Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Propaganda Theater “Fox News” Is Scared of Obama

By

Obama is increasingly looking like the Democrat to beat. The ever-amusing propaganda factory “Fox News” in New York City this evening highlighted the fake Obama anti-Hillary YouTube effort debunked and ridiculed here yesterday. “As attack ads go this is pretty startling stuff. … Some say this is a new low for negative campaigning,” said their reporter actor, making use of the favorite Fox punchline, the unattributed “some people say.”

We already know that Murdoch supports Hillary. Where the big dog goes his obese lap dog Ailes follows. The interesting point is that Ailes etal consider Obama worth attacking. That means they think he is a threat. And that means his campaign is gaining momentum.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. whether Obama has taken Fox out of the deep freeze he put them into a while back?  That must have really, really pissed them off.  I’d look for them to go after Obama every chance they get, just to deliver a “don’t f@ck with me” message.

    • as Deval….. What’s the plan? and can you tell me ( if you’ve been here long enough to know yet) where the men’s room is?

    • The non-reality-based community that watches Fox for anything other than light relief is not going to vote for Obama. The angrier “Fox News” gets at him and the more funny reports they run like the one tonight the more he will be helped with the activists who are actually paying attention to politics at this point. Fox has plenty of enemies, and the longer he freezes them out, the more other media outlets will write about it and create more free publicity for his campaign.

      • unless the Democrats embrace  FOX news they will not have access to the vast viewership that  FOX “owns” which is uncontestably dominant in the “cable news” network market.
        In fact, a strong argument could be made that the viewing audience of  what used to be “Network news” is well on the way out and has been surplanted by the new  so called “Fair and Balanced” venues. After the multiple “National” network “credibility meltdowns” that’s not a difficult “sell”.
        So while the far left may be jubilant in its exclusion of “Fox” from any of its campaigns, it is undoubtably a total loser to do so. Meanwhile, the right will rejoice that the left insists on its mindless hatred of all things “Fox” as well as its mindless hatred for a lot of things, I guess.
        Trying to stay “in the middle” gets confusing.
        in any case, the “politics ” of hatred is a loser.

          • IMO the Republicans will ultimately regret Ailes’s “punny” attempt to link Obama to Osama bin Laden.  As the election draws nigh and the administration fails to deliver up the man they most need to keep us scared straight, Republicans will be shown to be the security failures they are.  All those American soliders sent to die in Iraq, when they should have been sent looking for Public Enemy Number 1, etc…  So, Ailes has revealed a beautiful bruise for Obama to punch when the time is right.  I’m likin’ it.

            • can you handle it? The “real” author of “osama obama”? (Hint ..definitely NOT a republican)
              Your penalty for being totally wrong about this little piece of trivia is a $20 donation to Ellen’s Pine Street Inn  charity… what do you say? ( Charley is a good soul and will tend to the donation)

              <

              p>
              http://www.youtube.c…

              • love stuff like that.  You guys really are the dopes in the back of the classroom, aren’t you?

        • We should continue to freeze out Fox News.

          <

          p>
          Fox News with democrats sets up a perception where you have Fox on the conservative side and the MSM on the liberal side.  This is BS for a lot of reasons, like the fact that the MSM networks have more conservatives on their sunday talk shows, etc, etc, etc

          <

          p>
          Freezing Fox out makes Fox the conservative propagandist (which they are, in reality), Air America the liberal propagandist and the MSM the confused, quote from both sides attempters of balance. 

          <

          p>
          Democrats are not going to get loyal Fox viewers to vote for them by showing up for 2 hours one afternoon and lending credibility to partisan bashing for the entire rest of the campaign cycle.

        • “will not have access to the vast viewership that  FOX “owns””

          <

          p>
          Everyone has their preferred news sources, but no ones eyes are glued to one focal point 24-7.  There is no galactic law stating that people who watch Fox may never, ever watch other things in addition.  That’s just Fox daydreaming.  It is a silly mistake to think this way, but it is your to make, if you wish.

        • …FOX news they will not have access to the vast viewership that  FOX “owns” which is uncontestably dominant in the “cable news” network market….

