« Ackerman to leave The Union | Main | Dream Act Jr = American Nightmare (Addended) »

21 June 2012


Earl Crabb

It's not just NBC. None of the major networks present a "fair and balanced" view of the news, and it's pretty sad when you have to watch comedy programs like "The Daily Show" to see what they aren't telling you. After Sean Hannity showed the clip of Obama saying that he couldn't change the immigration laws without congress's approval, Stewart showed the follow up where he says that he can direct the agencies involved to enforce or not enforce certain policies. Whether you agree with that or not, Hannity should have showed the entire clip so people could decide for themselves.

There was a program on the History Channel (I believe, but it's early so it might have been another channel) on the relationship between the press and the government. I was amazed at an old interview of JFK by Huntley and Brinkley. At the end of the piece, Kennedy decides that his answers on certain issues weren't quite the way he wanted to say them, so he demanded that they re-shoot those segments. Huntley and Brinkley look shocked, but agree to redo the shoot.

Finding the truth is a full time job. Most people don't have the luxury of sifting through a hundred websites a day to find it.

Douglas Keachie

"More trouble coming every day..." ~Frank Zappa~

PropagandaSoldierPhoto copy

A Facebook User

I haven't seen anywhere on FOX or RR where and when the program started? Here is an idea - decriminalize drugs and take the huge profitability of dealing prohibited substances out of the picture. Prohibition doesn't work.

By the way, NBC is General Electric company. Doesn't general electric manufacture guns? I think this angle is a more likely scenario than a liberal agenda.

Account Deleted

Bob - you are correct that we need to view all sources to get a good over all view of the news, but the stark reality is that without Fox News and the commentators and analysts on Fox, there wouldn't be any news at all about a lot of topics. I remember Glen Beck showing that the NYT wouldn't even cover the story about "Green Energy Jobs Czar" Van Jones, until he left the White House. Fox forces the other major networks to report things they otherwise would not. Remember the "non story" about "that woman", Monica? Drudge forced the story out because the other news orgs were sitting on the story. How can we have different views of a story if we aren't told the story at all?
The point about Obama and his using the Hispanic vote as a political football still stands. He kept saying he was going to "reform" immigration laws but did nothing for years. Here's a link to what he said in March 2011.
Why didn't the Dems pass the Dream Act when it would have sailed through with no problem? Why wait until now, when his poll numbers are poor to start complaining about the Rs not cooperating? Why didn't he issue this Executive Order back in 2011, when he was complaining he couldn't do anything? The conservatives' contention that Obama is a hypocrite on this issue stands. The man who was going to be different and not play Washington games has been shown to be the same sort of conniving, scheming lying thug we knew he was before he was elected POTUS.

Earl Crabb

Lying, scheming and conniving is sort of a prerequisite for climbing to the top of the heap of American politics, and Republicans aren't any less guilty. But before we get into the tit-for-tat of partisan posturing, remember that I only pointed out that all the news is tainted to reflect what the its audience wants to hear.
I remember seeing the story of Juanita Broderick by NBC's Lisa Myers only after the impeachment of Bill Clinton. It was pretty damning material, but the network shelved it until Billy was out of danger. A true example of chickenshit journalism, for sure. I watch a fair amount of Fox News in an effort to see the other side, and usually it is only the other side. So while I appreciate their presense, I don't accept their word as gospel either.

George Rebane

EarlC 855am - Bob, in your zeal for the symmetry of the middle, you imply that two side-by-side columns of America's lamestream leftwing media and the more conservative outlets would contain equal amounts of biases and non/un/mis-reported stories. I challenge anyone to substantiate such a claim. My claim is that such media are highly asymmetric in their ideology-driven reporting, and that is the point of my post.

Were I restricted to just one TV outlet and one newspaper, there would be no question as to my choices - Fox News and the WSJ, both owned by News Corp. While not perfect, these two stand head and shoulders above the rest, and the news informed public seems to agree.

Nevertheless, I continually frequent major liberal outlets to confirm this assessment and update the degree of its verity. Unfortunately, I am among the few who can afford to do that. Those with day jobs and extensive family care responsibilities cannot afford such a luxury, and therefore most are relegated to the flock of sheeple that are grist for the political mills.

Earl Crabb

Spoken like a true partisan.

