FOX NEWS has said loudly, that it is not the Union Broadcasting Company (UBS), that its star performers are not Howard Beale wannabes, that it is not spiritually channeling with the late Paddy Chayefsky for its nightly scripts.
Well, that is what they say, but that is hard to believe. Just look at Old Glenn Becks crying, delivering, nightly, Beale-like drama, and if you don’t hear Peter Finch chuckling in his grave, laughing about how copy cats have stolen his act, you haven’t seen the movie Network.
But, maybe the sly foxes at FOX NEWS are telling the truth. Though like UBS, they were struggling in the rating before they quit journalism all together for drama.
Maybe, Vince McMahon of the WWE. (World Wrestling Entertainment), is their inspiration.
Yeah, money making McMahon. That big old fox, Rupert Murdock, is just the kind of fox who would do for news what McMahon did for wrestling, hype up, and up, and up, the drama.
Rassling is faked, right? Everybody knows that, right? Some people don’t.
Mr. McMahon is a fair businessman. He tells everybody that he’s selling sports entertainment, not sports. Mr. Murdock has a big, old, global money making machine, that has to be kept fed, that has to keep the eyeballs coming to his networks –has to, or everything will collapse, and so with him, it’s wink, wink, and hush. He knows that he’s is selling news entertainment, entertainment for the angry. But he can’t say that, too many eyeballs want to believe that it’s news, the news. He is making too much money to disappoint those eyeballs.
Mr. Obama is a very brilliant dude. Team Obama boycotted Fox news for a minute, to call out the actors at Fox, and the sly, big fox, Murdock, to say, “Hey, I know your game.” Before Team Obama called attention to the Fox game, a lot of people had begun to see Fox for what it is. Still, there are some who believe rassin’ ain’t fake, and Fox news is journalism.
Fox has all of those eyeballs watching, so Team Obama boycott of Fox was only for a minute, lasted just long enough to put those fakers on notice. As Team Obama engages Fox, hopefully, they will do so, prepared, focused, and ready to rumble.
The 2012 Presidential Election is fast approaching
The GOP race is now a field of 4 with only Romney, Gingrich, Paul, & Santorum still standing. Who will be the next candidate to exit the race & who will emerge as the eminent GOP nominee?
Follow us on Twitter & join our 2012 election FaceBook page for updates & new blog articles.
Contact us if you are passionate about politics & want to blog with us.
{ 27 comments… read them below or add one }
The union, of course, is only one aspect of the scenario. But they must atke responsibility and share their part of the burden.
Wait, isn’t blaming GM’s demise all on the unions (“GM failed, in large part, due to the unions stranglehold on the company. Were the union a little more far-sighted and concerned with the company s long term survival, rather than what gains can we make right now”) an example of trying to “put all the burden on only one aspect of a corporation s demise is to simplify things to a point that makes the huge dynamic changes all the more acceptable.”?
Thought maybe I was missing something when I was busy reading the anonymous right wing blogs and conservative media…What was that about hook, line and sinker again?
“now, then GM MIGHT have been able to survive. To put all the burden on only one aspect of a corporation s demise is to simplify things to a point that makes the huge dynamic changes all the more acceptable.But, then, that s exactly what the powers that be want to happen and you are all too ready to fall for it €“ hook, line and sinker. ”
Ben:
I am surprised that you didn’t read what I wrote more carefully..My entire point is that public opinion is being manipulated by corporate interest to serve its own interest.
I clearly stated that, “I am sure you have heard what big business interest said (notice I wrote what big business line is) about the General Motors failure? That GM failed because of its huge health insurance burden…”
Sorry, but I am not so naive as to buy anyone line.
GM failed, in large part, due to the unions stranglehold on the company. Were the union a little more far-sighted and concerned with the company’s long term survival, rather than what gains can we make right now, then GM MIGHT have been able to survive. To put all the burden on only one aspect of a corporation’s demise is to simplify things to a point that makes the huge dynamic changes all the more acceptable.
