Brothers In Arms

Fox"News" continues to provide covering-fire for BP and allow executives airtime to either make excuses for their inaction that lead to this disaster or simply claim that they are being victimized.



The unblushing way in which Fox"News" and conservatives are more than willing to turn a blind eye to corporations that rape the ecology and economy of America is simply mind boggling. We hear them continually preach accountability, to "trust but verify", and when the time comes to back up their words we get nothing - not one ounce of honesty or credibility.

When it comes to the gulf oil spill, there is such rank hypocrisy within the conservative movement that your head begins to spin before you can even get through your morning coffee.

First, the government isn't doing enough, then they are doing too much. The safety of workers cleaning up the spill is never mentioned by conservatives and when steps are taken to ensure safety, then it's all "a bunch of bureaucratic read tape slowing the operation down". There is nothing that will satisfy these wretched creatures known as Republicans. Yet people continue to try and appease them, even in the face of their own ridicule.

Make no mistake about it, Fox"News" and the conservatives enslaved to that network are in this to see that not just Obama fails on some level but that the people of the Gulf Coast fail on some level. No matter what the cost, conservatives must win, even if their own country which they claim to love suffers.

Media Stunts

Greta is just following her pre-program script



Did you catch the part where she mention who the government, leading up to the crisis, didn't protect people? Know who was sitting in the Oval Office then? I know I do.

Greta is a rather peculiar creature on Fox"News", as she's designed to portray balance to the network ( even though she and her husband were notorious, serial, stalkers of Sarah Palin ) but is in a time slot where most people aren't really paying attention to the news. I see her program as background noise for most Fox viewers while they are getting ready to go to bed - save maybe those on the West Coast.

But my question is really this - why is Fox trying to protect those that were key players in the economic rape of this country? I suppose that one could say that greed is a motivator, but it's more than likely the promotion and advocation of ignorance that is more in play in this regard. After all, keeping your audience enamoured with red-meat conjecture rather than fact-based analysis does tend to hold the attention of the modern conservative.

Of Still Photos And Video

There are thousands of examples of right-wing conservatives using screen-grabs of video in order to use them of proof of some wrong-doing by Democrats.

This latest example is easily debunked, but it's just too juicy for some people to ignore.



And who did the debunking? Greta Can Susteren. No, really.



Manufactured stories are nothing new to conservatives. And when there is proported photographic evidence of some misdeed perpetrated by a Democrat, they are start salivating and dry humping bed posts.

This is nothing new, as photographic memes have been around since before the internet. I could, at the veritable drop of a hat, take a screen-grab of a video of someone leaping off a building and it will look like they are flying. Can people fly? Not at all. Was Barack Obama checking out a 17-year-old girl? No. And pretending that people can fly or that Obama has an affinity for jail-bait doesn't make either one true.

I Know A Guy Who Knows A Guy

Once again, let us witness the bold-face lies of "Turd-Blossum"

We know from her record on the 2nd Court of Appeals that she's not a particularly effective colleague. I first got wind of this when Sam Alito, who was her colleague on the court while we were reviewing his record, it -- you know, people who were familiar with the workings of the court said that she was combative, opinionated, argumentative, and as a result, was not able to sort of help create a consensus opinion on important issues.

Sonia Sotomayor served on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, Alito served on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals.

I don't have a degree in Math, but the most rudimentary knowledge of such tells me that 2 and 3 aren't the same.

Well, I'm not going to comment on what he said about her, because I didn't hear him say anything specifically about her, but when I was talking to people about the 2nd Court of Appeals -- for example, look, as you know, justices circulate opinions and -- to their colleagues to get their feedback and to act as, you know, sort of a prompt for discussions when they meet in chambers.

Well -- in conference, excuse me -- what she would do is she would mark them up like she was your English school teacher and -- with your typos and misspellings and other words that she wanted to have changed, and send them back to her colleagues -- not exactly the best way to ingratiate yourself with your colleagues.

Of course he's not going to comment on this, he's making it up as he goes along.

To approach this topic from the perspective of the use of "anonymous sources", one has to also look at what other pundits, writers, and reporters have said in their various columns, blogs, and on-air reports that have also come from "anonymous sources".

From my perspective, the use of "anonymous sources" to create the bulk of your thesis statement tends to make readers less likely to believe your claims, unless you have a counterbalance of facts backed-up with "open" sources that can be verified by your readers.

Also, if the author has crediblity outside of the article where he/she is usging "anonymous" sources, the likelihood that their readership is going to believe what they read is increased.

However, with the continued onset of fierce, ideological, voices that are bent on pushing a "message" rather than facts, the use of "anonymous sources" by people like Karl Rove increases the likelihood that their subject matter is extremely by an exponentially large degree.

