Fox News Channel: Now in self parody.

Crooks And Liars reported an interesting incident on Sean Hannity’s show on Thursday where Missouri’s Lieutenant Governor Peter Kindler (Rep) yes, a Republican, said to someone off-camera in what he thought was an off-air moment, "God, that is terrible TV,"

When one of your core audience starts calling it terrible TV, that should be setting off some alarm bells at Fox News HQ.  Unfortunately, it probably won’t and here’s why.

Long ago, when I first saw Fox News, prior to the 2006 US Congressional Election, Fox News was no less extreme right wing than it is now, but because there was a Republican President, it was far less crazy, and actually managed to come across as semi-sensible sometimes, although Bill O’Reilly was already descending into craziness and madness, and Sean Hannity’s craziness was balanced out, at least a little bit, by Alan Colmes, who was a moderate Democrat, but could at least talk sensibly on some issues.  Since they split up Hannity and Colmes, Sean Hannity’s descent has gone faster than Bill O’Reilly’s, which is kinda disturbing actually.

Nowadays, the craziness is like a pandemic.  It’s everywhere, from Fox & Friends First, through all the so-called news shows, Outnumbered, Your World with Neil Cavuto, The Five, Special Report, to all the opinion shows, On The Record, The O’Reilly Factor, Hannity & Red Eye, there’s no escape from it.  Well, there is one, Shepard Smith Reporting.  It’s not an entirely crazy free zone, but there is far more sanity in that programme, than there is anywhere else on the Fox News schedule.

The channel has gone from semi-sensible, to a complete crazy, bouncing-off-the-rubber-walls self parody, and whilst it remains successful in TV ratings terms, the rest of the conservative media that feeds off it, is doing less well, and eventually, those problems may come to affect Fox News as well.

One of the biggest signs that Fox News may end up falling like the rest of the Conservative Media, is what is happening currently to the biggest name in American talk radio, Rush Limbaugh.  For years, Rush Limbaugh was the biggest thing in the Conservative Media, way bigger than Fox News, with way more listeners, and way more impact than Fox News has ever had.  Even in 2012, it was reported that Rush LImabugh had over 15 million listeners, compared to the 3 million or so who watch Fox News. 

But in 2012, the descent into madness that Rush Limbaugh had been going through since 2003, hit home to most of the American public, with a commentary Rush did on his show on February 29th 2012, yes, on leap day, when Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke, a student who had given testimony to a congressional comittee, a “prostitue” and a “slut”.  How appropriate that on Leap Day, Rush Limbaugh jumped the shark.

Since that day, a campaign has been underway to get Rush Limbaugh off the air, by informing sponsors and advertisers that they’re advertising on his show, and advising them to pull their sponsorship and their adverts.  And this campaign isn’t just focused on the national advertisers, but on the local advertisers on each of the stations that takes The Rush Limbaugh Show. 

The campaign, known both as Stop Rush and Flush Rush, has had a major impact.  Rush’s show lost stations quickly in the aftermath of the Sandra Fluke controversy, and has continued to lose stations since, with rumours of Chicago talk radio powerhouse, WLS AM, about to drop the show, being merely the latest in a long line of stories about stations dropping the show.  The show once aired on over 900 stations, now it’s more like over 500, and even then, in some markets, it was dropped by the major news/talk station and picked up by a smaller one.

Of course, there are problems with trying to shame advertisers away from Fox News Channel.  For instance, Fox deals with its own sales for all of its national television operations, so you can’t go after Fox News Channel on its own, you have to go after all of Fox, which might be more difficult to do given they have some of America’s most popular programmes on their network.

On the other hand, given now that Roger Ailes now runs the local stations side of the Fox Television operation, as well as Fox News and Fox Business, that might give an opening to say to advertisers, you are advertising on Fox’s news output, and hurt Fox News that way, especially if backed with a boycott of said companies and products. 

Perhaps the more lucrative angle here, is going after cable companies.  Fox News is distributed by cable companies and satellite broadcasters, so the best way to starve it of cash, maybe by not buying the packages it is in.  Where it is in basic TV packages, then write in campaigns should be used to persuade cable companies that there is a large market out there for a package that doesn’t include Fox News, and that both it and Fox Business should be pushed to a higher level package, so that if people don’t want to pay for it, they can avoid paying for it, or indeed, drop it altogether. 

The more people highlight the controversial stuff that Fox News spreads, the lies, the propaganda, the craziness and the complete and utter contempt for the real world, the more likely it will be that advertisers and cable companies, will slowly drop Fox News or move it to higher end packages where it will have less subscribers and less revenue. 

We can’t shame Fox News themselves, they have no shame, they are completely shameless.  So others who pay for them, must be persuaded not to pay for them.  TV is the only industry where you are forced to pay for products you don’t want, don’t watch and never will watch.  Would Fox News be able to survive on it’s revenue it would get if those who wanted it, had to pay a separate subscription to get it?  It’s not certain that it would, after all, television is an expensive business. 

Quick Viewpoints: Tuesday 13th January 2015

A few quick thoughts from the Viewpoint OpsCentre…

Facebook are presenting warnings on the front of videos that contain violent imagery, making them the only videos that don’t autoplay.  Apart from having all videos not autoplay automatically, there should be a warning on videos that will actively reduce your IQ by a few points…

A bitcoin entrepreneur who renounced his US citizenship to avoid paying taxes, is now unable to re-enter the US, because he doesn’t have enough ties to his new home country of St Kitts & Nevis.  Tragic irony, or poetic justice?  You tell me…

Ireland’s Director of Public Prosecutions is to appeal the four-year sentence, with the last two years suspended, handed down to a Co Donegal man found guilty of dangerous driving causing the deaths of eight people.  I should think so too, that sentence is a travesty of a sham of a mockery.  Human life should not be so poorly valued.