          <

          p>
          Take a look at The Ratings Mirage: Why Fox has higher ratings–when CNN has more viewers  It’s a description of the ratings con game.

          <

          p>
          Quite frankly, Faux News never had much credibility with me, with their never ending evening shout fests, but they lost all credibility with me in about March 2001.  Do you remember the US surveillance plane that the Chinese had forced to land on one of its islands then?  I was suiting up at the gym at about 5:30AM, and the gym changing room had a TV tuned to Faux News.  5:30AM is not prime shouting time for Faux News then, so they made some semblance of reportage, and they were covering the incident seemingly forever, shots from the air, etc.  I heard one of their commentators (I hesitate to call them reporters) pointedly say that they did not have the slightest idea what was going on with the surveillance plane or its crew, but they were going to continue covering it–and talking about it–anyway.  After I stopped rolling on the floor laughing at that comment, I went to do my workout.

          <

          p>
          And that’s why I have no respect for the news portion of Faux News.

  2. I’ve been saying for months that he was the guy to beat. Hillary’s Iraq problem is a weight on her ankles in open seas. If not for her Iraq position, she’d have been the obvious front runner, but to say she was the frontrunner with such an obfuscated/wrong position on Iraq was very, very shortsighted.

    <

    p>
    If Hillary has a complete change of heart on Iraq and can do it convincingly, she may just have a shot. Well, I take that back.. she could half-ass her new position via terrible wording and maybe have a shot a la Joe Lieberman (he essentially said “no one wants to get out of Iraq more than I do” 2 weeks before the general election… and the idiotic Connecticut voters sheep bought it). Let’s hope it’s option number one.

    <

    p>
    Actually, let’s hope a real candidate jumps in the race like Al Gore…

    • I’ve got 100 bucks says that no matter who’s elected, we’re not leaving Iraq before 2012.

      <

      p>
      Why are we rewarding Obama for lying to us?  He isn’t even hammering the message, he just introduced the one bill once and since then has left it to platitudes like “Bush Administration Failure” so that he leaves himself room to maneuver if he wins. 

      • Was Joe Lieberman honest when he told the voters of Connecticut that ‘no one wants to get out of Iraq sooner than me?’ It was those lines at the end which allowed him to peel off enough Democratic support to actually win, despite the fact that they were complete and utter BS.

        <

        p>
        If Obama becomes the next President, he’s the Commander-in-Chief. If he tells his generals to “bring the troops home,” they’re going to have to bring the troops home. It’s as easy as that. So, to put it mildly, I disagree – and I don’t even strongly support Obama at this point.

    • ……….aspects that will come into play when the occupation of Iraq is pulled back will be the mobilization of the international community.  Any re-deployment and containment strategy will need broad international support both in spirit and in execution if it is going to work.  Right now, on the Democratic side, the only candidate who can pick up the phone a speak to anyone who matters (geo-politically speaking of course) with an established rapport and stock pile of pre-existing good will is Mrs. Clinton.  In a very real way she can serve as a bridge for the international community to a time when they did not (wort case) despise or (best case) distrust us.  At this juncture it is easy to get behind the person who “never” supported the war (despite voting for numerous appropriations for its continuance) because it supports an egotistical (not used pejoratively) compulsion to align oneself with someone who many view as possessing their longstanding view, or perhaps the view some wish they had possessed.  As the primaries get closer people will become increasingly concerned not with what happened four, three, two years ago but with what will happen on our new executive’s first day in office.  Perhaps in that consideration people will have less tolerance for someone with limited experience who is going to have to waste time getting to know the people he’s going to have to ask for help.  Mrs. Clinton will not have that issue.  Once people start seeing the future candidate as someone that will have to govern as opposed to someone that they like her stock will rise.  The MA model of the previous gubenatorial election, will not, in my estimation, translate to the national stage.  The Iraq crisis calls for more than just fresh air in the halls of government.

      • Right now, on the Democratic side, the only candidate who can pick up the phone a speak to anyone who matters (geo-politically speaking of course) with an established rapport and stock pile of pre-existing good will is Mrs. Clinton.

