Our Trustworthy Media

The SNL spoof of Fox News election night coverage (from 11/7/09) was actually pretty good:



Still, no one can touch The Daily Show. They spoof pretty much every political talk show, in perpetuity, near the end of this sequence (from 11/3/09):

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Indecision 2009 - Reindecision 2008 And Beyond
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

If you want a more serious dissection, Media Matters has a rundown on the rise of conservative media from late October (it's good, I wish they'd pay closer attention to sound levels and mixing):

Not the Fitter "Species"

Fox and Friends' Brian Kilmeade has never been mistaken for a bright guy, but even for him, this is bad - on several levels:



I'll be charitable and assume that Brian Kilmeade's stupidity outstrips his zeal for eugenics - but this is Fox News we're talking about.

For some reason, it made me think of this scene from In Bruges (NSFW and not politically correct).

Actually, apart from the two Irish guys, that scene is not far off from Fox News, huh?

(Cross-posted at Blue Herald)

This Week's Sign of the Apocalypse

Ann Coulter will campaign for Hillary Clinton if John McCain is the Republican nominee:



Hyperbole? Yes. A few salient points? Shockingly — yes.

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)

Fox News' Progressive Attitudes on Race

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)

If there's anything Fox News loves more than liberals, it's black liberals, not to mention African-Americans in general. The same goes for gays, Muslims, and all God's Children™. Overall, the Fox News crew are a credit to their... profession.

Nicole Belle at Crooks and Liars posted on some news from New York Times blog The Caucus on 3/29/07:

Fox News Channel is announcing today that it has cut a deal with the Congressional Black Caucus Institute to sponsor two debates, one with Democrats and another with Republicans in the 2008 presidential race.

As many of you might remember, Nevada Democrats and Majority Senate Leader Harry Reid were slammed by liberal blogs for agreeing to a Democratic debate with Fox News a few weeks ago, and backed out of the deal under pressure. Liberal activists complained that Fox News was slanted toward Republicans, would distort the debate, and should be shunned. The breakpoint occurred when Roger Ailes, head of Fox News, in a joke at an an awards dinner, poked fun at President Bush for confusing Senator Barack Obama with Osama bin Laden. (Mr. Obama later said he didn’t take offense, but many in the blogosphere did.)

As Crooks and Liars notes, the group Color for Change is not happy with this development, and has issued a statement:

"The CBC Institute's decision is shamefully out of step with most Black voters, and we will continue to push on the CBC Institute to drop this deal." Rucker goes on to say, "Every presidential candidate now must decide whether to legitimize Fox - a network that calls Black churches a cult, implies that Senator Barack Obama is a terrorist, and uses the solemn occasion of Coretta Scott King's funeral to call Black leaders ‘racist.' We will be launching a petition at www.ColorofChange.org asking presidential candidates to attend the CBC Institute's CNN debate and reject the Fox debate."

Here's that petiton.

Blue Herald covered several of these developments previously (Here's the BH Fox News category). Predictably, the Republican pundits accused the Democrats of being cowards. But, as we noted in Rightwing Cartoon Watch #16:

Yeah, we all know how John McCain and George W. Bush have lined up to be interviewed by The Nation, Air America, and Keith Olbermann on Countdown.

In "Playing to the Freepers," Digby examines the crackerjack coverage Fox News provided for a 2003 Democrat debate. In "Legitimate Beef," Digby did a nice summing up and linked many of the best pieces on the defeat of the debate proposal, including this piece by Matt Stoller:

We argued that Fox News is not a news channel, but a propaganda outlet that regularly distorts, spins, and falsifies information. Second, Fox News is heavily influenced or even controlled by the Republican Party itself. As such, we believe that Fox News on the whole functions as a surrogate operation for the GOP. Treating Fox as a legitimate news channel extends the Republican Party’s ability to swift-boat and discredit our candidates. In other words, Fox News is a direct pipeline of misinformation from the GOP leadership into the traditional press.

Thankfully, Fox News immediately proved our point with a press release after the debate cancellation that made the following remarkable claim: "News organizations will want to think twice before getting involved in the Nevada Democratic caucus which appears to be controlled by radical, fringe, out-of-state interest groups, not the Nevada Democratic Party."

We luv you guys, too. Good riddance.

In case you missed it, Jurassic Pork assembled a great collection of Fox News screenshots, showing their fantastic, unbiased reporting (previously featured in The Bullshit Matrix).

Still, there's a special love for African-Americans over at Fox News. Thanks to Jesus' General for the tip — here's "Fox Attacks — Black America":



Fox Attacks is maintained by Robert Greenwald, who made the invaluable documentary Outfoxed.

Yup, fair, balanced, enlightened, and progressive on racial attitudes, that Fox News! Of course, what can one expect from people who blithely reveal their homophobia while running with a manufactured scandal on Hillary Clinton's accent? (A scandal further debunked in RWCW #16.) Why not question why no major Republican presidential candidates or politicians saw fit to celebrate the civil rights movement, as did Obama and Hillary Clinton?

As Fox Attacks shows, it's not as if bigotry and bias on Fox News comes down to one isolated incident. Then there's how they handled Bill Bennett's controversial comments back in Fall 2005 (covered here and here). You can always count on Brit Hume to thunder and bully his way about racial issues, because, as we've noted several times before, remember, the problem is not racism, it’s the damn left making a big deal out of it. Or as we also noted, in regards to Hume and Bennett:

I have to say, nothing eases my mind more than a rich, middle-aged white man assuring me that the comments of another rich, middle-aged white man were not in fact racist. Pass another wine cooler and the clam dip.

Color Commentary

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)


To continue The Chart Project, despite all those rightwing charges about a “liberal media,” it seems fairly rare to see true “liberals” on mainstream television. It’s pretty common to see a strident, hardcore rightwinger paired with a moderate and relatively civil, measured Democrat. This may be partially due to most news outlets’ corporate ownership, which tends by its nature to be establishment or bourgeois (to resurrect a seldom-used term in the States). This also may be because the United States has grown more conservative in bent in the last fifty years or so, at least in self-perception and by self-identification (although on actual policy issues, Americans tend to lean liberal). There’s also no major socialist party in the United States, unlike many other industrialized nations, but more to the point, America lacks programs such as universal health care that are common in many foreign major players on the world stage.

Of course labels such as “liberal” and “progressive” are contentious, and can mean different things to different people, even in a single country. Plus the “hawk” versus “dove” divide, as contentious as those terms are as well, is probably a more important dichotomy than any other currently in American politics, even though it’s often ignored, obscured, or just poorly covered by most of the mainstream media, who think almost exclusively in Democrat-Republican terms (as covered in ”The Chart That Explains It All!” ).

There’s also an inherent flaw with a spectrum like this, even though it gives more nuance to the normal binary oppositions of Democrat-Republican and liberal- conservative. For example, a one-dimensional scale like this doesn’t allow the flexibility of a two-dimensional grid that considers both social and economic liberalism/conservatism:


But that’s beyond the scope of this post, since breaking down where the many contemporary Republican and Democrat constituencies fall on that grid is a project all on its own. This post deals more with our two political parties and their representation in the mainstream news. (Plus, this is partially just to have a little fun.)

With all those caveats in mind, let us continue. Let’s take this spectrum bar:


And let’s say this represents the spectrum of political position from conservative to liberal, ironically moving from left to right. (This is very loose, mind you!)

(Fascist – off the chart)
Authoritarian Conservative
Conservative Republican
Moderate Republican
Centrist Republican
Centrist Independent
Centrist Democrat
Moderate Democrat
Liberal Democrat
Social Democrat
(Socialist – off the chart)

Most of the mainstream media purport to give us this sort of balance in their political coverage:


They also purport to give us a balanced, even-handed understanding of a given issue, which we can depict as so:


In reality, strongly conservative Republicans are normally played off relatively moderate Democrats:


And the media gives us something closer to this:


Really bad coverage will pair a hard-line, authoritarian conservative (“Democrats are traitors”) with a moderate, civil-to-a-fault Democrat:


Leaving us with this:


(And yes, I think it’s funny to depict the party of homophobia in hot pink.)

Meanwhile, Fox News typically pairs a hard-line, authoritarian conservative (“Democrats are traitors”) with a Faux News Democrat (“I’m not a liberal, but I play one on TV”), who acts as Centrist Democrat (if not a Centrist Republican):


Bill O’Reilly likes to pick Faux News Democrats who will agree with him, and hardcore rightwingers even further to the right than he is, so he can appear reasonable in comparison. The end result is that O’Reilly, who in his mind is always right, gives us something this:


At his most moderate, that is. Meanwhile, when a Fox News segment involves Ann Coulter, especially when Sean Hannity is involved, we normally receive something like this:


That’s all, folks! See you for the next installment!

Faux News – The McLobster of Journalism!

In Maine and parts of Canada, McDonald’s seasonally offers a sandwich called the “McLobster.” I kid you not. While these days they apparently advertise it sometimes as a “lobster roll” and “100% real lobster” (I would be shocked if that claim was not misleading in some fashion), back when I first saw it advertised in 1988, McDonald’s proudly claimed – again, I kid you not - that the McLobster was “made with flecks of real lobster!” Yes, that’s right, “flecks.” The only person I know who actually admitted to trying it was, shall we say, underwhelmed.

There’s a lot of buzz currently about Chris Wallace’s interview with Bill Clinton, where Wallace sandbagged the former President – namely, Clinton was told he was going to be asked about his Global Policy Initiative, and Wallace pulled a bait-and-switch by asking Clinton about his record on catching or killing bin Laden. Is Clinton’s terrorism record a fair subject? Of course. But it’s completely dishonest to misrepresent an interview to one’s subject beforehand. It’s also standard practice for Fox News.

The Washington Post has a brief write-up here (and Howard Kurtz is sure to cover it tomorrow). Questiongirl has the video posted here. ThinkProgress has a full transcript here.

