President Obama vs. Fox News - bias or not?

So the White House is upset with Fox News. The President just doesn't like the coverage he gets there. Because they must be less than legitamite since they criticize his Administration. Are they serious?

Now I have no problem with anyone that wants to critique the major news media. There are multiple issues I have, ranging from the disproportionate representation of people of color in television shows to the subliminal reinforcement of stereotypes in news coverage and advertisements. I write about it often. But to be realistic, there is no one major media outlet that is far and away worse than all the others.

Of course when we focus only on the news media I begin to see the situation. Considering that virtually all the news media fawns over President Obama, Fox News actually doing there jobs must be a pain in the ass. They are the one place that reality sinks in, and rockstars prefer groupies to critics.

Think about it. ACORN has abused the system, promoting criminal activities and corrupting votes across the country. It took over a week and a preponderance of evidence before the rest of the media even noticed there was a story there. Hmm, political corruption on a national level. Sounds like a job that the news media is supposed to do.

What about officials in the Government. Besides telling the public about people in positions of power that have less than reputable backgrounds (Van Jones is a great and obvious choice) isn't it the job of the news media to mention the problems (like failing to pay taxes - which almost everyone in or proposed to be in the Obama Administration has failed to do) in our Government? Isn't that what most of the media did non-stop against President Bush?

And those are just 2 examples of many. The fact that a President is a rockstar does not mean they are above critique or observation. It's part of the job. And President Obama has had many things to critique, just check my political blog VASS to see what I mean.

When President Bush was in office, didn't he get hammered with tough questions every time he spoke to the press? Wasn't MSNBC treating President Bush even worse than Fox is accused of treating President Obama?

The media is not perfect. They all have agendas and preferences. But for the White House to attack one organization for doing its job - that smacks of abuse of power. How dare anyone question President Obama. How dare anyone question obvious flaws in policy. They have to be solely stooges for political adversaries and racists. Except that would be a lie to say.

Notice that the White House has not stated any materially important facts that were wrongly reported or commented (ie correcting the name of the city of an upcoming Olympics is not materially important). Notice that there is nothing that wasn't true. They didn't like it, but that does not mean it was false.

No, the White House would prefer that the public either drools with excitement (like some at MSNBC seem to do) if President Obama speaks, or completely ignores the news of the day. It's much easier to pass legislation that no one has read if no one pays attention.

Fox News is not perfect. I have had issue with some of the statements and coverage it has presented over the years. I have disagreed, strongly at times, with the opinions of Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Sheppard Smith. Yet I watch the channel every day because even when I disagree, the quality of the news and commentary is consistently far superior to other channels. And it is because I watch everyday that the silly internet bashers that misquote, and the bullying of the White House stand out for what they are.

Simply put, if an Administration is hell bent to make sure you don't see something it stands to reason that you should pay attention. Put another way, if this was President Bush telling you not to watch a news channel many would flock to see what he disliked and why. The fact that President Obama is Black and a rockstar politician doesn't change that reasoning.

Sean Hannity vs. Michael Moore

Commentary about these interviews can be found at VASS.

The war of the cable news networks

When you look at the various pundits on cable news these days, you get the feeling that there is a war going on. Not the events in Afghanistan, or Iraq, but in the cable networks themselves. Not a new idea, but recently it went to a new level.

Recently Sean Hannity, of Fox News, made a statement that he would endure waterboarding for the benefit of U.S. military troops. While this was a statement made somewhat lightheartedly, Hannity is a strong supporter of waterboarding as a means of gaining information from terrorists, it was heard in every newsroom across the airwaves.

Thus Keith Olbermann, of MSNBC, took it upon himself to make that comment a reality. He has offered an $1000 to be donated for every second that Hannity endures the interrogation technique. And the far-left loved the visage of the event.

But Olbermann missed something in this. Whether it takes 5 seconds or 5 minutes, Hannity will break. That's not a victory for Olbermann or MSNBC. Nor for the far-left. Because all that proves is that waterboarding is effective.

As much as the far-left, the major media in general, and President Obama want to state that tough interrogations are ineffective the fact is that they work. Even as the President has refused to reveal any information that he has available to him that proves waterboarding has saved American lives (though he is quick to divulge that it was used among other techniques) the fact remains clear as day.

This is only a small part of the war being held in the 24-hour news networks everyday. With the lines drawn such that MSNBC is to the furthest left, and Fox News in the center and thus seeming far right. That is not to say that some people on both networks are at different points in the political spectrum, even to extreme. Hannity is hardly a centrist, just as Olbermann is not.