Nigel Farage made another Fox News appearance to say there are no go areas for non-muslims in France, just days, after another pundit said Birmingham in England had no non-muslims.  Heck, he’s making more appearances on Fox News than he has cast votes in the European Parliament…

Far Right UK Parties - Worth worrying about?

I was busy minding my own business reading round the various internet sites, and I happened to be reading Daily Kos, when I came across this diary about Far Right extremist politics in this country.  Now I have discovered that this diary is an American's viewpoint on our Far Right politics, and it makes some sense, and is mostly pretty accurate, but for the authoratative viewpoint on UK Far Right politics, you have to ask someone who actually lives in the UK and writes about the political scene, amongst other things, and round here, well, that would be me.

It was a fascinating piece of writing, but the one thing that shines out from it to my eyes, is the fact that because the Republican Party in the US has veered to the extreme right in more recent years, there's always a lot more fear about right-wing extremism in the US than there is in the UK.  In some ways, it reminds me of the fear over Commmunism that we saw in the US back in the 1950s, with the McCarthy witchhunts.  The EDL, BNP and the National Front along with UKIP are the current incarnations of far-right wing politics in this country, a history that pre-dates the Second World War.

In fact, we go all the way back to 1902, and to an organisation called the British Brothers League.  The league was formed as a response to waves of immigration from Eastern Europe which had been going on since 1880.  It's weird, a lot of the debate on immigration now is over immigration from, once again, Eastern Europe.  History does have a way of repeating itself.

Initially, the League was only interested in keeping "Destitute Foreigners" out of England.  Later on, that slowly changed to the more familair refrains of anti-semitism.  Although the league claimed to have 45,000 members, no membership fees were ever taken.  It was mainly a London based organisation, and although it disbanded in 1923, it left a legacy of far-right support that would be used by Oswald Mosley later on.

The next organisation to come out of the woodwork, was an organisation known as The Britons.  Formed in 1919, by now we have the classic anti-semitic, anti-immigrant extreme right wing organisation.  The organisation published extremist propoganda under the label of The Judaic Publishing Company, and later The Britons Publishing Society.  The organisation was dormant during World War 2, though it continued to exist until the late 1940s.

1923 may have seen the disbanding of the British Brothers League, but another organisation was ready to take it's place.  This one was known as British Fascisti, later on The British Fascists.  Despite their name, their inital motivation was more fear of left wing politics, than actual fascism.  There is historical evidence to back this.  Back in 1922, the Conservative Party had won an election under Andrew Bonar Law, who was already an ill man at this time, having previously stood down as Conservative Party leader the previous year, despite the fact that David Lloyd George, a National Liberal, had been the Prime Minister until the 1922 election.

Labour, a relatively new political force at the time, having been formed in 1900, were now starting to have an electoral impact.  They'd won 142 seats in that election, up from the meagre 57 seats they'd won in the 1918 election.  Labour, under Ramsay MacDpnald, had become the official opposition for the first time in their history, overtaking The Liberal Party under Herbert Henry Asquith, a different Liberal party to the National Liberal Party, who had splintered from The Liberal Party, who had been in coalition with the Conservatives. Some on the right wing say the growth of Labour as a threat, hence why British Fascisti was created. 

Strangely enough as well, The British Fascisti were heavily influenced by the Boy Scout movement, as many of the initial members of the British Fascisti had been Boy Scouts in their childhood, and wanted to "...uphold the same lofty ideas of brotherhood, service and duty...".  It seems an unlikely mixture for creating what would be a breeding ground for one of the most famous fascists outside of Oswald Mosley.  The man who later became Lord Haw Haw, William Joyce, was a member of the British Fascisti, after having been attacked, he claimed, by a Jewish communist whilst stewarding a Conservative Party meeting in 1924.  He would later leave The British Fascists to join Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists in 1932.

The British Fascists were declared bankrupt in 1934.  By this time, The BUF had established itself and was the major force of fascism in the UK.  However, on the political scale, they were miniscule compared to the mainstream parties of the time, Conservatives, Labour, Liberals and National Liberals.  Even amongst the extreme right, the BUF might have been the most well known, but there were other organisations espousing various ideas of fascism, and fighting between rival groups, was not uncommon.  The Imperial Fascist League, which had formed in 1929, had a rivalry with the BUF.  Although the British Fascists, the BUF and the IFL had discussed mergers, they could never agree to work together, and merge their limited memberships.

Ultimately, this early history of Fascism in the UK is as instructive as it is interesting.  There is an almost tribal mentality to these organisations.  Some people did move between organisations but generally, most stayed loyal, almost to a fault, with the organisation they joined.  The same is also true today.  The BNP, the EDL and the National Front may be the extreme right parties and organisations that most are familiar with, but there are and have been a number of minor far right parties and organisations, including The British Freedom Party, Britain First, The British Democratic Party, British People's Party, The Christian Council of Britain, England First Party, the White Nationalist Party, the Nationalist Alliance, and many other organisations, some of which have been and are organisations that splintered off from the BNP.

