Bill O’Reilly Exploits Fort Hood Tragedy To Attack Dr. George Tiller Again And Defend Himself

Fox News right-wing host Bill O’Reilly refuses to let the murdered Dr. George Tiller, who provided abortions, rest in peace. It’s not bad enough that O’Reilly frequently attacked Dr. Tiller who was murdered in vicious and cold-blooded fashion (at the hands of a cowardly anti-abortion bigot). Now, Bill O’Reilly is callously exploiting the tragic murders at Fort Hood (Texas) to again attack Dr. George Tiller (who was a family man in addition to being a doctor) and portray himself as a victim who is being attacked.

Indeed, Bill O’Reilly continues to attack a murdered man while at the same time he sets himself up as the victim.

As Media Matters for America points out, it seems O’Reilly has ignored the right wing exploiting this tragedy to again launch bigoted attacks on Muslims and others they see as “extremists” in their narrow-minded view of the world. Instead of being balanced and fair, he has used this tragedy to again showcase his far-right bias and use his platform to attack people he sees as liberals.

Declaring Victory … Before It’s Over

I find it interesting (even amusing) how a large number of people on Fox Republican News Channel are declaring that this week’s election results are the beginning of this great renaissance for the GOP and the beginning of the end for President Barack Obama. All day, on the network Republicans love, host after host has been crowing about how great this is for the GOP and how the party is on the way back. We’ve been hearing stuff words and phrases like “winds of change,” “Republican revival” and “blueprint for success” as reported by Media Matters for America. So, tonight I tuned in to watch the O’Reilly Factor and Billy painted this as a smackdown for President Obama (wishful and biased GOP thinking), how people are rejecting him, rejecting so-called big government and going for the things Republicans supposedly stand for. It was all a bunch of laughable nonsense. Look, these elections are fought on the local level and state levels with local and state candidates. It’s not about President Obama, President Bush, President Clinton, President Lincoln or President Washington.

Bill O’Reilly, With His History Of Racially Insensitive Comments, Hypocritically Attacks Rep. Alay Grayson

Fox News right-wing talk show host Bill O’Reilly has a history of making racially insensitive comments (particularly ones directed toward black people). O’Reilly has joined fellow right-wing pundits in attacking Rep. Alan Grayson, a Democrat from Florida, who is an outspoken critic of Republicans. To be fair, Rep. Grayson has rightfully come under fire for a series of comments during which he referred to Linda Robertson, who is an adviser to Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, a “K Street whore” as reported by POLITICO. Rep. Grayson has rightfully been smacked around for that one very poor statement and issued the following apology:

“I offer my sincere apology to Linda Robertson, an adviser to Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke,” Grayson said in an emailed statement. “I did not intend to use a term that is often, and correctly, seen as disrespectful of women.”

In the emailed statement, Grayson gave further context to the comment, saying it was made “last month in the context of the debate over whether the Federal Reserve should be independently audited, was inappropriate, and I apologize.”

It’s good that he apologized because those kinds of comments are inappropriate.

Now, enter Bill O’Reilly, who has a history of racially insensitive comments, sexist comments and more … with a list of excuses (for such comments) that is at least as long.

Sexist example (O’Reilly’s attack on Helen Thomas and even sexist comment in reference to Sarah Palin, who he clearly likes):

Racism example (a video posted by Dr. Boyce Watkins with excellent notes):

O’Reilly’s right-wing rally energizer Griff Jenkins, again disguised as a legitimate reporter, to attempt to ambush Rep. Grayson, who maintained his cool and instructed Jenkins to request an interview formally (several times). But, quite frankly, Democrats should avoid Fox News until the network cleans up its act and lives up to its now phony billing as being a “fair and balanced” outlet for news.

From Media Matters for America:

O’REILLY: Now, how do we get to this point? Black people in this country understand that they’ve had a very, very tough go of it, and some of them can get past that, and some of them cannot. I don’t think there’s a black American who hasn’t had a personal insult that they’ve had to deal with because of the color of their skin. I don’t think there’s one in the country. So you’ve got to accept that as being the truth. People deal with that stuff in a variety of ways. Some get bitter. Some say, [unintelligible] “You call me that, I’m gonna be more successful.” OK, it depends on the personality.

