BS: Lies about Fox

Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Dec 10 - 01:19 PM

"Anyone can arrogate to themselves or to an organization they found an appealing name that suggests high motives and love and patriotism and all those good things"

ABSOLUTELY TRUE!

So why is it ALWAYS acceptable when funded by left-wing sources, and NEVER when funded by right-wing ones???

Heads I win and tails you lose is the standard that most here seem to believe in. So DON'T tell me that FOX is not fair, when you are arguably MORE biased, yet claim the mantle of rightous fairness.

Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Dec 10 - 01:16 PM

Greg F.

Consider yourself bitten, chewed on, and spit out.


999,

Dou you also agree that the rest of the media slants towards a more leftist viewpoint? And are you aware that only 20% of the US electorate considers themselves "liberal", while 40% consider themselevs "conservative"?

So WHICH side is the one presenting the minority viewpoint???


To use Rachel as a judge of Fox is like asking Adolph Hitler if the Jews deserved to be killed.

Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 16 Dec 10 - 01:13 PM

Tapscott said in part, in the course of bolstering his own credibility:

I was inducted into the First Amendment Center's Freedom of Information Hall of Fame a few years ago. I mention this not to boast, but because I don't recall seeing anybody from Media Matters among the inductees.

I confess that I'm not informed as to the character of the "First Amendment Freedom of Information Hall of Fame", cited by Tapscott. Is it in fact what its high-sounding name suggests? Or is it perhaps a right-wing apologist organization?   

Anyone can arrogate to themselves or to an organization they found an appealing name that suggests high motives and love and patriotism and all those good things. Does anybody have information that would shine a more clarifying light on the sponsoring organization and thus the interpretation that ought to be put on Tapscott's induction into that Hall of Fame? Such as where its funding comes from?

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox
From: GUEST,999
Date: 16 Dec 10 - 01:04 PM

We have FOX in Canada. I have listened to them a few times and that was it. The stations I listened to in Hinton and Edson (in Alberta) were not very good, even as music stations. Their news was OK until there was a spin to put on it, and guess what--it favoured the Conservatives. Sorry, buddy, but in brief, f&&k FOX.

Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Dec 10 - 01:03 PM

A real pity that none here bothered to read the initial post.
But then, THAT would require a desire to be fair, and few here have any such thoughts.

Oh, please. Only appropriate response is Bite Me.

Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox
From: kendall
Date: 16 Dec 10 - 01:01 PM

BB, I don't care what George Soros says or George Bush or george the third, FAUX noise is right wing and fair and balanced is a joke!

Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Dec 10 - 12:59 PM

I have NEVER said that Fox is always objective- BUT the comments here about THIS ignore the initial post- IF you believe Rachel, then YOU are listening to a biased viewpoint. To accept THAT as the truth, and reject EVERYTHING that Fox says is to be more blinded and bigotted than to listen to Fox AND try to determine the truth.

I fail to see that most posting here have any desire to know the truth: You seem satiusfied to parrot the Liberal party line, and depend on saying the same unproven comments over and over agian =, expecting that others will fall in line like good little Dem robots.

Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox
From: GUEST,999
Date: 16 Dec 10 - 12:47 PM

I too read the opening post, Bruce. It`s a person`s opinion. I do think you being slagged for posting it is wrong, but trying to imply that FOX is at all objective is one helluva stretch. Bullshit is bullshit whether it comes from the Tea Party, Liberals, Republicans or FOX News. I think you are too darned smart NOT to know that.

Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Dec 10 - 12:45 PM

Fair, bruce??? Very strange word for anyone who actually believes the stuff they hear on FOX??? Yeah. like what does fair have to do with anything??? We have the most dumbed down population of any industrialized nation and we're worried about being more fair??? How much more mis-information do we really need to stuff in the FOX minions heads???