But, then, that’s exactly what the powers that be want to happen…and you are all too ready to fall for it – hook, line and sinker.
Yay D!
Bill Moyers has said many times on his PBS programs that we don’t have a democracy, only an illusion of a democracy, and that this country is run by big business. I agree with him. Greedy, selfish and manipulative persons, acting through PACS, foundations, media corporations, set the public agenda. I do not believe that one single group is in control of things, or that the controllers’ motivation is essentially evil. Unless you consider placing self-interest above the public good as evil. A case could be made that it is. It does lead to situations when the public’s resources flow to the few, seriously shortchanging the many. Individuals long ago, acting through corporations figured out how to work the system to get things done their way, to benefit themselves and their friends.
The Morgan-Wall Street Coup Against FDR in 1934 shows the lengths these people will go to, to get their way.
If one group was in charge, debate in this country would have ended long ago. I believe that competing groups are the players here. For example: The health reform debate is a contest between competing business interests. The insurance industry wants to keep things pretty much as they are. The rest of BIG business has decided that the time has come to place the American workers into a national health insurance program, thus transferring the huge cost of health insurance from their books to the federal system. I am sure you have heard what big business interest said about the General Motors failure? That GM failed because of its huge health insurance burden, and that American industry can not compete with foreign businesses, that are not burdened with high health costs. The line is: to save American capitalism, we must have national health insurance.
I find myself supporting national health insurance because the costs of private insurance has become so high that there is a need for a federal alternative.
Also, although business interests set the American agenda by controlling public opinion, and selecting candidates, and we do not have a democracy, we also do not have a formal oligarchy. There is no business king like Morgan pulling strings, there are no gang of permanent dukes and high lords sitting above us, there are a fluid group of guys, with big cash and wealth, who are doing their best to get everything that they want, and often, like in the health reform debate, they are fighting with each other. People still are called to come to the ballot, that illusion of democracy must be maintain to prevent, for one thing, revolution. What is the role of a progressive in all of this? To do all he can to make sure that the best group of bastards win. Who are the best group? The group that will do less harm. Well, what about revolution? Revolution to what?
In 1964, Dr. Eric Berne published a very popular book entitled “Games People Play”, in which he used transactional analysis to analyze various aspects of human relations.
One of the games in this book is “Let’s You and Him Fight”. As Dr. Berene describes it, this game adopts one of three scenarios, but all three share the common goazl of a desireable prize by either actively maneuvering or being used as a token in order to maneuver two parties into a conflict. the scenario put forth by Dr. Berne is this: the desireable prize is a woman who maneuvers men into fighting with each other for her favors by means of an active or tacit promise to surrender herself to the victor. This is actually a game of control and the woman actually controls the game. There is more to this, and this link will take you to the essay. It is a 20 page piece (as copied and pasted to Word), but it a very good read. I believe it describes, very accurately, what is going on today.
Here is the link – http://www.chron.com/commons/persona.html?newspaperUserId=homme_arme&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost&plckUserId=homme_arme&plckPostId=Blog:homme_armePost:93a63cc8-c37b-406c-9427-d7122efc3887&plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest
This is partially true, and more true than probably even you realize, dfunzy. Of course, the remainder is laughable hyperbole infiltrated with stereotypes.
First, let me address what I agree with:
Fox News and pro wrestling are very similar, but not in the way you claim. Fox and the other major networks purposely pump steroids into the Left/Right battle so as to throw the public off balance. The truth is that (and you can look this up) Rupert Murdock is in the same sinister organization as Katy Couric, Brian Williams, Diane Sawyer, Jim Lehrer and other media moguls. This organization has an innocent-sounding name – Council on Foreign Relations – but is evil and is in control of (or at least very instrumental in) many of the events in the 20th and 21st century, including wars and depressions, etc. Please check out the book “Shadows of Power” by James Perloff for starters. It is totally non-partisan.