        <

        p>
        Um, I think you misspelled that name.  It’s M-r. R-i-c-h-a-r-d-s-o-n.  You know, former ambassador to the United Nations, and successful in negotiating for the release of prisoners in Iraq, Sudan, and North Korea.

        • ….the asdfing is so tired and boring, please lets not make it all the rage here in the 11th hour and 59th minute.

          <

          p>
          Secondly,  Mr. Richardson is, as of yet, not a serious contender, and in no way shape or form has the same ability to sidestep the Bush era bad will that Mrs. Clinton has.  And, further, as a former Ambassador to the UN he has a rapport with other ambassadors.  Mrs. Clinton has a rapport and relationship with current world leaders.  Very different indeed.

          • First off, your tone is so tired and boring, please lets not make it all the rage here in the 11th hour and 59th minute.

            <

            p>
            asdf is really handy when there’s no obvious subject.  It’s shorthand.  But thanks for the suggestion.

            <

            p>
            Secondly, not only did you not qualify your claim with “serious”, but I think you’re foolish to play this sort of game.  It’s a self-fulfilling prophesy that doesn’t help either party select a candidate.  Ignoring a candidate because he’s not “serious” (he isn’t joking) merely neuters him further.  That’s not a wise implementation at all.

            <

            p>
            So, for me, there are far more than 2.5 serious candidates.  I won’t ignore the others because they aren’t polling well 10 months before the primary.  I’d rather expand the field, consider many candidates, and let more than early buzz and fund raising prowess define the field this far out.

            <

            p>
            Thankee.

            • …means having any meaningful quantifiable support either in polling or fund raising.  He doesn’t, hence he is not a serious contender at this point.  Alternatively it could also mean having some quality or characteristic that distinguished him significantly from those who are actually current serious contenders.  I, personally, do not see it.
              You will note, however, I never said he couldn’t become a serious contender, but he still can’t hold a candle to Mrs. Clinton when it comes to international relations. 

              <

              p>
              My tone was indeed snarky.  Sorry for that.  I generally refrain but asdf bugs the heck out of me for some reason and my knee jerked faster than my sense of decorum.

              <

              p>

              • No one thought Dean had a snow ball’s chance in hell, either.

                <

                p>
                Richardson is a Governor, former ambassidor, former Secretary to President Clinton… his credentials extend beyond anyone’s in this race.

                <

                p>
                The reason why his polling numbers are week, more than 20 months before the race, is because people don’t know him. Are you really going to be making these “serious” comments in the state that elected Deval Patrick – who, a year before he accepted the Office of Governor of Massachusetts, had a name-recognition of about 5%?

                <

                p>
                Richardson IS the second tier. There are no other second tier candidates. Therefore, he’s a serious candidate. He’ll be invited to the debates, raise millions of dollars and have a strong chance of winning this as the free publicity comes rolling in.

                <

                p>
                Saying who are “serious” candidates 20 months before an election is rediculous and so far removed from reality that I can’t even begin to critique it.

      • First, and foremost, you might consider paragraphing more often.  One lengthy paragraph is a bit difficult to read–your comment fits more than an entire screen.

        <

        p>
        On the merits, regarding diplomatic relations, an American president gains instant “rapport” with foreign governments the minute he–or she–is elected, provided that the American president is inaugurated.  (I’d say “credibility” instead of “rapport,” but that’s another issue.)  The problem that we’ve had with the Bush administration is that they did not want to work with the foreign leaders and, in fact, disdained them, and refused to take the interests of their countries into account when making decisions.  That was the cause of the foreign rebuff of US foreign policy.  As I’ve written elsewhere, if America wants to be a leader it has to have followers, and a leader has to take the interests of the followers into account when the asks them to follow.  Bush II didn’t do that.  Clinton did–to some extend.  So, quite frankly did Bush I, Reagan, and so forth.

        <

        p>
        Regarding foreign policy, I would put more trust in the international standing of Richardson over H. Clinton.  Richardson has actually accomplished a few things in international affairs, whereas H. Clinton has not.  I suspect that your supposition that she would have more “rapport” with foreign leaders is because to foreigners–at least in Europe–she is associated with B. Clinton, who is still widely liked*–although I’m not exactly sure why–in Europe.  H. Clinton gains respect, not because of anything that she has done, but by assocation.  I’m not sure that that is a sufficient hook to hang one’s hat on, but if you do, so be it.