I'm with the "other bruce" on this one except I'd allow everyone who wanted to vote to vote but in order for their votes to count they'd have to pass a 10 question civics test in order for their vote to be counted... I mean, I see 'um right here in Page County... It's grandpa who hasn't been outta the house in a couple years being pushed in a wheelchair by his grand-daughter who is trying to grandpa to understand what grandpa is supposed to do in the voting booth... I mean, she has the sample ballot and all that for grandpa... "All ya gotta do is _____________________" she's telling him... Meanwhile, grandpa couldn't even tell you who is president or what day of the week it is...

Yes, I'm sure this happens on both sides but the point is is that if grandpa doesn't know squat about what's going on in the world why should he be voting??? Do you think Thomas Jeffe3rson would approve of such behaviors??? Hell no, he wouldn't...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Dec 10 - 12:44 PM

Out of curiosity, Bruce... do you accept or believe Rachael that Fox issues memos to it's various hosts, listing talking points and suggesting specific language to use?

Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Dec 10 - 12:40 PM

Seems to me THAT is either a lie or a really careless mistake, bb...**I** read all of the first post before I began commenting. And I also went to the link.

Now, if you don't think I responded to suit you, that's a different issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Dec 10 - 12:27 PM

A real pity that none here bothered to read the initial post.


But then, THAT would require a desire to be fair, and few here have any such thoughts.

Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox
From: kendall
Date: 16 Dec 10 - 11:59 AM

Old Maine saying: "I can stand a thief, but goddamn a liar."

Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox
From: GUEST,999
Date: 16 Dec 10 - 11:44 AM

Anyone who doesn`t know that FOX is a propaganda media outlet should have his or her voting rights suspended, imo.

Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Dec 10 - 11:41 AM

Interesting article in today's Washington Post about a memo that has surfaced that was sent out to FOX's announcers that instructs them to follow up any story related to global warming with a disclaimer stating that there is no proven science behind man being responsible for it???

From what I have read and heard, 99% of scientists beli9eve that global warming is a result of man burning way too much stuff... The 1% are also the creationists, the flat earthers, etc...

I mean, let's get real here... FOX has a corporate agenda... The are owned by Boss Hog himself...

What I don't understand is why Obama and the Dems aren't trying to take FOX down for FCC violations...

(There are no regulations, Boberdz, that require nes programas to tell the truth...)

There isn't??? How's that happen???

(One Repub appointed FCC member at a time... Think Michale Powell here...)

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Dec 10 - 11:31 AM

Well, that's actually only about half the interview...others are commenting on it....do a search. Maybe the whole thing will show up.

Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Dec 10 - 11:23 AM

Oh heck! We have technology now! Instant access to such things...

watch & listen to it yourselves

Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Dec 10 - 11:20 AM

Almost accidently,(channel flipping) I saw Rachel Maddow last night on David Letterman's show.
As part of the 'interview', Letterman kinda hand-fed her lines about Fox and it's more (in)famous hosts...along with Rush Limbaugh. I'm not sure she was expecting Letterman's pointed digs at Fox, but she managed a few serious responses to his loaded questions.
   When he asked why folks listen to such obvious doctored news, she pointed out that Fox is well-funded and run as a mill to support, raise money for, and promote conservative causes......and she clarified it all in one sentence when she said:(slightly paraphrased)"At MSNBC, we don't receive daily memos listing the day's 'talking points', along with suggested phrases and language....but at Fox, they DO!"

Yes, MSNBC IS [mostly]'liberal' oriented, but the difference in attitude about getting facts right and not inventing 'news' is WAY different from Fox..(as in the faked & hyped ACORN and New Black Panther Party smears.)

Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Dec 10 - 11:16 AM

The fundamental lie about Fox News[sic] is that it is a news program.

Q.E.D.

Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Dec 10 - 10:19 AM

Exactly, f-troupe...

The income disparity in the US will catch up with the liars and crooks...

Then, as in any time things go drastically wrong in the ruling of a country it will be "Can't we all get along" time... Problem is that the greedy never get to talk themselves out these messes... Once the masses turn on the pigs, it's too late for talk...

