Streams

The Fox Effect

Thursday, March 01, 2012

David Brock and Ari Rabin-Havt of Media Matters for America, look at how Fox News president Roger Ailes has transformed the network. Their book The Fox Effect follows Ailes’ career as a media consultant for Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush to in his current position and his mission, which they say is to spread a partisan political agenda despite the widely held standards of objectivity in news reporting.

Guests:

David Brock and Ari Rabin-Havt
News, weather, Radiolab, Brian Lehrer and more.
Get the best of WNYC in your inbox, every morning.

Comments [84]

geTaylor:

Really?! You attack my views here by running off to find something to diss in my views elsewhere? Then, finding my statement on an unrelated interview, you slam me without even listening to the interview?? No, even here, your critique's not based on substance, but on your having run off even further to dig up dirt--on the interviewee(!) (To unearth that molehill on Lippman, by the way, you had to dig through mountains of normal articles on this highly respected man who fights for a number of important reforms.)

And then you, from your vaunted position of superior wisdom laboriously and painstakingly derived from one googled hit-piece--you call the Chief Judge of NY a "hack." Really!? You felt driven to go this far just to get to me? You don't think this is all just a little creepy?

The Beauty Part is that after all your nonsense about ad hominem, off you go anyway, smugly smearing anyone and everyone who comes in your path. This ugly display is the very definition of ad hominem. Doubled. You've got ad hominem on top of ad hominem. Did you think it was "add hominem?" Creepy, did I say? Would you prefer slimy?

You remind me of this loud woman on the train last week, who was told to quiet down on her cell phone. After the conductor left, she complained to a friend, "What about Freedom of Speech!?"

Yes, she'd heard the phrase, but she'd never absorbed what it _meant_, what it _stood for_, its bloody history and the sacrifices of those who'd fought--and still fight--to safeguard it. She knew it was important in some way, but her only interest was in how she could hijack the phrase to serve her own petty, personal agenda.

Go back to wikipedia (though if you didn't understand the first time, I doubt a second reading will help). Or maybe even back to, you know--school. Or a book (they make some in your preferred size). Do anything, except immediately reach for your vile little google-mad dirt machine whenever you're challenged.

You weren't alive in '64, you weren't alive in '23, so your "enlightening" others without having any real knowledge (that's what books are for, but you have to stop googling-and-spouting for a moment to read a few) is just foolish arrogance.

"A Googled bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing." There will soon be a better term for the hordes of bloviators today who think they can Google their way to instant expertise, but for now my own term is "Googlededumb."

Well, you've proven your lack of mettle with this louche scramble for position. Online discussions don't have to be about "winning" or losing. But I see that with you, there is and will be no progress, no real discussion--just a p-ing match. Yeah, creepy. I'm out.

Mar. 05 2012 01:03 PM
anna from new york

Well, well, well. I know I'll die from laughter - a very sad one.
I am listening to On the Media. The host are promoting themselves (fundraising) by saying (Brook): "We've been global. We've been to ... the West Bank. We've been to Russia. We've been to China." End of the quote. End of the globe. A very honest statement. When the Kurds in Iraq were gassed ... NPR (and BBC and Guardian, etc., of course) were in ... in the West Bank. When Hama in Syria was erased, they were ... in the West Bank. When dissidents in Uzbekistan were boiled, they were ... in the West Bank. When people were tortured in Libya, Syria, Egypt, etc., they were ... the West Bank.
Yes, NPR, and BBC, and NYT, and the Guardian, etc. the West Bank and the Globe are synonyms.

Mar. 03 2012 08:19 AM
David

anna from new york: What is the Ron Paul "connection" you are referring to in your comment?

Mar. 02 2012 02:55 PM
anna from new york

"Anna, Forbes Magazine's "The Brains Behind Occupy Wall Street" says Kalle Lasn, 69"
I know, Rhonda. If I am correct he is the second generation of Nazi collaborators, like Assange? But La Rouche's and Ron Paul's contribution/connection is also a possibility.
By chance, I was there on September 17. A left turning increasingly fascist friend and her similar husband were in town and after our tour of the Government island, she dragged us there. My first question was: "Why Occupy Wall Street?" I was uncomfortable there for a couple of reasons:
- the name
- the small crowd looked like the second (not to mention the first)generation would want the crowd to be.
- the only different person was a lanky young fellow in all white Arab garb, standing among a small group of what looked like leaders, giving orders (?not sure, guessing).
There were rumors at that time about La Rouche's or Ron Paul's connection.
I returned only once and I saw the sign I mentioned and a group of idiotic "intellectuals" a yard away. Yes, I expressed myself, sending basically all of them to some decent school.

Mar. 02 2012 01:53 PM
silencedogood from NYC

Not sure about the corrupt practices of the BBC but I always suspected that Katy Kay has a dark side.

As for spotting a LaRouchie in New York,it reminds me of being on long road trips as a kid and desperately searching for the fabled Unicorn -- a Hawaii license plate. Still I have to confess running into two of them outside my local post office many years ago. They were manning a card table filled with LaRouche tomes. I walked over and pretended ALMOST to buy one of LaRouche's screeds.

I also remember they had a big sign demanding that Bill Clinton issue a pardon for LaRouche's conviction for fraud and then appoint LaRouche the new head of the Federal Reserve.