Next, “team Obama” dissed Fox News as a matter of strategy to perpetuate this game. He understands how these networks (as well as all of the other major media outlets) are in the game together – the game of advancing the New World Order agenda. And the best way to do that is to keep the public fighting among ourselves so as to not see that their liberties are being carried right through their living rooms and out the back door while the argument is taking place (metaphorically speaking).
I humbly, but strongly, suggest that you take off your Left/Right, Liberal/Conservative goggles and start seeing things for how they really are: that we have a govt where most of the members are using the same playbook, and the result of the game is our demise.
John Stewart does an on air bust of Hannity’s fluff of the number of people attending recent anti-health care reform rally in Washington.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/11/jon-stewart-catches-sean_n_353447.html
Check out Hannity’s repsonse further down the page.
Ben,
I don’t have a problem with the movement, never did. I don’t have a problem with any peaceful movement, as what you say about America and protest is true.
What I have a problem with is how it is being used by people who don’t give a damn about the people in it and how those same people have manipulated and distorted the facts they have chosen to dribble to their followers. Read more about it and you’ll find out. I have a problem with the character and actions of the people behind it who are feeding anger and division for their own ends. I have a problem with the self-righteousness those same people drape themselves in, while attacking others who have protested serious issues such as an unjustified war. I have a problem with the fact that a large number of the people who stood up and spouted facts that they printed out from an email that came from an anonymous source took that as gospel truth and blindly trusted someone who doesn’t even have a face, but refuse to extend that samt courtesy to those people who took the time to talk with them face to face and be screamed at.
This movement stinks to me because of all this. Look into 912. Look into Freedomworks. If you thhink that trusting the government is bad, then why trust the people behind these groups? Unless its better the devil you know…But until you know who these people are, what they have done and what they stand for, they are not the devil you know. Watch the Frank Capra movie “Meet John Doe,” with Gary Cooper and Barbara Stanwyck. You might find it interesting…
Consti,
Again- check the facts. 912 Project IS Glenn Beck’s PAC. Check his website. Brian Kilmeade DID say those things- watch the tape of that segment from ANY outlet….
When did I ever say what Dan Rather did was a great thing or defend him? What I said was put the WHOLE of his career against any of the guys on Fox. None would even come close, with the exception on Bill O’Reilly. Which of any of them, except Bill, has been shot at while trying to show the truth? Which, except Bill, has been in a war zone and seen/shown what ACTUALLY happens in a war instead of plays with soldiers on a map? And since when do either Hannity or Beck bother to check their facts at all, like Bill does, before they attack people? Or Rush, for that matter? But they’re better, right? But that doesn’t fit your version of the truth.
Are you in your own little world again?
Pathetic…
Ben,
Good for you. And good luck.
Laura,
Yes rather was fired FOR BEING A LIAR. His so called great career taken down over night by HIS LIES. Hmmm…. imagine that. A news caster that lies. And has been proven I’ll repeat that PROVEN to lie. You just make claims about the others but you have NO proof. Typical Alynski tactics, “pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” This appears to be BDS syndrome… how long have you suffered the withdrawls?
I’ve read the article and I know you wrote it.
What’s more, is that Fox News is no less entertainment than CNN or MSNBC. A serious “journalist” will present all the facts in the case without a shred of bias toward any one view. One would be hard-pressed to find a serious journalist on any news outlet these days. Wasn’t it Keith Olberman who said that listening to Obama speak made a shiver run up his leg?
My point is that TV, by it’s very nature, is entertainment. Anyone who believes otherwise is simply fooling themselves.
The right winger continues to … Should I use the word “rant”? No, it only encourages him to r… more. I shall state this: The topic is on Fox News, not the respondent. How do I know what the topic is? Easy answer. I shouldn’t have to repeat what that answer is. Clue: Go to the top of the article. Read the title. Read the name of the author.