Still this all leaves me with a big question. Where is the real news?

When any news organization is actively taking a political position, the overall information being given is inevitably altered. When that news is political and will shape the American life, then there is a problem.

Take this minor example. MSNBC praises President Obama and the Congress. This has led them to emphasize coverage of the Obama Administration budget on the fact that it has pledged to lower the national debt by 50% in 4 years. But to cover just that portion of the impact of the budget is to lie to the American public.

The fact is, under the best scenario given by the Obama Administration, the budget will absolutely increase the national debt in 10 years. That is the ultimate outcome of his budget. In fact in the 5th year the deficit will be slightly larger than it is today. That's just 1 year after it would have been whitewashed to look lower for a year. That's polispeak.

Or how about the New York Times, questioning President Obama about how he feels as President. Not that questions about the economy (none were asked), nukes in Pakistan, the war effort in Afghanistan, or the impending release of Gitmo detainees into America are even slightly more important. Do you really care if President feels elated, if you just lost your job?

I realize that I am picking on the left in my examples. Other examples of the same kind of insanity from the right exists abundantly across the net. But the examples are real. And the net effect is damage to the public.

Were it up to me, I'd like to see all the executives at the cable news networks waterboarded. Perhaps that would remind them that the news, and honest critique of politicians (in both Parties), is their job. Not ratings or political agendas. That's what America cares about.

So if Olbermann wants to cover waterboarding, let him do an expose that covers the pros and cons of the issue. Which means admitting it worked, and explaining its failures. Anything else is just trying to grab a bigger television rating (which MSNBC needs - given). Which is not a benefit to America.

And by the way, Olbermann, why not just donate several thousand dollars to the families of the troops that are ensuring that you can get on the air and say whatever you believe. Without them you would be like Cuba or China, just reading whatever the Government tells you to.

Dr. Kutner’s dead, blame Sean Hannity

I’m sure that at some point a liberal nutjob will utter (or type) those words. And when they do they will be partially correct.

The first thought I had, when I was the news of the death of Kal Penn’s character, Dr. Kutner, on House was that Penn in fact had died. I was shocked at the thought he would commit suicide. That was just the way the article was being presented in headline form. But my relief was short-lived.

House is a great television show. I love the re-runs and have seen many episodes. But I rarely get to see the first-run shows. So I have not been quite up to date on what was happening to all the characters. Still I was unaware of any problem that the Kutner character was having. In fact, there seems to be no problem.

This troubles me. There are many things that television says to the public these days. The show Bad Girls Club celebrates depraved actions of a group of MTV wanna-be women, I Love Money celebrates the degradation of individuals for the chance to win cash, American Idol primarily entertains with the embarrassment of thousands winding down to the insulting and occasional humiliation of just a few. And now we have a character that is doing what they love, being paid well, is respected, who just kills himself. Wow.

Yes, I do realize that the intent of all the shows I mentions, and many I did not, are not what I stated. But their effective communication is that, if only on a subliminal level. Which is dangerous.

Add to this another thought I have. While I applaud the desire of Kal Penn to be involved in public service, and to support deluded actions that he believes in, what is his presence in the Obama Administration saying?

Kal Penn is an actor. While he will be associate director of the White House Office of Public Liason, ostensibly a pitchman for the Obama Administration, he will not be targeting people in my generation. He is useful to the Obama Administration because he is known for his role as Kumar of Harold & Kumar movies. And that means he is targeting a young generation.

So the Obama Administration is trying to gather more support and attention within Americans that recognize Penn primarily as a pot-smoking, junk food nay-do-well. This is the face of the Obama Administration that is being used to gain political attention.

Again, like the sudden and illogical death of his character, I have issue with the message being sent.

Now some will say I am reading too much into this. That this is entertainment, and that the American public can discern a character from reality. Yet if this were true, why are there so many programs on television that must state that you should not do what you see in your own home? Why is it that as television programs and movies that highlight the promiscuity and drunkenness of teens have coincided with the increase in single parents and teenage pregnancy? Why is it that the debauchery of Girls Gone Wild is seen as fun and something to be attained, as opposed to any number of other things?

Because all of this, especially in combination, is not all harmless. Were there no effect, there would be no commercials on television. It’s just that simple.

So the fact that Penn’s character was removed in such a manner disturbs me. And the fact that his main claim to fame is the tool that will be used to promote a President and a social agenda that actively seeks to destroy the America I grew up in troubles me. Maybe it won’t upset the general masses of the public, but then again that same mass buys up Girls Gone Wild and vegetates to American Idol regularly.