A convicted fraud artist not long out of the pen running the Fed? In a strange existential way, it somehow sounded right.

Mar. 02 2012 11:50 AM
Rhoda from Upper East Side

Anna, Forbes Magazine's "The Brains Behind Occupy Wall Street" says Kalle Lasn, 69, is their quasi leader. He’s the publisher and editor of Adbusters magazine. It’s a small, non-influential critical and artsy magazine with a decent following of around 90,000 who call themselves “culture jammers”. Occupy Wall Street began in the conference rooms at that Vancouver mag.

Mar. 02 2012 10:18 AM
anna from new york

Ah, La Rouche. My first encounter with his people was in 1998 (?) when they set up a table in my neighborhood and surrounded it with posters calling for "saving our President." I was against impeachment of Clinton and I was ready to sign whatever they wanted me to sign. However, something didn't feel right. The people looked somehow out of place. Holding the pen, I looked around and noticed a table with literature (La Rouche said this or that). I expressed myself. I also learned my lesson and now check what I intend to sign.
Now. Isn't La Roche behind OWS?
Speaking about the posters with a star of David and Rothschild's name next to it? Where did I see it? Where did I see it? Ah, I remember now. OWS (not true, Francis Fox Piven?) Just in front of a group of "Jewish" intellectuals. Educate your "intellectuals," America.

Mar. 02 2012 05:51 AM
anna from new york

"The other elephant in the room which was not mentioned was the expose of the Rupert Murdoch media network and its staggeringly corrupt practices in England."
Silence, the biggest elephant in the room is the staggering corrupt practices in England in general, particularly those favored by BBC.

Mar. 02 2012 05:35 AM
anna from new york

I didn't read all comments and don't know to whom ad hominem refers here, but I am pretty sure that ad hominem sometimes if fine (again I don't know if in this case) when there is a problem with HOMINEM.
Few things irritate me more than American New Age idiocy: 'It's your opinion - everyone is entitled to his/her opinion (yes, but there are differences in quality - nobody told this to Americans), he/she has the right (to go to Iran for example to perform on Iranian TV for example) etc., not everything is black and white (yes, but black and white do exist too)
Total, absolute illiteracy and no, no, no sense of ethics. She possibly can go to Iran, but I most certainly have the right to call her an absolute evil.

Mar. 02 2012 05:29 AM

@Silence Dogood from NYC:

A small piece of minutia.

Back in 1969-70, Lyndon LaRouche, under the name "Lynne Marcus" gave a series of classroom lectures at CCNY for people from the Socialist Workers or Labor Party. Very boring, but it all sounded so intellectual. The Obama with the square mustache poster can sometimes be see in the custody of one of his current minions who likes to sun herself on the corner of Park Avenue and 86th Street in Manhattan.

Mar. 02 2012 04:35 AM
Silence Dogood from NYC

The authors mention that at a town meeting a woman accused Barney Frank of being a supporter of Nazi policies. Although one would think that Media Matters should know this, the woman who made the charge, Rachel Brown, was and is a follower of Lyndon LaRouche. In 1978 LaRouche publicly claimed that "only 1.5 million Jews" were killed in the Holocaust. LaRouche further opines that Hitler was an "agent" of the Rothschild family and the British aristocracy. The LaRouchies also made a poster of Barack Obama with a Hitler mustache, an image that was picked up by the Tea Party without any mention of its origins either on Fox News or either ABC or NBC Nightly News (can't remember which one just now) which also showed the picture without any attribution.

The other elephant in the room which was not mentioned was the expose of the Rupert Murdoch media network and its staggeringly corrupt practices in England. Sooner or later the Justice Department will have to look at Rupert Murdoch as well. I wish Leonard had at least asked the authors about this issue.

Finally, what I didn't like about the interview was the way in which the authors portrayed Fox as monolithic. My guess is that because Fox is allied with the right and the right is so divided that some of these tensions have to be affecting Fox as well. Obviously the big money types like Murdoch want a Romney win but their own apparat has built up the loony-tune right which is hurting Mittens today.

I can't help but believe that Fox and the Murdoch empire in general must also be in a state of political confusion as well if only as the result of unintended consequences. But the interview never addresses what seems to me must be a difficult issue in Fox World today. It is also known that in the Murdoch family there are siblings who think it's wrong to embrace the right and think the father has made a huge mistake. This fact makes the inevitable succession struggle even more interesting. Even if the book came out before the scandal broke, I still would by interested in hearing what the authors think about all this.

FYI Rupert: British cuisine has gotten infinitely more sophisticated in the last few decades. Alas, not so in the prison system. Maybe you should focus your next Sun campaign on reforming this glaring injustice. Or at least allow outside catering access to those who can afford it. After all it would be one way of cutting down on the large government deficit.

Mar. 02 2012 03:45 AM

@gene:

I looked at the reading assignments you seem to feel were required to understand the derivation of the word "NAZI" ("The Roots of the Nazi Mind"- 400 pages and Shirer's "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich"-1200 pages (the paperback editions)
Seemed a bit steep - especially on the recommendation of such a prickly stranger (please see my apology below) - so I tried to get a measure of your judgement.