So it’s there. It’s there, and I think it’s getting better. I think black Americans are starting to think more and more for themselves. They’re getting away from the Sharptons and the Jacksons and the people trying to lead them into a race-based culture. They’re just trying to figure it out: “Look, I can make it. If I work hard and get educated, I can make it.”

You know, I was up in Harlem a few weeks ago, and I actually had dinner with Al Sharpton, who is a very, very interesting guy. And he comes on The Factor a lot, and then I treated him to dinner, because he’s made himself available to us, and I felt that I wanted to take him up there. And we went to Sylvia’s, a very famous restaurant in Harlem. I had a great time, and all the people up there are tremendously respectful. They all watch The Factor. You know, when Sharpton and I walked in, it was like a big commotion and everything, but everybody was very nice.

And I couldn’t get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia’s restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it’s run by blacks, primarily black patronship. It was the same, and that’s really what this society’s all about now here in the U.S.A. There’s no difference. There’s no difference. There may be a cultural entertainment — people may gravitate toward different cultural entertainment, but you go down to Little Italy, and you’re gonna have that. It has nothing to do with the color of anybody’s skin.

[...]

O’REILLY: No, no, I mean, I like that soul food. I had the meatloaf special. I had coconut shrimp. I had the iced tea. It was great.

WILLIAMS: Well, let me just tell you, the one thing I would say is this. And we’re talking about the kids who still like this gangsta rap, this vile poison that I think is absolutely, you know, literally a corruption of culture. I think that what you’ve got to take into account that it’s still a majority white audience — young, white people who think they’re into rebelling against their parents who buy this stuff and think it’s just a kick. You know, it’s just a way of expressing their anti-authoritarianism.

O’REILLY: But it’s a different — it’s a different dynamic, though.

WILLIAMS: Exactly right –

O’REILLY: Because the young, white kids don’t have to struggle out of the ghetto.

WILLIAMS: Right, and also, I think they can have that as one phase of their lives.

O’REILLY: Yeah.

WILLIAMS: I think too many of the black kids take it as, “Oh, that’s what it means to be authentically black. That’s how you make money. That’s how you become rich and famous and get on TV and get music videos.” And you either get the boys or the girls. The girls think they have to, you know, be half-naked and spinning around like they’re on meth in order to get any attention. It really corrupts people, and I think it adds, Bill, to some serious sociological problems, like the high out-of-wedlock birth rate because of this hypersexual imagery that then the kids adapt to some kind of reality. I mean, it’s inauthentic. It’s not in keeping with great black traditions of struggle and excellence, from Willie Mays to Aretha Franklin, but even in terms of academics, you know, going back to people like Charles Drew or Ben Carson here, the neurosurgeon at [Johns] Hopkins [University]. That stuff, all of a sudden, is pushed aside. That’s treated as, “You’re a nerd, you’re acting white,” if you try to be excellent and black.

O’REILLY: You know, and I went to the concert by Anita Baker at Radio City Music Hall, and the crowd was 50/50, black/white, and the blacks were well-dressed. And she came out — Anita Baker came out on the stage and said, “Look, this is a show for the family. We’re not gonna have any profanity here. We’re not gonna do any rapping here.” The band was excellent, but they were dressed in tuxedoes, and this is what white America doesn’t know, particularly people who don’t have a lot of interaction with black Americans. They think that the culture is dominated by Twista, Ludacris, and Snoop Dogg.

WILLIAMS: Oh, and it’s just so awful. It’s just so awful because, I mean, it’s literally the sewer come to the surface, and now people take it that the sewer is the whole story –

O’REILLY: That’s right. That’s right. There wasn’t one person in Sylvia’s who was screaming, “M-Fer, I want more iced tea.”

WILLIAMS: Please –

O’REILLY: You know, I mean, everybody was — it was like going into an Italian restaurant in an all-white suburb in the sense of people were sitting there, and they were ordering and having fun. And there wasn’t any kind of craziness at all.