Douglas Keachie

If you look at http://stateofthemedia.org/2011/newspapers-essay/data-page-6/ you'll find a wealth of newspaper readership data, and I note that the print editions hardest hit are the San Jose Mercury News and the Chronicle, where the Internet is the new King.

George Rebane

EarlC 937am - An unabashed ideologue and partisan I am, the long record on RR attests to that. I hope that you are not using partisan in its politically correct pejorative meaning.

My prime concern is that, partisan or not, my claims and propositions are not blatant propaganda to foster a viewpoint, but have a discernible basis in fact and reason.

And I want to again propose that in recent years America's 'purple middle' has become a vast ideological wasteland. Given the now dominant polar ideologies, there exists no reasonable public policy middle ground that would be productive to the public weal. This conclusion has long been held by both collectives and conservatives, even as the former continue to troll the muddled-middle with their purple lures.

Dan Henninger in the 21jun12 WSJ says it well - Only the most obtuse "pragmatists" persist in believing the solution lies in a mystical center, somehow combining elements from this ideological oil and water.

Earl Crabb

And as we have debated endlessly, there's the rub. Neither side will ever concede or accept "my way or the highway." Neither will either side ever give up their turf in a mystical Great Divide.

A Facebook User

Where and when did the program start?

Account Deleted

re: Bob's 8:55. Bob starts with a tit-for-tat and then says let's not start with a tit-for-tat. He brings up a 3rd grade sand box argument of "Billy did it too!". I didn't say no one else does it Bob. I pointed out that Obummer made a major and on going claim that he was as pure as the driven snow and wasn't that sort of person. The left and the middle of the road ate it up and the LSM reported it as fact. Well, it turns out that some of us knew the facts well before the rest of the country. The story about Obama is that Fox is showing that he is using the Hispanic vote for political advantage and that he obviously could have done what he did years ago if he really cared about the issue as he claims. The other news outlets are not reporting it. There is no "2 sides" if one side doesn't show up. "remember that I only pointed out that all the news is tainted to reflect what the its audience wants to hear." If Fox reports something and the rest of the LSM doesn't report it all, how does that square with your claim?
I started my post with: "Bob - you are correct that we need to view all sources to get a good over all view of the news" Who says Fox's word is "gospel"? Not me and no one I know, but If I had to listen to only one news outlet, I would listen to Fox and at least I would be aware of the issues and would take in mind that it was being presented with a certain slant. That wouldn't make it false. But if I got my news only from NBC or NYT, I wouldn't even be aware of what was going on. You don't need to tune into a hundred stations or web sites a day to stay reasonably informed. Finding the "truth" is pretty near impossible with some stories, but let's not start making excuses for the fact that most Americans just don't give a damn. If you spend even 1/2 hour a day watching some idiot TV show when you could be informing yourself, you are deliberately ignorant. That goes for all political affiliations and viewpoints.

George Rebane

The start of F&F is ascribed to a 26oct09 DoJ teleconference. F&F was the latest in a series of "gun walking" operations out of the DoJ's ATF and DEA agencies that began in 2006. The putative purpose of "gun walking" was to identify and locate Mexican cartel members so as to interdict them. The collateral, and some claim prime, purpose was to provide a basis for stricter gun control laws by pointing to (government co-operative) gun dealers selling guns that cross borders and abet drug violence. The latter appears to be the real motivation for launching F&F, and explains why it must remain hidden.

But the scandal and the point of the post here is that the administration wants to inhibit discovery of what really went on in F&F by denying Congress access to documents that have nothing to do with 'executive privilege' whose exercise is to protect the confidentiality of pre-policy communications between the President and his advisers. The sought for documents are not in this class of communications.

Account Deleted

re: the 3 photos. There is no information given as to what text (story) went with each photo, so the way Keachie presents this has already slanted the story. I would say that absent all other information, the Fox photo is the most accurate. Hint: the rifle is not pointed at his head, but appears to be by depth distortion in the photo. They are giving the man water, so the Fox photo tells the most accurate story. Notice I didn't say truth, because I haven't got anywhere near enough information to ferret out the truth.

Douglas Keachie

I did not say Fox was wrong, I merely lifted the image to show how easy it is to give three different views from on photo. If I were the guy with the golden star, I would NOT want the guy with the gun pulling the trigger. I'd call that a battlefield, "Trust but verify," and perfectly acceptable.

David King

Yep Scott,

Here is a black tea partier with a gun at a healthcare protest.


Here is the same man and the selective editing and call of “racism” from MSNBC.