Whilst the BNP and the National Front have been the most successful in terms of electoral success, both are so far behind the mainstream parties, that their successes are rather limited really, in the grand scheme of things.  So, is there anything to worry about in regards to the EDL, the BNP and the National Front?  It's very unlikely that there is anything to worry about.  Most of these organisations do not garner much in the way of support outside of their base, and they are so far away from where the majority of the British public politically reside, the political centre, where ultimately elections are won, that the likelyhood of any group getting the necessary votes to get more than token representation in anything beyond local council level, is so small as to render it almost impossible. 

This is down to the way our electoral system works.  First Past The Post is a simple, most votes wins system.  One person, one vote, just a single cross on a piece of paper, and the candidate that gets the most votes wins.  No requirement to get more than 50% of the votes cast in a single constituency, and no complex ranking of candidates by order of preference.  Smaller parties like UKIP, The Greens, even the Liberal Democrats at one stage, complained that the system kept smaller parties out.  And whilst the system does keep some minor parties out, the flipside of that, is that it also tends to keep the BNP and National Front out as well, because to win in any constituency, you need a large concentration of support for your party within that constituency.  One of the reasons the Greens rarely win seats, is because their support is thinly spread across the country, where as pockets of BNP support have sprung up in certain areas, and that's why the BNP has won some council seats in the past, although in the last local elections in May, the BNP lost all the seats they were defending.

And Fox News lending support to the EDL isn't as big a deal in this country as it might seem.  Fox News reaches over 3 million people each week in the USA, around about 1% of the population overall, and is the most watched cable news channel in the US.  Fox News Channel is also shown in the UK.  However, they reach no more than 200,000 people each week in the UK, far less than 1% of the 60 million people that live in the UK.  In terms of people watching news channels in the UK, BBC News leads the way with over 9 million watching each week, Sky News comes next with over 5 million watching each week, and editorially, although owned by the same company that owns Fox News, Sky News is far less right wing that Fox News, mainly due to neutrality regulations that are in place for all broadasters broadcasting from the UK.  Outside of the two main news channels in the UK, Fox News is watched by less people than watch Al Jazeera, or Russia Today, or even EuroNews.  Fox News active support of the EDL is actually causing viewers of Fox News in the UK to change channels.

There is one other reason why it is unlikely that we will see Fascism rise up, and it comes from history and the UK's response to the force that wasthe countries known as "The Communist States".

Communism really first came to prominience in the 19th century with the publication of The Communist Manifesto in 1848, a document written by Karl Marx and Frederich Engels.  Their "communism" was a form of socialism that sought to end capitalism, and the systems that they believed were exploting workers.  It was this basic idea that brought down the Czars in Russia in 1917, and formed the basis for the Communist state that was The Soviet Union until the 1990s.

Communist Parties began forming all over the world.  1920 saw the formation of the British version of the Communist Party.  The US response was best categorised by what happened in the 1950s, and the phenomenon that was McCarthyism.  Joseph McCarthy was a Wisconsin Republican Senator, who led a Senate commitee into the infiltration of American Communist Party agents into the Government.  His over-zealous interrogations of suspects, and demagogue-like attitude, led to him making wild, unsubstatiated accusations against people who were not guilty of any such misdemeanours.  Such McCarthyism is still used today by the Republican Party to call people unpatriotic, or question the morality of an opponent in a political debate.

But in Britian, instead of being scared by '...reds under the bed...', the British establishment gave it little credence or indeed thought it much of a threat, despite the fact that in 1945, 2 Communist Party candiates had been elected as MPs.  Both lost their seats in 1950, and the party began a slow, gradual decline eventually dissolving in 1991, just after the collapse of the Soviet Union.  A splinter group left the main party in 1988, and formed a new Communist Party which still exists today in the UK, however, the membership has never gotten to the 1000 mark.


So, when it comes down to the likes of the British National Party, the English Defence League and the National Front, they are small parts of a small movement, that is significantly splintered between over 15 different organisations already.  These various splinters are like individual tribes, struggling to work together for a common cause, because one tribe feels that another's slightly different viewpoint on something means they are less true to the cause or less pure. 

Two quotes for me sum up my feelings on this, and I have added particular emphasis to the parts that speak most on this subject..  First comes from the Inaugural Address of President Franklin D Roosevelt in 1933...

"...This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance..."

...and the second comes from Edward R Murrow from his See It Now programme in 1954, talking about McCarthyism...

"...We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men..."

(Cross posted on my Daily Kos diary) 

US Election Analysis and Coverage.

This election cycle in the US has been the most divided and one of the closest in recent memory, certainly the closest since 2000.  But an improving economy and the most unwelcome of October surprises in Hurricane Sandy, handled brilliantly by President Obama, may have swung the election away from Mitt Romney.  Obama had the easier path to 270 anyway this year, and Mitt Romney looks like he has had just too much to do to turn it round.

However, don't expect the declaration of the winner to be made by 11pm ET / 4am GMT.  This will be a lot closer than the 365 to 173 electoral college votes that we saw in 2008.  Indeed, it's quite possible that Mitt Romney may get more votes overall, but lose the election due to the particular quirks of the US election system.  I am fully expecting the declaration of the winner, to come after Midnight ET, maybe closer to 1am ET.

