in the Fox-sponsored debate. I told you I found information that a previous Democratic focus group wasn’t representative of polls published on Fox News itself. I documented he’s famous for coming up with conservative euphemisms like the “death tax” to sell Republican policies. I also pointed out the overwhelming number of people conveniently supporting Fox’s position seemed highly skewed - I think only 1 person dissented. I’ve also personally been involved in a focus group that had a hidden agenda.
 
None of this can you refute. Knowing all this, no reasonable person would put a lot of weight into what Ludz had to say. Then there’s you. 
 
Having no other leg to stand on you claimed you knew the focus group to be valid and kept asking me to prove it isn’t. True, I can’t prove absolutely it’s invalid because I can’t find
July 22, 2007, 1:04:11 PM EDT – Like – Reply

sknabt
Oh, that damn HaloScan. J$, add my disgust and frustration with HaloScan deleting and truncating posts to reasons why I often don't return to your blog. 
 
Luckly, I have the rest in the clipboard:
 
...published results. But you can’t document your claims it’s statically valid or honestly constructed.
 
And all the spin about not being able to prove a negative and the burden of proof relies on me is nothing but blowing smoke. You posted it. You defended it. So you need to hold yourself to your own standards of evidence.
.
July 22, 2007, 1:06:49 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Fox Fan
*Cough*
 
http://www.clint.ca/argue/argue.jpg
July 22, 2007, 1:24:10 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
> iberal blogs should delete “hate” posts by anonymous commenters
 
You are attributing this opinion to me? I believe I said my preference was something else entirely. But I could be wrong, and I'm sure you can quote where I said that, so please do so.
 
> I found information that a previous Democratic focus group wasn’t representative of polls published on Fox News itself.
 
As I pointed out at the time (I don't recall if you actually returned to reply to this point) the focus group was NOT contrary to any polls, including Fox polls. Because the focus group was measuring reactions to each answer given during the debate, and identifying which candidates answers scored the highest.
 
This is completely apples and oranges different from a survey about which candidate someone supports. You can support a candidate and still think someone else gave a better answer to a question. In fact, I suspect you don't even KNOW the breakdown of that focus group as to which candidate most of them supported, do you? Here's a hint: it wasn't the one whose answers got the highest ratings. That's because THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
 
Either you cannot grasp that simple fact, or you know it to be true but are willing to use a comparison that you know to be phony just to find a way to smear Fox.
July 22, 2007, 1:58:42 PM EDT – Like – Reply

sknabt
Fox Fan,
 
Amusing link. But I enjoy debating on-line. Am I retarded? Probably but everyone needs a hobby, even mentally challenged liberals such as myself. Count this one a minor one of mine. 
.
July 22, 2007, 5:14:54 PM EDT – Like – Reply

sknabt
“You are attributing this opinion to me? I believe I said my preference was something else entirely. But I could be wrong, and I'm sure you can quote where I said that, so please do so.”
 
Well, if I’ve misattributed something to you, I apologize. But I find something really confusing here.
 
You believe web sites are completely responsible for what anonymous commenters write on their sites. Following this train of thought, you doggedly defend Gibby’s dishonest attribution of quotes by anonymous commenters to the web sites themselves. 
 
This begs an obvious question: What does Media Matters and Think Progress do in this case to distance themselves from people writing nasty comments? If they don’t delete them then along comes some right-wing Fox-affiliated demagogue like Bill O’Reilly or John Gibson to highlight them on their show with appropriate sanctimony. Along comes J$ to wag his finger.
 
And before you get all self-righteous yourself, let me post some comments from Olbermann Watch, a site you’re very active at (all taken from comments to the first post I came across for 7/20/2007):
 
“Moron paranoid KEITHWIPE$!”
 
“Keith wasn't at the Harry Potter publisher to pick up a copy of the book he was probably there to pick up a younger girlfriend as the current one begins to ‘age out‘.” 
 
“What happened to AAP? I think his mother let him outside to take a dump and the hogs ate him.”
 
“Hey Mikey, get back to your kennel and chase your tail 3 times with the rest of the mutts and sniff your ass wildly. Moron paraniod mutt a$ $niffer.”
 
Let me rush to Eyes On Fox news to write a blog entry announcing “Olbermann Watch” accuses Keith Olbermann of being a child molester.”  
 
“Either you cannot grasp that simple fact, or you know it to be true but are willing to use a comparison that you know to be phony just to find a way to smear Fox.”
 
Okay, J$. If I’m a Fox hater just trying “to smear Fox” lets flip the insult mirror so we can see J$, major Fox News apologist, who will not yield an inch in any debate on any criticism of Fox News. Once again, your hypocrisy is glaring. 
 