Again I commend Kal Penn on following through with a public service agenda that he believes in. I just don’t like the path that agenda leads to, nor the means by which it will achieve its goals. At least I hope Penn has paid his taxes.

Bill O'Reilly interviews Senator Barack Obama - Thursdsay

Well here is something that I’m sure will top the Nielsen ratings charts on Thursday. After months of waiting, Senator Barack Obama has finally come in for his interview with Bill O’Reilly. And it’s about time.

Now on the left, especially the far-left, Bill O’Reilly is seen as the fanatical face of the right. It’s an unfair accusation, based in the extremist views of those critics. That’s like saying the comments and actions of Code Pink or Moveon.org represent all Democrats, which I would say is equally unfair.

But there is no question that Fox News is the most watched news channel in the nation. It is also no question that throughout the Primaries and since Fox News has been noted as the most unbiased news agency. And it is also factual that Bill O’Reilly is the most popular commentator, reaching millions of Americans of all types of political beliefs.

So it will only be to Senator Obama’s benefit to appear on the program. His audience is so wide and politically beneficial that Senator Clinton appeared as she was regaining ground against Obama in the last few weeks of the Democratic Primaries. And while I dislike Senator Clinton and her policies, she did look good in the interview.

But how might Senator Obama fare?

Well in England we have these headlines on the subject –
Obama agrees to Murdoch's Fox News grilling

Rupert Murdoch broked 'truce' between Fox and Barack Obama

In the U.S. the headline tones are:
The secret Obama-Fox News meeting

OBAMA AND FOX MAKE UP, PHELPS LENDS A HAND, RICH PEOPLE READ

Fox News' Obama Power Play

According to those titles, which I think is a fair and popular representation of the way this is being presented to the world via most news media, Fox News has been seen as an enemy of Senator Obama, and involved in a feud. And Fox is supposed to be biased.

There is no question that some of the commentators on Fox are right-wing. There is no question that I have disagreed with the presentation of various events by Fox News in general. I firmly believe that Fox is prone to presenting African Americans in negative stereotypical tones. Shepard Smith is unquestionably biased in the manner in which he covers cases like OJ Simpson, or the Duke Rape case. Sean Hannity is unquestionably far-right.

But Bill O’Reilly isn’t the above people. In watching his program for years now I see that he is one of the least biased commentators on cable television today. There are issues where he is way off, like anyone, but in general these are subjects where he is as hostile to Whites as Blacks. Child safety is one such example. You just can’t question that O’Reilly is an advocate of all children.

But he is fair. His interview with Rev. Jesse Jackson was fair. His interview with Senator Clinton was informative and fair. His discussions with Rev. Al Sharpton are fair. And he has often covered news stories that I have highlighted that no other major news media, including the hard news of Fox, touch.

On the other hand it does seem obvious that he has a problem with the people Senator Obama knows. Which is not entirely wrong.

So I expect these questions to be asked:

• The association with Bill Ayers
  
  
• The association with Rev. Wright
  
  
• The association with Tony Rezco
  
  
• Senator Obama’s exact views on domestic drilling and alternative energy
  
  
• Senator Obama’s plans for taxing business, his definition of rich, and the economy
  
  
• If Senator Obama will finally admit that the Surge has worked
  
  
• How Senator Obama plans to pay for his nationalized healthcare and how it would be implemented
  
  
• Why a timetable for retreat would be in America’s best interest
  
  
• Whether Senator Obama will or will not speak with Iran and other anti-American governments without conditions
  
  
• The reversal Obama took when he selected a standard of ‘old’ politics – Sen. Joe Biden – as his Vice President
  

Each of the above items are questions that have existed since the Democratic Primaries and each has failed to be resolved fully.

If Senator Obama can answer these questions well, he should have a huge boost in his polling. If he fails to answer them, or does so poorly I expect to see him drop quickly.

Ludacris is not Senator Obama - understand Sean Hannity?

Name one thing that is potentially deadly to the political ambition of Senator Barack Obama and involves the youth of America.

Ludacris.

Or at least that is what the news media would love you to believe. And when I say news media I mean at least Sean Hannity, that I am aware of right now. But I have no doubt that there will be more than just a few that will try to use rapper Ludacris as a weapon against Senator Obama.

The problem is that Ludacris has released a video where he is lauding Senator Obama, and disparages Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator John McCain, Rev. Jesse Jackson and President Bush – in a manner only rappers would believe to be decent.