Boss Hog is pushing the envelope right now with his Tea Party minions... When they figure out they have been duped it ain't going to go well for Boss Hog and his boys and girls (Ms. Sarah, Ann Colter, Michelle Baucghman etc...)

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Dec 10 - 09:11 AM

"Our democracy cannot function if voters are making choices based on lies"

It functions perfectly well for those telling the lies til the shit hits the fan - think French Revolution.

Except today those in control have far more potent weapons to control/kill the troublemakers. But not too many at once, or the veil falls ... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Dec 10 - 08:18 AM

FOX isn't a news station.... It is a propaganda mill... So trying to glean out any truth in it's reporting is, ahhhhhh, an exercise in futility... I mean, like why would anyone want to subject themselves to overt lies unless they were already part of the the Repub/Tea Party...

Let's get real here... There was only one "news" station that actively participated in organizing the Tea Party: FOX...

End of story...

Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox
From: Joe Offer
Date: 16 Dec 10 - 02:55 AM

Most news media make at least some attempt to report the news objectively and to leave opinions to clearly-identified editorials. Not so with Fox. There's a political "spin" to almost everything said on that network. I find it offensive that so many places push FoxNews on me - restaurants, common areas in motels, and Internet gateways like Comcast.net.
I want the news, not propaganda.
And that's no lie.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox
From: EBarnacle
Date: 16 Dec 10 - 02:41 AM

We listen and learn but they are usually unmitigated fecal matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Dec 10 - 02:39 AM

Now what do you do, when their slanted biases turn out to be accurate?????????????!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox
From: Amos
Date: 15 Dec 10 - 11:39 PM

His overemphasis on IMMEDIATE countering, and his making no distinction between science and other forms of opinion or just plain overheated bullshit, is where the fault lies, Bruce, and Ithink a moment's thought would have made that quite clear.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Dec 10 - 08:56 PM

Thanks to Ebarnacle and Jeri for relevant points.

Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Dec 10 - 08:49 PM

"....we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. ....
...Sammon's injuction sounds to me exactly like what editors are supposed to tell their charges –..."

No...put that way, it is NOT "exactly what editors are supposed to tell their charges". If he tells them that **critics** have called it into question, without noting that a very small % of critics make that assertion, he is implicitly stacking the deck.
It is quite possible to ask staff to be "fair and balanced" without making the admonition simply be a ruse to avoid the **fact** that many more climate scientists and their data show obvious warming.
   Climate science should not even BE a political debate...but admitting that warming is happening would clearly be an....**ahem** "negative financial impetus" for companies that depend on fossil fuels and have carbon emission problems.
It costs money, and reduces profits, so they are in denial!

But... when ads and support require spouting conservative bias, what IS an editor to do?

Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox
From: michaelr
Date: 15 Dec 10 - 08:34 PM

"Send a message to the Admiralty that we are about to engage the enemy."

"But sir - is that, strictly speaking, accurate?"

"That, Menzel, is what we in the Navy call a Lie. Send it right away."

Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox
From: Jeri
Date: 15 Dec 10 - 08:17 PM

First off, it's more thorough if you search yourself: http://www.google.com/search?q=fox+news+lies

My opinion is that, while certain shows on other networks are obviously not "fair and balanced", the whole Fox news network is a propaganda machine for the right wing. I frequently fall on the liberal side of things, but occasionally, I'm on the conservative side. Above all, I hate liars more than most political opinions. I'm not fond of people who continually shove their politics down other people's throats (for example, like with this thread), and I almost always think it's hopeless to try to talk with that sort of people. If a person can't see something that's exquisitly, impeccably clear to almost everyone who can reason and is honest, it's because they won't see it. If something is true or not to you based on your politics and prejudices, people should not trust you. I also believe that trying to communicate with such a person is a waste of time. In writing this, I've spent 15 minutes I will never get back, and I can find many ways to wast time that won't leave me feeling frustrated and foolish for trying to communicate with a fence post.