        <

        p>
        *I originally wrote “highly regarded” and changed it to “widely liked” for a reason.

        <

        p>
        Regarding domestic policy, as far as I can tell, H. Clinton’s few claims to fames are that (i) she has served as first lady, not only of the US, but also of Arkansas, and (ii) she chaired the independent commission on health care financing reform.  (I’ll readily admit that I know nothing about what she did in influencing Arkansas state policy when B. Clinton was governor there.)  I’m not sure that she should be lauded for either of those.  Particularly regarding her stunning failure on the health care financing reform issue.

        <

        p>
        On the Democratic side, I would probably now support Richardson, but based primarily on his resume.  I might support Obama, but I don’t know enough about his record–he hasn’t been in the US senate long enough to make a judgement, and little mention has been made of his record in Illiois.  I could not support H. Clinton for the reasons mentioned above, and for an additional reason–the same reason that I did not support B. Clinton.  She comes across as a snake-oil sales person.  Pure and simple.  So did B., but H. doesn’t do the snake-oil salesman bit nearly as well as B. did.  I guess that comes from the fact that B. was from the South, whereas H. was from the North.

        <

        p>
        On the Republican side, I could not support any of them.  And not because they’re Republicans.

    • Hillary’s Iraq problem is a weight on her ankles in open seas.

      <

      p>
      They can support a lot of weight.

  3. Obama is increasingly looking like the Democrat to beat.

    <

    p>
    Why?  Because he scores lower in polls in New Hampshire, Nevada, and Iowa than Hillary, because he does poorer nationally, because he has less money than her, because he has fewer ties to the national machine, or the machines in those states, or because he has less experience?

    <

    p>
    On the other hand, I grant that it is possible to win elections by saying the word “hope” a lot, so you may be right after all.

        • Hillary’s numbers are about as high as they’ve always been, more or less and they don’t appear to be going up. Her pro-occupation stance isn’t going to help her much in a Democratic primary. I think it’s a pretty fair assessment.

          • ….presented any objective evidence that Obama is the one to beat except your belief that it is true, which is subjectively fair but obejectively flawed.

            • I never said he was the one to beat now. I said he was steadily moving up and I pointed to a link which displays trendlines to that effect. Then I pointed out how Hillary Clinton is pretty much flat, and I said that Hillary would probably lose popularity from her pro-occupation stance. This whole thread started when an editor said, “Obama is increasingly looking like the Democrat to beat.” I agreed. Then you said that “he is increasingly looking like he might possibly” etc. And I said, no, not really. What I meant was, it isn’t a “increasingly…might…possibility.” I think fundamentally, we’re in agreement.

    • …not directly, but inferentially.  Just how much of sHillary’s popularity is due to the “Clinton” name recognition and her association with Billary, and how much is due to anything anyone knows about her herself.

      <

      p>
      Obama has an uphill battle due to the name recognition issue.

  4. On DailyKos this is front paged:

    <

    p>
    Bob you mentioned that Murdoch supports Hillary. I just don’t see FoxNews as more favorable toward any Democrat, Hillary included.

    • I think the theatrical group “Fox News” on display here — the idea that anyone can call those people journalists just reveals how little meaning that term carries — is getting worried that their side is losing steam going into 2008.

      • This is a very interesting piece, especially the last 20 seconds with Sean Insanity. It’s called Fox Attacks: Black America.

        <

        p>

  6. There are a lot of people that watch it. Even if they play numbers games with ratings, they still must be considered a serious news outlet.

    <

    p>
    Even if they have a thinkly veiled bias for conservative positions and candidates, people watch.

    <

    p>
    While candidates might want to make a little noise and impose a temporary embargo, I don’t think it would be useful as anything other than to get Fox’s attention. Best case scenario is that Fox responds by sending around a memo to their staff telling them to fake fairness a little better.

    <

    p>
    While it may not seem it to lefties like us, they do have to walk a fine line to avoid being thrown into the Limbaugh category by legitimate newsies and truly nonpartisan folks.

