"Our weapons are powerless!"

Fox oughta be officially kicked outta the field of actual journalism and into the Yellow Journalists’ Hall of Shame. Anyone who believes they’re getting news or reporting out of that Pandora’s Box of Pinheads is out of the loop.

Wanna officiate at the ceremony, Christopher? I’ll bring food and beverages.

Makes you wonder what Fox’s exit strategy is going to be in the event the Shrubbery don’t walk off with the White House again in the fall. Can you say “trying to broadcast with all hooves in their mouths”?

Thats the beauty of the FNN or any right wing attack network, they don’t HAVE to follow the rules or even care about who they trounce on, they are supported internally.

I recently read ‘Blinded By The Right’ by David Brock and when you read that and compare to what is going on today you can see many many parallels. Don’t think about it in right vs. left, just look at it as a strategy manual.

For example, after the whole briefing incident today Fox brought on a talking head who said ‘When you give a briefing to the press what do you expect and I have been told he gave a briefing to the press’.

They leave out the ‘background’ part. So now Rush Limbaugh can say ‘This guy talked to the press with this info for the record’ and when asked to back it up he points to the FNN broadcast of 3/24/04 bla bla bla. Its this false creation of references that lets this shit go on and on and on.

Oh, and did anyone catch the talking head on FNN who thought they were talking about a top secret presidential brief? It was fun to watch the other talking head correct him..

While I agree that Fox is biased, that is true of all the media outlets with few with exceptions.

Here is an example that maybe if proven to be true in my estimation, is far worse than anything Fox has done to date. It comes from a Liberal site that may or may not give it more credence. I would like to see if anyone can verify this account.

http://truthout.org/docs_03/121003A.shtml

There are but a few weeks to go before the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary. Time has grown short. In an effort to galvanize the message Kerry wants to deliver in the time remaining, he convened a powerful roster of journalists and columnists in the New York City apartment of Al Franken last Thursday. The gathering could not properly be called a meeting or a luncheon. It was a trial. The journalists served as prosecuting attorneys, jury and judge. The crowd I joined in Franken’s living room was comprised of:

 Al Franken and his wife Franni; 

 Rick Hertzberg, senior editor for the New Yorker; 

 David Remnick, editor for the New Yorker; 

 Jim Kelly, managing editor for Time Magazine; 

 Howard Fineman, chief political correspondent for Newsweek; 

 Jeff Greenfield, senior correspondent and analyst for CNN; 

 Frank Rich, columnist for the New York Times; 

 Eric Alterman, author and columnist for MSNBC and the Nation; 

 Art Spiegelman, Pulitzer Prize winning cartoonist/author of ‘Maus’; 

 Richard Cohen, columnist for the Washington Post; 

 Fred Kaplan, columnist for Slate; 

 Jacob Weisberg, editor of Slate and author; 

 Jonathan Alter, senior editor and columnist for Newsweek; 

 Philip Gourevitch, columnist for the New Yorker; 

 Calvin Trillin, freelance writer and author; 

 Edward Jay Epstein, investigative reporter and author; 

 Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., who needs no introduction. 



 We sat in a circle around Kerry and grilled him for two long hours. In an age of retail politicians who avoid substance the way vampires avoid sunlight, in an age when the sitting President flounders like a gaffed fish whenever he must speak to reporters without a script, Kerry’s decision to open himself to the slings and arrows of this group was bold and impressive. He was fresh from two remarkable speeches – one lambasting the PATRIOT Act, another outlining his foreign policy ideals while eviscerating the Bush record – and had his game face on. He needed it, because Eric Alterman lit into him immediately on the all-important issue of his vote for the Iraq War Resolution. The prosecution had begun.

There’s a reason, I now understand, why Cranial’s signature points to a site called “cranialcavity.net”—emphasis on “cavity”.

What has this post, if anything, to do with the veracity of Richard Clarke’s statements, the White House smear campaign against him, and Fox News’ assistance with this smear campaign?

John Kerry is taking tough questions from a group of journalists and authors. Oh, yes, that is far worse than violating a basic tenet of journalistic ethics. They are asking tough questions of a presidential candidate instead of burning a source who happened to be a mouthpiece for Bush.

To those who try to discredit Clarke for being a Bush mouthpiece: if his background briefing is an apparent attempt to “mislead” as former Gov. Jim Thompson said, or if it is a contradiction of the truth as stated under oath yesterday…

…if the above statements are true, they must be applied to Scott McClellan, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Gen. Richard Myers, Dick Cheney, and every other Bush mouthpiece sent out to spin the stories about pre-9/11 policy and the post-9/11 policy of the invasion of Iraq as Job One.