There is an example of O’Reilly perpetuating negative stereotypes of black people as being unsophisticated, rude, profane and uncivilized while portraying whites as being docile, having fun, civilized and cordial.

The point is that when Bill O’Reilly makes nasty, racist, racially insensitive, sexist or other controversial-type statements, he has a hundred excuses and brings people like Fox News analyst apologist Juan Williams (posing as a Democrat) on to apologize for him. O’Reilly asserts he is being smeared and taken out of context. When non-Republicans, like Alan Grayson make a statement in very poor taste and offensive, O’Reilly hammers the person repeatedly (even after an apology) and refuses to accept any context.

That’s what you get from “fair and balanced” Bill O’Reilly.

Limbaugh Refers To President Obama As ‘Boy’ … A Term Historically Used To Degrade Black Men

Whether you use the word “nigger” or you use the term “boy” the meaning is generally the same (even though one of the aforementioned clearly holds far more negative power). Rush Limbaugh has been in the news frequently with his racial (some would say racist) attacks on President Obama. If not racist, Limbaugh clearly is using racial politics to turn the United States of America into his vision for the future … the Divided States of America (a nation that is divided along racial lines).

In his latest effort at racial antagonism, Limbaugh now has taken to referring to President Obama as “boy” which is a historical term used by whites to degrade black men (a usage that dates back to slavery days).

I realize that some historically ignorant people will think I am flying off the handle. To those people I say this: Check out the history.

From Media Matters for America:

Limbaugh calls Obama “this little boy, this little man-child president.” While discussing what he characterized as Obama’s “attacks” on Fox News and “ambush” of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Limbaugh said: “People are finally standing up to this little boy, this little man-child president, whose primary — I think his primary job, if you will, in life has been leisure.” [Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show, 10/27/09]

This is not an accidental use by Limbaugh. This is a far-right nut who has a long and dubious history of racial politics aimed at diminishing blacks in the eyes of his highly conservative audience. Is the word “boy” itself racist like the term “nigger” is considered to be? The answer is this: not necessarily. It all depends on the context and the user.

Here is another example from Media Matters of Limbaugh using the word “boy” to demean President Obama:

Limbaugh: “[T]he little boy president went out there and did something absolutely ignorant and stupid.” Referring to Senate Democrats’ plan to block funding for the closure of the Guantánamo Bay detention center until a decision was made about where to put the detainees, Limbaugh stated: “I tell ya, this is cover for Obama, ’cause the little boy president went out there and did something absolutely ignorant and stupid, and he’s got to be covered for it now.” [The Rush Limbaugh Show, 5/20/09]

Again, this is no accident. This is an orchestrated effort by Rush Limbaugh to portray Barack Obama in a negative light by casting him as a black man using a term that, in this context, has racial overtones (negative racial overtones). Once again, Rush Limbaugh uses race to divide and, once again conservatives are silent as their leader further insults and degrades people of color.

Check out the Media Matters for America research on Rush Limbaugh’s rather dubious history of racially insensitive to racist remarks: http://mediamatters.org/research/200910160044

Fox News Is No More … Make Way For Fox Commentary

Close your eyes and imagine picking up your newspaper and not being able to distinguish between the “hard” news content and the content on the editorial page. Now, open your eyes and (if you can stomach it) watch Fox News. The commentators and anchors are mostly the same – right wingers lying about being fair and balanced.

Check out this Media Matters for America clip to see how Fox News nutjob Glenn Beck hands the baton of bias off to fake anchor Chris Wallace, of Fox News Sunday.

 

Rep. Rob Andrews Calls Out Fox News For Bias … Anchor Whines

Rep. Rob Andrews, a Democrat from New Jersey, called out Fox News anchor Gregg Jarrett and Fox News for its bias. Jarrett, following in that Fox News tradition, joined forces with Rep. Marsha Blackburn (a Republican from Tennessee) to essentially advance right-wing talking points and double team Andrews late in the segment as they shouted him down repeatedly as he attempted to make a point. Andrew called out the biased host as he mockingly asked for Fox News to adhere to its phony “fair and balanced” slogan.

