FOX continues to attack Black america
February 11, 2009
Read more here. H/T The Christian Radical Catholic Worker blog.
105 Comments
Comments are closed.
Catholic perspectives on culture, society, and politics
Blog Associations
Site Counter
Ad Free
Have you ever noticed that the journalists Fox employs cannot even use basic English grammar effectively? Just listen to that video clip again and try to make a list of the solecisms, agreement errors, etc. It constitutes “news” for idiots!
While I personally believe that this world would be a better place without Sean Hannity having any access to mass media, I think it’s a serious error to conflate an entire news network with a single personality.
Why do I get the feeling that the Catholic Anarchist watches more Fox News than the entire body of ‘Catholic conservatives’ he marshals himself against? ;-)
Christopher – Do you have an actual comment, or do you just want to be annoying?
Curiously, I couldn’t help but notice that a number of criticisms of so-called ‘Black America’ on that show were being mounted by … black commentators. It strikes me as odd that Chuck D of Public Enemy, Bill Cosby and Sean Hannity would all harbor similar sentiments about the evil influence of ‘thug culture’, but there you have it.
It’s amusing (and also sad) how defensive you get, Christopher, whenever race comes up on this blog. You’re one of the first to react – every time.
Let’s see who joins you.
It’s 2:38, and I’m taking a break from reading, and I count two commentators prior to mine. (A lesson in mathematics is in order, perhaps).
I think I’m more amused by your ongoing preoccupation with Sean Hannity and Fox News. Carry on.
It’s 2:38, and I’m taking a break from reading, and I count two commentators prior to mine. (A lesson in mathematics is in order, perhaps).
How does this conflict with my observation that you are one of the first to react?
I think I’m more amused by your ongoing preoccupation with Sean Hannity and Fox News.
Have I posted on Hannity before?
Your defensiveness is amusing.
How does this conflict with my observation that you are one of the first to react?
[Irrelevant -- perhaps self-promotional -- comment deleted]
But I take it back, Michael. It’s usually Morning’s Minion that’s on a bender about this or that on Fox News.
However, in the benevolent words of Bill O’Reilly, “I’ll let YOU have the last word.” ;-)
Little Bill O’Reilly is funny. Check out that kid:
Fox News definitely has a raison d’être, as a support group for conservatives in mourning. Personally, I had hoped for a suicide pact among Fox & Friends. If you’ve ever seen that program, you know why “they hate us” :-P
P.S. I don’t like the notion of “black America”, as if there was this uniform, immutable block of society, when in fact it is merely a social construct whose pathologies are being maintained by protagonists and antagonists alike. It’s bad enough that people internalize stereotypes and turn them into virtues of the “thug life”. There is no such thing as “authentic black” (or white etc). Any such preconceived notion of how one has to behave in order to have “street (or any other cred” is self-limiting and frequently -defeating.
It’d be racist (condescending, patronizing…) to exempt societal phenomena from critique because of the dominant ethnic background in them. It’d be insulting, for example, to treat someone differently – better, or worse – because he’s blind.
“And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also” Booker T. Washington
The most important task at hand is to relay to people that their identity is not – a priori – bound to or confined by anything, be it gender, “race” or what have you. Nobody “has” or “should” behave a certain way due to reasons that are completely external.
Hey, let’s act outraged so we can avoid dealing with the substance of what’s discussed at times.
Nice post, Michael. But this clip omits one of the most egregious quotes from Bill O’Reilly:
“O’REILLY: What the New York Times wants, what the far left want, they want to break down the white, Christian, male power structure of which you are a part, and so am I, and they want to bring in MILLIONS of foreign nationals and break down the structure that we have.”
I think it’s a serious error to conflate an entire news network with a single personality.
Fox News was founded by Republican activists, and it exists solely to deliver daily Republican talking points. It is certainly not a serious news organization (and of course, the endless coded and not-so-coded references to nefarious dark-skinned people reflects the poisonous climate in the modern southern-based Republican party).
“it exists solely to deliver daily Republican talking points.”
1) If that is its only purpose of existence, it does a terribly poor job of it.
2) It is far more likely that it exists solely to make money. These days economics 101 does seem to be a Republican-only field of study (making money=good for the economy), but it need not be.
I imagine hell something like an endless repeat of Hannity’s and O’ Reilly’s vitriolic rants.
There are some troubling quotes in that video. At the same time, the video is quite dishonest in presenting John McWhorter as having said anything untoward about Obama . . . McWhorter was a huge Obama supporter, as he made clear in a wide variety of venues, and he’s one of the country’s most thoughtful commentators and public intellectuals.