Douglas Keachie

Given all the black on black murders across the country, I suppose this dude could bring new meaning to equal opportunity.

A Facebook User

Thank you for answering the question. 2006 and once again the Obama administration is continuing a republican policies of both the arms and silencing of the truth. Until we wake up and stop voting for the big two the people will never have a say in our nations policies because everything is done in backroom non-transparent deals. We are left fighting amongst each other in which fake US corporate news outlet is telling the truth, the answer is none of the above.

David King

George said:

"The collateral, and some claim prime, purpose was to provide a basis for stricter gun control laws..."

This is the same logic that they use when raising fuel prices to make green energy seem attractive.

Start with stupid and end up there!

Brad Croul

Here is the clip that EaRL referred to.


Watch from about 3:25 on the timeline. Stewart illustrates how Fox viewers are repeatedly being duped. But, of course, you all seem oblivious to this reality; or, you have your suspicions, so you try to do the old, "a good offense is the best defense" thing and attack other news organizations to take the scrutiny off your sacred cow, Fox News.

I don't watch much of partisan news programming from outlets like Fox, NBC, etc. I don't know who does. I watch NBC in the morning to see what the headlines are, then I head over to Good Day Sacramento for local news and weather. Then I take in a few newspapers, the Bee, SF Cronic, Union, etc. or whatever else is laying around, then there are the Internet headlines that show up in my email inbox, etc. Then I head over here to see the latest feigned outrage that Fox, Limbaugh, et al. have been trying to drum up and into the conservo echo chamber.

This NBC witch hunt is no different than the Fast and Furious witch hunt - not especially newsworthy. The idea behind F&F started with the Bush Administration. No news there. So, why the big brouhaha now? Drug dealers are going to buy guns from whoever wants to sell them, or whomever they can steal them from. If they didn't buy tagged weapons from the FBI, they would have killed their enemies with weapons from some other source (perhaps corrupt Mexican military officers). No news there.

Of course the Republicans want to work up any outrage they can in the election election season.

So, what else is new(s)?

Brad Croul

BTW, guess what was on the Today Show this morning...Fast and Furious!

Account Deleted

re: Keachie's post. "I did not say Fox was wrong, I merely lifted the image to show how easy it is to give three different views from on photo." OK, Doug - who claimed you said Fox was wrong? I thought it was a great illustration and merely continued the theme.

George Rebane

BradC 1217pm et seq - It appears that you are immune to the point of the post and its subsequent discussion. At this stage all we can hope for is that it is induced immunity and not auto-immunity.

And yes, now that it can no longer be swept under the rug, NBC is doing a lot of coverage of F&F to get their audience up to speed. This is one of the points that eluded you in the post. However, the corrective for your "So, why the big brouhaha now?" would be too long to attempt in this comment stream, since it apparently is not accessible from the above record.

George Rebane

The referenced clip in BradC's 1217pm is a clear red herring given the WH announcement. There is nothing in its extended version that turned anything broadcast by Fox News on its head. All the last part explains is that Obama will use his pre-announced 'prioritization of enforcement resources' to allow a class of illegal aliens to avoid the strictures of our immigration law.

The thing that predictably escapes Daily Show viewers and their ilk is that it was the WH that ballyhooed this purposeful prioritization through an executive order for the sole purpose of timed political gain - which is the only point that Fox News and other conservative commentators have made.

In many ways such an announcement, by the branch of government charged with enforcing our laws, is the more reprehensible because, in the face of the claimed paucity of resources, our law enforcement officer gives the fugitives a heads up so that they can continue breaking the law with impunity. Were that the case, then a responsible law enforcement official would do everything possible to keep secret the areas of minimal or no enforcement so as to continue at least the appearance of an effective law remaining on the books.

Fox News had the courtesy not to point out such a scumbag policy from the WH. My hope is that they will correct themselves.

In any event, this action is of a piece of the overall progressive plan, one of the elements of which is being carried out in Florida -

Todd Juvinall

So the Daily Show clip of Obama saying he cannot or would not do a act as asked then in the same string a moment later saying he can parse the law and do want he wants apparently does not trouble BradC. That is aazng!