If Clarke contradicted the truth—the truth that was spoken to the 9/11 Commission yesterday—in his briefing on behalf of Bush, then all of the above and the Bush himself have contradicted the truth on many more occasions than Clarke, and they continue to do it to this day with as much or more passion as they ever have used.

Not since Richard Nixon has a group of liars, libelers and slanderers occupied the White House. Not since Nixon have we seen such misuse and abuse of power.

The Bush administration must be held accountable.

Here we have two issues: 1.) the fact that Fox is not a news organizations, but a propaganda arm of the WHite House masquerading as a news organization, and 2.) the fact that the White House is willing to burn its sources and its mouthpieces when it suits them.

What is the newsroom scuttlebutt on this turn of events? And just how frustrated is the working press with the Chatty-Cathy-Doll behavior of the Bush spokespeople? (Jon Stewart did a great job editting together identical Rice/McClellan statements on Monday, btw.)

Chris: Thanks ever so much for that review and excerpts. I think you put it exceedingly aptly when you made the comment that Clarke WAS the loop. And after all, he’d been trying to get someone in this bent administration to listen for so long it wasn’t funny.

That man deserves a great deal of credit. His detractors, like Scottie (“the Android”) McClellan deserve only tar and feathers. And for anyone as base and subservient as McClellan to offer up a plate of suppoosed contradictions in this manner takes incredible gall. The day we hear anything remotely resembling integrity out of him will most likely be the day pigs fly!

I too seriously question the basis for Cranial’s “presentation”. Rather than supporting his alleged premise, it serves quite an opposite effect — identifying Kerry as a man willing to “take the heat” of uncensored questions, rather than hide behind “talking heads”, spun mythology, and pre-screened queries like his spineless incumbent competition.

Three cheers for Clarke! Three hisses for odious Bush lackey McClellan!!

Oh, and Fox? Should be boiled in their own copious drool! Insidious little fascist propagandists!

Re Andrew Brenner

Andrew while I agree the topic of this thread is on the Clark book and appearance at the Senate Hearing, isn’t it also true the last 4 paragraphs are all exclusively on the FoxNews coverage?

It is also true that the first 2 comments in the thread also are exclusively on the subject of Fox News and its bias.

Its also true the overall theme of the post and all its comments are on media bias, but because I choose to point out that bias exists on both sides you “attempted” to attack me.

“There�s a reason, I now understand, why Cranial�s signature points to a site called �cranialcavity.net��emphasis on �cavity�.

“What has this post, if anything, to do with the veracity of Richard Clarke�s statements, the White House smear campaign against him, and Fox News� assistance with this smear campaign?”

I doubt given your “smear” that you chose to visit the linked blog. If you had you would have found a blogroll that contains sites that fit the entire political spectrum, Left, Right, Independent, and both domestic and foreign. Instead you “attacked.” And just where does your signature point to? A Google search page for “Richard Clarke.” Nice, you attack and you hide, and before you start, don’t go down the “spam” route in explaination. One can easily add “killspam” to your address, or not give one at all.

As for this comment:

“Oh, yes, that is far worse than violating a basic tenet of journalistic ethics”

I suggest you follow any of these links, they will instruct in another basic tenet of journalism: A reporter reports, he/she does not become part of the story.

http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/

http://journalism.berkeley.edu/ This for a more “liberal view” that you obviously enjoy

http://www.uiowa.edu/~journal/

http://www.emory.edu/COLLEGE/JOURNALISM/curriculum.shtml

Should Kerry be assisted by experts on campaign strategy? Certainly, and there are thousands of experts available to perform the same function that are not part of the media. In fact Kerry, as all candidates, have people already on staff that can provide this service. He chose not to, and the “journalists” failed in properly conducting themselves as professionals.

Both Andrew and JMFeeney who had similiar comments put on your “liberal blinders” and refuse to see the light. Or you believe my example is not bias. So maybe this example will help.

CBS in airing the Clarke 60 Minutes interview failed to disclose that Clarks book is published by a company that is owned by VIACOM, who also happens to own CBS. In explaination the head of the network said it was an “oversight.” Well apparently it was also an “oversight” when CBS also aired Paul O’Neil’s interview on his critical book on the Bush Admin. O’Neil’s book is published by the same outfit. Lesley Stahl who did the Clarke interview has since refused three invitations to appear on radio and TV shows explaining the “oversight.” Strange, no because it wasn’t an “ovesight”.