And just to head off any dishonest and ad hominem replies, I dislike Fox News very much, just as I dislike all commercial television.
Here’s a pitch perfect recent example of how the “noise machine” operates based on lies, half-truths and phony outrage– and Fox News’s role in the process:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_02/016841.php
These days economics 101 does seem to be a Republican-only field of study.
What??? In a weird topsy-turvy bizarro world maybe, but economic prowess is certainly not a skill of the modern Republican party- and that’s being as polite as I possibly can. Do you actually know any ecomomics behind your trite “making money= good for the economy” mantra (which ironically got us into this whole mess in the first place)?
Here’s another example, courtesy of Media Matters. This one is a classic!
“During the February 10 edition of Fox News’ Happening Now, co-host Jon Scott claimed that “the Senate is expected to pass the $838 billion stimulus plan — its version of it, anyway. We thought we’d take a look back at the bill, how it was born, and how it grew, and grew, and grew.” In tracking how and when the bill purportedly “grew,” Scott referenced seven dates, as on-screen graphics cited various news sources from those time periods. However, all of the sources and cost figures Scott cited, as well as the accompanying on-screen text, were also contained in a February 10 press release issued by the Senate Republican Communications Center. One on-screen graphic during the segment even repeated a typo from the GOP document, further confirming that Scott was simply reading from a Republican press release. The Fox News graphic and the GOP press release both claimed that a Wall Street Journal report that the stimulus package could reach “$775 billion over two years” was published on December 19, 2009 [emphasis added].”
MM — does it bother you when anyone besides Fox News is inaccurate?
SB: I actually find Fox News mimicing GOP talking points to be quite entertaining. My real problem with cable news is shallowness of the content, the narcissism of the talking heads, and the need to generate phony conflicts and “gotcha” moments to boost ratings- and on that front, CNN is equally to blame. Does that answer your question?
I suppose . . . if anyone looks into the question of media bias and inaccuracy on an evenhanded basis, Fox News is not much of an outlier.
Not having watched any network or cable news since the election (and probably won’t until the next election season, unless there’s a natural disaster or something) I’m not really clear what all the fuss is about.
Fox exists for the same reason as MSNBC, CNN, etc. — to sell advertising. If you don’t like it (and personally, I don’t like any of them) simply don’t watch it and you’re doing what little you can to make them go away.
I suppose . . . if anyone looks into the question of media bias and inaccuracy on an evenhanded basis, Fox News is not much of an outlier.
There is a difference between bias (everything’s biased) and what FOX News does.
Fox News is not the result of some dark political conspiracy. They’re not fooling anybody, their point of view is pretty straightforward so if you don’t like it you don’t have to watch or believe a word they say! Like all commercial journalism their media organization is about $$$. Even PBS is (although to a lesser degree) about making enough $$$ to stay afloat. Murdoch saw a business niche that was not being met (news biased from the right) and he decided he could fill it. And behold his network is #1 in cable news. Doesn’t mean the quality of his news is very good of course. In my opinion it’s the worst available.
It is not wrong to watch Fox News occasionally, just so long as you regularly watch Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow on MSNBC to get the unbiased truth.
It is not wrong to watch Fox News occasionally, just so long as you regularly watch Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow on MSNBC to get the unbiased truth.
Don’t forget Lou Dobbs.
[deleted - Christopher, cut it out.]
Magdalena, what do you think of Al Jazeera? Just wondering.
I don’t worry so much about bias myself. The sources being discussed here are mainly just valuable for information on current events. “News” is a very poor way to be informed about anything other than current events. Some are better than others, but when a number of the folks reporting are making under $12 an hour or their primary qualification is their tone of voice, full head of hair, breast size, or hair color, I tend to look elsewhere for analysis.
I have never had the occasion to watch Al Jazeera except when OBL comes out with a new tape and they show Al J. footage on Jim Lehrer. From what I have heard it likely fills a similar role in the Middle East as Fox does in the U.S. Very populist marketing position etc.
“Why do I get the feeling that the Catholic Anarchist watches more Fox News than the entire body of ‘Catholic conservatives’ he marshals himself against? ;-)”
This response is the standard one, and it is exactly the problem with conservatism today: Liberals are being silly. . . SILLY. . . by worrying their pretty little heads about FoxNews.
FoxNews, you see, does not represent “real” conservatives. Neither does Ann Coulter, Or Rush Limbaugh. . .or, it turns out, ANY of the many public voices of conservatism today.