Jarrett loses his composure and pouts like a kindergartener.

Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/26/fox-news-anchor-yells-at_n_333501.html

Did Fox News Make Up Story About Being Denied Access? Here Is One Opinion

I found this on the blog “at-Largely” today.

Following up on this post, here is what actually happened (RE: Fox lies):

1. Major Garrett was in fact part of the interview pool

2. The networks DID not play “hero to Fox” but rather had to use a single camera crew due to logistics.

3. Despite the facts, Fox and the glue-sniffing idiots who defend them, spread word far and wide of the “Nixonian” (interesting how  that term suddenly popped up everywhere and all at once, as though a memo had been issued) war against them and Obama’s “enemy list” bullshit.

So in short, Fox fabricated a story to make themselves look like victims of a fabricated war on them being waged by the evil Commie Obama. Now tell me, is that journalism? And they wonder why they are seen as propaganda? Stephen Glass would have more credibility with me than these opportunistic feeders and spreaders. At least he was a lone culprit, not an entire organization built around distortion, lies, and ugly rhetoric:

“TPMDC spoke with a network bureau chief this afternoon familiar with the situation who was surprised that Fox was portraying the news as networks coming to its rescue.

“If any member had been excluded it would have been same thing, it has nothing to do with Fox or the White House or the substance of the issues,” the bureau chief said. “It’s all for one and one for all.”

A Treasury spokesperson added: “There was no plot to exclude Fox News, and they had the same interview that their competitors did. Much ado about absolutely nothing.”‘

Check out the full blog (it’s interesting stuff):
http://www.atlargely.com/atlargely/2009/10/it-is-official-fox-fabricated-the-denied-access-story-.html

President Obama’s Administration Walks A Tightrope In Justifiable Criticism Of Fox news

President Barack Obama certainly walks a fine line as his administration criticizes Fox News for being the right-wing news organization that clearly it is these days. Frankly, it’s a shame that more liberals do not have the guts to call out Fox News for its far-right commentary and it’s right-wing news (greatly influenced by its far-right commentary). Anita Dunn, David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel and others from the Obama Administration have made their views about Fox News clear and I find it difficult to disagree with much of what we’ve heard from that trio. But, while the criticism is justifiable, the administration has to be careful not to come across as denying Fox News reasonable access (the kinds of access granted to other networks (this excludes interviews). The administration must be fair to the media in terms of certain kinds of access yet still be up front and honest about its criticisms of Fox News for functioning as Republican operatives.

I thought of this again as I read a column by Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page, who is a legendary figure in the industry:

Surely President Barack Obama and his advisers don’t really think that their feud with Fox News will do anything but enhance the cable network’s viewership. A deeper problem is what the flap reveals about Team Obama, which seems to be more comfortable with campaigning than governing.

I’m not happy about that. It does not fill me with glee to see Fox News star Sean Hannity joyfully replaying Obama’s 2004 come-together speech about how we’re “not red states or blues states” but “the United States of America” and asking where is Obama’s promise now?

I see what Clarence is saying … I really do. But this criticism of Fox News, in my opinion, has nothing to do with ratings. Fox News has high ratings and will continue to have high ratings because it has cornered the market on far-right nuts who believe in moronic conspiracies of the mainstream media ( which is in their minds every news outlet but Fox) being out to get them. As far as Clarence’s point about Sean Hannity, he lacks much credibility and is only a factor in society as an entertainer of far-right conservatives. His program lacks any real value as far as news is concerned and is akin to watching an hour of professional wrestling (though Hannity is not that entertaining).
 
More from Page:

I don’t agree with Hannity on much. He’s only a tad more serious-minded as a news clown, in my grumpy view, than his colleague Glenn Beck. But, as much as my wife might run from the house when she hears me say it, Hannity’s right on this one.

Sure, it is disingenuous for right-wing pundits to accuse Obama of dividing the country, considering the five-star job they have done in turning us against each other. But if Obama is being judged by a different standard of civility, it is a standard he set for himself. He promised to bridge Washington’s culture wars, not fire them up.

Sure, President Obama did promise to bridge the gap, but doesn’t Fox News also profess to being fair and balanced? At least President Obama has legitimately attempted to bridge the gap while Fox News now essentially is suffering from a full-blown case of O.J. Simpson Syndrome (telling a lie so often you begin to believe it is true).

The adminstration should continue to expose the clear 24/7 bias of Fox News (including on the air, on its Web site and on its blog site The Fox Nation), but not to the point of being distracted too much from the real important and real issues our nation faces.

Clarence Page’s column is hopeful, but no amount of reaching out is going to persuade Fox News to become anything close to fair and balanced.

Magic Johnson Disappoints In Feud With Isiah Thomas

I grew up an admirer of Earvin “Magic” Johnson, but I always sensed a different side to him (the menace behind the smile) that maybe wasn’t so obvious to a lot of people.

Over the last two days, I’ve become profoundly disappointed in what Magic has revealed himself to be as a man, a friend and as a basketball player. First off, Isiah Thomas is no saint, but Magic is an opportunist who willingly sacrificed Isiah (more than once) to fortify his position in the national spotlight alongside the likes of Larry Bird and Michael Jordan. As the saying goes, Magic threw Isiah under the bus by letting Thomas take all the blame for the so-called 1985 All-Star Game freeze out of Jordan, he did it again to strengthen his position on the 1992 Dream Team, he threw Isiah under the bus as Thomas became less popular in the early 1990s and now is throwing Isiah under the bus again to make money selling a book.

It would be different if Magic confronted him face to face, but it appears that did not happen.

It’s pitiful and incredibly weak and I think it reveals far more about the real Magic Johnson than it ever did or ever will about the real Isiah Thomas. The book, “When The Game Was Ours,” that Magic is trying to push sales on is co-written by him, Bird and writer Jackie MacMullan.

People can read the article for themselves, but I would caution readers not to put any of the people mentioned on a pedestal and that includes Magic, Jordan, Bird, Isiah or anyone else.

It was often said that you have to look beyond Isiah’s smile, and that was true.

But, you also have to look beyond’s Magic’s smile. There seems to be a darker side there as well.

Here is a Sports Illustrated-published comment from Isiah about rumors that Jordan had him ridiculously kept off the original Dream Team in 1992.

“I’m glad that he’s finally had the nerve and the courage to stand up and say it was him, as opposed to letting Michael Jordan take the blame for it all these years,” Thomas said in a Sports Illustrated story as he responded to during a series of interviews this week in response to allegations in the book. “I wish he would have had the courage to say this stuff to me face to face, as opposed to writing it in some damn book to sell and he can make money off it.”

Magic, seriously, this is weak.

Are New Black Barbies Black Enough? Check It Out …

Barbie is back … in black?

Yes, there is a new Barbie to behold and she is a black version who has met with some mixed opinions thus far.

While some applaud Mattel for making the effort to sort of again diversify its doll offerings, not all people are excited about what the new black Barbie brings to the table of diversity.

“I love the black Barbie. It’s about time,” Jua Simpson said on CNN’s iReport, a user-generated news community. “But the hair is still a step backwards, since most of our hair is not straight and light brown.”

It’s not surprising that criticism would come out since it has long been an issue for a lot of black women who long have had to endure significant self esteem issues with the images on television and in magazines of what is considered to be attractive in women.

But, as you might expect, not everyone sees it that way. The creative mind behind this project is pleased with the early results.

“They mean so much to me because they did come from a positive place,” Stacy McBride-Irby, who created the dolls, said in the CNN report. “My daughter loves the dolls. I’ve had dads thank me for creating this line of dolls that represent their little girls. These dolls are for girls all over the world.”

People should learn to appreciate this Barbie (for her positives and her negatives alike). Sure, she may not be the perfect representation for black women, but she is a nice and positive step. McBride-Irby should be commended for her work with this project and, while everyone may not be 100 percent satisfied, there is plenty to smile about with the new Barbie.

Check out the original story on the CNN Web site:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/10/21/black.barbies.irpt/index.html

Rush Limbaugh Is Staying Where He Belongs … Imploding The G.O.P.

A good number of conservatives are coming to the end of their cycle of whining over Rush Limbaugh being booted from a group of investors attempting to buy the National Football League’s St. Louis Rams. Frankly, why this group thought the racially antagonistic (if not racist) Limbaugh would in any way be an asset to its team is beyond comprehension. In the end, as the NFL basically told Limbaugh to talk to the hand, far-right nuts have been oozing up through cracks in the political landscape to rush to Limbaugh’s defense (essentially defending the indefensible).

Mark Joseph, in an opinion piece picked up on the Fox News Web site ended his commentary with this little nugget:

Limbaugh’s detractors, including Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, may have won a pyrrhic victory with their successful effort to stop him from buying the St. Louis Rams. And they may come to rue the day they succeeded in keeping Limbaugh in his day job, fully focused on the battle his movement faces.

Limbaugh is right where liberals want him (working from the inside, almost as if an operative, to destroy the Republican party). The Republicans, woefully adequate as far as diversity is concerned, only becomes more isolated as its fear of Limbaugh has crippled its ability to appeal to growing populations of color who gravitate more to the Democratic party.

This is not about Rev. Inc. … Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

This is not even about Roger Goodell or the NFL (all of whom were perfectly comfortable keeping Limbaugh out of the owner’s box).

This is about Rush Limbaugh and the damage he continuously inflicts on the Republican party any time he opens his mouth.

Republicans love/fear Rush. They love their abuser because they fail to appreciate that they are in fact being abused.

I think the forces who oppose Rush have him right where they want him – further isolating the GOP.

We’ve seen Rush Limbaugh for years and he has little new to offer (beyond the next racially insensitive comment).

Warren Ballentine Tells Juan Williams To ‘Go Back To The Porch’

Warren Ballentine, on The O’Reilly Factor, tells Fox News contributor and fake Democrat Juan Williams he can “go back to the porch.”

Obviously, that is not a kind statement and it will be interesting to see how people read between the lines to interpret what Ballentine meant when he said that to Williams, who is dishonestly portrayed as a liberal.

Another interesting comment, while in the debate with Williams in this clip, comes from Ballentine when he says “it is racial to real black people.”

Juan earned his money for O’Reilly.

The O’Reilly Sucks Blog Talks About Right-Winger John Stossel’s Appearance

Well, I called this right off the bat when it was announced that Fox was recruiting John Stossel for its business channel (to join the likes of Don Imus). When Bill O’Reilly teased the Stossel segment by saying he was bringing him on to talk about why the White House hates Fox News I knew where it was going. First of all, O’Reilly is dishonest to try and portray Stossel as some kind of independent, a centrist or a moderate when he is a slightly more sane, stable and varnished version of Glenn Beck (as you will read in the excerpt below from The O’Reilly Sucks Blog).

Then John Stossel was on, he has a new show on the FOX business channel. Which proves that Stossel is a Republican, but over the years O’Reilly put him on as an independent. Billy said now that Stossel moved to FOX the White House really hates him. Then they talked about Jake Tapper hammering Robert Gibbs for attacking FOX. Stossel is a right-wing nut, and O’Reilly loves him, but they did disagree on making pot legal. Stossel supports it, Billy is opposed to it. Stossel is like a less crazy version of Glenn Beck, they are like brothers, haha. Billy spent almost the entire segment telling Stossel why drugs should not be legal. Billy said if drugs are legal, all the kids will get it, ummm, earth to O’Dummy, ALL THE KIDS ARE GETTING IT ALREADY. And btw, Stossel was terrible as a guest, he looked nervous and intimidated.

As the blog points out, Stossel is a right winger who will fit in quite nicely with a roster that is highlighted by notable far-right extremists as Beck, O’Reilly (not quite as far right as the other two, but close), Sean Hannity and Imus.

