If this is the only political article you read all year...

[heidi]

Actually, let me rephrase that.

If this is the only article you read all year that isn't from a conservative paper, like one owned by Richard Mellon Sciarfe or the Reverend Moon or Murdoch... If this is the only article you read that hasn't been vetted by the hosts at Fox News...

Please, read this, gacked in its entirity from Al Franken's blog:

About a week ago on Hannity & Colmes, Sean Hannity spewed a litany of lies about John Kerry being a flip-flopper and tax raiser, lies that came directly from the Bush campaign. Oddly, Alan Colmes did not respond. So we will. Hannity said:

Here’s a guy that supported gay marriage, now against it. Here’s a guy that by my count has had six separate different unique positions on the war on Iraq. Here’s a guy that voted for the $87 billion to fund the war before he voted against it. Here’s a guy that was for the Patriot Act. Now against it. No Child Left Behind, for it, now against it. Here’s a guy that supported -- was against the death penalty for terrorists who kill Americans. Now he’s for it. The only thing he seems consistent on is that, throughout the 19 years he was in the Senate, he voted to raise taxes consistently 350 times. What does that tell us about a man that has no core values or principles?

Let’s take these one at a time.

Here’s a guy that supported gay marriage, now against it.

This is a lie. Kerry’s position has always been consistent on this. I disagree with him, but Kerry has always been against gay marriage. He is for civil unions. What Hannity is doing here is taking Kerry’s vote against the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act and deliberately misrepresenting it as a declaration in favor of gay marriage. But let me read you what Kerry said on the floor of the Senate about that vote.
“I will vote against this bill, though I am not for same-sex marriage, because I believe that this debate is fundamentally ugly, and it is fundamentally political, and it is fundamentally flawed….the results of this bill will not be to preserve anything, but will serve to attack a group of people out of various motives and rationales, and certainly out of a lack of understanding and a lack of tolerance, and will only serve the purposes of the political season.”

And on that, I totally agree with him. So, for the record: Kerry has been totally consistent on this. He has never flip-flopped. Sean Hannity is lying, and he knows it.

Next.

Here’s a guy that by my count has had six separate different unique positions on the war on Iraq.

Okay. This is just stupid. Kerry’s position on Iraq has been totally consistent. Yes, he voted to authorize the president to use force against Iraq. But voted for that in order for Bush to go to the UN and get the inspectors back into Iraq, which was a genuine triumph. But, the president acted in bad faith. Here is what Kerry said about it on Face the Nation on September 14, 2003:

“The president promised he would go to war as a matter of last resort. He didn’t. The president promised he would build a coalition and work through the United Nations. He didn’t. We’re paying the price for the reckless way in which this president approached this. It’s a failure of diplomacy, and today it’s a failure of leadership.”

Kerry was entirely consistent, and not only that, he was right.

Next.

Here’s a guy that voted for the $87 billion to fund the war before he voted against it.

This is correct, but it’s not a flip-flop. Kerry voted for an amendment to the Iraqi appropriations bill that would have paid for the $87 billion by taking it out of the tax cut for the extremely rich. That amendment lost, 57-42, because Bush insisted that the $87 billion be added to the deficit. As we discussed with Paul Krugman last week, never in the history of this country have we had tax cuts while we were at war. Not only that, but Paul Krugman told me that he has yet to find any civilization in the history of this planet that ever had a tax cut during a war.

After the amendment went down, Kerry did vote against the final $87 billion supplemental appropriation, as a protest against the way Bush got us into the war and is conducting it. But he knew that the troops would have the support, because the bill passed 87 to 12.

You can support our troops, and still protest the president. If you can’t hold those two ideas in your head, you won’t enjoy my show, and I suggest you switch over to Rush right now.

Next.

Here’s a guy that was for the Patriot Act. Now against it.

Well, here’s what Kerry said:

“I voted for the Patriot Act right after September 11th – convinced that – with a sunset clause – it was the right decision to make. It clearly wasn’t a perfect bill – and it had a number of flaws – but this wasn’t the time to haggle. It was the time to act.

"But George Bush and John Ashcroft abused the spirit of national action after the terrorist attacks. They have used the Patriot Act in ways that were never intended and for reasons that have nothing to do with terrorism. That’s why, as President, I will propose new anti-terrorism laws that advance the War on Terror while ending the assault on our basic rights.”

In other words, he voted for the Patriot Act after 9/11, although he objected to parts of it. Bush has abused it in ways that were never intended by Congress when it was passed. If you can’t hold that in your head, you will love Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

No Child Left Behind, for it, now against it.

This is an easy one. On this one, like all the others, Kerry’s position is consistent, and principled, and Hannity’s is dishonest. Kerry voted for the bill, which the president promised to fund. The president didn’t fund it, which created unfunded mandates on states and school districts across this country. As a result, classroom sizes are getting bigger, after-school programs are being dropped, teachers are being fired, and education is getting worse. Everyone in education across this country will tell you that. No Child Left Behind is the most ironically named piece of legislation since the 1942 Japanese Family Leave Act.

Next.