Forget that voters who watched FoxNews were overwhelmingly convinced that Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for 9/11. Forget that Roger Ailes, president of Foxnews, was referred to as “our man” by George W. Bush.
No, no no. . . that’s all irrelevant. “Real” conservatives don’t take that stuff seriously; they’re a rather more cerebral, pragmatic lot, independent minded and mavericky.
Frankly, the conservatives at FoxNews are real enough for me.
Not having watched an hour of “news television” in years, I can’t really comment on Fox News.
[This section deleted. George Crosley, if you don’t have a comment about the topic of this post, then go away.]
For what it’s worth, I should point out that much of the more serious ground reporting of the last election in this country was produced by Al Jazeera US. Their investigation into the existence and cause of Appalachian racism was informative and nuanced.
phosphorious – Yes.
I suppose part of the question would be: Do Michael and Phosphorious think that Fox New peddles an unusual amount of false information or repellant opinions, or does is it that they especially object to those with whom they disagree having a media voice?
Liberals are, I suppose, certainly welcome to worry their “pretty little heads” about Fox, just as conservatives often seem to spend a lot of time worrying their pretty little heads about MSNBC, Newsweek, the NY Times, etc. Personally, I think all the worried pretty heads are wasting their time.
It’s true that Fox has a particularly populist approach to things, which in some cases attracts a less educated demographic. (Inclined to believe things that aren’t true.) And it’s also true that you can make almost any news organ look bad if you snip up their commentary into ten second bits and string lots of them together to make a point. When I did follow TV and radio news, I tended to watch PBS and listen to NPR, and I’m sure one could have put togther a YouTube “proving” either one was anti-Christian or anti-Semitic _very_ easily, given the time and dedication to waste on such a project.
So I guess my question is: What do you think that you ought to _do_ about Fox News. Is it simply something to complain about the way conservatives do about MSNBC coverage (much less zany opinion venues like The Nation) or do you believe it should be forcibly shut down for the common good or what?
“or does is it that they especially object to those with whom they disagree having a media voice?”
The problem isn’t that I disagree with FoxNews (although I do). . .the problem is that conservatives don’t agree with FoxNews. . . or at least that is what they say when pressed.
Look at Christopher Blosser’s first comment: he seems to find it ridiculous that anyone would look to Fox as the representation of conservative thought.
But perhaps. . . just perhaps. . . you could see how an honest person might mistake FoxNews for a genuinely conservative news outlet.
If you can’t, then there’s nothing really to talk about.
FoxNews for a genuinely conservative news outlet.
I’m assuming that this is still true: Doesn’t FoxNews have regular news coverage for most of the day, and then expressly-acknowledged opinion shows for a few hours at night? Providing quotes and clips from the opinion shows doesn’t show much about Fox as a “news outlet,” any more than the fact that the NY Times editorial page is reliably liberal proves that everything else about its news coverage is equally liberal.
Fox News is not “conservative”. It is a media arm of the Republican party. Big difference.
S.B.,
I don’t see the point of this remark.
Yes there is a difference between news and opinion. . . but again it must be emphasized that viewers of Fox’s “news” programs were substantially misinformed about Iraq’s connection to 9/11.
The problem here, though, is that conservatives seem unwilling to admit the extent to which the FoxNews represents conservatism as it is actually practiced in American politics today.
It is all very well to dismiss criticisms of Foxnews as irrelevant because “the entire body of catholic conservatives” doesn’t watch it. . .
. . . but I am reasonably certain that SOMEBODY is watching it. Many somebodies, in fact, and they have been voting republican in droves.
It’s amazing to see Democrats like MM in complete control of the federal government and vast vast portions of the MSM and yet shout conspiracy theories like “It is a media arm of the Republican party.”
“yet shout conspiracy theories like “It is a media arm of the Republican party.”
The three Bushes, Sr, Jr and Jeb, called into the Rush Limbaugh show to thank him for all the support he has given them, and in the course of the conversation called Roger Ailes, president of FoxNews, “our man”.
Conspiracy? Yes.
Theory? No. Fact.
Insert black helicopter music.
Rush Limbaugh is not a Republican, but if you want to go along that line, can Democrats finally admit that people like Cindy Sheehan are de facto spokespeople of the Democrat Party.
“Rush Limbaugh is not a Republican. . .”
Yes, yes. . . only a crazy person would think that Rush Limbaugh were a republican.
If you really think that Rush Limbaugh is a big fan of the Republican Party, you’re either an idiot or you’ve never listened to him.
Ok, great. Let’s play this game. Does this mean that Barack Obama is a member of every racist, criminal organization he’s ever talked to?
Seriously — is he now a member?