However, just as interesting as the final result, is just how many people will vote for the third party candidates, as two debates featuring only the 3rd party candidates have aired or are about to air on RT America, one of those debates was actually produced by online TV operation Ora TV with Larry King, former CNN host moderating.  RT America can be seen by over 50 million people in the US, which is still far less than CNN, Fox News and MSNBC, who can all be seen by at least 200 million people, but still means that candidates that have not been seen on more mainstream media outlets, have gotten more exposure this time around than in previous years.

Also, likely to possibly change things around a bit this year, is the Occupy movement, which the right wing media have done their best to downplay or ignore, calling it a spent force or a dead movement.  Now, by contrast, nobody has refered to the Tea Party movement on the Republican side as a spent force, which says to me that the Republicans are genuinely scared of how the Occupy movement could have a major impact on the political scene, especially after the movement changed the discussion framework of the debate on government spending in the US in 2011. 

Another factor that could be an issue is Roseanne Barr.  Whilst the actress and comedienne was unsuccessful in getting nominated for the Green Party, she has used her twitter feed to actively campaign on Green Party issues, to her over 174,000 followers.  It does mean that we are in for a much more interesting time in this election cycle, rather than just who's gonna win.  With Ron Paul backing Gary Johnson, the Libertarian party candidate, it will mean that there are more stories in this election than in 2008.  The only story in 2008, was how much Barack Obama would win by, it was that obvious. 

There will be a lot of coverage of course, on TV and radio, across the world, as this story has global impact.  In the UK, the BBC will have coverage on both radio and television.  Radio 5 Live will start the ball rolling at 10pm GMT / 5pm ET, with Richard Bacon hosting coverage for 8 hours, with 5 Live Breakfast taking over at 6am.  Radio 4 will also have coverage, anchored by James Naughtie and Bridget Kendall, until 6am when the Today programme will continue the coverage.  BBC1 and BBC News Channel will have coverage starting at 11.35pm, and continuing into Breakfast.  Outside of the BBC, ITV is anchoring its own coverage also starting at 11.35pm and going on into Daybreak.  Commercial radio however, doesn't seem to be covering it outside of news bulletins.  LBC, the UK's only news/talk station, has no speciall coverage planned as I write this, although I expect the overnight hosts will talk about it, with a full roundup expected in The Morning News with Susan Bookbinder at 6.30am.

Satellite viewers can expect to find a lot of coverage.  One of the more unexpected sources this time is PBS America, who are airing the live PBS NewsHour coverage from Gwen Ifill and Judy Woodruff, starting at 11pm GMT and going on until at least 5am.  Sky News are starting their coverage at 10.30pm, and going on until 9am.  Bloomberg's coverage starts at Midnight and runs until 5am.  CNBC is providing their own coverage after the live NBC Nightly News at 11.30pm, and the coverage goes on until 7am.  Al Jazeera's coverage runs from 9pm to 7am, whilst FOX News Channel's coverage starts at 11pm and goes on until 10am.  But CNN International take the award for the most coverage, starting off at 11am, including a special hour long edition of Amanpour at 8pm, switching to a simulcast of CNN USA at 9pm until 7am, when they resume coverage until 3pm, when they switch to a modified normal schedule, with an additional hour of International Desk at 5pm.  Although Piers Morgan Tonight is scheduled for 11pm, I expect that to be replaced with an edition of World Report from Hong Kong.

Over in Ireland, TV coverage is the order of the night, as radio seems to be giving live overnight coverage a wide berth.  Neither RTE Radio 1 nor NewsTalk have any scheduled coverage outside of daytime and news bulletins.  NewsTalk's George Hook is presenting his drivetime programme, The Right Hook, from America all week, but there is no overnight coverage scheduled.  On television RTE 1 has their own anchored coverage from 11.35pm until 3am, then they join CBS News for their coverage at 3am, switch to EuroNews at 7am, before RTE return to their own anchored coverage at 8am until 9.40am.

TV3 on the other hand, are doing something weird.  Undoubtedly, the story will feature in the regularly scheduled Tonight with Vincent Brown at 11pm.  TV3 will join CNN's live coverage at 2am until Ireland AM starts at 7am.  However, betweem Midnight and 2am, TV3 are showing Psychic Readings Live.  I don't need to be psychic to know that TV3 will basically have given RTE the ratings victory in that timeslot.  Also, Ireland AM is not known for its news coverage, so that could be an interesting programme.

As we get closer to Election Day in the US, I will be finding out more about how other broadcasters around the world will be covering the story, and I will update the blog with those details as I find them.  Also, if I get any word on internet streams of coverage, and I expect there to be such streams from Politico and Democracy Now amongst others, then I'll bring that information to you as well.  On the night, I myself will be live tweeting on @cityprod.  It should be a fascinating night.

Viewpoint News Roundup: Friday 16th March 2012

Fishbowl LA: Rick Santorum is planning a war on hardcore pornography, whilst his supporters in the bible belt are the most regular viewers of internet porn.

Can you say "hypocrites"???

Huffington Post: Osama Bin Laden may have been crazy and fundamentalist, but he wasn't stupid. Al Qaeda's leader disliked Fox News Channel and wasn't planning to send them any tapes either.

Interesting quotes here. "...As for Fox News let her die in her anger...", and "...Fox News Channel, which falls into the abyss as you know, and lacks objectivity, too." It's always strange how people cannot see their own lack of objectivity, but can see it easily in others.

NHK World: It seems that whilst Takeshi's Castle continues to get aired on Challenge, Takeshi Kitano's newest project will start airing on NHK World in April.