While the Post article notes that Wallace is “not usually accused of being part of the network’s conservative commentariat” at Fox News, and he in fact spoke out against the distortions of ABC’s propaganda piece The Path to 9/11, there’s little question of what this segment was about. Besides being a typical Fox News sandbag job, its other goal is of course trying to rewrite history and paint the Democrats as weak and Bush as responsible on national security before the election.

Of course Fox has a commercial agenda as well a rightwing one — they’ve been selling this interview as “Clinton Gets Crazed!” — not far off from “Presidents Gone Wild!”

But just imagine if Clinton hadn’t responded so forcefully? Conservatives will doubtlessly sell this as “Clinton gets defensive about his lousy record on terrorism.” But I think Chris Wallace has gotten so used to Faux Dems (“I’m not a liberal, but I play one on Fox News!”) he forgot what it was like to try to sandbag someone who would fight back. (Imagine if Kerry has responded to the Swifites with this sort of fire!)

Hmm... I just caught the tail end of Wallace on Fox with Brit Hume and the gang. Wallace lifts two quotations from Clarke's book - the second one could be used to criticize Clinton's critics, but is used to criticize only Clinton. (I’ll try to get some more links up later.)

Almost all of them talk about how "touchy" Clinton was, and speculate it's because he's "sensitive" about his legacy. No one points out that Clinton was sandbagged, with Wallace misrepresenting the interview before hand! NPR’s Juan Williams and Mara Liasson make a few points, but they know what Fox is paying them for - and again, why the hell do you have non-partisan, neutral reporters representing the left on a talk show? Hume trots out some standard GOP talking points about Clinton after cutting him a little slack - basically, he and the other GOP folk acknowledge Clinton was dealt a tough hand, but also imply had he been a real man he'd still have done precisely what they were arguing against him to do at the time!

This is Fox News’ typical seasonal offering for imminent elections; same BS as usual, but piled higher and deeper. Fox News is the McLobster of journalism — if you dig through it you can find “flecks” of real news in there, but overall, it’s an over-processed, artificial sham that’ll have you rushing for the toilet.

(crossposted at The Blue Herald)

Cheney's Interview

True to form, Crooks and Liars is fresh out of the gate, posting clips of the Fox News Cheney interview. I'm sure the full thing will be on the web shortly.

Meanwhile, The Washington Post provides the transcript.

Expect much, much commentary and parsing on this subject from the blogosphere in the next few days.

I posted my immediate reaction over at Crooks and Liars:

Questions remain. Okay, I'll buy that Cheney wouldn't be thinking about the press first, but there's no way in hell it didn't occur to some of his staff, and to Andy Card and Rove at the White House. Cheney cops to the method of disclosure being ultimately his decision. Add in that the cops didn't get to interview him that night, and yes, we have a picture of Cheney doing things his way, as always, and most likely ignoring the advice of the White House. Also, was the gun modified in any way? I've read a few posts on other sites about modified chokes, which would alter the typical spray pattern. If the choke was normal, by most accounts Cheney must have been closer than 30 yards. But Cheney wheeled around and fired at a target while facing the sun? Huh? I'd like some more detail, here, too, because it seems awfully reckless. As to the leaks, Hume predictably ducks the obvious question: "Mister Vice President, did you either instruct or authorize Scooter Libby to disseminate the classified NIE to Judith Miller and/or any other reporters?" Hume asks Cheney to comment on the leak about the CIA black op prisons and the illegal NSA wiretaps, but glosses over the Plame leak - And what exactly is the VP's authority regarding declassifying material? "Mister Vice President, did you direct or authorize the leaking of Valerie Plame Wilson's identity?" "You say Scooter Libby is a good man - was it right that he leaked Plame's identity?" "Was the leaking of the NIE proper? Was the leaking of Plame's identity proper?" My god, the questions are endless, even without getting into his energy task force, the Saddam-al Qaeda claims, the manipulation of pre-war intel, thousands of lives saved by illegal wiretaps, or "last throes"... If nothing else, this interview shows for the first time Dick Cheney not quite apologizing, but admitting a mistake.

UPDATE/CORRECTION: Hume did in fact ask Cheney about whether he authorized Libby to leak classified information, although he did so in a pretty tame, indirect way, easy for Cheney to dismiss. Hume did not pose the question directly to Cheney about either Cheney's role or push him to make a judgment about the importance of the leak. Cheney went to Hume and Fox because he's a friendly face. Hume asks the question, but must know he wouldn't get an answer, and he doesn't push for more.

Honestly, I would give Hume decent but not certainly stellar marks for the interview, and almost wish there were two separate interviews for two very different subjects. For the shooting, questions remain, but the main purpose of the interview was to allow Cheney to tell what happened and take responsibilty for the action. Cheney does deserve credit for not blaming Whittington for being shot, as some earlier apologists bizarrely did. I would still like clarification on a number of points, but frankly, this is not the sort of situation that calls for a extremely confrontational interview.

In contrast, the leaking of classified information calls for just that. Cheney is well established as a liar. At the very least, any sane human being must acknowledge that he's repeatedly made statements that are questionable, problematic or demonstrably false (the Saddam-al Qaeda connection, it's certain Saddam have WMD, thousands of lives saved, "last throes," to name just a few) Cheney has repeated such statements about Saddam and al-Qaeda even after the CIA took the extraordinary step of politely but publicly correcting him. Cheney's motto has been described by White House staffers as "Never explain, never apologize," and regardless of the circumstances the man sticks by it. In his interview with Cheney, Jim Lehrer gave him a chance to correct the record yet again, but Cheney held fast to his ludicrous statement from May 31st, 2005 that the Iraq insurgency had been, and apparently still was, in its "last throes." Hume, like Jim Lehrer, poses some of the necessary questions, but when Cheney dodges them, there's not that much follow-up. Both men take a polite, respectful tact, with Lehrer pressing Cheney much more, but when Cheney offers a non-answer, an evasive answer, a ridiculous answer, or a lie, he's not really called on it. Hume may be a decent reporter - and the most balanced at Fox News - but he's made far too many partisan comments to be viewed as truly objective. In contrast, when Cheney gives a BS answer to Lehrer, Lehrer has to decide - how hostile do I get? How far can I push this? Lehrer is a great reporter, but he's also quite a civil one, and it seems for such an recalcitrant subject as Cheney, one needs more a bulldog - like say, Patrick Fitzgerald. Of course, Cheney would never consent to such an interview.

Here's the section on classified information from Hume's interview with Cheney:

Q On another subject, court filings have indicated that Scooter Libby has suggested that his superiors -- unidentified -- authorized the release of some classified information. What do you know about that?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: It's nothing I can talk about, Brit. This is an issue that's been under investigation for a couple of years. I've cooperated fully, including being interviewed, as well, by a special prosecutor. All of it is now going to trial. Scooter is entitled to the presumption of innocence. He's a great guy. I've worked with him for a long time, have enormous regard for him. I may well be called as a witness at some point in the case and it's, therefore, inappropriate for me to comment on any facet of the case.

Q Let me ask you another question. Is it your view that a Vice President has the authority to declassify information?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: There is an executive order to that effect.

Q There is.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q Have you done it?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I've certainly advocated declassification and participated in declassification decisions. The executive order --

Q You ever done it unilaterally?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I don't want to get into that. There is an executive order that specifies who has classification authority, and obviously focuses first and foremost on the President, but also includes the Vice President.

Q There have been two leaks, one that pertained to possible facilities in Europe; and another that pertained to this NSA matter. There are officials who have had various characterizations of the degree of damage done by those. How would you characterize the damage done by those two reports?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: There clearly has been damage done.

Q Which has been the more harmful, in your view?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I don't want to get into just sort of ranking them, then you get into why is one more damaging than the other. One of the problems we have as a government is our inability to keep secrets. And it costs us, in terms of our relationship with other governments, in terms of the willingness of other intelligence services to work with us, in terms of revealing sources and methods. And all of those elements enter into some of these leaks.

Q Mr. Vice President, thank you very much for doing this.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Brit.

When Christmas is Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Celebrate Christmas

Will it surprise anyone to learn that Fox News, the network which concocted the false "War on Christmas," actually invited its employees to a "holiday party?" What happened to the fight-to-the-last-man ethos that we should all say "Merry Christmas?" Why was happy, er, angry, Christian warrior Bill O'Reilly originally offering "holiday ornaments" before the web site was changed? Why have George and Laura Bush wished folks "Happy Holidays" and "Season's Greetings?" Didn't they get the memo?

I blame the liberal media.

A few stupidity checks are in order. Calling a Christmas tree a "holiday tree" is stupid, unless it's within your own home and you're definitely not Christian but you and your kids enjoy the whole tree thing (even then it's pretty silly). Insisting that "Happy Holidays" is offensive is asinine, since most Christians celebrate Christmas and New Year's and the phrase covers both… as well as Chanukah and Kwanzaa and the Winter Solstice for all those, y'know, pagans. Claiming that institutions must call "winter break" "Christmas break" is stupid, offensive, and discriminatory… not to mention, inaccurate. My "winter break" in college lasted six weeks, starting just before Thanksgiving and ending just after New Year's. Many high school kids and college kids have a week or so off before Christmas lasting until just after New Year's (see the "Happy Holidays" discussion). Yes, at one time Christians could claim persecution… back when they were being fed to lions under the Roman Empire. But does any sane, honest person believe that an American cannot find a safe haven to celebrate Christmas in this country? Who is likely to feel more comfortable during the Christmas season, a Christian or a Jew?

I would argue that, far from there being a war against people of faith, there is a concerted movement against empiricism, science, and religious tolerance. You see, atheists as a whole are not a rowdy bunch, other than perhaps the Bolsheviks in 1914, but the majority of Trotskyites now seem to be Republicans anyway (the "neocons").

So here’s the latest salvos about Fox’s faux war.

By far the funniest (but substantial) performance to date comes from Sam Seder on CNN, who starts with the premise that the “War on Christmas” is the same as the Iraq war and quickly moves to Santa’s al-Qaeda connection and elf torture. To say Seder mops the floor with his opponent is to be too kind to the hapless Bob Knight of the Culture and Family Institute. Oh, and it’s become a general principle of the blogosphere (and debate in general) that when you invoke the Nazis, you’re losing (by the way, while Seder doesn’t mention it, having Knight, a proclaimed “Christian” invoke the Nazis to complain about religious persecution to a Jew is the height of bad taste.) Thanks to Crooks and Liars for posting this gem.

But the funnies don’t stop there. Ruth Marcus penned a nice op-ed in The Washington Post. Over at the Poyter Institute, a former Fox News producer reveals the strategy employed by the station. It’s a must-read.

Bill O’Reilly emerges as the uncontested champion of boobs, however. He wins this honor with a hat trick. He scores his first point by proclaiming that he shall “bring horror” upon the “oppressive, totalitarian and anti-Christian forces in this country”... Because nothing captures the spirit of Christmas like intolerance, hatred, and threats. (As long as Bill wants to fight phantoms, can we have him go off and say, protect the Easter Bunny from the commies in an isolated bunker somewhere?)

For his second point, Bill continues to make friends by casually accusing Madison, Wisconsin of Satan-worship. I wish I was making this up. (I would be surprised if O'Reilly's ratings weren’t eroding... unless folks are tuning in out of a Network-esque morbid curiosity to see if his head will finally explode.)

Still, he really outdoes himself for point three when he claims that a school district in Texas has embraced “fascism” by banning students from wearing red and green clothing. My god, and in the liberal bastion of Texas! Could it be that O’Reilly was... absolutely wrong? Nawh! Why bother to fact-check when there are rational people to slur? Poynter’s Jim Romensko posted the school district’s response here. I’m particularly fond of the polite understatment of the paragraph:

Dr. Otto said that our attorney requested of Mr. O'Reilly that, in the future, he ask his fact checkers to do a more thorough job of confirming the facts before he airs them.

Media Matters has the video here.

The Daily Show sums up much of Fox’s absurdity nicely, spotlighting O’Reilly further here and here. The second, longer item nicely captures a deceptive attack by O'Reilly on... The Daily Show.

Meanwhile, Saturday Night Live was actually funny in a Bill O’Reilly sketch that played on his disdain for fact-checking. You can see it if you hit their website, click on videos, and find the Jason Lee episode... the segment is listed as: “White House leak... Political operative... treason... Who cares?!”

(A final, brief anecdote… in my high school, it feel to the art classes to design the annual school Christmas card, but my art teacher understandably got sick of being caught in between the administration's demand that the card must say "Happy Holidays," "Season's Greetings," not feature a Christmas tree, and so on, while the kids drawing the things didn't really see what the big fuss was about (about 15-20% of the school was Jewish, I'd say, with most kids, regardless of denomination, celebrating Christmas.) One year, my teacher decided to just post all the card designs on a bulletin board and have the school vote for their choice, democratically. I submitted at least one traditional design, but to mix it up, I also drew one featuring a meditating Buddha with the logo, "Enter into the Kingdom of Bliss." (I actually had to redraw it because in my rush I left the "g" out of "kingdom.") Most people got a good laugh out of the Buddha card, but of course it didn't win. As I recall, the winner (by administrative decree versus vote) was something bland and inoffensive... but at least better drawn than mine.)

Because Jesus Died for My Sins, Not Yours, Ya Damn Hippie!

(Hmm, slow news week. Need to fill the airtime here at Fox News. What to talk about? The burgeoning Republican scandals? Nawh! How about a manufactured crisis? Okay, it’s worked in the past, but what can we talk about? Well, it’s almost Christmas... and we know that liberals are the enemy of all that is good and holy... Hell, this stuff just writes itself!)

Neil Postman wrote in his brilliant essay “Silent Questions” that the questions we ask determine the answers we get. Check out the Fox News topic question here, as submitted to Crooks and Liars by a reader:


If you can’t read it clearly, it says, “ECONOMIC DISASTER IF LIBERALS WIN THE “WAR ON CHRISTMAS”?

I mean, come on. Pretending this question isn’t loaded and biased is like pretending Rush Limbaugh actually does research or Josef Stalin was a humanitarian. The bold shamelessness makes me laugh. “Fair and balanced,” indeed.

As Postman would note, this question is constructed to be answered with a simple yes or no; no complexity or nuance allowed here. Furthermore, the question’s weight is slanted toward a “yes” answer because in classic alarmist fashion, it poses a (fake) crisis. As with manipulative news show teasers, such as “the five signs of cancer that could save your life! The news at eleven!” this is a cheap ploy to create much sound and fury to get people to watch, in this case, idle and vapid chatter about a non-issue.

The question also presupposes several factors. The most glaring and biased idea is that liberals, apparently a monolithic entity, are waging a war on Christmas. They aren’t. (Can one even wage a war on Christmas? Postman would surely ask.)

The second presupposition is that economic disaster looms ahead. Yes, many businesses, most of all toy stores, do the bulk of their business in the Christmas season (I believe 25-30% is fairly common for retail businesses). As I recall, Christmas shopping did fall somewhat in 2001 after 9/11, but all the conservatives crow about how great the economy is now! Has there been some major article plausibly predicting economic disaster I’ve missed?

(Ah. But you see, the liberals want to ruin all that prosperity, because it will make Bush look bad! Liberals hate a strong economy. And they hate Christmas! And we are but their willing slaves unless we throw off their oppressive yoke and reclaim all three branches of government! Er, wait. Let me think of something about those damn hippie atheist teachers. That might play better.)

I know I won’t do any Christmas shopping because of those damn liberals. I’ll stay away from the stores and not even shop online just to spite them for practicing their so-called “religious tolerance," which we all know is nothing more than anti-Christian bigotry! When my mother looks at me with surprised and hurt eyes on Christmas morning, wondering where her gift is, I’ll shout, “Ask Howard Dean about your Christmas present!”

Does anyone truly feel Christmas is threatened? Sure, there may be isolated incidents of politically correct excess on the one hand, or overbearing religious intrusion on the other, but this just ain’t a burning issue. One of my Jewish roommates in college asserted that Chanukah, while celebrating a small miracle chiefly about tradition, cultural identity and not assimilating, was a minor holiday elevated to major status just to compete with Christmas (the big Jewish holidays being Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah instead, or even Passover). Still, most folks will take the care to wish Jewish friends Happy Chanukah versus Merry Christmas (or Happy Kwanzaa if they know one of the comparatively few people who practices it). What’s the big deal? I’ve never known a non-Christian to take offense at being wished a “Merry Christmas,” nor would anyone other than a zealot get outraged at being told, “Happy holidays.” Most devout Christian folks I know object to the crass commercialism of the season more than they fret over a choice of words; getting upset over a “Happy holidays” makes about as much sense as getting angry at someone who wishes you to “Have a nice day.”

(Instead of this focus on a non-issue, how about pressuring the airline companies not to jack up holiday airfare instead?)

But never let the lack of an actual crisis get in the way of hard-hitting news. Even if Fox did the “War on Christmas” story last year too, 'tis the seasonal gift that keeps on giving!

In this Fox News segment (you may have to scroll down a few), Neal Gabler make the point, citing an article by Michelle Goldberg, that the “War on Christmas” goes back at least to 1921 and Henry Ford and is a sham. Notice in this clip how Jane Hall is just yelled over (real gentlemanly behavior, fellas... a great job especially by the host for allowing it, and cutting off Jane Hall from responding to an ad hominem attack from Pinkerton). Pinkerton tries to argue that there is a war on Christmas, between the liberal media elites and the Christian masses; nevermind that you won't find a single major news outlet campaigning against Christmas! Meanwhile, Cal Thomas gets special mention not only for quipping that secularists worship April 1st as their holiday (what an intolerant, dismissive ass), but also for brazenly trying to argue that Jesus was intolerant! (Bravo. Try arguing that at a good seminary.)

The only reason to watch Fox News is those rare moments when the truth breaks through by a guest calling “bullshit” on the Fox crew. Jane Hall and Neal Gabler do just that:

Neal: ...I want to talk about the media angle because we have avoided it-it's the elephant in the room. It's Fox News. Come on-It's Bill O'Reilly, it's Sean Hannity, it's Gibson. They're demogogues who realized that in Christmas time you can-(garbled)- rouse the masses on this issue. They'll do it every Christmas. They did it last Christmas, they'll do it next Christmas.

Neal: We're at war, there's Darfur, there's an AIDS crisis and you're worried about whether people should say Merry Christmas? What world do you live in?

What makes all this hysteria from Fox News so much funnier is that Laura Bush said “Happy holidays” just last week, and the conservative commentators only seem to have caught up with this now, as the White House cards celebrating the “holiday season” arrive. The Washington Post reports:

"This clearly demonstrates that the Bush administration has suffered a loss of will and that they have capitulated to the worst elements in our culture," said William A. Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.

Bush "claims to be a born-again, evangelical Christian. But he sure doesn't act like one," said Joseph Farah, editor of the conservative Web site WorldNetDaily.com. "I threw out my White House card as soon as I got it."

Wow! Now that’s Christian! How dare you wish me well in a way that does not proclaim your religion is the same as mine!

Because, let’s face it, what the Christmas season is really about is intolerance. Keith Olbermann picks up on the ludicrousness of "Christian" intolerance as he names Fox News’ intellectual lightweight John Gibson his “worst person in the world” for 12/2/05. Olbermann explains, after discussing the runners-up:

But the winner, and this one comes with great personal pain because we were friends when he worked here and thereafter: John Gibson. Selling his new book about this phony-baloney war on Christmas, John revealed a very ugly side to himself. He is one of those people who think all religions but his are mistaken. You know, the way a lot of these religious nutbag terrorists think. "I would think," Gibbie said on a syndicated radio show, "if somebody is going to be -- have to answer for following the wrong religion, they are not going to have to answer to me. We know who they're going to have to answer to."

I'd tell you which religion John thinks is the only one that's right, but what's the difference? It's not the faith that's the issue; it's the intolerance.

Amen. I also read one blog comment that pointed out that's it rather funny that supposed "Christians" are so up in arms over a "Christmas tree" being called a "holiday tree," when it's just an adopted pagan tradition anyway: "Maybe I need to re-read the Bible, but I don't remember a big evergreen next to the manger."

There will be a lot of heathens burning this winter — Wait! Burning this Christmas! — I can promise you that! (Film at eleven!)

Bill O'Reilly, Philosopher

There are times when little commentary is needed. If I were still teaching philosophy, where we often discussed current events, I might well present the following gem of wisdom from Bill O’Reilly for dissection. I guarantee that nearly all (if not all) of my students would have been able to identify the key flaw in his reasoning. On 10/4/05, a caller to O’Reilly’s radio show posited a theory about the high rate of crime among African-Americans:

CALLER: [It’s] because of slavery. If you take someone's language, someone's history, and someone's culture, and then you just release them out into the world, you think they're going to be successful as a people?

O'REILLY: All right. But let me counter that, [caller], and you can comment on my comment. That's the prevailing wisdom in a lot of the precincts, is that because blacks were in slavery in the United States, they were never able to develop an infrastructure of education and culture to compete with the white majority. That is the prevailing wisdom in lots and lots of places. Let me submit this to you, and then you can comment on it.

My people came from County Cavan in Ireland. All right? And the British Crown marched in there with their henchman, Oliver Cromwell, and they seized all of my ancestors' lands, everything. And they threw them into slavery, pretty much indentured servitude on the land. And then the land collapsed, all right? And everybody was starving in Ireland. They had to leave the country, just as Africans had to leave -- African-Americans had to leave Africa and come over on a boat and try to make in the New World with nothing. Nothing. And succeeded, succeeded. As did Italians, as did -- and I'll submit to you, African-Americans are succeeding as well. So all of these things can be overcome I think, [caller]. Go ahead.

(Media Matters for America has the audio here.)

Wow. The thing that gets me is he’s obviously put some thought into this. He’s come up with this idea, pondered it for a while, and thinks it’s convincing — without ever spotted the glaringly obvious flaw in his argument.

Now, I am part Irish, and I know some of the persecution the Irish have faced over the years. It’s hard to conceive that early Irish immigrants were sometimes faced with employment signs that said, “Whites Only — Irish Need Not Apply.” However, PBS had a good documentary on the Irish immigrant experience, and they attributed their success to two main factors. The first was that almost all of them spoke English. The second is that, unusually for an immigrant group, the women tended to outnumber the men, and thus many Irish immigrant women (most often working as maids) wound up getting married and raising families in America. Nowadays, of course, Irish-Americans outnumber the Irish.

Now, as brutal or inspiring as the American immigrant experience can be, is it analogous to abduction and slavery? Hmmm.

The Republican Talking Points Network

(You mean Fox News? Well, sure, but besides that.)

It’s no secret that both parties have their talking points, and any news junkies will quickly note recurring phrases, such as New Orleans “dodging a bullet” or hear several pundits make the same ridiculous assertion that Bill Bennett was really decrying abortion when he made his recent thoughtless remarks. Divining the talking points can make for a fun game (of course, it works better with Republicans, as Democrats aren’t as keen on the whole lockstep, keep on message thing).

Still, I’ve been a bit surprised that the Republican’s D.C. Talkers network has not gotten more press, since it suggests a higher level of coordination than might be suspected. On 9/26/05, U.S. News & World Report’s Washington Whispers column reported:

Another Win for 'Friends & Allies'
When John G. Roberts is approved as chief justice of the United States, as expected, he can thank President Bush 's "Friends & Allies" program, which went to work on him immediately after he was nominated. The project, started by the Republican National Committee in the 2004 re-election campaign, is simple and effective: Give opinion makers, media friends, and even cocktail party hosts insider info on the topic of the day. How? Through E-mailed talking points, called D.C. Talkers, and conference calls. For Roberts, it worked this way: A daily conference call to about 80 pundits, GOP-leaning radio and TV hosts, and newsmakers was made around 9 a.m. On the other end were the main Roberts gunslingers like Steve Schmidt at the White House and Ken Mehlman and Brian Jones at the RNC. D.C. Talkers would then be distributed to an even larger list filled with positive info about Roberts and lines of attack on his critics. "The idea," said one of those involved, "is to feed them information and have them invested in us." It has even created addicts, he added. "Now they come to us before going on TV."

Some of those 80 must be ideologues eager for ammunition, but some must also be journalists (or faux journalists) eager for content, motivated by laziness more than ideology. After all, the beast must be fed every day.

Ever since I read about D.C. Talkers, I wanted to see a copy of one of their missives — wouldn’t it be fun to compare it the subsequent conservative chatter? Credit The Raw Story with getting a hold of what certainly looks to be an authentic copy of the D.C. Talkers sheet on Joe Wilson and Plamegate.

Anyone who’s followed Plamegate will recognize many of these lines. What I find particularly interesting is that the actual talking points are not only misleading in places, but inaccurate. Wilson never claimed that Cheney sent him to Niger. He did make a fumbling statement that could be quoted out of context to suggest that, but he quickly clarified that Cheney requested more information from the CIA, and the CIA’s response was to send Wilson.

I find it fascinating that whoever puts the D.C. Talkers together either does not respect their readers enough to tell the truth, or that they just don’t give a damn. I’m sure having a pundit argue a falsehood while certain it’s true makes for more convincing television than telling that same pundit, “this is a lie, but it’ll play well.” Of course, I’m sure many wouldn’t need much convincing... virtually everything Rush Limbaugh says is based on how it will play, not whether it’s true.

And who exactly puts together the Talkers? The report mentions Ken Mehlman, and Raw Story also provides a copy of Mehlman's very similar Plamegate talking points. Still, it would be surprising if Rove was not somehow involved. If so, then the Plamegate sheet would one more attempt to smear Wilson and cover his own ass.

It’s also fun to see how, after one tactic fails, a new set of talking points emerges. Crooks and Liars posts a great video clip showing what appears to be the new Republican talking points on Plamegate. The post also quotes Larry Johnson’s analysis of the talking points. My personal favorite? That Fitzgerald really shouldn’t be hounding poor Rove because, after all, everyone leaks. Yeah. Just too bad in this case of leaking for political retribution it’s both illegal and treason. (Just imagine how bad it would be if this administration hadn’t promised to restore honor and integrity to the White House!)

UPDATE: Currently, with the Miers nomination, it’s been fascinating to watch the Republicans stray from the public groupthink. I personally feel it’s fantastic. If only it were always the case. If you watch the video here, you’ll see Bill Kristol gently scolded for breaking from the herd. Tell me Brit Hume isn’t receiving D.C. Talkers... Kristol all but accuses him of parroting White House talking points, and Hume backpedals.

Updated Update: Bennett and Gibson

Back to the Bennett incident. Eugene Robinson offers a good editorial on the subject. He observes,

If he was citing Levitt's work [Freakonomics], Bennett could have said that to lower the crime rate "you could abort every white baby" or "you could abort every Hispanic baby" or "you could abort every Asian baby," since every group has unwanted, poor children being raised by single mothers.

So now that we have Bennett on the couch, shouldn't we conclude that he mentioned only black children because, perhaps on a subconscious level, he associates "black" with "criminal''?

Robinson also hosted a chat online that can be read here.

Meanwhile, Slate’s science writer William Saletan has a fantastic article on Bennett as well, exploring the actual science and research behind all the claims being thrown around about crime, abortion, and race. He also considers and quite authoritatively dismisses all the key claims made in defense of Bennett. It’s a great read. The paragraph that stunned me the most was:

So, where did Bennett get the idea? [Fox News’ John] Gibson blames "all those arguments white liberals have with white conservatives about abortion, in which the white liberal eventually defends his pro-abortion position by saying, 'Well, they'll just grow up poor and be criminals anyway.' " Really? I've heard a lot of white liberals talk about abortion, and I've never heard one of them say that.

Wow. My apologies for running with this slight tangent, as Gibson rears his insensate head again and just spouts inanity. He follows up an ineffective attempt to change the subject with an unconvincing argument. I’d only read some of Gibson’s comments prior to seeing the video I linked to in the earlier Bennett post, so I have a newfound awe for his plummeting intellect. Currently, he’s my leading contender for Idiot News Commentator of the Year (Idiot of the Year is a competitive race this year, however, so it’s unlikely that Gibson can win more than his admittedly distinguished subcategory). With folks like Gibson, I have to wonder if he actually believes what he’s saying or if he’s aware he’s bullshitting. I think he just makes most of it up as he goes along, since he seems to pull one unpersuasive lie after another out of his ass. (I expect a higher caliber of liar from the prestigious Fox News, Mr. Gibson!) Gibson seems fond of an argument pattern often employed by George Bush, the Straw Man argument, where one props up a weak counterargument to pummel, such as the idea that “some people” want to give comfort to terrorists. However, in both their cases they can’t seem to find anyone who actually holds the view they want to deride, so they just make up a Straw Man. We can further call this the Invented Straw Man argument. In a variation of the old news conference axiom that a speaker answers the question he wishes he’d been asked, with the Invented Straw Man the speaker attacks the view he wishes his opponent had. Thus, we are introduced to the mythical liberals who wish to give comfort to terrorists and abort the fetuses of poor couples since it’s inevitable that if born those children will grow up to be criminals... which would mean we might as well lower the social program spending we all know diehard liberals despise... Wait.

Since we’re talking about unfair debate techniques, it must be pointed out that I’m engaging in some ad hominem attacks on Gibson... although of course I’m not just saying he’s an idiot, I’m stating why he’s an idiot. Frankly, I think the political cartoonist approach is the best — when someone offers you hogwash, the best response is to laugh at them, the louder and longer the better.