Barack Obama is a member of Planned Parenthood.
Barack Obama is a member of NARAL.
Barack Obama is a member of National Council of La Raza.
Barack Obama is a member of ACORN.
Barack Obama is a member of PETA.
Who are you defending, Limbaugh or the GOP.
Seriously, your analogy leaves me stumped.
Surprising but true, Limbaugh is not a party operative (and I don’t believe he’s a member, either). I thought I heard he didn’t vote for McCain.
Limbaugh.
I personally can’t stand the Republican Party either.
Limbaugh might not be a registered republican. I have no idea. But are you honestly claiming that he does not support conservative values and republican candidates?
Right, he didn’t vote for McCain. . . because in his opinion Mccain was too liberal.
George,
If you are defending Limbaugh, you need to find another thread.
The question I had thought was under consideration was whether or not the usual suspects in the “conservative media” (Limbaugh, FoxNews etc.)are “real” conservatives or not. The claim seemed to have been made that only silly people think that these represent “real conservatism”. If you think Limbaugh is a real conservative, then good. Just don’t let Christopher Blosser hear you.
(I realize I have sort of hi-jacked this thread, and i apologize)
Are you serious? You use Rush Limbaugh as an example of what you admit is your conspiracy theory and yet you think it should be on another thread?
Insert more black helicopter music!
I mean really, don’t liberals have bigger things to worry about these days than Fox News? Or are they just determined to exterminate any remaining opposition?
“Are you serious? You use Rush Limbaugh as an example of what you admit is your conspiracy theory and yet you think it should be on another thread?”
What?
The Bush’s seem to think that Rush is a republican. In your opinion he’s not. . . does this mean the Bushes are not republican?
Do words have any meaning in your mind?
George Crosley’s every talking point, from his reference to the “MSM” to his claim that liberals are in “complete control” of the federal government to his jesuitical insistence that, because Limbaugh is not a registered Republican, he therefore cannot be suggested to be part of its noise machine–every one of these things, I submit, demonstrate the extent to which his own view of these matters has been insidiously shaped by precisely the outlets–Fox News, Limbaugh, Drudge, etc.–that this thread has brought into question.
Consider. Crosley claims that liberals control vast reaches of the MSM. One often hears this sort of thing on Rush and on Fox, and the evidence cited in support of it is that the vast majority of reporters are Democrats. But what this criticism overlooks is the extent to which editors drive coverage and content, and that editors, and their bosses, are beholden to corporate-types whose allegiance, so far as I know, is neither strongly liberal nor strongly conservative. Rather, they want only to ensure that the reigning oligarchy continues to reign. In other words, the corporate nature of news outlets is never brought up for consideration. There are many other pieces of evidence that disprove Crosley’s talking point (MSNBC’s caving to pressure to remove Olbermann from electoral coverage, the range of “respectable” opinion allowed by mainstream outlets on Israel, etc) but I’ll not waste our time reiterating them.
Why doesn’t Crosley answer this instead? Why is it that the majority of viewers of Fox and listeners of Rush wrongly believe–still! to this day!–that Iraq was connected with the 9-11 terrorists, that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, that global warming is a hoax, etc? All of these beliefs are false, and all intelligent conservatives–conservatives who are not whoring themselves daily to the Republican party–admit as much. Yet viewers of Fox News and listeners of Rush never seem to have found out. Why?
The Bush’s seem to think Limbaugh is a Republican … because they called him on the phone?
Could any liberal on this site please tell me why Fox News is so important to them? I would really love an honest answer because I can’t figure it out for the life of me.
You got me, mj! MSNBC is a far-right enclave!
More seriously … MSNBC did what any for-profit business entity does … they recognized that their reputation was plummeting even more than usual and thus to retain some semblence of balance, and thus viewers, they took Olberman off news coverage of the conventions.
“Could any liberal on this site please tell me why Fox News is so important to them? I would really love an honest answer because I can’t figure it out for the life of me.”
Because we are insane. It should be clear to any neutral observer that FoxNews stays above the fray, politically speaking, taking no sides and pushing no agenda.
But the brain of the liberal is so choked with bilious vapors that he is unable to see this plain and simple truth.
Pity the poor liberal, they are lost in a wilderness of madness and deceit.
This will be my last reply to Crosley, since I don’t want to get into a back and forth with somebody who is plainly too lazy to inform himself of the basic facts of an issue before spouting off nonsense.