Takeshi's Art Beat seems to be a somewhat personal look at arts and artistic pursuits. Should be interesting.

EuroNews: German Chancellor Angela Merkel may be safe, but a snap election in Nordrhein-Westfalen will be a big test of her popularity, as voters seek to replace the SPD/Greens coalition that fell apart.

Interestingly, one of her own ministers is standing in that election, but says he won't leave his national role if the CDU loses. That kinda complicates matters.

Neil Cavuto: John King was right to ask the question.

I don't normally agree with the FOX News hosts a lot, but I do agree with Neil Cavuto on this.

Lou Dobbs leaves CNN

In his final edition of “Lou Dobbs Tonight”, the former business anchor spoke about his decision to leave the network he was a founding member of back in 1980.

There has been lots of speculation about Lou going to Fox News or Fox Business, but I do remember previous speculation about him making a run for Congress at some stage.  It could well be that he might make a run for a congressional seat, not sure where.  Alternatively, he may turn up somewhere completely unexpected.

Lou Dobbs has a radio show, so he won’t be leaving the air entirely.  It’ll be interesting to see what his next move will be.

Rachel Maddow: Why Fox News is not news.

Due to a personal situation, I haven’t been keeping up with things as much as I should have, but I’ve just spotted this commentary from Rachel Maddow about a week ago.

Actually, I call it a commentary but it’s the best piece by piece reasoning as to why Fox News Channel is not a news channel, but a political action group.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Murdoch claims independent journalism threatened by "dominant" BBC.

So James Murdoch, the head of NewsCorp in Europe, says a dominant BBC damages independent journalism in the UK.

The hypocrisy of that statement is positively drooling out of his mouth even as he says it.

NewsCorp has never been interested in independent journalism. All they are interested in is making sure that the conservative viewpoint is the dominant viewpoint. All other viewpoints are to be disparaged, dismissed, and generally made fun of. To them, there is only one truth, the one they manufacture to fit their own prejudices, whether it happens to fit the facts or not.

It gets better! Giving the MacTaggart lecture at the Edinburgh Television Festival, he said "The expansion of state-sponsored journalism is a threat to the plurality and independence of news provision."

He said this with no sense of being a hypocrite, no sense of irony, seemingly no sense of anything. If he had, he wouldn't have said what he said.

News provision has been dominated by conservative media over the years, especially in newspapers. UK newspapers are predominantly conservative in political bias, and that bias has been getting steadily more pronounced over the years, especially since the 1990s.

Broadcast news has less choice, with BBC, Sky and ITN basically dominating the market, and no other provider really stepping up to the plate since the demise of BSB back in 1990.

NewsCorp really wants to dominate news provision over here, in the way that FOX News Channel dominates cable news in the US. They see the BBC as a barrier to that kind of dominance, a barrier that doesn't exist in the same way in the US.

There's another fact that renders his statement factually incorrect. You're reading it. A blog. There are millions of them, across the world. There is also Twitter, which I consider to be the digest version of the blog. Tweets of no more than 140 characters, meaning you have to be very concise with your text.

If I were to tweet this, it would come out something like "Murdoch says BBC threatens independent journalism. Massive hypocrisy, blogs and tweets are the new independent journalism." That comes out at 123 characters. You'd be surprised what you can say in 140 characters or less.

Blogs and tweets are the new independent journalism that anyone can do, and best of all, anyone can read you. My own blogs and tweets have been followed and read by state governments, multinational companies, broadcasters, and politicians. I can't pretend that I am a major influence, but it is fascinating to know these people are interested enough in what you write to read it.

So you see, it just goes to prove that James Murdoch's statement was not only factually wrong, but way behind the times. Sky is not the new kid on the block anymore. There are media moguls a plenty out there on the web, and some of them may well be the next Rupert Murdoch in the next 10-20 years.

Bill O’Reilly on George Tiller, in his own words.

This video is embedded in reference to the commentary given by Keith Olbermann about the lack of hubris from Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly.  This is what O’Reilly said, in his own words, in his Talking Points Memo segment.  It is as sickening as it is egotistical.

Time to say no to biased media

You mean like Fox News Channel?

This seems to be a bit of a problem for FOX as they advertise something called “The FOX Nation” that will be launching on 30th March 2009.  The trouble is they leave themselves wide open to an accusation of hypocrisy.

Fox News Channel = Biased Media.  Talk Radio = Biased Media.  Both are HEAVILY Conservative, yet they seem to think otherwise.  They seem to think they’re “Fair and Balanced”.  Yet they have a predominacne of Conservative voices and no Liberal voices at all, at least not on the TV channel. 

If FOX want to practice free speech, then maybe John Moody should stop sending out his daily talking points, and they should ACTUALLY report some real news.  Then he could actually have a liberal host their own daily show on the network, so that both sides get free speech on the network. 

I won’t hold my breath waiting for this to happen.

Fox News’ Megan Kelly vs Britney Spears??? Watch out for the claws!!!

On Fox News Channel’s American Newsroom today, there was a segment in which anchor Megyn Kelly called out Britney Spears for the video to her new song “If You Seek Amy”.  This comes after Kelly put the song in her “Kelly’s Court” segment back in January, because she claimed the title was just “the F word” spelled out in disguise.  Having gone through it several times, and read through the lyrics, if it is the case, and it is a reasonable probability, then I think it’s actually two words that she’s saying.  The F word that Megan refered to, and the last syllable of “Amy”.