No, the discussion is whether some of the editorialists on Fox News in entertainment. Again, you’re confusing the issues.
You say I rant when I state my opinion in a very clear and concise manner. Is it only a rant if a conservative is talking? I’ve read several of your articles and many of your comments. If you want to see someone rant – especially if a conservative tries to disagree or point out the fallacy of the argument, just read your own words!
If you want to discuss the topic at hand, I’ll be happy to do so. But since you’re not adding anything of value, other than to demonize me, I really don’t believe you have anything substantive to contribute.
A right winger continues to rant. Quote he–”You re not really adding anything to the discussion here. ”
Well, excuse me. The topic that I begun here is whether Fox News is news entertainment?
As I have stated time and time again – I agree with some of what they say and ignore the rest. I assume you do the same with your liberal news outlets. Or do you just take what they as gospel truth and run with simply because they subscribe to the same political philosophy.
You’re not really adding anything to the discussion here.
Quote the respondent — ” an entertainer is, by definition, ‘A person who tries to please or amuse. €
Exactly the point, Beck and the other Fox performers’ goal is to entertain their audience, and they have targeted their audience, a group of angry people, and they say what those angry people want to hear. Look at Old Beck and say he is not entertaining? His crying, his dancing around, his other antics, his use of drama.
I would think that everyone would be passionate about the right of ever American to protest our government. That’s the beauty of of America. We have the right to he right to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. It happens all the time. It’s happened for over 2 centuries.
For a group of people to gather and register their dissent against the U.S. Gov’t is a glorious thing. I think what has caught everyone off-guard with this recent phenomenon, however, is how peaceably the people are gathering. This has been a series of peaceful protests, which certainly goes against the norm.
This is nothing different than when people would gather to protest G.W. Bush’s foreign policies. It’s the same thing people were doing in the 1960′s and early ’70s against the Vietnam war.
Again, you are doing something that I have saw you do to Consti time and time and time again. You are putting words in my response that simply aren’t there. I don’t recall defending anyone. I was merely pointing out that they are editorialists and are entitled to their opinion. I would do the same for any other personality – Campbell Brown, Anderson Cooper, Keith Olberman, etc.
Glenn Beck is the founder of the 912 Project, which was the main instigator for the Tea Party rallies. So, if you are as passionate about the Tea Party movement as you have made yourself out to be in other comments, then…Beck calls himself an entertainer, which makes him seem even more harmless than what you call him. Yes, I do know the difference, but thank you for the “education” anyway.
The episode of Fox and Company I was referring to did not involve a guest making the comments. It was one of the hosts, Brian Kilmeade. Here is a link to an article that has the clip from the show. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/08/fox-news-host-americans-k_n_228209.html You will see Gretchen look at him like he just stepped off another planet…She couldn’t even defend him.
Maybe if you knew a little more about what SOME, not all, of the people on therewere doing and saying, you wouldn’t be quite so keen on defending them. I don’t applaud what Dan Rather did about the National Guard papers, but I would put his lifetime body of work up against any of these guys. Bill O’Reilly, who I have said before I think is abrasive but okay, is the only one of the bunch that even comes close.
I’m sorry, I don’t know what I did to the previous post, but it’s not supposed to look like that at all. It’s supposed to be all in black with no underlines. My apologies.
There’s a difference between being an editorialist and being an entertainer. Again, you are putting words into my response that simply aren’t there. I never characterized Beck as an entertainer. He is an editorialist, which is, by definition “a writer of editorials”. An editorial is, by definition, ” an expression of opinion that resembles such an article “. In contrast, an entertainer is, by definition, “A person who tries to please or amuse.” You see, an entertainer and an editorialist are, by their very nature, two very different animals. After reading your response, I wasn’t sure you were aware of that, so I felt the need to educate you.
On another note, I’m not at all familiar with Beck’s PAC, as I work until 5 and get home about 30-45 minutes after his show goes off the air. What movement is it that he and his PAC created that you assume I so passionate about? Where have I given any hint that I’m even aware of what it is? I’m sorry, but you lost me with that. And you accuse me of generalizations. Wow!