You are perfectly correct, focus groups and statistically sampled surveys are completely different animals. In fact, as I’ve told you, I’ve participated in focus groups so I‘m probably more familiar with them than yourself. 
 
A group of Democrats in a focus group think Jonathan Edwards won a debate. Now, as I’ve pointed out, a Fox News surveyed indicated Edwards is an also-ran running in distant 4th place behind unannounced Al Gore. As you say, an explanation could be that Edwards had a good night.
 
I think it’s because a focus group is unrepresentative of Democrats.
 
I think even you - as doggedly as you refuse to yield an inch, have to admit either is possible. And, while you hypocritically dig at me because I can’t find evidence to prove it’s biased, again, flipping that mirror, you can’t prove it isn’t.
 
So are we at a complete impasse? Not necessa
July 22, 2007, 5:31:58 PM EDT – Like – Reply

sknabt
Oh, here's the rest HaloSCAM deleted:
 
So are we at a complete impasse? Not necessarily.
 
Because I’m going to toss out the notion - realizing I haven’t cracked a statistics book in 25 years or so - that a focus groups with 30-something members is never going to be statistically very valid. 
 
Focus groups are for exploring ideas. Put together a bunch of Democrats in a specific demographic to gauge reaction to specific campaign ad or whatever. What Luntz did on Fox & Friends was use them as an indication of overwhelming support for a political idea.
 
When you add all the bias I’ve documented - and you ignored - associated with that show, Fox’s conflict of interest in the report, and Luntz’s background it adds up to one suspiciously bad smell. You’ll never admit it even if I sent you to GITMO for water boarding but it’s that’s uncomfortable truth that gets to the nub of the conflict between you and I: Fox News’ conservative bias.
July 22, 2007, 5:32:51 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
So what are all those posts from Olbermann Watch supposed to prove? I don't have any say in who posts there. I don't moderate the comments. I don't have the authority to delete comments I don't like, and I don't have the access to ban anybody. So what is all that supposed to prove? I'm at a loss.
 
Anyhow, I don't get the examples you quoted. Accuse Keith Olbermann of being a "child molestor"? I didn't see that in what you quoted. I saw people making fun of him for hypocrisy: he takes shots at men who date younger women, while he in fact does so himself. I don't think that equates to being a child molestor. And it certainly doesn't equate to wishing someone would die of cancer.
 
> I think even you - as doggedly as you refuse to yield an inch, have to admit either is possible.
 
Yes, even I admit that, for the most part, anything is possible. But you don't find me stating as fact that the focus group was defective, based on nothing more than MAYBE it was and MAYBE it wasn't. That isn't exactly logical thinking or fair criticism.
 
It's like what you did to Mara Liasson. You claimed she was a Republican when Roger Ailes hired her. Based on what? Nothing! You found a quote where she said she had been a Rep at one time. You took that and made the leap that therefore she was a Rep when Fox hired her. You don't even know she was still a Rep when NPR hired her! Yet you claim it as a fact, and use a quote from Mara as "proof", when in fact she never said any such thing!
 
Oh sure, it's POSSIBLE she was a Rep when Fox hired her. And when NPR hired her. But it's also POSSIBLE she wasn't. Yet you claim the former as fact. Why? Because it fits your purpose to smear Fox.
July 22, 2007, 5:43:10 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
By the way, to be a bit nitpicky, I don't think the focus group decided Edwards "won" that debate. As I recall it, that was a conclusion from Luntz based on the fact that of all the candidates, Edwards had the most well-received answers with the highest dial ratings from the focus group.
July 22, 2007, 5:54:50 PM EDT – Like – Reply

ImNotBlue
"By age? That's not so hard. Go to TVNewers and look at the so-called "demo" and you'll see, generally speaking, Fox News has struggled in the key 25-54 age group."
 
sknabt | 07.22.07 - 1:07
 
Quick question there... what "struggles" are you speaking of? How they lead everyone consistently in the demo?
 
Oh, that goofy, "there's a bigger percentage of 'demo' people at the other networks" which ignores bigger numbers for both the demo and total numbers for FNC, argument again.
 
I can't believe you fall for "false logic" like that. Well, that's not true. I can believe it. Too bad it's nonsense.
July 23, 2007, 2:40:38 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Daytona
Wow Johnny! 24 comments! A new record. You better hope sknabt never leaves you. He totally abuses you wipes. Love your other threads with no comments. You can now delete my comments coward.
July 26, 2007, 10:38:30 PM EDT – Like – Reply