However, Britney has referenced the previous America’s Newsroom segment in her music video, by using a programme name, set and anchor that bare a passing resemblence to Megyn Kelly.  She probably found out about the segment and decided that a piss take would be a bit of fun.

Of course, Megyn, like all the other Fox News actors and actresses, goes totally overboard, calls Britney out, invites her on the show, then goes all catty, meowing to the camera and baring her claws.

Stop being so bloody predictable!  The song was obviously an attempt to draw some publicity, and the video as well, and it’s worked.  A little free publicity and she’ll get that song to the top of the Billboard Hot 100 in no time flat.  Not sure that this will have the same effect over here for the UK Number 1 spot.  But we’ll have to wait to find out.  Maybe she’ll just create another controversy over here, though I couldn’t guess on which show she’ll create it on.

Anyway, here’s the segment from America’s Newsroom…

Fox News demostrates the worst of press release journalism

Both NewsHounds and Media Matters for America highlight a recent example of the worst example of "press release journalism" that I have ever seen.

If you don't know what I mean, Press Release Journalism is simply taking a press release that some company has put out, and basically publishing it without any form of counterspin or criticism or equalisation. Most newspapers do this to a greater or lesser degree. Most of the time, it is free advertising for whoever put out the press release. But at its worst, say when a political party, political organisation or pressure group is the beneficiary, then it is nothing less than allowing propoganda and bias to go unchecked.

Well, the beneficiary of this particular piece of lazyness was the Senate Republicans, who put out a press release and Fox News dressed it up and presented it as their own research. But the reason this one was so easily spotted, was the fact that there was a typo in the press release, giving an article date as 12/19/09 instead of 12/19/08. Now that would not have passed even the most cursory of checks. So it would seem that Fox News didn't even check the press release over at all, before using it, cos their graphics department re-used the same text from the release as part of their full screen graphics, typo and all.

NewsHounds says this proves that Fox News is in the GOP's pocket. Media Matters says it's lazy journalism. I say that it is in fact both lazy press release journalism, and inherent republican bias at Fox News. Shame on you, Fox News Channel!

Glenn Beck leaves Headline Prime for Fox News sub prime!

Am I the only one here who thinks that Glenn Beck is making a big mistake?

I can honestly say I dislike the guy's views on a lot of things, but I got a gut feeling in the pit of my stomach that says Glenn Beck just made the biggest mistake in his media career.

Basically,the story is that Glenn Beck is leaving his show on Headline News and going to a new show on Fox News. This story has been reported by my usual sources for US media news, ICN and TV Newser.

But here's the part I don't get.

Glenn Beck has a quite successful show on Headline Prime at 7pm ET and 9pm ET. He stands out amongst the other shows and whilst I often find myself disagreeing with him on a lot of things, he does appear as a stand-out amongst the rest of the Headline Prime output.

Now, put him in the 5pm ET slot that we understand he is to fill at Fox News.

First of all, it's not even a prime time slot, as referenced by the ratings that TV Newser reports. You might call it a sub-prime slot, just like the slots on either side.

Second, you look at the class of anchors and presenters that are going to be all around him. He said it himself...

..."I am thrilled and profoundly humbled to have the chance to bring my program to FOX News. Expanding my audience is exciting, but I'm really looking forward to joining Mr. Ailes and his world-class team."...

It is a world class team, with tons of experience.

Neil Cavuto, Shepherd Smith, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Alan Colmes, Greta Van Susteren. None of these people are broadcast novices. All have years and years of experience not just in broadcasting, but specifically in TV. By contrast, Glenn's TV experience dates back to 2006. And he's not the best host you'll ever watch. Then again in my book, neither is Bill O'Reilly, but the difference there is O'Reilly has worked in the industry for a long time, and has perfected his on-air persona, to such a degree that I have to respect the work that has got him there, even if his views are sometimes if not mostly wrong.

Glenn Beck is going to look like a rank amateur amongst these pros. He's leaving a slot that has seen over 200% growth in his time there, and prime time slots yet, to go to a sub-prime slot where he's gonna look like a rank amateur. His show is going to look like what it is, a bad copy of the work that Bill O'Reilly has done over 12 years.

Professionally, I wish him well in his future endeavours, but I can't help but wonder whether this move to Fox News will end up being a career killer for him, at least when it comes to TV.

Decision 2008: The polling so far

It's interesting to note that in recent polling, despite the overall lack of coverage for his candidacy and his party, former Republican and current Libertarian Presidential Candidate Bob Barr is appearing on the political radar.

It's notable that Fox News and talk radio doesn't talk about Barr, because they know that Barr will and does take voters away from McCain.  So, even talking about him to disparage him in the way they do Obama, even that is a no-no, because Barr has some latent support from his time in Congress.

I think Republicans could do worse than vote for Bob Barr, as a protest against the neo-con takeover of the Republican Party.

Campaign to boycott MSNBC over Clinton... from Canada???

Inside Cable News is reporting a story about a website set up to promote a boycott of MSNBC, the cable network, and NBC News over what they see as the unfair treatment that NBC and MSNBC gave New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton during the race for the Democratic Party nomination, a nomination that Barack Obama won.

But a little trip to Whois.net is very revealing, in a strange kind of way.  The site is registered via a company that specialises in hiding the identities of those who register with them.  This leads me to believe that this site is a hit job, put together by someone who has something to hide.