I believe I have made political leanings pretty clear in my previous writings. I’m registered Republican, but can’t really say that I identify with the party anymore. I tend to think of myself as American 1st, then Conservative, both fiscally and socially. Ironically enough, according to Rasmussen, so does 34% of America. Combined, only 31% of America self-identifies as either Liberal (15%) or Progressive (16%). 29% rate themselves as Moderate and another 2% as Libertarian.
As far as the episode of Fox & Friends that you mention, I missed that one. I rarely watch TV in the mornings, as I have a 17 mo old son that I have to get ready for daycare. When I do watch it, though, I like to watch Fox. OK…I like to watch Gretchen – the rest of it is just a bonus. I’m sure, though, that there have been people on other morning shows that have made their share of backward statements on other (or maybe the same) topics. The question that begs to be asked on that, though, is this – “Did the anchors condone the statements? Did they agree with his sentiments?” Reporters often have to interview unsavory characters to get the story. Charles Manson was interviewed by the likes of Rolling Stone magazine, Tom Snyder and Geraldo Rivera. John Wayne Gacy was interviewed by Walter Jacobson, a Chicago news anchor. Does their interviewing these people make these reporters or publications any less reliable? Dr. James Dobson interviewed Ted Bundy on the eve of Bundy’s execution. Does that diminish the work that Dr. Dobson has done on family dynamics or counseling? No, they were simply doing their job in getting the story out.
I think anyone who starts his own PAC has crossed the line from being an “entertainer”, although Mr. Beck would love to slip back across that line anytime he would need to get out of taking responsibility for anything he stirs up. The fact that you are so passionate about the movement that he and his PAC created shows that he is not a mere entertainer whose words hold no more value thatn anyone else with opinions.
Plus, apparently you missed the episode of Fox and Friends the morning that the young, dark haired guy was making backward statements about how the races in this country didn’t stay pure and intermingled. Yeah, that’s breezy entertaining stuf…
Yes, he did get fired. But, he also was passing himself off as a serious journalist, anchoring a major networks evening news – not as an editorialist with his own show on a cable news network. And then there was the whole issue of faked documents that he passed off as genuine when he KNEW without a doubt that they were not.
Those of us who watch Fox News understand that Beck, Hannity, O’Reilly, et al are nothing more than editorialists. They offer their opinion, some of which I agree with and some of which I think is over-the-top. To my knowledge, it is only the liberal community who believe that we take everything these people say for gospel. But, if it makes you feel better to believe that, then I’m all for it!
As for Fox & Friends, let’s just say it’s the conservative version of Good Morning America (ABC), The Early Show (CBS) or The Today Show (NBC). It’s nice to be able to watch an entertaining mix of news and personal interest in the morning while getting ready for work.
Dan Rather got fired, not a raise or his own show…
Dan Rather. That’s all I am gonna say.
Even Glenn Beck, while running a PAC, uses “The Fusion of Entertainment and Enlightenment” as his show’s motto. Notice the word entertainment comes first, before enlightenment, and the words knowledge or fact are not in the phrase at all. He’s not a holdover from the days when Fox News actually tried to care about the news, like O’Reilly or even Hannity are.
Hannity, however, is now allowed to run about his show without even the lame muzzle of Colmes, which I suppose ups the entertainment value for someone out there. Losing Colmes hasn’t hurt his ratings one bit, which shows that the audience for his show has no interested in fair and balanced, or even in seeing his “guests” finish a sentence…
The best thing to do is to ignore them. The more publicity the channel gets, the more people will tune in and justify them upping their advertising rates. I would guess that they are paying O’Reilly a fortune to stay, because while abrasive, the guy is actually okay in his own way. I would think that he is eventually going to get tired being lumped in with these glorified shock jocks (look at their pasts.)