On February 29, 2012 you wrote:
"Wow. Restores my hope that we will eventually come to our senses again, with the help of the reasoned wisdom and humanity of Judge Lippman! Thanks!"
concerning the, dare I say it, hack featured in this Village Voice article:
http://www.villagevoice.com/2009-02-11/news/paterson-duped-again-shelly-silver-gets-childhood-pal-jonathan-lippman-state-s-top-courts-job/ ;
we also differ on the evaluation of the Johnson hit piece on Goldwater in 1964. Well at least LBJ kept us out of war. (Yeah, Right.)

I was wondering if there might be some more efficient way to get to the derivation of "NAZI".
Well what do you know this seems to be somewhat explanatory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi

"Nazism, the common short form name of National Socialism (German: Nationalsozialismus) was the ideology and practice of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (otherwise known as the Nazi Party) and of Nazi Germany.[1][2][3][4] It is a unique variety of fascism that incorporates biological racism and antisemitism.[5] Nazism was founded out of elements of the far-right racist völkisch German nationalist movement and the violent anti-communist Freikorps paramilitary culture that fought against the uprisings of communist revolutionaries in post-World War I Germany.[6] The ideology was developed first by Anton Drexler and then Adolf Hitler as a means to draw workers away from communism and into völkisch nationalism.[7] Initially Nazi political strategy focused on anti-big business, anti-bourgeois, and anti-capitalist rhetoric, though such aspects were later downplayed in the 1930s to gain the support from industrial owners for the Nazis; focus was shifted to anti-Semitic and anti-Marxist themes.[8]"

I'm sure it misses some nuance and sensitivity to the struggling german asses, scratch that - I mean "masses"; but all in all a rudimentary view.

[As promised, here is my apology for my prior crass behavior:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zANvYB93u2g ]

Mar. 02 2012 02:49 AM

geTaylor:

I don't have to run to wikipedia for ad hominem.

Whenever I see someone go, "Bring it on," I know it's some ego-challenged, semi-pro arguer, someone not really interested in learning or discussing--but in _telling_. Like here.

I was just interested in talking, but if you want an attack, fine--but it's based not on you per se, but on what you DO. Your behavior has been smug, argumentative, tedious and shockingly ill-informed. Not ad hominem, merely de facto--as we've seen here.

That said, the German situation in the 20s was wildly complex, as was the US Left's reaction to European developments in the 20s-30s. I wouldn't even begin to think I could off-handedly encapsulate what was going down in a msg board post. That's the problem here.

I suggest, "The Roots of the Nazi Mind" and Shirer's "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" (still!) to start. Can't advise on the American leftist scene; every time I've run across it I've gotten too disgusted with all the pointless, internecine battles between people whose ignorance, hostility, ego and partisan agenda led them, their movement and everyone else to overreaction and disaster. Like here.

Mar. 01 2012 08:58 PM
Rhonda from Upper East Side

Media Matters operates as a non-profit claiming to be a media watchdog organization. Truth be told, they're an arm of the Democratic National Committee.

Mar. 01 2012 05:24 PM
David

Morfin: As much as warmonger McPain would have loved to have stay in Iraq, he too would have had to stick with the agreement. Also, since I am extremely anti-war, I can't be "glad" that we are no longer fighting in Iraq, but are now killing innocent civilians in three more countries than when Warmonger-in-Chief Bush was president. I'm concerned about NO ONE dying for the U.S. military-industrial complex, not just U.S. troops not dying for the military-industrial complex. It is truly Orwellian that U.S. Presidents can murder people with unmanned drone planes rather than with humans, and then convince the American citizenry that this is more "humane" because U.S. military are not being killed. It's certainly not more humane for those innocent people in Asia who are being killed. The U.S. empire building has to come to an end. And I don't see either of the two political parties promoting this end. In the end, this empire building will eventually bankrupt this country.

Mar. 01 2012 04:23 PM

@anna from new york:
I thought Ms. Day was a christian pacifist and a "tribble" socialist.
I've never thought of her as a "dissembler" in the matter of her beliefs but I might feel harsher towards her now than when I was reading her newspaper in the 60's.

? Don't like my spin ?
As Steve Martin might say " http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zANvYB93u2g " ;
take a number, join the line.
I'll attempt to avoid any future alliterative excesses ;-)
(??? that was the unpleasant part, wasn't it ???)

Mar. 01 2012 04:22 PM
anna

"The Nazis never had support from "American Progressives"
Oh really, Mark? Not after the Pact of 1939 when overnight the Soviet language switched to "The ruling party of Germany" (something like that) from ... probably something like "imperialistic bastards" (which they were)? And much more of course.

Mar. 01 2012 03:50 PM
anna from new york

I don't know ... I am not an expert on American history, but among other things weren't many American "progressives," such as Dorothy Day, isolationists?
de Taylor, I don't particularly like your spin ("they favored Russian flavored fascism"), but clealry they did a lot of damage.

Mar. 01 2012 03:33 PM

@ana:

Thanks for the quote.
The part I was wrong about had to do with my incorrect assertion about "progressive" support for Hitler - I think I was having an "ischemic-brain-moment" - the progressives didn't care about the trains running on time, they favored Russian flavored fascism.
For your good efforts, please enjoy what I'm offering as my apology:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7mIy97_rlo

Mar. 01 2012 03:12 PM
anna from new york

BTW, NPR, why not do some investigative reporting on financing of activities of bearded guys and/or girls whose only interest is ... Israel? Ehh, I am dreaming.
BTW, why do I smell ... oil here?