That being said, here goes:
Crosley’s “explanation” of the firing of Olbermann and Matthews from electoral news coverage is unsurprisingly rife with falsehoods. First, the audience of MSNBC for its convention coverage in 2008 was double that of 2004. Second, Olbermann’s own show is the highest rated on MSNBC (and often vies with and sometimes, rarely, bests O’Reilly’s on Fox). So to claim that MSNBC had to remove Olbermann for reasons of ratings is plainly absurd. Luckily, there is another explanation for anyone willing to look. Pressure from White House counsel Ed Gillespie combined with pressure from corporate bigwigs at parent company NBC (and no doubt GE), who were concerned to remain “respectable” and not rile their friends in government, forced MSNBC to make the change despite, not because of, their ratings.
While we’re on the topic, Crosley betrays his sound-bite attention span when he misreads my previous post. Of course I did not claim that MSNBC was “a far-right enclave,” as he snorts. Rather, my point was that large media entities are owned by large corporations, and corporate interest is neither, strictly speaking, right nor left, but is primarily self-interest. It seems to me that the decision made by MSNBC to remove Olbermann and Matthews substantiates this claim.
Fox News is not “conservative”. It is a media arm of the Republican party. Big difference.
I would be the first to agree that there is not a 1:1 correlation between the GOP and conservatism, though MM strikes me as a poor arbiter of the point. As to whether Fox is the media arm of the GOP — come now, that’s beneath even your usual level of partisanship, MM. It is a conservative/populist leaning news organization just as MSNBC, NY Times, LA Times are progressive/elitist leaning news organizations. But there’s a big difference between having a partisan angle and being a “media arm” of a given party.
The problem here, though, is that conservatives seem unwilling to admit the extent to which the FoxNews represents conservatism as it is actually practiced in American politics today.
It is all very well to dismiss criticisms of Foxnews as irrelevant because “the entire body of catholic conservatives” doesn’t watch it. . .
. . . but I am reasonably certain that SOMEBODY is watching it. Many somebodies, in fact, and they have been voting republican in droves.
Perhaps, but party voting blocks are rather big things, and people generally don’t like being held to the aspects that they disagree with. Mornings Minion and Policratus are both principled progressives, to my knowledge, and yet I very much doubt that they want to be held responsible for everything that’s said by Keith Olberman or Al Franken or written up in The Nation or The New Republic.
That Fox draws much viewership from a populist-Republican demographic hardly means that every conservative shares many or all of the views expressed by people on it. (Nor, come to that, does it mean that the people on it actually conform to the straw man images of it that live within the minds of the extreme left — though that’s another issue.)
So sure, you could argue that Catholic conservatives should “own” Fox as being an example of conservatism as it is lived in the US, but then you’d have to accept the views of some groups and publications you probably don’t like at all as being representative of most people who vote Democratic in this country.
Do you really want that?
Just great, mj. Keep the cliches and soundbites rolling. At least you make them entertaining.
Yes, the Republican White House made the MSNBC programming decision. You win.
George, who is this “mj” you are referring to?
Oops, “wj”! Seems I have Bush’s dyslexia!
As always, racist comments will be deleted immediately.
What’s “conservative” anyway. Europe’s conservatives would be booed as socialists by American conservatives.
In a tiny nutshell, American conservatism means “Get off my lawn, you damn kids !”
Now, for fitting the nuts into a somewhat bigger shell:
- Low taxes, something will eventually trickle down on the plebs. Usually it’s piss though.
- Eager to start wars. Supporting troops means sending them to war
- a god who curiously shares the same resentments: gays, science, independent women etc.
- “pro-life” thanks to the Roe v. Wade fig leaf. Out of the womb & on your own.
- proud ignorance. It’s American to eat, read and watch crap. Who needs arugula
- Lock ‘em up and throw away the key. America having highest incarceration rate in the world means the system works.
- an illegal underclass is convenient, both as cheap labor and scapegoat come election time
- It’s virtuous to have few rights and privileges. Cheap meds are for Canadians and other sissies. The Lord (TM) will help true Americans.
Fox News is not “conservative”. It is a media arm of the Republican party. Big difference.
It depends one what you mean. If you mean it in the same way that one could say CNN and MSNBC are the media arms of the Democratic party, I’d agree. If you are suggesting that somehow Fox is a uniquely partisan means of selling advertising, then it says more about you than it does about Fox (or CNN or MSNBC). See, e.g. 7:10 on the following clip from Jon Stewart.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=218356&title=Clusterf#@k-to-the-Poor-House—The-Stimulus-Package
Obviously, one clip doesn’t establish anything persuasively, but it captures fairly clearly the differences in coverage from Fox and MSNBC. If someone really agrees with either O’Reilly or Matthews in these clips (after a serviceable but by no means spectacular press conference), then they are likely to think either Fox or MSNBC is hopelessly slanted and that the other is the voice of truth in politics. But I assume most people recognize partisan spin for what it is; a way to use confirmation bias to sell soap.