Regarding FOX. They are very contextual and in my view responsible people. Hell, even their people apologize on camera when they are wrong! So, BradC, get some more clips for us would you please. I am really interested in the liberal accusations and their veracity.

billy T

I get all my news from the liberal leaders of our great Nation. This lets me know what is really going on and sheds light on the true motivations behind the lying Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. I am most thankful for the pearls of wisdom bestowed upon the listener by our insightful highly educated liberal movers and shakers. When the pupil is ready, the teacher will appear. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/21/nancy-pelosi-eric-holder-voter-suppression_n_1616490.htmlelected

billy T

If I remember correctly, it was Fox News that broke the story on George W. Bush's arrest for drunk driving as a youth just days before the election. I think more important is that a couple of hundred elected representatives from one party chose Nancy as their leader. Would you trust anyone who says "We have to pass the bill to see what is in it." And they call that leadership. While the main stream media was focused on the First Lady's Obesity Crusade, a few in the media were focused on petty things like 170 Mexicans dead and a US Border Patrol agent gunned down by guns supplied to drug cartels by our government. Big yawn, now back to the dress the First Lady is wearing on her latest vacation. I felt sad for our Commence Secretary who had some unknown health issues and crashed his car 3 times last week or so. I think it may be contagious. He probably caught it from the Lib's leader Nancy: http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/rove-pelosi-mad-queen/2012/06/21/id/443041

Douglas Keachie

"OK, Doug - who claimed you said Fox was wrong?"

"There is no information given as to what text (story) went with each photo, so the way Keachie presents this has already slanted the story."

So I slanted it so that Fox was coolest news source out there?

Brad Croul

GeorgeR, are you second guessing NBC? How do you know NBC is "scrambling" after a coverup? Maybe NBC doesn't want to have to publicly acknowledge CBS (the competition) for breaking the story. Of course, Fox will make a big deal out of it as they attempt to spin their web of negativity around the present administration. But Fox didn't uncover anything. Fox regurgitates.

Fox did not break the news of GW Bush drunk driving.

Do anyone believe NBC viewers are unable to change the channel, or that they don't read other news; and that Daily Show viewers think that show is real? The video segment pokes fun at BS Fox spinmeisters like Hannity. The segment is an illustration of, "the rest of the story", regularly left out by the spinmeisters.

What was being covered up? That the DoJ lost track of the weapons? Fire the DoJ department heads.

When you refer to "Congressional contempt", aren't you referring to the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives' Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Maybe that is "the rest of the story" here - timed political gain.

Your stated point of informing us about the outrageous behavior of NBC and Fast and Furious is also predictably heard bouncing rapidly and rabidly off other various reflective surfaces of the right wing echo chamber.

BTW, I recently found another cable news source, RT, Russian Television, cable channel 103. Fair and balanced?

billy T

Mr. Croul, NBC did mention fast and furious months ago, describing reaction to a baby announcement.http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/06/13/nbc-swallows-pride-and-lot-crow-to-report-on-fast-and-furious-scandal/

George Rebane

BradC 848pm - have a hard time extracting the point of your comment. In any event ten seconds coverage in 1.5 years, and now devoting lots of time reviewing stuff that's been public knowledge for over a year does indeed invoke 'scrambling' as the best word to describe their behavior. None of the outlets that have covered this developing scandal have had to do this kind of review.

Each news outlet attempts to promote its comprehensiveness cachet; NBC is among those who failed. Nuff said. As to who covered what first over a year ago, that is diversionary fluff, since all the heads up outlets were on the story more than twelve months ago and are not now having to take their audiences back to day one.

Ryan Mount

Privately owned (and even funded "public" ones) media business are primary interested in the sale of their product to *other* businesses which are typically advertisers. There is no, from my estimation no societal purpose for the mainstream media beyond it's entertainment value. You're gonna get more intellectual nutrition from watching American Idol.

Arguing the merits of Fox News or MSNBC or any of the mainstream outlets is pointless. You're gonna have to go the periphery of our media outlets (alternative mags/internet sites, scholarly literature, etc) to get anything of substance. Of course that takes work for the average lazy American.

Why is this? Easy. It's easy to understand.

1. Who owns these outlets and what do they have to benefit from ownership. Running life insurance ads during 24 hour gratuitous disaster coverage makes sense, eh?

2. Related to the above, you can't run stores that bite the hand that feeds you. Advertisers are not going to give you revenue if you're attacking their products and services.

3. Media coverage and scope is limited. Most mainstream outlets, ironically, do not have the budgets to send reporters all over the place. So they focus their efforts in bureaus in "popular" (see #2) topics, like the White House, the Pentagon, etc. These leads to a lack of real investigation and questioning, and makes journalist ostensibly plagiarists for elites.