Mar. 01 2012 03:07 PM
anna from new york


de Taylor, see below. I didn't verify the quote, but found it a responsible place. Feel free to verify.
“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” –Adolf Hitler (Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, “Adolf Hitler: Vol. 1,” p. 306. 1976)

BTW, my favorite French saying is "Les extremes se touchent." I think about it often now when I am going through an agony of losing friends who call themselves the left while packing for some neo-Nazi camp and clearly meeting all the requirement of the place.

Mar. 01 2012 03:01 PM

@Mark:

Sorry for being so very wrong on that assertion
in fact you and all your fellow-travelers (a needlessly hurtful juvenile joke)
deserve an appropriate, full and comprehensive apology:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7mIy97_rlo

Mar. 01 2012 02:55 PM
Mark

The Nazis never had support from "American Progressives", they had support from American Regressives like industrialist Ford who thought if the Nazis killed all the Jews there would be less union organizers around his factories...it's amazing how ignorant people are about history. Really shameful.

Mar. 01 2012 02:39 PM

These are the references Wikipedia seems to be relying upon for its article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#cite_note-0

"Nazism, the common short form name of National Socialism (German: Nationalsozialismus) was the ideology and practice of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (otherwise known as the Nazi Party) and of Nazi Germany.[1][2][3][4] It is a unique variety of fascism that incorporates biological racism and antisemitism.[5] Nazism was founded out of elements of the far-right racist völkisch German nationalist movement and the violent anti-communist Freikorps paramilitary culture that fought against the uprisings of communist revolutionaries in post-World War I Germany.[6] The ideology was developed first by Anton Drexler and then Adolf Hitler as a means to draw workers away from communism and into völkisch nationalism.[7] Initially Nazi political strategy focused on anti-big business, anti-bourgeois, and anti-capitalist rhetoric, though such aspects were later downplayed in the 1930s to gain the support from industrial owners for the Nazis; focus was shifted to anti-Semitic and anti-Marxist themes.[8]

^ Walter John Raymond. Dictionary of Politics. (1992). ISBN 1-55618-008-X p. 327.
^ Fritzsche, Peter. 1998. Germans into Nazis. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
^ Kele, Max H. (1972). Nazis and Workers: National Socialist Appeals to German Labor, 1919–1933. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.

Now - I see that the article seems to indicate that notwithstanding the self-appellation of the term "socialist" the Nazis used, the party is labeled a "unique variety of fascism" without any comments to distinguish a "facist" from a "socialist" (although I do admit to the former conjuring up images of frenzied rottweilers and the latter are initially cast as "tribbles".)
Stalin was a socialist, and he was no tribble.

Mar. 01 2012 02:39 PM

David
I agree with your comments. It is difficult for me to be specific on an Android device, but true he escalated it but in the end the troops are in one less warzone. Sorry to attrubite to him but to really think if Mcain was President he would abide by the Iraq agreement? Obama is definitively not the ideal president but considering the state of this nation today he's doing a fair job. Sadly no one is without influence. Politicans need backers and those backers need to have money. Will Plutocracy slowly erode democracy? I hope not.

Mar. 01 2012 02:31 PM

@gene:

Oh yeah- I forgot to ask for a cite for the "correct" derivation of "Nazi";
or do you think it was one of those Madison Avenue inventions
(e.g., "Exxon"; "Nike", "Boscoe", "Tang")

Mar. 01 2012 02:18 PM
David

morfin, You wrote: "If Obama is a Failed President then Bush was a complete disaster. Bank bailout sub prime 2 senseless wars. Please enlighten us on his glorious achievements."

I agree 100%. They are both horrible. (Don't forget that Sen. Obama voted for those corporate welfare bank bailouts.) Two senseless wars which, as far as the Afghanistan War is concerned, not only did Pres. Obama not end it immediately, but escalated it. (And, contrary to what many people believe, Obama did NOT end the Iraq war—as he said he would during his campaign: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p12cAclNCRU. The Bush Administration was basically forced by the Iraqi government into signing an agreement that all U.S. Troops would be withdrawn by December 2011. It is called the Iraq Status of Forces Agreement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement. For Obama to claim that he "ended" the Iraq war is disingenuous.)

Obama also initiated drone bombing attacks on Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. So much for this Nobel "Peace" Prize winner. (Sort of reminds me of another "Peace" Prize winner: Henry Kissinger.) Here's his latest murderous spree:

Scores killed in US drone attack in Somalia
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/229260.html

He also not only did not abolish that fascist Bush Patriot Act, but he signed that horrendous NDAA bill: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012

The U.S. goes from one warfare/corporate welfare President to another. As far as I'm concerned, Obama is just a third term of Bush/Cheney.

And if Romney gets elected in 2012 (doubtful), he will be even worse than Obama.

Mar. 01 2012 02:12 PM

@gene:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_%28blogger%29

"argumentum ad hominem" isn't my specialty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Mar. 01 2012 02:11 PM

@anna from new york:

Thanks for the correction - I was wrong [that's what happens when one proceeds to assertions without citations] :-(

Mar. 01 2012 02:01 PM

Well, geTaylor, I'll certainly take the rather confused word of any SNL blog called "What's Up with That" (you go, Kenan!)