Here is the video – WARNING – some individuals and parents may find this objectionable. (note there are several versions of this video on Youtube, I have selected the least visually insulting version)



I agree with most of the news media that Ludacris is a poor representative of Senator Obama. His use of foul language, the N-word, and implications of women as valueless sacks of meat meant for the base enjoyment of men are all things I denounce and disagree with. Were that the only implication in the news media I would have no problem with their assault.

But that is not the case. The words and images of Ludacris are being used to intimidate White Americans. As displayed on Hannity & Colmes the lyrics are matched with images that are obviously meant to imply ‘watch out for the crazy violent Black men’. That I do not agree with.

When Senator Obama first met with Ludacris in 2006 it was at YouthAIDS ''Kick Me'' campaign to raise HIV/AIDS awareness. If preventing AIDS is not a positive, what is? What is violent or crazy about keeping our kids alive and healthy? Nothing, and it’s why the national news media had little to say about their conversation.

After Senator Obama declared his intention to run for the Democratic nomination, months later, a Youtube video came out called Obama Girl. While it was whimsical I heard no comments about how negative this expression of pro-Obama support was beyond its less than serious nature. The media was not rooting out the backgrounds of the performers looking to show how dangerous Obama was at the time. Of course at that time in 2007 Senator Clinton was still expected to garner the nomination.

When Will.I.Am made his popular and catchy music video demonstrating his support of Senator Obama no one raised an eyebrow. Yet Will.I.Am is a member of a music group that has used lyrics that while not as explicit as those used by rappers, is no less suggestive. Of course Senator Obama was still expected to lose to one of the White candidates at the time.

But now that Senator Obama is the Democratic nominee, and another Black musician has voiced his support – well things are different.

But how?

This is just another entertainer that supports Obama. This is just another expression of that support. And it has nothing to do with Senator Obama or his policies. This does not reflect on Obama’s intention to get out of Iraq, or reduce energy prices, or implement a national healthcare system. It’s just a guy saying he likes Obama more than McCain in a bad way.

Yet according to pundits I have seen and read this is Obama’s problem. As if he was singing the song himself. And others have stated how this song does not reflect the social morality and family values of middle America.

But Obama isn’t singing the song. Ludacris has nothing to do with his campaign. And the most recent data states that more than 55% of all rap music sales are because of White youth throughout America. So obviously it must match up with hordes of family values throughout the nation’s White families.

The point is that I can understand debating the policy issues of Senator Obama. I can respect supporters and detractors that have substantive reasons. But to play on stereotypical fears of racial ignorance is insulting and unwarranted.

Yes Ludacris went way too far. Yes he should apologize for the attacks he made. It’s true the Obama campaign denounced the video. But what does any of this have to do with Senator Obama besides the fact that both men are Black?

Sean Hannity was wrong for the manner in which he presented this news item. He was wrong to imply the racial component as he did in his program on July 30th. He too should apologize for the over the top suggestive presentation that he provided. He is no less wrong than Ludacris. And the news media needs to stop trying to create Rev. Wright fiascos for their ratings and newspaper sales, just because a Black entertainer – or just a person in general – supports Senator Obama.

Dog Chapman apologies on Hannity and Colmes Part 3 - 11.7.2007.2

Concluded from Dog Chapman apologies on Hannity and Colmes Part 2...

And lastly the interview ends with his written public apology, and his claim he would rather die than inflict pain on the Black community. Some how I doubt that. Had that been true he would not use, nor allow use around him, of the n-word. He would not have spit out the bile and malicious wording that is now the testament of his thoughts. Again I say his apology sounds hollow and as false as a poorly tuned piano.

But that is not the end of his annoying attempt to get back his lucrative television show and audience. The last thing he mentions is his efforts to get in touch with God and to go to a gravesite of African Slaves and to place a gravestone for each of them buried there.

I’m sorry but my anger cannot be bought so cheaply. My anger that has grown immensely as I hear him continue to speak. Now he thinks that telling me he is going to get in touch with God, and that this should excuses his intent and actions? That his taking the out that all entertainers and celebrities are using now, treatment for deplorable actions, is going to gain sympathy? Not with me.

And to even mention the graves of those Africans that were taken from their homes to become less than furniture enrages me. How dare him. Placing grave markers will not buy my anger off. Providing due respect for the lives of human beings is something everyone should do. America didn’t for over a century, and the paltry hollow actions of one White man who has compounded that insensitivity will not make up for it.

I mentioned that I expected Dog to seek some kind of ‘aid’ for his words. He has done so. I expected that he would apologize in public. And now he has. I did not expect him to lose his cable television show for the private phone call, but having heard his apology I am glad at A&E’s decision.