It is for this reason that any and all that read anything written by Rove or see an interview with him where he cites "anonymous sources" should question each and every point he makes. The problem is that so many have become numb to the use of unverifiable sources that they now lack that ability to question them. Also, if the reader has their own ideological bent to push, then facts be damned.

More from Media Matters

More from Media Matters.

Greta Van Whatdoyoumeanfacts

Has anyone notice that since Palin came onto the national scene, and more-so now that Alan Colme isn't a regular play on Fox"News", that Greta is just letting her inner freak-flagfly?

Here she is speculating that Barack Obama is only visiting states and counties that he won because this is political theatre:



Oh, so sorry Greta. You're wrong - again.

From Think Progress

Greta is correct in saying that most of the states — four of the five, to be exact — Obama has visited are states he won. However, the places he has chosen to visit represent much less friendly territory, visiting three counties he lost by double digits and only two he won:

Elkhart County, IN: Obama LOST 44 to 56 percent [2/9/09]
Lee County, FL: Obama LOST 45 to 55 percent [2/10/09]
Fairfax County, VA: Obama won 60 to 39 percent [2/11/09]
Denver County, CO: Obama won 75 to 23 percent [2/17/09]
Maricopa County, AZ: Obama LOST 44 to 55 percent [2/18/09]

Moreover, Obama’s local visits have been open to the public — even the part of the public that doesn’t like him. In a radical break from President Bush’s policies, Obama’s town hall audiences have been unscreened, and critics are not only granted access but allowed to ask questions.

At War With Whom?

Yep, Palin thinks we are at war with Iran.

This isn't to say that she, McCain, and probably a large percentage of the current administration don't think we should be. But, we aren't.

Nice interview Gretta.

Sheesh.

So, Only Fox"News' Can Make Jokes?

Canadian opinion columist Heather Mallick drew fire from Greta Van Susteren and Fox"News" when she made some comments about Sarah Palin:

Heather Mallick, an opinion columnist for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s Web site, is known for her use of humorous exaggeration. But last week after removing a column by Ms. Mallick, which said that Gov. Sarah Palin has “a toned-down version of the porn actress look” and suggested that Republican men were sexually inadequate, the government-owned CBC ruled that its opinion writers had to stick to the facts even when they were joking around.

Although the broadcaster’s Web site, www.cbcnews.ca, has relatively few readers in the United States, Ms. Mallick’s comments became an issue last month on the Fox News Channel, which, because of Canadian cable TV rules that limit its distribution, has relatively few viewers in Canada. Greta Van Susteren, the host of “On the Record,” condemned the column as “beyond vicious” and repeatedly referred to Ms. Mallick as “a pig.” A right-of-center columnist for The National Post, of Toronto, also criticized the column.

Apparently, Greata and Fox still can figure out that people like Mallick are hired for their "opinions" and that's why they are printed in the "opinion" section. Most papers have multiple viewpoints on the "opinion" page, that's why it's named that.

However, no one should have an opinion that goes against Fox. And they'll spend as much time as they like claiming that any opposing viewpoint is wrong.

Mallick went on to state

“My problem is that I have to write with a certain kind of reader in mind, and that person is always going to be my vision of an intelligent Canadian,” Ms. Mallick said. “I don’t write for Fox viewers.”

More here

The only part of this particular situation that is worse is that CBC's ombudsman, Vince Carlton, seems to be caving to Fox:

In his report, Mr. Carlin said that after the column had been mentioned in at least three Fox News broadcasts, his office and Ms. Mallick had “received an alarming number of truly vicious and vituperative messages.”

Mr. Carlin said that parts of the column broke internal CBC News guidelines requiring that “even in a work of opinion, facts should be respected and arguments should reasonably flow from these facts.”

Interesting, that people like Limbaugh can talk about "Barack The Magic Negro", Hannity can use racial devisive language on a weekly basis, and O'Reilly talk about his wonderment that a "black" restaraunt is just like any other restarautn, and can get away with it. Oh, that's right, they all AGREE with any and everything that Fox is about.

This is not Mallick's first brush with Fox"News". She discussed a potential "boycott" of Canada with O'Reilly back in 2004 and assured him that America would never do such a thing:

O'REILLY: Now if the [Canadian] government -- if your government harbors these two deserter [sic], doesn't send them back ... there will be a boycott of your country which will hurt your country enormously. France is now feeling that sting.

MALLICK: I don't think for a moment such a boycott would take place because we are your biggest trading partners.

O'REILLY: No, it will take place, madam. In France ...

MALLICK: I don't think that your French boycott has done too well ...

O'REILLY: ...they've lost billions of dollars in France according to "The Paris Business Review."

MALLICK: I think that's nonsense.

The problem with Fox, is that they are crazy enough to spend as much time and money as they can to go after any decenting voices.

Sad.