I suppose that one doc could well be fake, but it seems to me so feeble in its impact as to be unworthy of faking (I know, the focus argument; that's reaching). If you wanted to go to the trouble and take the chance to fake something, you could go much farther than this, imo.

Also:

All but one person writing about the nazi/soviet pact and origins of the National Socialist party need to sit down and actually read a book sometime, instead of relying on what I can only describe as psuedo-historical online scuttlebutt.

Mar. 01 2012 02:00 PM
anna from new york

American so called left isn't left of course (and doesn't have a sense what a left should be), but it is as loony and as evil as the right describes it. I intended to stop commenting, but noticed comments by Marxbearded guy (presumably the left, Ronda?) who just pushes the typical loony left agenda "my precious body, my precious bank accounts, animals and ... the Palestinians."
There are some 200 countries in the world. In many of them, people are boiled, cooked and fried, children are sold into slavery etc, but the evil bastards babble about ... Israel.
This fundraising smiling "lady" is talking about being there ... Where exactly were you (and particularly BBC) all these decades when the Kurds were gassed, when the Syrians, Libyans, Egyptians etc, were tortured, when Uzbekistanis were boiled, etc, etc., etc? In some societies, people have some sense of decency, admit mistakes, weaknesses, corruption, ask for forgiveness, think of redemption, but this crowd continues marching self promoting and lying.

Mar. 01 2012 01:55 PM
Peter Talbot from Harrison, NJ

All sentient beings readily admit that Fox and "news" are oxymorons, but the same can be said (with only style points deducted for less "mobilization" rhetoric and a slightly more surreptitious slant to the left or right) of all media outlets and brands. Elevation by Media Watch of FoxNews' doctrinaire character assassination of progressives and Obama in particular to a special level of egregiousness is not warranted historically.

Murdoch's pandering in FoxNews and in the WSJ editorials to monolingual worried witless whyte folks is no different than Ogden Reid's bending of the Herald Tribune to embrace McCarthyism as an unalloyed good in 1952 or William Hearst's jingoist editorial hand at the Examiner and the Journal in 1900 in support of that "splendid little war" that offed Aguinaldo, et al. The truth, as pointed out by A.J. Liebling, is that "freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.”

The Media Matters guests are not quite as strident as Rush or Hannity, but they are every bit the same in their use of rhetorical devices to push what they opine is a progressive agenda. An example: they tout that everyone has a right to (his) own opinion, but not to his own facts. A lie. The most pervasive editorial device in slanting any story is the choice of facts or speakers, and "facts" per se are, in the hands of any reporter or editor, subject to "faith".

The fact that they have found a market niche in attacking the increasingly right wing mainstream media is obvious but uninteresting. What is more to the point is that in each example of the American "yellow journalism" phenomenon(and that is what FoxNews clearly has become), this brand of rabble-rousing is incredibly popular every 50 years or so, especially with audiences that consider themselves religious and/or patriotic. In each case, the key goal of such journalism was to shout down pluralist voices in favor of narrow group definition as an orthodoxy of "common sense" or "righteousness", etc. In each case, public fervor and media sales waned badly within a few years regardless of underlying issues.

The Herald Tribune and the New York Journal are history, and their owners' strategy of selling advertising space based on news based on pandering to the fears and prejudices of the public failed eventually due to the short attention span of that same "demos." Murdoch is as egomaniacal as Reid, as rich as Hearst and as morally bankrupt as both.

The fault for the decline in purported news "objectivity" (if there is one), dear friends, is not in FoxNews but in ourselves, as it has been over and over in the past.

Mar. 01 2012 01:54 PM

@anna from new york:

It might help if you included the cite for where you found the Hitler statement. This is not the genetically credulous audience that worships at WNYC. :-)

Mar. 01 2012 01:46 PM

John Weldon complains about how the guests' viewpoints were "unchallenged" by Lopate.

He should read the comments section from 2 weeks ago, when Lopate interviewed Mark Meckler and Jenny Beth Martin of the Tea Party Patriots. Lopate received many harsh critiques for not challenging them.

The point of the Lopate show is not necessarily to "challenge" every one who comes on--though he can do that--but to allow people to have their say as much as possible.

That said, yes, it was clear Lopate sympathized with the guests' views this time. But to my mind, it was fact-based, and that's another function of the RW rhetoric: it tries to force people to "take sides" on 2+2=4.

Mar. 01 2012 01:40 PM

I think there is a vast difference between a news organization such as fox having an agenda and a news organization such as msnbc whose" agenda" or news is provided by the president of the United States through its conduit Media Matters. I'm sure presidents have preferred different reporters or stations in the past, but this is the first time I have heard of a president's staff meeting with a particular news organization to give them the news they should report. This is a dangerous thing because how can anybody believe these news organizations when we know their information comes from the president and his staff.

Mar. 01 2012 01:39 PM
anna from new york

"Up until their invasion of Russia (1942), the Nazis had much support from the "progressives" in American, especially the communists."
Their children are now supporting Ahmadenijad (sp? - too lazy to check). A friend of someone I know, "Jewish" red diaper (BTW, I'm not saying that all red diapers are like her), went last year to Teheran to denounce Jews (Israel) on Iranian TV. N'est-ce pas, Ronda? Last month, she mourned wonderful, wonderful, wonderful Korean Kim. In recent months, she was spending most of her days on OWJ (tell me there is no antisemitism there) when of course she was not travelling on someone's money (Arab? Russian? who knows) denouncing "Zionists." N'est-ce pas, Ronda?