Here’s a guy that supported -- was against the death penalty for terrorists who kill Americans. Now he’s for it.

Actually, Sean’s right on this one. Kerry was against the death penalty before 9/11. And after 9/11, he now supports the death penalty for terrorists. Now, Bush—before 9/11, wanted to invade Iraq. And after it, wanted to invade Iraq. So maybe he was more consistent. Kerry was affected viscerally by 9/11. I’m not sure I’d call that a flip-flop.

Next.

The only thing he seems consistent on is that, throughout the 19 years he was in the Senate, he voted to raise taxes consistently 350 times.

This is a disgraceful lie. It is a distortion of a phony statistic put out by the Bush campaign. The Bush campaign lists 350 of Kerry’s votes for, quote, “higher taxes.” Almost all of these are votes Kerry cast to leave taxes unchanged, such as a 1987 vote against a repeal of the “windfall profit” tax on oil. Taxes would have remained the same if his side had prevailed. In other words, this was a vote against an irresponsible tax cut for the rich.

Let me make a side note. We need to pay for the government. Someone’s got to pay for it. And if you cut taxes for the rich, the burden gets shifted to everyone else, or their children.

Bush’s list even includes votes that Kerry cast in favor of alternative Democratic tax cuts. On Bush’s list, there’s only one actual tax increase that Kerry voted for, which incidentally is counted twice. It’s his vote for Clinton’s 1993 Deficit Reduction Act, which raised taxes on the top 1% and cut taxes on people at the bottom, and was followed by eight years of unprecedented growth.

What does that tell us about a man that has no core values or principles?

The man who has no core values or principles here is a man named Sean Hannity. And you know who came up with all these lies? The campaign of a man named George W. Bush.

Look. The reason I took the time to go over all of this is you’re going to hear this garbage repeated over, and over, and over again from now until November. And we are not going to let them do it. We are not going to let them do to John Kerry what they did to Al Gore.

Kerry is not a flip-flopper. But Bush is a liar. And his shills in the media, like Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh—they’re liars too.

Comments

[phoenix8185.livejournal.com]

I'm actually more interested in this part of your post:

"If this is the only article you read that hasn't been vetted by the hosts at Fox News... "

I'm just wondering what this means? As an avid Fox News watcher I consider CNN and the rest to be sub-standard. What makes Fox News so bad?

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

I'll answer you, but I would love for you to tell me why you think CNN (and, I guess, MSNBC, owned by Bush-supporter Bill Gates) are so bad. I don't actually watch any tv other than The Today Show in the morning, and that's mostly for lifestyle & entertainment news.

Now, here's just a few reasons why FOX's coverage is neither fair nor balanced (and let me note that it's fine for it to not be fair or balanced, but they shouldn't dupe people into thinking it is).

Every day, John Moody, Fox News’ senior vice president for news, presents a directive on how the stories of the day are to be covered. Here's one of his memos from earlier this year, which was incorporated into the documentary Outfoxed.

From: John Moody
Date: 4/4/2004
MONDAY UPDATE: Into Fallujah: It’s called Operation Vigilant Resolve and it began Monday morning (NY time) with the US and Iraqi military surrounding Fallujah. We will cover this hour by hour today, explaining repeatedly why it is happening. It won't be long before some people start to decry the use of “excessive force.” We won’t be among that group.
The continuing carnage in Iraq — mostly the deaths of seven U.S. troops in Sadr City — is leaving the American military little choice but to punish perpetrators. When this happens, we should be ready to put in context the events that led to it. More than 600 U.S. military dead, attacks on the U.N. headquarters last year, assassination of Iraqi officials who work with the coalition, the deaths of Spanish troops last fall, the outrage in Fallujah: Whatever happens, it is richly deserved.

A friend of my grandmother's is a producer over at FOX; this mother will not talk about politics with her son, who she believes has been de facto brainwashed through his employment at the network.

Fairness & Accuracy in Media, a national media watchdog group, has confucted a study that found that conservatives accounted for nearly three-fourths of ideological guests on the network's marquee news program, ``Special Report with Brit Hume,'' between June and December 2003, and that Republicans outnumbered Democrats five to one.

And from commondreams.org's website:

Fox host Bill O'Reilly is seen on his show insisting he has told a guest to shut up ``only once in six years,'' after which he is seen in clips telling one person after another with whom he disagrees to ``shut up.''

The documentary also includes a rapid-fire succession of clips of more than a dozen Fox hosts using the phrase ``some people say'' - which the filmmakers say is a way to insinuate opinion disguised as reporting into on-air discussions.

You can also read a collection of the daily directive memos here.

If you really were unaware of all this, why are you watching FOX in the first place?

[phoenix8185.livejournal.com]

I see nothing wrong with the memo you quoted. The vice-president was telling his people not to fall into the common media way of over-dramaticizing the news and giving it a spin. He was merely trying to remind the people at Fox that they aren't suppossed to give their opinion of the news, they are suppossed to present the facts as they are. Telling his people not to use the phrase 'excessive force' was to keep them from coloring the news they were presenting.