Perhaps it's a hit job by Clinton supporters who dislike Obama, or by Republicans trying to damage Obama by association, or perhaps it was a Fox News or other similar Murdoch organ attacking GE through it's NBC subsidiary and also attacking Keith Olbermann through MSNBC.  Remember there were reports about high level meetings between top brass at Fox News and GE, over the whole Keith Olbermann vs Bill O'Reilly feud.

Whatever it is, the company that it is registered with, called Domain Privacy Group Inc., is based in... Toronto, Ontario, Canada!!! And according to Whois.net, the domain was registered on Super Tuesday, February 5 2008.  The first allegations of bias against Clinton at NBC and MSNBC came on February 7th, two days later!  I smell a rat.  This seems to be a pre-determined plan, which was designed to try and overturn the positive sentiment towards Obama, not just in the media, but in the country.  So far, that campaign, mostly by the likes of Rush Limburger Limbaugh, has failed.

Whoever is behind this, they should do the honourable and decent thing and come clean about it.  Own up to this website.  But I seriously doubt anybody will, cos their motive will be revealed to be dishonourable and malevolent.  This kind of sniping, whether it relates to Obama or the media, in unnecessary, unwarranted, and most of all, a blatant, out and out lie! 

They want you to...

"...FIGHT BACK against the completely unacceptable, unprofessional, reprehensible, over-the-top actions, attitudes and behaviors of MSNBC/NBC and their on-air employees and talking head pundits..."

Take out MSNBC/NBC and replace it with Fox News Channel, and you'd be nearer the mark. 

This kind of hit job is unacceptable, reprehensible, over the top and completely shameless.  It does nothing for political discourse and as for attacking the media, well, what an easy target for you to pick.  Your candidate, Hillary Clinton, was behaving in a manner that was more like a Republican, than a Democrat.  And whoever you are behind this website, if you consider yourself to be a Democratic Party supporter, I urge you to pull your website now.  It does nothing for party unity, and even less for your country.

Laura Ingraham's Talking Points Memo: Obama wants you to give up your SUV?

Laura Ingraham again subbed for Bill O'Reilly on Wednesday night, but this time, she was actually allowed to deliver a Talking Points Memo. 

I guess this was to prove that Talking Points and Bill O'Reilly are not one and the same.  Even if that is the case, Laura went so far over the top and over the edge of the cliff that she started the show as a laughing stock!  Obama said that the US cannot expect the world to look at them driving their gas-guzzling SUVs and sticking two fingers up to the rest of the world, and like it.  Laura accused him of wanting the US to give up it's sovereignty and hand over its liberties.  She also said that he wanted the US to ask permission of the European Union before they did anything that might be considered to be environmentally unfriendly.

She then spouts off about liberals wanting to outlaw the American way of life!  Greed is the American way of life???  I think you've been watching too much Gordon Gecko!

And as if that was enough, she then said that liberal climate change policies are designed to subjugate the American people into a way of life that is decided overseas.  Way to go, combining climate change with xenophobia!!!  That's a link a sane person wouldn't make!

Laura, is it any wonder that you're a D-List conservative talk show host, with opinions that constantly get a failing grade?  I find it hard to believe that Bill O'Reilly would have made this Talking Point, even though he's said some ridiculous things in the past.  Climate change policies are about ensuring this world's survival for future generations, about keeping it liveable for humans.  Your idea of what climate change is, is about as far away from anything factual, as Pluto is from the Sun!  You desperately need a re-education in the subject, Laura, before you make comments like that one again.

Karl Rove Subpoenaed!

Crooks and Liars is reporting that House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers has issued a Subpoena to former White House Deputy Chief Of Staff and current Fox News Channel contributor and analyst Karl Rove.

Rove seems very happy to talk in the public arena of cable news and in the print media, but he is unwilling to discuss it with the people who really matter.  He can always plead the fifth amendment, but that will convict him in the public arena as surely as his words will.

O'Reilly vs Olbermann. The feud heats up

Okay, so this feud between Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann has now exploded all over the internet. Both TV Newser and Inside Cable News are all over this story, and especially the article written by Howard Kurtz in the Washington Post.  Newsbusters has the story as well, Murdoch's US newspaper, The New York Post has also weighed in and not surprisingly, Olbermann Watch has spun the story so hard, that they think they're about to acheive orbit!

Unfortunately, none of them have hit the target!  Most of them get close, but like a bad marksman, they cannot hit the bullseye!   They haven't realised what has really been going on.  Allow the TruthSeeker to explain.

Bill O'Reilly has made a career at Fox News Channel out of presenting himself as part of some no-spin zone.  In reality, he's spinning the items in his show to favour right wing thinking, not necessarily the Republicans, but right wing thinking in general.

Like most people who have a conservative/right wing mindset, Bill O'Reilly is incapable of admitting he ever makes a mistake.  It is part of the conservative/right wing mindset to blame someone else for their error, even when it is their fault exclusively, they will blame someone else, just because they refuse to ever blame themselves.

You will occasionally see or hear an apology from some conservatives for some of the really dumb things they have done, but not every time, and in all the times I have watched Bill O'Reilly's programme, I don't think I've ever seen him issue an apology on his show.