Mar. 01 2012 01:37 PM

@gene:

Bring it on -

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/peter-gleick-confesses-to-obtaining-heartland-documents-under-false-pretenses/253395/

Of course the "False pretenses" charge will carry little weight in this forum.

Except that one of the alleged documents was a forgery created after the documents were given to Professor Gleik (Well the ends will justify the means - unless your found out [ask John Liu])
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/15/notes-on-the-fake-heartland-document/

Things are not going well for Dr. Gleik
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/27/agu-president-on-gleicks-shocking-fall-from-grace-his-transgression-cannot-be-condoned-regardless-of-his-motives/

Unless someone comes up with a copy of the AGU statement that differs from this reporting, I'm sure we're all going to be seeing a prominent correction from Media Matters on this story.

Mar. 01 2012 01:36 PM

Obummer from Manhattan
If Obama is a Failed President then Bush was a complete disaster. Bank bailout sub prime 2 senseless wars. Please enlighten us on his glorious achievements. My opinions are formed not by listening to Fox and Rush but by varied news sources. Yes Obama didn't kill him personally but Regan didn't free the hostages personally in Iran? As for the economy, I am experiencing the recovery first hand. I was finally able to find a job and see more job oppurtunies than even 9 months ago. People are buying stuff and the over mood is good.

Mar. 01 2012 01:34 PM
anna from new york

"Up until their invasion of Russia (1942), the Nazis had much support from the "progressives" in American, especially the communists."
Their children are now supporting Ahmadenijad (sp? - too lazy to check). A friend of someone I know, "Jewish" red diaper (BTW, I'm not saying that all red diapers are like her), went last year to Teheran to denounce Jews (Israel) on Iranian TV. N'est-ce pas, Ronda? Last month, she mourned wonderful, wonderful, wonderful Korean Kim. In recent months, she was spending most of her days on OWJ (tell me there is no antisemitism there) when of course she was not travelling on someone's money (Arab? Russian? who knows) denouncing "Zionists." N'est-ce pas, Ronda?

Mar. 01 2012 01:34 PM
anna from new york

"Up until their invasion of Russia (1942)"
Oh, people (de Taylor), the Nazi Germany invaded the Societ Union on June 22, 1941 (many millions dead before 1942).

Mar. 01 2012 01:25 PM
anna from new york

In #42 I meatn of course:
"It is AS socialist as any made by "socialists" of OWS

Mar. 01 2012 01:16 PM

@DarkSymbolist from NYC!:

Up until their invasion of Russia (1942), the Nazis had much support from the "progressives" in American, especially the communists. Maybe they weren't back then?

Mr. Lehrer:

Your "quasi" statement-questions during this interview a truly "reptilian".

Mar. 01 2012 01:16 PM
anna from new york

""The left wing of Nazism"? LOL
By definition there can be no "left wing" Nazism. Ridiculous."
No it isn't. I recently came across Hitler's statement of 1927 (before he decided that he needed the "capital" for his "noble" causes). It is a socialist as any made by "socialists" of OWS.

Mar. 01 2012 01:13 PM
John Weldon from Bayside, Queens

This type of interview --where a clearly biased organization (MediaMatters) is allowed to state whatever it wants to state, essentially UNCHALLENGED by Lopate, is exactly why I could never financially support WNYC.

And that's not to say WNYC doesn't have compelling programming. It does, but when I hear crap like this go out unchallenged, then it would just be me supporting a station that (often times) has a clear ideology.

Detractors here can say "but what about talk radio!!??", and I counter with "those are advertiser-supported". WNYC gets some of its funding from the government, meaning taxpayers. And for that reason alone, this type of unchallenged interview is patently wrong. WNYC already details their taxpayer funding on this page: http://www.wnyc.org/federalfunding/

I'm not saying that MediaMatters shouldn't be allowed to come on and make their case. Just have someone else on who can actually debate them and shine the light on their own untruths. IS THAT ASKING TOO MUCH?

It's already been demonstrated that MSNBC essentially gets talking points from MediaMatters. But in the WNYC universe, apparently, that's OK.

Mar. 01 2012 01:11 PM
Obummer from Manhattan

morfin,

Osama killed by soldiers, not Obama. Obama against tactics that helped pinpoint Osama. Iraq done by technicality only. We'll let history settle whether our abrupt departure was a success. Economy is recovering? Tell that to the suffering. If your bar for recovery is set at this, then you have low expectations of what this nation is all about. It's impossible to prove a negative, but i'd be willing to estimate that doing absolutely nothing would allow for a recovery at least as fast as the one we are experiencing. Auto industry saved?... artificiall success is not the same is success by merit. If you're one for crony capitalism, then be prepared to bailout the car guys again in the future. Quit betting on Solyndras. GOV'T is not a venture capitalist. it should only exist for national defense. Have a unique thought, just once my friend.

Mar. 01 2012 01:10 PM
anna from new york

David Brock is of course a prostitute (in more than one sense). Why not ask this prostitute some real questions, such as promotion of antisemitism by so called "liberals?"