The reason I feel CNN is sub-standard is that they forget to just give the facts and give us their views of the news. The provide a "lens" to view the news through, by using key phrases or saying things that change the way we look at the news. And it isn't that Fox never colors the news, they just do so on a less frequent basis and in a weaker way. So of my Democratic friends have said, "Of course you watch Fox, it's the conservative one." This isn't necessarily the case. While Fox does seem to be more conservative than the other channels, it's only because they don't show only the liberal side of the story. They allow both conservative and liberal sides to be seen. And I am only talking about the news right now, opinion shows like Hannity and Colmes and Greta van Sustren don't always provide a fair view to both sides of the aisle. Orson Scott Card wrote a good column a few weeks ago about this subject, you can find it at http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-05-30-1.html

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure that you came back to my LJ and read the post below yours, as it wasn't posted as a reply to you, but you really should look at the other memos as well. I am not claiming that every sentence in every memo is inherently 100% Republican-supportive propaganda, but there is a clear indication that the Fox network wishes to overdramatize the news and give it a spin. What else occurs when the text of the memos contains things like

If, as promised, the coalition decides to take Fallujah back by force, it will not be for lack of opportunities for the terrorists holed up there to negotiate. Let's not get lost in breast-beating about the sadness of the loss of life. They had a chance...

Kerry, starting to feel the heat for his flip-flop voting record, is in West Virginia...

The pictures shown in the Times and NY Post today of the dead American contractors are exactly what we chose NOT to use yesterday. Please don't get sucked into this taste race to the bottom [Heidi notes that the NY Post is also owned by Murdoch, so this is just weird more than anything else]...

[Th]e tax cut passed last night by the Senate, though less than half what Bush [or]iginally proposed, contains some important victories for the administration.

That last one, for example, could be written in a more neutral way, if it said, "The tax cut passed last night by the senate contains what some in the Administration deem important victories, even though it has less than half of what Bush originally proposed."

Do you see the difference? The way it was written made the determination that it contained important victories for the administration the view of the network; my way has that determination become the view of the administration. Or are they one and the same?

I'm not sure how you see what Fox does as something other than giving its views on the news; they do that regularly. Perhaps you should look at statements by former FOX staffers, like Charlie Reina?

You might want to look at David Brock's site's sections on FOX news which contain evidence of misstatement after misstatement by FOX news anchors, reporters and show hosts.

[jadelennox]

Sorry to pop in from outside linkage, but I figured someone should lik to the PIPA report on media-watchers knowledge [PDF]. Basically, a study found that people who identify themselves as Fox news watchers are substantially more likely to be misinformed than those who get their news from other mainstream sources. For example, viewers of Fox news were more likely to believe WMDs had been found in Iraq, or world opinion favoured the invasion, or that there was any evidence of linkage between Al Qaeda and Hussein (note that at the time this study was done, there was no such evidence). For this reason, many people believe that Fox consistently misleads its viewers. This may or not be true, but the study certainly doesn't show Fox in a good light.

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<a href+'http://globalsecurity.com/media_and_war/survey_shows/survey_shows.htm">') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

Sorry to pop in from outside linkage, but I figured someone should lik to the <a href="http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Press.pdf">PIPA report on media-watchers knowledge</a> <small>[PDF]</small>. Basically, a study found that people who identify themselves as Fox news watchers are substantially more likely to be misinformed than those who get their news from other mainstream sources. For example, viewers of Fox news were more likely to believe WMDs had been found in Iraq, or world opinion favoured the invasion, or that there was any evidence of linkage between Al Qaeda and Hussein (note that at the time this study was done, there was no such evidence). For this reason, many people believe that Fox consistently misleads its viewers. This may or not be true, but the study certainly doesn't show Fox in a good light.

<A HREF+'http://globalsecurity.com/media_and_war/survey_shows/survey_shows.htm">Here's an article if you can't open the PDF</A>.

If you're willing to question the myth of the So-Called Liberal Media, there are some excellent resources out there, starting with Alterman's <cite>What Liberal Media?</cite>, which concludes that the (non-Fox, non-alternative) media is right-center on some issues, slightly left-center on some issues, mostly tries with varying success to be objective, and primarily is concerned with profit and not ideology. Many, many studies back Alterman up.

Here's <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200407140002">more of those Fox News memos</a>, written by Moody as instructions to its journalists.

A few tidbits:

<cite>The so-called 9/11 commission has already been meeting.</cite>

<cite>let the ACLU stick it where the sun don't shine</cite>

<cite>John Kerry may wish he'd taken off his microphone before trashing the GOP. Though he insists he meant republican "attack squads," his coarse description of his opponents has cast a lurid glow over the campaign</cite>

<cite>It's a distinctly [sk]eptical crowd that Bush faces. His political courage and tactical cunning ar[e] [wo]rth noting in our reporting through the day</cite>

Obviously it's easier to see bias going against one's own views that with. And I have no actual gripe with admitted bias -- I read some bloggers and newspapers witha clear ideological slant (on both sides), but which are all open about that slant. But from where I'm standing, Fox is excessively biased, misinforms its viewers, and lies about it.