The debates about whether FOX News is “conservative” and in what sense are… um, interesting (but frankly, seem absurd as they are obviously the worst kind of conservative). But can you all get back to the particular topic of the post and of the video which is FOX News’ blatant racism? Thanks.
Comrade Michael,
Your charge of blatant racism is laughable. You’re just upset that there is a network out there that doesn’t spew forth your leftist views. Go ahead and change the channel to one of the left wing networks. There are plenty to choose from: CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, or the “thrill running up my leg” network, MSNBC.
Knuckle Dragger – I suggest you get out more if you think CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, and MSNBC are “left wing.” Really, man, there is a whole world out there waiting for you to discover it.
Seriously, KD, can you make a substantial comment? Would it kill you?
Michael,
My, are we sensitive. I have nothing against Keith Olbermann and Chris “Thrill up my leg” Matthews. If you want to listen to them and pretend they aren’t left-wing, go right ahead. This is America – you and they have the right to be wrong. FNC at least seriously presents the other side, but you are free to ignore it.
Are you and your liberal buddies in the government interested in shutting up the other side?
Why would we shut up Fox and/or Rush?
These days, with enemies like them, who needs friends?
Basically, Michael, I don’t think your question of whether Fox is “blatantly racist” is very interesting. Stringing together a bunch of 1-2 sentence clips is not a good way of determining whether someone is racist or not.
For instance, I still recall a very interesting NPR interview from ten years back or so with a black author who had written a book arguing that school desegregation had hurt the black community and advocating that blacks set up their own, new, all-black schools. I suppose someone that wanted to could have strung a couple short clips from that interview together with a lot of other stuff and come up with an audio montage “proving” that NPR is racist — but obviously that would have no validity.
The only difference between that and what you’ve put up here is that you want to think of Fox as racist, while you probably don’t want to think of NPR as racist. YouTube montages are a poor methodology for making this kind of argument, so it’s hardly surprising that people are simply discussing what they think of the network in general rather than your putative topic of conversation.
Darwin, a few points for you:
1) So sorry you don’t find the video “interesting.” But I think it would be wise for you to reflect on why it is that you have the luxury of wondering whether or not racism in the (right wing) media is “interesting.”
2) Contrary to your claim, there seems to be a LOT of difference between the NPR story (as you are relaying it to us, anyway) and the variety of clips presented in the video.
3) Also contrary to what you think, I don’t think FOX News has a monopoly on racism in the media. It’s quite probable that other u.s new sources are also racist on different levels. But FOX News clearly, without question, is at the top of the list when it comes to mainstream news sources. I am open to the possibility that NPR could also exhibit subtle racism, but I have seen no evidence of it. (Your example certainly is not convincing as evidence.)
4) Why do you feel the need to defend FOX News so strongly and consistently?
5) If you don’t find the thread interesting, you are free to NOT COMMENT. I invite you to consider it.
As for you, “Knuckle Dragger”:
If you want to listen to them and pretend they aren’t left-wing, go right ahead.
I don’t take in these media sources, generally.
FNC at least seriously presents the other side, but you are free to ignore it.
“The” other side? Consider moving beyond the thoughtless binaries of the very media that you detest.
Are you and your liberal buddies in the government interested in shutting up the other side?
Again with the binary thinking. But no, I’m not interested in the government shutting down FOX News. I am interested in severe critiques of FOX News, which is all this video seems to suggest. You can’t even seem to handle such critique — which is curious — let alone the idea of the network being shut down.
I continue to invite you, Dragger, to make substantive comments.
The belief that there are only two camps is convenient, as it perpetuates the status quo.
Loathing the GOP does not necessitate love for Dems. The entire system is rotten and rigged. It’s just that the GOP is worse. By Western standards the Democrats are still corporate/military [noun deleted].
a new noun…hmm… waterboys … sycophants … enablers
I agree that the subtext (or text) of some of the clips is offensive; but it’s hard to evaluate them fairly without the context. A similar video could be created to suggest any television channel is anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic, anti-Christian, or racist. The main lessons I take from the video are the following: 1) Someone, somewhere had too much time on their hands; 2) Some Democrats like to call Republicans racists.
I was aware of both of these things before watching the video. It’s much more interesting to discuss the role of cable news in the national conversation (may it be as small as possible!) than to have the same tired “Some Republicans are racist!” discussion. This thread is the odd exception where the moderator seems to be actively trying to bring down the level of discourse.