Want more? also CBS. Look at the last few CBS Presidential polls that they have touted on the Evening News, and their Morning Show. You will find a series of three in sucession that had Bush trailing Kerry from 3 to 7 percentage points. Then something “strange’ happened the next CBS poll had Bush ahead by 2 points. Did it get reported by the Evening News or The Morning Show? No they failed to mention it, failed to report their own bought and paid for Poll. Strange? No its blatant BIAS.

If you two chose to wallow in your Liberal bias, and just chose to reaffirm what you already believe have fun,

more power to Ya.

I chose to see bias no matter where it comes from and use both left and right points of view to make my judgments on issues.

Cranial, I cannot tell whether you are serious and simply have trouble putting together a complete sentence/thought, or if you are a troll lurking around a site you despise just to stir up the water fowl, or if your tongue is so firmly in cheek that you cannot communicate with it. Your posts are very nearly incomprehensible.

What on earth is wrong with John Kerry surrounding himself with folks who are willing to play devil’s advocate and testing himself on the issues? Every public person who is bright enough to put an answer together does a similar exercise at one time or another. Every lawyer does this preparing for trial. This wasn’t intended to be a “story” at all - so how did those journalists become the story, in your mind? And why do you insist on labeling everyone and everything as “Liberal” (even CBS, for petessake - the newest neo-con Shill on the Block who is just now being taught a lesson about the cost of Shilldom…)

If you’re just trying to garner visits to your alleged website, I submit that you should investigate and purchase online advertising like everyone else does. This is not a public service forum for free weblinks.

Let me apologize for the “cavity” comment. It was uncalled for, but I felt the need to “bang on a table” for a moment. I wanted to demonstrate how annoying it can be when someone seeks to discredit without addressing the real argument. Sound familiar?

For the record, I read the truthout.org article Cranial excerpted.

From my point of view, there is no comparison,

no connection whatsoever,

between Fox News releasing a transcript of a background interview directly to the White House in order to assist its campaign to discredit Richard Clarke and a group of high-powered journalists questioning a presidential candidate.

My criticism of the original Cranial post is that it fails to make an argument, convincing or not—especially the one it claims to make. Cranial has responded to my earlier posts—posts drawing attention to the efforts made by Clarke pre-Bush with the lack of effort by Bush from January 2001 until September 2001—with posts that attempt to criticize and belittle the Clinton administration’s actions, Clarke’s actions, and other issues that detract attention from the REAL issue, that of Clarke’s assertions.

The follow-up Cranial post makes the argument that “the ‘journalists’ failed in properly conducting themselves as professionals.” Forgive me for being dense, but I don’t see how asking tough questions to a candidate is improper conduct. Someone is going to have to paint a better picture for my little mind. If Kerry’s answers to their questions had left them wanting, perhaps they would have responded in kind—but that didn’t happen. They bought Kerry’s answers.

Besides, and more to the point, Cranial’s posts continue to deflect attention from Clarke’s statements and the Bush administration’s subsequent assault on his character.

Like the Bush administration, Cranial fails to directly address the facts presented by Clarke. Rather, Cranial points fingers elsewhere and posts information claiming to be “fact” without backing it up with sources. In the words of this site’s creator:

“Cranial, you say you’re merely urging caution, but your comments are aimed at discrediting Clarke for producing an allegedly suspiciously timed book, being pissed off or having nutty ideas in the 1980s. But none of these criticisms actually get to the heart of Clarke’s charges.”

Since Cranial has continued to deflect and obfuscate, I continue to bring my argument back on point—that Clarke’s statements, under oath, have not been refuted by the Bush administration.

In fact, they have admitted that they presented false information last week about Clarke’s revelation that Bush, on 9/12, demanded that he find a connection to Iraq and Saddam Hussein.

The White House, last week, said Bush was not even in the same room as Clarke.

Yesterday, they admitted he was in the same room and that he said what Clarke claimed he said.

The point is this: the Bush administration lies, obfuscates, misrepresents, and misleads. Clarke has stated, under oath, his version of events. The Bush administration has failed to present a version of events that contradicts Clarke’s statements; rather, they have attempted to discredit him in a variety of ways and assign blame to the Clinton administration rather than answer Clarke’s charges directly.

This is what Cranial does, just like the Bush administration.

And yes, it drives me nuts.

But I won’t stop asking the same questions that Clarke is asking:

1) Did the Bush administration de-emphasize counterterrorism from January 2001 until September 2001?

and

2) Was the Bush administration preoccupied with invading Iraq, even before 9/11?

Until I see REAL answers backed up with evidence that refutes Clarke’s evidence, I will believe Mr. Clarke, regardless of his publisher, his interviews, his sense of timing, his political beliefs, etc.