Keith Olbermann on the other hand, when he has made a mistake on air, has apologised on air.  In fact, he's even awarded himself some bronze medals in his "Worst Person In The World" segment for doing so.  The Bill O'Reilly equivalent would be to see Bill call himself a pinhead in his "Pinheads and Patriots" segment, for something like the "Malmedy" incident when he got the details mixed up twice!  But there was no apology then, just an attempt at a get out of jail free card!  And Bill O'Reilly has never called himself a pinhead.

Now, I said most of them got close, but kept missing the reality.  Here's why.

The New York Post rightly pointed out that...

"...Olbermann walked out of MSNBC years ago in a huff after also blowing up at ESPN, so TV insiders are curious if this recent behavior is a sign that history will repeat itself."

But, they also say that...

"...Olbermann recently encouraged management to oust the cable channel's lone conservative, Tucker Carlson, and it's also no secret among producers that Olbermann refuses to introduce Dan Abrams' show, which follows his own."

Those statements cannot be backed up by any independent source.  Also, please note, that the New York Post belongs to the same News Corporation that Fox News Channel belongs to, so if there was a definite dirty tricks campaign eminating from Fox, the New York Post would be an obvious outlet.

Now to Inside Cable News, which is one of my favourite blogs, and Spud, who runs that has a lot of respect from me, for going against the corporate spin that eminates out from the corporate news operations in New York and DC.  But this time, he's missed the mark.  His commentary on the Washington Post story began thusly:

"...The problem for NBC is that Bill O’Reilly has become as adept and skilled at distorting and misrepresenting NBC and GE as Keith Olbermann is at distorting and misrepresenting O’Reilly and Fox. It was all fine and dandy for NBC when it was just O’Reilly and anything Murdoch getting beat up. But now that it’s a two way street, NBC is whining."

This sounds like something out of an O'Reilly Talking Points Memo, or something Fox News' anti-Keith Olbermann specialist John Gibson might come up with.   Spud fails to mention that Bill O'Reilly has always been adept and skilled at distorting and misrepresenting people, organisations and companies he didn't like.  But from what I have seen of Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Keith hasn't misrepresented anything Bill O'Reilly has said.  In fact, he's been very specific with quotes from the mouth of Bill O'Reilly himself.  Bill O riles against what he sees as "hate speech from the left", but rarely ever touches on the mass of right wing hate speech that comes out from people like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage and many other right wing talk show hosts and columnists continue to spout on an almost daily basis.

And by the way, Keith Olbermann is the only so-called "left wing loon" that Bill O'Reilly never has mentioned by name, on air.  Not once.  Yet he's happy to name the likes of Rosie O'Donnell, Al Franken and many others.  Instead of directly challenging his opponent, he shoots all around him, at every other target possible closely associated with Keith Olbermann, hoping that one of those damages Olbermann too, but as before, like a bad marksman, he keeps missing the target.  He needs to refocus on dealing with Keith more directly, then he'll look like less of a coward.

Basically, Bill O'Reilly can stop this feud immediately, by stopping lying to his viewers.  He can stop the distorting, the misrepresenting, and start dealing in facts and truth, not lies and spin.  His so-called "No Spin Zone" is spinning so fast, the centrifugal force inside it must be close to fatal levels!!!

But as I pointed out earlier, those of a right wing mindset, will never admit they've made a mistake, so Bill O'Reilly and his so called "No Spin Zone" will end up spinning so fast that it will end up destroying The O'Reilly Factor and Fox News with it.

Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points Memo: Obama vs Bush/McCain over talking to Iran.

Bill O'Reilly has a habit of saying things in a way that if you were to read it yourself, you'd think it sounded neutral, but Bill O has a way of making it sound anything but.  In this case, it's Obama vs Bush & McCain over the issue of negotiating with Iran.

 

 

Now, for once, I have to give Bill O some credit for doing a very analytical (mostly) memo.  But as usual, Billy's view is pretty much clearly defined even if he doesn't state it explicitly.

There are two key parts of the memo, which highlight Bill's right-wing sensibilities.  The first is sneakily located just after Bill has played clips from both President Bush and the Obama camp.

"...Now this skirmish is important for all of us. The next president will have to fight Islamic fascism, but the battle plan has to be smart..."

This is a Republican talking point all over.  Unfortunately, the Republican strategy of not negotiating with Iran has done absolutely no good.  And comparing negotiating with Iran to the appeasement of the Nazis that was attempted in the run up to the Second World War, which Bush did in his speech in Israel, is not going to aid the poor view that the world holds about America currently and the Bush administration in particular.

The second key part is right at the end of the memo.

"...Now I'm glad President Bush put this on the table, because Americans have to seriously think about this ongoing terror war, which includes Iran.

Lately, gas prices and health care have somewhat obscured the danger we all face from overseas. But now, it's back in play."

This is simply trying to scaremonger us into voting for McCain and not Obama.  The tactic has worked before, but it will not work again.  By saying that gas prices and health care has 'obscured' the danger, it makes it sound like they are distractions rather than current, everyday, everyperson issues that the administration should be dealing with, rather than obsessing over Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Put simply. Bill O wants McCain to win, not because he actually likes McCain and his so-called Straight Talk Express, but simply because McCain is the least worst option in Bill's view.  Compare this to the likes of Dick Morris and Ann Coulter, whose referencing of The Manchurian Candidate, a film about a former POW who was brainwashed in SE Asia by the Chinese, running for President, makes them appear to be somewhat traitorous to their own cause, especially considering who the Republican candidate is this election year.  Hmm, maybe for 2008, we should consider renaming it "The McCainian Candidate"!!!