Mar. 01 2012 01:09 PM
Charlie from New Rochelle

Fox News claiming that they are "Fair and Balance" is like Rchard Nixon saying he is not a crook.

Mar. 01 2012 01:08 PM

Since a Heartland Institute link has been introduced, here's another:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/15/leak-exposes-heartland-institute-climate

"Leak exposes how Heartland Institute works to undermine climate science

"Libertarian thinktank keeps prominent sceptics on its payroll and relies on millions in funding from carbon industry, papers suggest"

Mar. 01 2012 01:06 PM

@DarkSymbolist from NYC!:

"The left wing of Nazism"? LOL
By definition there can be no "left wing" Nazism. Ridiculous.

This is the derivation of the word "N A Z I":

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
The National Socialist German Workers Party
(German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) better known as the NSDAP or the Nazi Party
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080407222438AA8dCUb

(please look it up yourself on a web site of your own choosing and let us know if you find anything different.)

Thus endeth the lesson.

Mar. 01 2012 01:06 PM

That DarkSymbolist has to explain and re-explain and reformulate his plainly factual viewpoint is testament to how the effectively the RW rhetoric pushes media to the right--even on this message board!

Mar. 01 2012 01:03 PM
David

DarkSymbolist from NYC!: Actually, not seeing that they are all basically the same is intellectually lazy. Again, I hope someday that you'll find out the same thing I found out over twenty years ago (and which many people are staring to find out today).

Mar. 01 2012 12:56 PM

Move along folks - there's only journo-listing going on here.

e.g., http://blog.heartland.org/2011/08/media-matters-lies-about-the-heartland-institute-again/

Mar. 01 2012 12:56 PM

Agree with Dark Symbolist. Fox News is a completely different order of magnituded from other news outlets -- NPR, NY Times, legitimate broadcast & print media. For one thing it's not really a news organization per se -- doing little orginal reporting as the guests pointed out. It is an opinion organization which is not the same thing as actually basing reporting on actual gathering of information. And they have been called out for misleading editing of materials that they present as "news". They have no corrections department. Fox doesn't even pretend to seek out objective factual information.

Mar. 01 2012 12:52 PM

Failed President? Hmm.. Osama killed, Iraq done, Economic in Recovery, American jobs / American Auto industry saved. Sounds like failure to you?

Mar. 01 2012 12:52 PM
Paul from Manhattan

These guys seem like whiny guys that aren't as good at their jobs as the guys at FOX. This book is analogous to a kid who didn't get into Harvard writing a book about how Harvard isn't good.

Why no comments about how every other station is a liberal apologizer Obama lover. where's the critical news reporting of our current failed President?

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction fellas.

Mar. 01 2012 12:48 PM
DarkSymbolist from NYC!

@ David

That of course, is a ridiculous statement. It's easy to say "it's all the same". It's intellectually lazy and nothing but a cop-out.

Mar. 01 2012 12:48 PM

Death Panels? Remember that?

Mar. 01 2012 12:47 PM
David

DarkSymbolist from NYC!: If you don't see that ALL Establishment media (including Faux News) are ultimately promoting the same agenda, then that's tragic. Perhaps someday you will.

Mar. 01 2012 12:46 PM
DarkSymbolist from NYC!

"The left wing of Nazism"? LOL
By definition there can be no "left wing" Nazism. Ridiculous.

Mar. 01 2012 12:45 PM

What about the Republicans on-going efforts to delegitimize any Democratic party President and administration. Aided and abetted by Fox News. Started with Clinton and ramped up for Obama. As for other media outlets -- there is no comparison with Fox News and its extreme political agenda.

Mar. 01 2012 12:42 PM
David

DarkSymbolist: If you can't see that all the Establishment media (which obviously includes Faux News) is ultimately promoting the same agenda, then that's tragic. Perhaps someday you will.

Mar. 01 2012 12:41 PM

No media oulet is completely objective, but NPR and WNYC at least tries to show all points of views. Sadly, many business by me Sam's Club Walmart and McDonald's in my area have Fox news on there screens and of what I watch its always subjective and very conservative.

Mar. 01 2012 12:40 PM
DarkSymbolist from NYC!

"Again, how is Fox any _different_ beyond being more extreme or brazen than the New York Times or NPR?"

Biases are different than blatant lying. It's just not the same thing. Fox has a mission that has nothing to do with journalism which is political in nature. I am no fan of the New York Times but at least they deal in journalism (how well or not can be debated) but Fox is a propoganda machine that has been caught many times blatantly and systematically LYING about the facts...this is not the same as having some kind bias or slant. Not the same at all.

Mar. 01 2012 12:38 PM

I have noticed that too when selecting Sat TV service that "christian" channels and Fox news is offered on the lowest priced packages usually labeled "family". I have DirecTV for 2 years now and couldn't tell you what channel Fox news it is on.

Mar. 01 2012 12:28 PM

Again, how is Fox any _different_ beyond being more extreme or brazen than the New York Times or NPR?

During the debate over Obama's health care discussions, the Times, NPR, and CNN all systematically ignored or ridiculed advocates of single payer. Try to find a single NPR or Times report noting that _no_ representative of single payer was present at Obama's confab on health care reform (plenty of insurance industry reps were there). Take a look at the 'balance' between pro-Israel voices and pro-Palestinian ones at any of these 'liberal' news organizations. Ethan Bronner, Patricia Cohen, Isabel Kershner, Linda Gradstein are notorious for their selective reporting.