Michael,
I’m glad you’re not interested in shutting down FNC. I assume you are also not in favor of using the “Fairness Doctrine” to silence conservative talk radio. I’m not so sure about the people in power now given recent comments by Sen. Stabenow, Sen. Harkin, and Pres. Clinton.
Do we still live in America?
As for “substantive” comments – I’m not capable. That’s why I’m called Knuckle Dragger.
I agree that the subtext (or text) of some of the clips is offensive; but it’s hard to evaluate them fairly without the context.
These are not clips collected over the several years now that FOX News has existed. The context is quite clear to all of us. please provide an example from the film where it seems that something might be taken out of “context.”
A similar video could be created to suggest any television channel is anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic, anti-Christian, or racist.
Of course, but you’re talking in hypotheticals. Let’s talk about THIS video. Did the makers fabricate the racism that seems evident in the video? If so, what do you find “offensive?” By “offensive” (let’s not speak in generalities), do you mean racist?
1) Someone, somewhere had too much time on their hands
If the charge is true, then making the video should not be called a waste of time.
2) Some Democrats like to call Republicans racists.
You should check your own thinking for the binaries I mentioned above. Why think only in terms of Republicans vs. Democrats? By and large, the perspective of AlterNet is not “democrat.”
t’s much more interesting to discuss the role of cable news in the national conversation (may it be as small as possible!) than to have the same tired “Some Republicans are racist!” discussion.
That would be an interesting topic for another thread, or to reference tangentially in this one, so long as the focus remains on this video and specifically the charge of racism. Other points being made (i.e. “sure, I was ‘offended’ but, you know, CNN, MSNBC, blah blah…”) seem to distract from the issue of racism in this thread.
As for “substantive” comments – I’m not capable. That’s why I’m called Knuckle Dragger.
Thanks for your honesty. I do, though, believe that you can do better.
The context is quite clear to all of us. please provide an example from the film where it seems that something might be taken out of “context.”
Already done; the John McWhorter clip was most definitely taken out of context, and in an utterly dishonest fashion, given that it was intended to somehow depict him (a huge Obama supporter) as saying something racist against Obama.
please provide an example from the film where it seems that something might be taken out of “context.”
Well, S.B. already listed McWhorter; I tend to extend a strong presumption against racism to African-Americans when they are speaking about African-Americans. I also think it’s pretty offensive to suggest (as the video does) that any of the African-Americans in the video are unwitting (or, still worse, willing) pawns of the vast racist conspiracy. It could be, you know, that a 15 second clip isn’t the best way to assess whether someone is a racist.
You should check your own thinking for the binaries I mentioned above.
Michael, that’s really too much. You want to classify a bunch of people as racists based on ten-second sound bytes, and you are telling me that I need to check my binary thinking? lol.
S.B. and John – I’ll check into the McWhorter clip. Could you each explain why you think he was taken out of context?
John – Do you also extend a strong presumption in favor of African-Americans and others who make charges of racism against privileged whites in the u.s.? Or do you only extend such presumptions toward some African-Americans?
Could you each explain why you think he was taken out of context?
Well, I’m not going to bother trying to comb through Youtube clips to find the whole interview. I’ve seen McWhorter a fair amount on bloggingheads and he does not sound like a racist or a tool of racists.
http://bloggingheads.tv/search/?participant1=McWhorter,%20John
Do you also extend a strong presumption in favor of African-Americans and others who make charges of racism against privileged whites in the u.s.? Or do you only extend such presumptions toward some African-Americans?
I start out with a presumption that people aren’t racists. That presumption is stronger when the person is speaking about their own racial or ethnic group.
I start out with a presumption that people aren’t racists.
What an astonishing assumption, considering the obvious signs of racism in american society. Assuming that “people” aren’t racists seems to be a denial of what is quite obvious. Have you been a victim of discrimination?
It depends on what you mean. I assume each individual person I meet is not a racist, which I believe is consistent with Christian charity. On occasion, I’ve revised that assumption for certain individuals.
I’ve been racially discriminated against, but I don’t object to AA so I didn’t really mind.
Why do I think McWhorter was taken out of context? Because I’m familiar with the guy. What the video depicts would be as if some right-wing website produced a smear video about MSNBC claiming that it’s “racist” against white people, and as evidence depicted a clip of Karl Rove appearing to say something that is racist towards John McCain. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that Karl Rove is a very unlikely figure to have really been racist towards John McCain.