Fox News-Lies, Lies, Lies (Part 1 of 2) [video]
Fox News-Lies, Lies, Lies (Part 2 of 2) [video]
Huffington post: The Ten Most Egregious Fox News Distortions ...[includes video]
Study: Watching Fox News makes you ignorant

December 15th, 2010 by John Grooms in Boomer with Attitude

There's a new study you should read — or at least read the summary if you don't have time to take on the whole thing. You'll be surprised by what it tells you about American voters. Or, sadly, you may not be surprised at all. World Public Opinion, a project of the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, surveyed a representative sample of American voters, and found, among other things, that American voters — Republican, Democrat and independent — were "substantially misinformed" (what you and I call "ignorant") about many issues.

Fifty-seven percent of those who voted Democratic, for instance, were inclined to believe it was a proven fact that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent oodles of foreign money to help GOP candidates; and 51 percent of them thought Obama had not increased the number of troops in Afghanistan.

Republican voters, on the other hand, overwhelmingly (73 percent) thought that most economists have concluded that the health care reform law will increase the deficit; 67 percent thought the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts; and 62 percent believed that most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring. If you find yourself agreeing with any of the above beliefs, whether held mostly by the Dems or the GOP, please do read the report. You may also want to stretch out a bit in terms of where you get your news.

Generally speaking, the survey found that voters who had more exposure to news sources were more informed, which one would expect. However, and let's quote the report directly here: "There were, however, a number of cases where greater exposure to a particular news source increased misinformation on some issues" (our emphasis). No need to even guess which "news source" they're talking about: it's Fox News. Even worse news for Fox News watchers: Apparently, the more you watch it, the more misinformed you'll be. Now, anyone who has tried to reason with a Fox News fan — or, say, has been trapped in a checkout line in front of a couple of Fox indoctrinees — can vouch for the survey's conclusion about the "fairly imbalanced" network. The World Public Opinion survey, though, gets specific, tallying up the percentages by which Fox News viewers out-ignorant (our term) other voters. Just a couple of examples: Among those who watch Fox News nearly every day, 60 percent believe that most scientists either think climate change isn't occurring or are evenly divided on the subject; and 56 percent think the GM bailout only happened on Obama's watch (and was not initiated under Bush).

Recently, MediaMatters revealed that Fox's D.C. managing editor told the network's announcers to use specific terms when describing health care reform in order to create a more negative impression of the legislation. Today, revelations are out that the Fox D.C. news bureau chief directly told his staff to cast doubt on climate change. Those revelations, as well as numerous others that came before, make it very clear that the distortions and "misinformation" (or as your mom would've called it, "lies") by Fox News are deliberate and nearly constant. The sad irony in all this, of course — and if you're one who has tried to discuss issues with a Fox Fanatic, you already know this — is that those for whom Fox is their regular source of news often actually think of themselves as being really well-informed. If Fox News' influence wasn't so dangerous (as in "clear and present danger"), it might be kind of funny. But it is dangerous, so it isn't funny. OK, it's kinda funny, but still …

Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox
From: EBarnacle
Date: 15 Dec 10 - 08:14 PM

By the bye, BB, is it a lie because you don't agree? Here's another article from today's news on a related issue:

    News Corpse / By Mark Howard 183 COMMENTS Study Confirms That Fox News Makes You Stupid
A new survey of American voters shows that Fox News viewers are significantly more misinformed than consumers of news from other sources.
December 15, 2010 |    Advertisement Yet another study has been released proving that watching Fox News is detrimental to your intelligence. World Public Opinion, a project managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, conducted a survey of American voters that shows that Fox News viewers are significantly more misinformed than consumers of news from other sources. What's more, the study shows that greater exposure to Fox News increases misinformation.

So the more you watch, the less you know. Or to be precise, the more you think you know that is actually false. This study corroborates a previous PIPA study that focused on the Iraq war with similar results. And there was an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll that demonstrated the break with reality on the part of Fox viewers with regard to health care. The body of evidence that Fox News is nothing but a propaganda machine dedicated to lies is growing by the day.