Fox may be more extreme, more brazen, wear its position more clearly on the cuff -- it isn't all that different in kind.

Mar. 01 2012 12:26 PM
Pearse

Can the guests please explain how comparing FOX and MSNBC is like comparing apples to oranges? When I look at MSNBC all I see are very liberal hosts with clear sympathies for the president and Democratic values and practices. How is Al Sharpton any diffrent from Bill O'Reilly?

Mar. 01 2012 12:25 PM

Who are the major contributors to Media Matters?

What connection do they have to the Obama Administration?

Who "focused grouped" "single" payer as opposed to government paid?

Each side plays the "game". Too bad WNYC needs to pretend otherwise.

Mar. 01 2012 12:23 PM
Edw. from New Jersey

No one ever discusses the brainwashing of lower income folks isolated by TV access provided DISH TV.
The sat provider, on it's lowest tier of service, along with a number of Christian broadcasting Channels, only offers Fox News as a fulltime News provider... only CNN Headline News is provided as an alternative.

Mar. 01 2012 12:23 PM
Charles Imbimbo from Teaneck

I remember Roger Ailes had produced a show (or was the station manager) on a local NJ station which addressed alternative health and spirituality. I believe that was in the 1980s. The host, whose name I can't remember, was a well-known African American newscaster. I remember years later finding out that Ailes was behind Fox News and being surprised. Do your guests know anything about that period in Ailes's life?

Mar. 01 2012 12:23 PM
Jim

What was the rationale for changing the on-air pronunciation of Osama after Bin Laden was killed?

Mar. 01 2012 12:22 PM
John A.

Tell me the story of Glenn Beck. Now that he's gone (if i recall correctly) does that indicate At All an attempt to reach to the center?

Mar. 01 2012 12:20 PM
The Truth from Becky

They can't spell Fair or Balanced!

Mar. 01 2012 12:19 PM
DarkSymbolist from NYC!

LOL...they don't even do their own reporting?
LOL!

Mar. 01 2012 12:18 PM

@Mark from Mount Vernon: What about the WSJ, National Review, Weekly Standard, American Spectator, CSM, etc.? ABC,CBS,NBC, and the both Times, are pretty corporatist and to this liberal are hardly left-leaning.

@David: They all have ideological leanings but the misinformation is not nearly as blatant and purposeful at CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and other established media outlets.

Mar. 01 2012 12:17 PM
Linda from Jersey Shore

Fox News is like a cult, "listen to Us only because WE are fair and Balanced and NO ONE ELSE is".
What other news program or network says that??

Mar. 01 2012 12:14 PM
Jim

Your guests state that Fox had moved the Republican party very far to the right. What is their take on the lukewarm attitude that Fox has toward the most aggressive fiscal conservatives (such as Ron Paul)?

Mar. 01 2012 12:14 PM

The Fox Effect isn't isolated to Fox. The New York Times, CNN, and NPR endlessly repeat falsehoods spearheaded by the likes of the "Simpson Bowles" commission about troubles with Social Security or falsehoods about Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction." Even though there was ample evidence contradicting the mainstream reporting, such evidence and the critics presenting it were largely ignored — lie, repeat lie, repeat until taken as fact, ignore refutation of lie. The Fox Effect at The New York Times.

Mar. 01 2012 12:13 PM
DarkSymbolist from NYC!

@ David

What's laughable is to not see how Fox is nothing but a propoganda machine as opposed to the other sources you site. Does the MCM have biases? Sure. But, to equate them all as essentially the same as FOX is what is truly laughable.

Mar. 01 2012 12:11 PM
Vinny from Manalapan, NJ

Uh oh, queue the wingnut parade.
Mark from Mount Vernon: Can't you even wait to comment on the actual subject of the upcoming discussion, which is how FOX has changed under Ailes? Oye.

Mar. 01 2012 12:05 PM
David

I'm no fan of Faux News, but to claim that the other Establishment media empires (e.g., CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal) are more "objective" is laughable.

Mar. 01 2012 11:59 AM

If there was a government standard for content for news channels - the saame way the FDA makes sure that there must be a certain minimal percentage of beef before you actually label your taco filling as beef - then clearly FoxNews would have to re-brand itself. But we have a First Amendment and a supposedly free press. The fact is that a large number of Americans prefer their 'news' predigested and presented with a slant to their own prejudices. They like the way FoxNews presents things. They like it so much that they want to think of what comes out there as 'fair and balanced'.

I don't get it but at least I can tell the differences between journalism and propaganda.

Mar. 01 2012 11:57 AM
John A.

Mark from Mount Vernon,
Can you get the PBS NewsHour?

Mar. 01 2012 11:30 AM
Mark from Mount Vernon

If Fox News didn't exist our only source of infomation would be ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, The New York Times and Los Angeles Times, who are so far up Obama's backside we can only see the tips of their shoes.

Mar. 01 2012 09:20 AM
George from Brooklyn

What would be the best response to counter Roger Ailes? How can he be neutralized?

Mar. 01 2012 01:12 AM

Leave a Comment

Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more. Learn more.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting. By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use.