A Facebook User

I will post a link again that shows the interlocking boards of the 6 major media outlets and the all the major companies/ industries that influence the content and message of their news divisions.

1) Go to http://www.theyrule.net/
2) Click on popular maps
3) Scroll down and click on the 5th map called Big 6 Corporate Media
4) Follow the connection to each media goliath and see who shapes the "news" we get

A Facebook User

This facebook user is Ben Emery

A Facebook User

Here is a good interview with Phil Donahue about the concentration of media and reduction of choice.

George Rebane

Thank you BenE for taking off the sack, and welcome back. Is there any way you can go back to your own name like you did before when you commented?

A Facebook User

When I try and log in with typepad it doesn't redirect back to the RR, repeat. So I use facebook to log in. I will give correcting typepad a shot later this afternoon. Had a break this morning and decided to get online.


The less you know, the funnier The Daily Show becomes. The more you think you know from watching The Daily Show, the dumber you are. A vicious circle.

Todd Juvinall

GregG that is so true. There are acrually people who belive the crap on that show. I never watch it, I am too smart I guess.

George Rebane

Good points GregG and ToddJ. And since we're bringing up the Daily Show again, I'll just reprise my 324pm so as to highlight the difference in the logics of the Left and Right.

Earl Crabb

I guess you Brainiacs missed Stewart's takedown of Holder and Obama last night. I remember when Fox tried to do a conservative version of the Daily Show. Nobody watched, probably because most writers on the right are humor-challenged. P.J. O'Roarke being a notable exception. Ann Coulter can be funny on occasion, but is usually too shrill and mean spirited. What makes Stewart and Colbert work is a softer approach that still gets the message across without being bloodthirsty.

George Rebane

EarlC 347pm - Were I included in the "Brainiacs", I would point out that Stewart's comedy totally missed and (purposely?) softballed the role of executive privilege which is not being violated by Congress asking for F&F documents internal to the DoJ. Congress is not asking for communications between the DoJ and the President, which is the only legitimate use of executive privilege by a President. Perhaps you do have to be a brainiac to ferret this out from Stewart's hilarity. Here, give it a try.

Account Deleted

This whole mess with F&F is becoming more and more like the Watergate Break In and subsequent cover up. The hilarity is that both sides are now using the same lines as used in 1972-4 but with a few role reversals. Even Jay Carnival is using lines lifted from Nixon's mouth piece, Ron Ziegler. Proudly, I was was for the truth then and cheered Nixon's exit and will hopefully cheer The Obscurer-In-Chief's exit as well. Nixon couldn't play the race card and didn't have the LSM on his side, but this deal is of more consequence with actual fatalities. Holder is a boot-licking quisling of the first order. How this plays out will be fun to watch. I'm already wondering who will be Martha Mitchell and have agents break into her hotel room and shoot her full of Thorozine. Eventually, there will be the need for a Rose Mary Woods to demonstrate to reporters how 8 & 1/2 gigabytes of data were accidently deleted from the White House servers. Some sort of comical gymnastics will be demonstrated and the lefties will walk away agreeing that it seemed completely normal that a person could think that 3 layers of secure govt documents could be whisked away to data oblivion by a volunteer intern thinking it was her Face Book profile. Already we have testimony that emails labeled fast and furious don't have anything to do with fast and furious. This will not go away. Obama needs to review the news clips and see what happens. "Sir, Marine One is on the lawn.... sir? sir?"

Bonnie McGuire

Here's an interesting thought. If they don't do something about this abuse of power it will get worse.


While I don't think libertarians are conservatives, here's a list of comedians/comedic writers with various degrees of libertarian leanings:

Jason Alexander (CA/NY)
Dave Barry (FL)
Sandra Bernhard (CA)
Dick Boddie (CA)
Ernie Brown (NV)
Dean Cameron (CA)
John Cantu (CA)
Drew Carey (CA)
Adam Carrola (CA)
Tommy Chong (CA)
Ozell Daniel (HI)
Paul Driscoll (TX)
Brett Erickson (IL)
Jeff Foxworthy (GA)
Chip Franklin (MD)
Kinky Friedman (TX)
Abdul Hakim-Shabazz (IN)
Kaui Hill (HI)
D.L. Hughley (CA)
Jeff Jena (MN)
Penn Jillette (NV)
Reginald Jones (NJ)
Paul Kelly (IL)
Kennedy (WA)
Kenny Kramer (NY)
Denis Leary (CA)
David Letterman (NY)
Andy Levy (CA/NY)
Norm Macdonald (CA)
Damian Mason (CA)
P.J. O'Rourke (DC/NH)
Doug Powers (CA)
Joan Rivers (NY/CA)
Chris Rock (CA)
Joe Rogan (CA)
Tim Slagle (IL)
Doug Stanhope (CA)
Rich "Jackie Vegas" Stein (NY)
Doug Stanhope (AZ)
John Swartzwelder (??)
Teller (NV)
Sheryl Underwood (CA)
Jeff Vachon (MA)
Jimmy J.J. Walker (NY)
Robert Anton Wilson
Tim Wilson (GA)

Some famous, some not so famous.

Account Deleted

Nonsense - Holder will never see the inside of a cell. It's an appealing thought, I'll admit. His track record of being a bag-holding toadie to the rich and powerful is legendary. But you don't create legends without some actual cred. He may end up like Ron Brown, but he'll never reveal a thing. He knows his strong suit is complete loyalty to those who pay him and that isn't the House. My prediction - Holder ends up being viewed by history as a clueless, but dutiful victim.

A Facebook User

Greg and Todd,

"A poll by Farleigh Dickinson University in New Jersey showed that of all the news channels out there, Fox News viewers are the least informed.

People were asked questions about news habits and current events in a statewide poll of 600 New Jersey residents recently. Results showed that viewers of Sunday morning news shows were the most informed about current events, while Fox News viewers were the least informed. In fact, FDU poll results showed they were even less informed than those who say they don’t watch any news at all."

Barry Pruett

Ben Emery: That is a great article on NPR and illustrates the strengths of NPR versus Foxnews (and MSNBC). It makes total sense, as the questions asked of the people dealt exclusively with international current events. NPR does great work internationally - far better than Foxnews, CNN, and most others (except maybe BBC). So, NPR listeners will learn more about international current events than those that watch Foxnews (or MSNBC).

On the other hand, Foxnews focuses primarily on domestic events. I would bet that a viewer of Foxnews would be far better at explaining BOTH sides of a domestic issue rather than an NPR listener. While NPR is great at international events, you must concede that their domestic coverage is highly biased to the left. Foxnews does a good job of presenting both sides.


A bizarre non sequiter, AFU/Ben Emery, since the issue was Jon Stewart, comedian, vs Realty, not NPR vs Fox according to a couple academics at a college om New Jersey most would have never heard of were it not for one study they made of folks in New Jersy. It gets repeated over and over by folks who hate FOX News.

A liberal but fair group, Pew, have a better track record for opinion polls:


Primary viewers of the TV broadcast media are no better or worse than each other with the exception of CBS News/Couric fans, who were statistically tied with National Enquirer readers for being the least informed.

Barry Pruett

Wow! Nice statistics Gregory, and they prove my point. Look at Hannity and NPR. They are almost tied overall with Hannity viewers doing better domestically and NPR views doing better internationally. It is sad that CBS/Couric viewers are tied with the National Enquirer readers. They used to be great. Surprisingly Hardball viewers did well overall.

Douglas Keachie

Fast and Furious

Nobody ever covered up like the Obama Administration and mainstream media have.

Friendly fire never happens:

"Tillman was subsequently redeployed to Afghanistan. On April 22, 2004, he was killed by friendly fire. An Afghan Militia Forces Allied soldier was also killed in the action. Tillman’s Platoon Leader First Lieutenant David Uthlaut and his RadioTelephone Operator, then 19-year old Jade Lane, were wounded in the incident. The specific details of his death and its aftermath were investigated by the US Congress.

The Army initially claimed that Tillman and his unit were attacked in an apparent ambush on a road outside of the village of Sperah about 25 miles (40 km) southwest of Khost, near the Pakistan border. An Afghan militia soldier was killed, and two other Rangers were injured as well.

The Army Special Operations Command initially claimed that there was an exchange with hostile forces. After a lengthy investigation conducted by Brigadier General Gary M. Jones, the U.S. Department of Defense concluded that both the Afghan militia soldier's and Pat Tillman's deaths were due to friendly fire aggravated by the intensity of the firefight."