In eight of the nine questions below, Fox News placed first in the percentage of those who were misinformed (they placed second in the question on TARP). That's a pretty high batting average for journalistic fraud. Here is a list of what Fox News viewers believe that just aint so:


•91 percent believe the stimulus legislation lost jobs
•72 percent believe the health reform law will increase the deficit
•72 percent believe the economy is getting worse
•60 percent believe climate change is not occurring
•49 percent believe income taxes have gone up
•63 percent believe the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts
•56 percent believe Obama initiated the GM/Chrysler bailout
•38 percent believe that most Republicans opposed TARP
•63 percent believe Obama was not born in the U.S. (or that it is unclear)

The conclusion is inescapable. Fox News is deliberately misinforming its viewers and it is doing so for a reason. Every issue above is one in which the Republican Party had a vested interest. The GOP benefited from the ignorance that Fox News helped to proliferate. The results were apparent in the election last month as voters based their decisions on demonstrably false information fed to them by Fox News.

By the way, the rest of the media was not blameless. CNN and the broadcast network news operations fared only slightly better in many cases. Even MSNBC, which had the best record of accurately informing viewers, has a ways to go before it can brag about it.

The conclusions in this study need to be disseminated as broadly as possible. Fox's competitors need to report these results and produce ad campaigns featuring them. Newspapers and magazines need to publish the study across the country. This is big news and it is critical that the nation be advised that a major news enterprise is poisoning their minds.

This is not an isolated review of Fox's performance. It has been corroborated time and time again. The fact that Fox News is so blatantly dishonest, and the effects of that dishonesty have become ingrained in an electorate that has been been purposefully deceived, needs to be made known to every American. Our democracy cannot function if voters are making choices based on lies. We have the evidence that Fox is tilting the scales and we must now make certain its corporate owners do not get away with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox
From: EBarnacle
Date: 15 Dec 10 - 08:01 PM

Actually, it is beginning to look more and more as though the Republican party is the action wing of Fox "News."

Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Dec 10 - 07:56 PM

"Opinion journalism" = Editorial Comment.

Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox
From: kendall
Date: 15 Dec 10 - 07:48 PM

Fox noise is nothing but a mouthpiece for the republican party.

Opinion journalism, nothing more.

Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox
From: bobad
Date: 15 Dec 10 - 07:30 PM

Here's another take:

In leaked e-mail, Fox News boss told staff to cast doubt on climate change

By David Edwards
Wednesday, December 15th, 2010 -- 10:58 am

For the second time in less than a week, the Fox News Washington managing editor has been caught trying to "slant" the news.

In an e-mail obtained by liberal watchdog group Media Matters, Bill Sammon told his staff to downplay the importance of climate science that showed the world was getting warmer.

"Given the controversy over the veracity of climate change data... we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question," Sammon wrote.

Sammon issued the instructions less than 15 minutes after Fox News correspondent Wendell Goler noted that the United Nations' World Meteorological Organization announced that 2000-2009 was "on track to be the warmest [decade] on record."

"2000 to 2009 [is] expected to turn out to be the warmest decade on record," Goler reported during the 2009 Copenhagen climate change summit. "2009 itself was about the fifth warmest year. There was extreme drought in Africa, extreme heat in India and northern China."

"But it's the decade trend that has scientists concerned because 2000 to 2009 [is] warmer than the 1990s, warmer than the 1980s," he said.

Only last week, Media Matters published another e-mail where Sammon asked his news department to refer to the health care reform public option as the "government run option."

Sammon sent the request after Republican pollster Frank Luntz said that polls showed the "government option" was opposed by the public.

According to the report at Media Matters, in August of 2009 after Fox News' Sean Hannity used the term "public option," Luntz encouraged him to say "government option" instead.

"If you call it a 'public option,' the American people are split," Luntz said. "If you call it the 'government option,' the public is overwhelmingly against it."

In October, sources told Media Matters that since joining Fox News, Sammon's pressure to "distort" and "slant news" had made some in the newsroom uncomfortable.