As I said to a friend about this whole incident,

“He may not be a racist, but he does a damn good job of acting like one.”

Dog Chapman apologies on Hannity and Colmes Part 2 - 11.7.2007.1

Continued from Dog Chapman apologies on Hannity and Colmes Part 1...

Has this guy grown up in America?! Has he not lived enough years to recall the 70’s and know of the 60’s? Has he been in a coma? Of course he knew it caused pain. I have no doubt that while he was in prison on his murder conviction he heard someone use the word, and knew it was used to create pain. I’m sure he was aware enough of the vile nature of the n-word that he never used it in front of his Black reverend, Rev. Storey. Had he a real separate meaning, or thought it had no effect I’m sure he would have had no problem using it in front of the reverend. But he hid that aspect of himself, meaning he knew.

The interview then jumps away from his words, and his hollow apology (I felt), to discuss his son’s birth. What the Hell did that have to do with anything? It was an attempt to gain sympathy. It was an attempt to show his humanity. Nice try, to bad that humanity seems reserved to people of his own color.

But that was not enough for Dog Chapman. He goes on to blame the Enquirer for offering money for recordings or video of his actions. It was their fault for enticing his son to get this recording. And it was the fault of the girlfriend for being around his son and possibly being a bad influence on him. That is he thought she was encouraging his son to behave badly, according to rumors he heard of his son acting badly. Notice that the rumors did not say she did that, but he assumed it. Again this is distraction and an attempt to gain sympathy.

Something that is important to note. If Duane ‘Dog’ Chapman was so sorry, why did he wait to apologize? The conversation was from March of this year. I realize this was a private conversation, so I can understand the lack of public apology. But why not apologize to Rev. Storey? Why not seek atonement for God, or within his religion? Because if he had, Rev. Storey would never have had to say “I’ve never heard him use that word.”

Perhaps the most insulting part of the interview is when Duane ‘Dog’ Chapman announces that he ‘now knows that he is not Black.’ That he had thought he was Black, and accepted by African Americans as one of our own. That bull is the worst attempt at sympathy I have heard in maybe decades. “Now I know I’m not Black”, like looking in a mirror for his entire life never gave him a clue. Like being Black is something you can purchase in the store and wear like a pair of jeans. Like the daily strife, injustice and inequality I and others have lived is a commodity that he can pick up and gain sympathy for when he acts badly.

‘Hey I’m sorry for shooting that guy, but I had my ‘African American’ jeans on. My Bad.’

Concluded in part 3...

Dog Chapman apologies on Hannity and Colmes - 11.6.2007.2

So I was watching Hannity & Colmes tonight and listened as Duane ‘Dog' Chapman tried to apologize and explain his phone conversation with his son. I can sum up my thoughts of his interview in a few words. Dodging blame, lame, and insufficient.

To start with, Dog starts the conversation with the comments that he was sorry for using the N-word and that he knew it was wrong. But nearly in the same breath he admits that he uses the word. This at least is consistent with his phone comment. But he tries to excuse this use of the n-word by stating 5 times in the first segment that he has a different definition of the word than the general public.

Now take that in for a moment. He tries to lessen what he said by using an excuse that the n-word has a separate meaning than the one that is acknowledged as the potentially most insulting word in the English language. He emphasizes this 5 times in 10 minutes. But not once does he offer what his meaning might be. Not once does he attempt to explain that he has ever used the word in any way other than to degrade, belittle and insult African Americans.

Towards the end of the show he does mention that he has used it as a form of common greeting. Yet that does not mean, nor does it seem to be implied, that this is how he uses the term all the time. It does not seem to be the way that he feared being taped using the word. That does not seem to imply the way that the others working with him use the word. And it still does not give the type of definition he wants to claim his use of this word conveys.

Plus there is the admission that when he did use the word as a greeting, or at other time, he would not say it out loud. He would not do this because

“I’d get beat up for it.”

Again he confirms that his meaning is the meaning we think it to be. That he knew exactly how his words would be understood and that he wanted that.

To the detriment of Sean Hannity’s interview, he was never asked to explain that meaning he supposedly had. In fact it was accepted that he could have a meaning separate of the historical, or the one used by youth today. But I interject that his use of the term in that phone conversation held a single meaning, and it was the historical and only meaning that the n-word has. And it was that meaning that he admittedly knew he was using both in the phone conversation and with his colleagues, in my opinion.

But the next thing Dog Chapman says in the interview really ticked me off. He says that he thought he could use the n-word. That he could say it as some African Americans do. That he had no idea that using the word, as he did in the phone call, could inflict pain to Blacks.

Continued in part 2...