Fox News Blurs Line Between Opinion And News With Its Far-Right Bias

Fox News has, as I have pointed out countless times on this blog, has blurred the line between news and its right-wing opinion with its coverage. Since the historic election of President Obama, a Democrat, Fox News has gone head first off the deep end of fairness in its leaning to the far right of the political mainstream. While the network tries to portray people as not being able to distinguish between its far-right opinion shows and its right-wing news coverage, the two have become indistinguishable  and more so since the presidential election of 2008 that swept Barack Obama in as president and Joe Biden in as vice president.

Cleverly, these right-wing talking points pop up on right-wing shoes hosted by Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity and then find themselves on so-called news shows hosted by Bret Baier, Chris Wallace, Bill Hemmer, Megyn Kelly and others.

As Eric Burns of Media Matters for America is right … (Fox News) has morphed itself this year into a 24/7 political operation.

Burns is right on the money.

More Anita Dunn Attacks From Right-Wing Nuts With Distortions

The right-wing nuts, led by Fox News has been on the attack against White House communications director Anita Dunn due to her strongly-worded criticism of the conservative network for its obvious right-wing bias (that includes both opinion and news content that leans heavily to the right). The righties have been working hard to falsely portray her as an admirer of former Chinese communist leader Mao Tse-tung and now the latest is a disgraceful and sloppy attempt (a “Hail Mary” to borrow a football analogy) by Fox News to grossly mischaracterize Dunn’s comments about the campaign strategy of Team Obama during the presidential election of 2008.

Media Matters has been leading the charge to correct Fox News misinformation on this issue:

DUNN: A huge part of our press strategy was focused on making the media cover what Obama was actually saying as opposed to, you know, why the campaign was saying it, what the tactic was, that we — we had a huge premium both on message discipline, on people in the campaign not leaking to reporters and people in the campaign not discussing our strategy, and also on making the press cover what we were saying.

So we, you know, one of the reasons we did so many of the David Plouffe videos was not just for our supporters, but also because it was a way for us to get our message out without having to actually talk to reporters; we just put that out there and make them write what Plouffe had said as opposed to Plouffe doing an interview with a reporter. So it was very much we controlled it, as opposed to the press controlled it.

That is what Dunn said, but here is how Fox News mischaracterized her comments to put them in the most negative light possible (remember that this is coming from a “legitimate news organization”) in an ongoing retaliation effort:

The Obama campaign’s press strategy leading up to his election last November focused on “making” the media cover what the campaign wanted and on exercising absolute “control” over coverage, White House Communications Director Anita Dunn told an overseas crowd early this year.

In a video of the event, Dunn is seen describing in detail the media strategy used by then-Sen. Barack Obama’s highly disciplined presidential campaign. The video is footage from a Jan. 12 forum hosted by the Global Foundation for Democracy and Development in the Dominican Republic.

“Very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn’t absolutely control,” Dunn said, admitting that the strategy “did not always make us popular in the press.”

This is, of course, a gross and irresponsible mischaracterization of what Dunn said. Fox misleads readers into thinking that Dunn was saying that the Obama campaign controlled the media which is false and irresponsible on the part of people at Fox News.

Notice how Fox takes single words quotations and frames them based on their own right-wing bias (an effort that is even more powerful considering its ongoing vendetta against Anita Dunn).

Here is how Media Matters boiled it down:

WorldNetDaily, followed by the Drudge Report and Fox Nation, falsely claimed that during a January 12 speech, White House communications director Anita Dunn boasted about the White House’s “control” over the media. In fact, Dunn was discussing the Obama campaign’s strategy for controlling the campaign’s message, not the media; moreover, her comments were made before Obama had taken office and before she became communications director.

So, the campaign was not controlling the media, but making sure its own message was controlled and consistent. This distortion by Fox News is done purposely and, I believe, maliciously simply to attack Anita Dunn in retaliation for her strong comments about what she perceives as bias on the part of Fox News.

Fox News, of course, responds like an elementary-school child would … with attacks, lies, gossip and essentially name calling.

Check out the Media Matters research to see the depth and breadth of the lies coming from the far right in a desperate attempt to attack Anita Dunn.

Fox News Attacks White House Communications Director Anita Dunn

Fox News now is on the attack against White House communications director Anita Dunn who made some strong comments about the right-wing leaning of the conservative network. Dunn was on the money in her comments about Fox News and the network now is using its platform to smear Dunn and try to portray her as a communist or socialist by linking her to Mao, the man behind the communist movement shaping China. This is evidence that Fox News is not a legitimate news organization. A true and legitimate organization does not use valuable real estate on its Web site to attack the communications director of the White House in retaliation for comments she made about the network when questioned.

This is from Fox News (using its position as a “news” organization to attack Dunn):

What Americans want is a robust competition of ideas, and they ought to be willing to go out there and mix it up with some strong conservatives on Fox, just as there are strong conservatives on CNN like Bill Bennett.”

Bennett expressed outrage that Dunn told an audience of high school students this year that Mao Tse-tung, the founder of communist China, was one of “my favorite political philosophers.”

“Having the spokesman do this, attack Fox, who says that Mao Zedong is one of the most influential figures in her life, was not…a small thing; it’s a big thing,” Bennett said on CNN. “When she stands up, in a speech to high school kids, says she’s deeply influenced by Mao Zedong, that — I mean, that is crazy.”

This article is retaliation (specifically the mention of Mao) and irresponsible journalism.

Notice how Fox tries to (like a low-life pimp) use some pundits from CNN (for its own nefarious purposes) to try and attack Dunn (and thus attack the administration and thus attack President Obama). Irresponsible Fox News is using CNN to try and legitimize its attacks on Anita Dunn>the administration>The White House>President Obama.

The White House should not stand by and take these attacks from Fox News.

This is not a risky strategy for the administration because Fox News has been all-hostile-all-the-time against the administration of President Barack Obama and because Fox News is widely viewed as the public relations firm of the Republican Party.

The Red Scare now is en vogue again.

Some of us will never learn from our history.

Karl Rove Uses The ‘Arrogant’ Argument Which Is Code For Uppity

It seems that conservative pundits are becoming increasingly upset with President Obama and perhaps seeing him as a little too uppity. That comes across as strikingly apparent as you listen to the words of former George W. Bush strategist Karl Rove, who has found a nice home for himself nad his far-right perspectives at Fox News (imagine that). Here is an excerpt from Rove who goes to the “arrogant” charge against President Obama. And, as has been pointed out here and by other people, “arrogant” is code for uppity.

Check out this from Fox News:

Fox News contributor Karl Rove, who was the top political strategist to former President George W. Bush, said: “This is an administration that’s getting very arrogant and slippery in its dealings with people. And if you dare to oppose them, they’re going to come hard at you and they’re going to cut your legs off.”

“This is a White House engaging in its own version of the media enemies list. And it’s unhelpful for the country and undignified for the president of the United States to so do,” Rove added. “That is over- the-top language. We heard that before from Richard Nixon.”

Rove, who was silent when many who protested the war were labeled anti-American and not supporting the troops, is basically telling President Obama to know his place.

Next he will be calling him “boy” or worse.

NAACP Press Release On Interracial Discrimination Case in Louisiana

WASHINGTON DC – The NAACP called for Louisiana Justice of the Peace Keith Bardwell to resign his post after denying an interracial couple a marriage license.

In 1963 the US Supreme Court ended prohibition of marriage due to race in the case of Loving vs. Virginia.  Justice Bardwell is in violation of Louisiana’s Judicial Code of Conduct which states “A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice.”

“Mr. Barwell needs to respect Ms.Humphrey’s and Mr. McKay’s humanity, apologize to them and the people of Louisiana, stated NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous.  “The NAACP stands with our Tangiaphoa Branch’s call for Justice Bardwell to resign Judge Barwell is clearly in violation of our nation’s laws and moral ethos”,” said Jealous. 

Keith Bardwell, a Justice of the Peace for the Tangipahoa Parish 8th Ward, cited “concern” for their children, and claimed that “most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society.”

Founded in 1909, the NAACP is the nation’s oldest and largest civil rights organization. Its members throughout the United States and the world are the premier advocates for civil rights in their communities, conducting voter mobilization and monitoring equal opportunity in the public and private sectors.