I assume each individual person I meet is not a racist, which I believe is consistent with Christian charity.
Another important part of Christianity is truth. And the truth is, countless people and institutions in the united states are racist. In the face of clear evidence about FOX News, you still choose to exercise “Christian charity” and “assume” that nothing racist is going on. To me, that is a sin against the truth. Do you extend the same “Christian charity” to Jeremiah Wright?
S.B. – Do you also think John McCain’s racist comments were taken out of context? Is he a racist? Do you think Jeremiah Wright’s comments were taken out of context? Is he a racist?
Don’t put words in my mouth. I said I assume each individual person I meet is not a racist. I didn’t say anything about Fox News, other than that the clear evidence you presented of racism is nothing of the sort.
Nothing of the sort? Really? Simply because one of the clips seems (in the minds of you and S.B., at least) to take a person’s words out of context? The rest of the video does not pose a problem for you?
Can you answer my question about Jeremiah Wright? Does your “Christian charity” extend that far?
I don’t really want to get into defending Jeremiah Wright here. I know, I know, you’ll say we have sound bites of him, he’s obviously a racist, and a hateful person, etc. But, frankly, I just feel that you are too eager to tag people as racists, whether it be people who talk on Fox News for 15 seconds or Jeremiah Wright who goes on and on about how white people invented AIDS to kill black people.
If the lesser offenses of Fox News bother you, I can only imagine what you would say about Jeremiah Wright. I’ll admit, Wright is more difficult to defend. It will take some time for me to explain why I think Jeremiah Wright should be defended, and maybe I am too easy on him, but I’d rather not defend him on this thread.
John –
1) Of course Jeremiah Wright is not a racist.
2) It’s interesting that you will spend some effort to defend FOX News from the charge of racism but you will not do the same thing for Wright.
3) It would be a good witness for you to defend Wright, particularly for your co-bloggers perhaps.
The USA is not a racist country. People get screwed regardless of color :)
There is a long list of people I’d rather “witness for” than Jeremiah Wright. Besides, we have 15 second sound clips of him. What more could we need?
John, just what I figured.
So in Michael’s world, it is wrong (and probably racist too) to criticize a soundbite in which Jeremiah Wright blames the CIA for AIDS. No fair. But it’s fair to label a black guy as “racist” against Jeremiah Wright because of a two-second clip in which he wondered whether Wright’s church was worshiping Christ or not.
You really need to get your story straight: is it fair to smear people based on tiny soundbites or not?
Michael,
I have listened to Sean Hannity for years and can say for certain he is not a racist. True, he criticizes people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson for promoting the victim-hood mentality. However, I have heard him encourage minorities to apply themselves and get a good education which is offered to all free of charge. This is the only way people will be able to get decent jobs. He has also criticized parents for not pushing their children to do this. Sean respects and honors those blacks who share these beliefs such as Clarence Thomas, Michael Steele, J.C. Watts, and Thomas Sowell. No, Sean is not a racist. He just has a different (and better) idea of what people need to do to succeed in life.
“a good education which is offered to all free of charge.”
Granted, but how will the poor get to Canada or Europe ?
Gerald,
Isn’t public school free where you live?
It’s free, but whether it’s good depends on the school district, i.e. money.
Not to mention the costs for college. In Austria it was, in essence, free.
Btw, I find Thomas Sowell interesting, “Black Rednecks and White Liberals” was fascinating. Whereas I loathe Republicans more than Dems, it is true that “black” cities run by Democrats tend to be hellholes. The hysteria characteristic of American politics strikes once more, prohibiting any honest debate. As I wrote above, this type of “black culture” has adopted the slurs of old as virtues and lives them, thereby doing the job for racists. The most effective oppression is the self-inflicted kind.
As I also said above, government housing in Austria is sought after and in great condition. It’s not just malice that discredited government programs in this country, but facts as well. The mistake is to view the American disaster as inevitable/intrinsic to public programs. Destroying one’s own neighborhood is something that goes far beyond what external forces can fix.
Lastly, none of this disaster has anything to do with “race” (which is a BS concept anyway), it’s entirely cultural.
Gerald,
I agree that all schools are not equal. However, I believe that if a person applies himself and studies his butt off, he will succeed. I think people blame the schools and teachers too much. It’s mainly the student’s responsibility to get a good education, along with their parents. Knuckle down, crack open the books, and you will do fine. Don’t go around moaning about how bad the school is — get to work.
KD
KD – Astonishingly liberal view you have.
Liberal? I didn’t say anything about handouts.
KD – I’m using the actual definition of the word ‘liberal,’ not the culture war definition.