"Since Bill Sammon assumed the role of Washington managing editor and vice president of news at the beginning of the Obama Administration, pressure from Fox management to produce stories that lean toward a conservative agenda, and distort news in some cases, has found its way into coverage," the sources said.

Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Dec 10 - 07:26 PM

But good to hear from ya', bruce... Hows yer school comin'... Hope you got the water outta the basement...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Dec 10 - 07:24 PM

"Lies" and "Fox" in the same thread title??? How could that be...

Hahahaha....

B~

Subject: BS: Lies about Fox
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Dec 10 - 07:21 PM

Mark Tapscott: Oh the horror! Fox bureau chief told reporters to be 'skeptical'

By: Mark Tapscott 12/15/10 6:03 PM
Editorial Page Editor

You think the most essential purpose of journalism and the reason the Founders included freedom of the press in the First Amendment was to insure independent reporting about government, politicians, and public policy issues, right?

Well, you must be wrong because Fox News Washington Bureau Chief Bill Sammon is getting a raft of garbage from liberal activists masquerading as journalists at Media Matters, some liberal bloggers and a scattering of real journalists who ought to know better.

Why? Politico's headline captures the controversy perfectly: "Fox editor urged climate skepticism."

A journalist being skeptical? Who would ever have thought such a thing could be. I don't know, maybe anybody who has heard this (attributed long ago to a crusty desk editor at the illustrious City News Bureau in Chicago): "If your mother tells you she loves you, check it out."

In other words, we journalists are paid to BE SKEPTICAL.

For the record, here's what Sammon said in a Dec. 8, 2009, memo to his reporting staff shortly after the Climategate global warming email scandal erupted:

"Given the controversy over the veracity of climate change data, we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies."

Now I am from out of town and all, but Sammon's injuction sounds to me exactly like what editors are supposed to tell their charges – report what A claims and what B says about what A claims, but keep your personal views about both A and B out of it.

Note that Sammon includes both those who say the planet has warmed – i.e. global warming advocates – and those who claim the opposite, that the planet has cooled – global warming critics. How much more even-handed – dare I say it, fair and balanced? – can the guy be?

There is also the factual nature of Sammon's statement that critics question data. Critics DO question the data for a warming planet. He doesn't demand that his reporters agree with the critics about the data or tell viewers that the critics are right and the global warming advocates are wrong.

Yet, Salon's headline claims the Fox news executive was "again caught demanding conservative spin." And the lead that follows makes another false statement, claiming Sammon directed his "anchors and reporters to adopt right-wing spin when discussing the news."

Are these people so arrogant as to think the rest of us are too stupid to see that Salon totally and completely misrepresented Sammon's comment?

The back story here, of course, is that Media Matters is doing exactly what billionaire radical liberal financier George Soros paid it $1 million to do, which is to trash Fox News at every opportunity no matter what the facts might be in any given situation.

Watching this campaign unfold, it becomes clear that Fox News drives today's extremist liberals into the same sort of eye-bulging, irrational, spittle-flying, blind rage that we saw back in the 1950s from the far right whack-jobs in the John Birch Society who claimed Ike was either a fool or a card-carrying commie.

Now, just so everybody reading this knows: Sammon is a former White House reporter for The Examiner. I count him as a friend, a respected colleague and a solid journalist. And Fox News puts me in front of a camera as a talking head once in a while.

So how long you think it will be before Sammon's critics claim my comments here aren't credible as a result? The reality is that the left-leaning MSNBC folks sit me down in front of their cameras to bloviate far more frequently than Fox does. Go figure.

So here's something to ponder when the paid Fox detractors at Media Matters tell you Sammon and I are both former Washington Timesmen and are thus Republican mouthpieces:

I was inducted into the First Amendment Center's Freedom of Information Hall of Fame a few years ago. I mention this not to boast, but because I don't recall seeing anybody from Media Matters among the inductees.



Read more at the Washington Examiner.