    <

    p>
    On the “Democrat to beat” topic, I still think it’s way too early and too close to conclude that debate. Obama and Clinton are the two to beat. Personally, I’d like to see Richardson continue to rise. I don’t think there’s any doubt his foregin policy credentials are the best.

    • see as a “biased” Fox news, I see it as pretty much right down the middle of the road.  I think a vast number of Americans agree with me hence their extremely high ratings.
      People no longer will accept listening to outright lies created by the likes of a Dan Blather et al. For some reason, the far left has a lot of problems with just the plain old fashioned truth when it conflicts with their beliefs and agenda. When it does,look out ! Their intollerance becomes incredible and the average American “sees” that quite clearly.

      <

      p>
      If you want to see blantant media bias, watch the incredibly Obnoxious Chris Mathews bully, interrupt and bludgeon his so called “guests” into the ground.Anyone who doesn’t think that an overall liberal bias doesn’t permeate the media ,in general, has either been living on another planet or been asleep for the last 5o years. Fox is a refreshing departure from the “norm” which is the main reason it has been so successful.
      Better put my helment on now and brace myself for the name calling and nasty remarks that are sure to greet this post for expressing a “different” viewpoint.

      • You really don’t need to close with an insult to the folks here. Don’t presume the personal insults and attacks. Wait for them to happen. They don’t always, you know.

        <

        p>
        And ease up on the “living on another planet or been asleep for the last 5o years.” You can’t expect to have a decent discussion if you’re going to claim to know the only truth. If you’re not here for discussion, but just proclomations, set up your own blog and generate your own traffic.

        <

        p>
        I’ve studied a bit of journalism in my day, propoganda as well. And I think there is a big difference between Rather, Matthews, Limbaugh, Fox and blogs.

        <

        p>
        Rather chased a story too hard and reported beyond the facts he gathered. I don’t think it was a “gotcha” moment where he slipped up and revealed the liberal bias that had existed for years. More than revealing partisanship, it may have shown condescension and aggravation with what he thought was dirty politics. Still, did it wrong. Waaaay wrong and he should’ve known better as an experienced politician.

        <

        p>
        Matthews is an instigator. I wouldn’t recommend anyone look to him for unbiased information. It’s not his gig.

        <

        p>
        Ditto (pun intended) Limbaugh.

        <

        p>
        The danger people worry about with Fox is that their bias isn’t admitted, it’s vigorously denied. There’s is a much more subtle bias. Like I said earlier, they have to walk a fine line because they DO want to be considered “fair and balanced.”

        <

        p>
        I do think Fox has more of a bias than CNN. I’m not sure it goes as far as some think. I think they are a bit more sensational than CNN, which I don’t care for. (I’m not making a case all republicans/conservatives are sensational and liberals aren’t. That’s definitely not true.) I don’t think Fox is pushing their agenda as hard as Limbaugh or Coulter, but because they have built a reputation as a somewhat “credible” news organization, they wouldn’t have to.

        <

        p>
        They have a following, but they have built that by playing themselves as more to the right of most media. They claim it’s actually the center, liberals claim it’s way right of center.

        <

        p>
        My honest opinion is that most of the people who have left the network news and cnn for Fox haven’t done so because they are more right leaning. I think they’ve left because they find the network news and cnn BORING. There’s no doubt Fox is more entertaining.

        • How does Anne Coulter get lumped in with Limbaugh and how does Limbaugh get lumped in with Fox?
          Coulter is an anorexic witch who has a screw loose. Limbaugh is a conservative blowhard. Fox at least tries to put on a pretense of being kinda down the middle. CNN is a
          joke. Chris Mathews should be their news director and Dan (the combat hardened Marine)should be chairman and CEO. I can’t think which is more biased CNN or NYT. They way they are all heading they will drown themselves in their own red ink within the next few years.

          • all that innuendo.

            <

            p>
            You’ll also note that Chris Matthews was one of THE reasons there was a Clinton witch hunt over nada, zippo, zilch. He’s not particularly liberal (in fact, his brother ran for congress as a Republican), but will attack anyone from either party if it’ll help his ratings – and usually not on the merits, sadly, but gotcha style.

Archives