Barry, don't lose sight of the fact these polls don't determine where people get their information, just that they are in the audience. In other words, it may just be that people who don't know much tend to read the Inquirer or watch Couric. People who know more tend to listen to Limbaugh than those who watch Colbert or Stewart.

In the case of the 'study' Ben cites (over and over), it was a small poll of folks in New Jersey. Who knows, the Jersey Shore cast might have been part of the sample.

Todd Juvinall

BenE, The FD poll is a non starter for accuracy and veracity. Only polling New Jersey residents and 600 to boot is too small and too local for any kind reasonable conclusion. Besides, New Jersey is a democrat state. Here is the breakout from the poll of the party registration claimed by the poll responders.
Party ID
Dem. + lean Dem. 43
ind. + unsure + ref. 23
Rep. + lean Rep. 34

If you meant to try and convince us of your partisan position you should use a nationwide poll since the networks are nationwide. I get a laugh out of all you libs who find the "poll" reflecting your bias and claiming you have none. FOX is one of many channels I watch and I do it because I want a variety of viewpoints to better understand the world and the facts. I notice you always use links to liberal and leftwing sites so I would guess that is your preference.

When it comes to viewership and listeners, conservatives kick liberals asses by a huge number everyday. The reason is because they are sick and tired of the very thing you tried to do with the FD poll.

One of the most egregious polls done by your ilk was of the military. Your ilk claimed the members of the military were not as educated as the general population and only joined because they couldn't get a job in the private sector. That was proven totally bogus and in fact the military folks were more educated than the general population. So, be more "bi-partisan" in what you allege next time.


I am a Zerohedge.com think-for-yourself man with zero respect for traditional news media (FOX, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS). I have been years without access to traditional news outlets (TV), and I feel more informed than ever (with the added bonus of lower blood pressure).


BTW, there is NOT an objective poll on this planet.

David King

From May 2011


“The couple reportedly were meeting with press secretary, Jay Carney, when, according to Sarah Brady, the President came in. She said the President told her he wanted to talk about gun control and “fill us in that it was very much on his agenda.”

She went on to say Obama told her, “I just want you to know that we are working on it. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.””

I guess that didn't work out very well!

A Facebook User

In 2003 Fox news argued in court it was their right to be able to falsify information to the public. Fox news understood what they were doing and they fought in court to lie to their viewers. Fast forward to the poll I cited before and it begins to make sense.

Opening two paragraphs of article

In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.

Back in December of 1996, Jane Akre and her husband, Steve Wilson, were hired by FOX as a part of the Fox “Investigators” team at WTVT in Tampa Bay, Florida. In 1997 the team began work on a story about bovine growth hormone (BGH), a controversial substance manufactured by Monsanto Corporation. The couple produced a four-part series revealing that there were many health risks related to BGH and that Florida supermarket chains did little to avoid selling milk from cows treated with the hormone, despite assuring customers otherwise.



Yet another bogus myth passed along by Ben Emery.

Ben, just because the story matches what you just know is true does not make it so.

George Rebane

Re Facebook User's (aka Ben Emery) 1037am - Wow! what a report. However, its careful reading reveals nothing of his BenE's assertion that either Fox News claimed "it was their right to be able to falsify information to the public", or that the network had done so.

The court arguments were about FCC policy, how stations should interpret it, and under what conditions they should be held culpable of any misinterpretations. It also lapped over to the claimed 1997 'scientific investigations' done by a couple of pilgrim journalists, and the one-sided report on bovine growth hormones they wanted to subsequently present. Fox wanted Monsanto to have equal time to counter, which they journalists rejected. Then Fox canned them.

Of course, the veracity of the fired journalists' claims have since been upheld by the enormous impact on national mortality and morbidity rates that we have experienced since their growth 1997 hormone scientific findings were suppressed, and Fox News continued broadcasting 'lies' as alleged by these court-rejected 'whistle blowers'.

A Facebook User

Let me have Jane Akre and Steve Wilson tell you in their own words.

billy T

I cannot figure out why people put MSNBC down. I watch it and it keeps me on the straight and narrow. Those shows about prisons are the best and are most entertaining. I love "Lock Up Raw." If you don't like it, you can switch to QVC or Discovery Channel. Sure, there are some necessary editing done when one enters the 4th Tier, but the show is great.

David King

Issa: Fast and Furious might have been a political operation to push for gun control


How many people had to die for this arrogant stupidity?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad