Fox coverage of "Tea Partys" critisized

I'm flattered, but I want nothing to do with Fox News, negative reporting or otherwise.

It's like that old woman who couldn't find the beef...ignore it for long enough and they'll go away.

THIS IS A MUST "TEA BAG" READ ->

http://upswing.newsvine.com/_news/2009/04/15/2687081-tea-bagged-by-fox-a-commemorative-poem?last=1239880534&threadId=554656#last_1

To say that Fox, CNBC, MSNBC, or The Radio Talking Heads(either right or left) are news Organizations is like saying that drinking gasoline is good for your health. None of these networks or their show hosts would recognize real news or for that matter know how to report news. Hannity and Limbaugh are basically uneducated college dropouts who barely got past High School and the rest are over educated, over rated idiots. Fox supporting tea parties isn't that odd; they have a difficult time recognizing that their ideas and the GOP or failing. Sadly, we have a large number of biased people who think the lies these People report are real truths.

It's like that old woman who couldn't find the beef...ignore it for long enough and they'll go away.

I liked that old lady.

with both sides of the story.

Really when have they said anything about the tax cuts that are in place?

No response to that? How many times has fox reported that small businesses will have a zero capital gains tax ?

"At least Fox covered somthing I was intrested in and with both sides of the story. The other so called news coverage-------- I dont know what to say. They have no news"

What BOTH sides of the story? Are you kidding me? For Fox it's only one side: anti-Obama, that's it.

All other channels have no news? Aaaa, you mean no "sensationalism", like hosts crying fake Talibangelist tears, and scream, and flail their limbs, and use props..and ultimatelly behave like clowns! That;s "news" for you? Oh brother....

Lin bur wrote -

At least Fox covered somthing I was intrested

I don't think FOX covered it ... FOX invented it... they spent weeks talking about "TEA BAGGING" as "news" ....it was a promotion. As an example have you seen the video of Neil Cavuto exaggerating the number of people at the "tea bagging" he attended? Journalist don't lie about numbers ... promoters do. (if you don't like MSNBC ignore the story just fast forward to Neil Cavuto caught on video in a lie! I could not find the video by itself)... here:

http://www.politicususa.com/en/Olbermann-Cavuto

The FCC frowns on advocacy in news reporting.

Is that new since the election? Now that the FCC is part of the Obama administration perhaps?

I would love for you to source anything supporting other networks having shown concern for oppressive taxation. I haven't seen it on MSNBC, CNN or NBC. It's gotten a mention on CNBC and that is the only other network I've seen show one whit of concern.

TJ - tell me, since you're so informed, how is the current tax structure so much more oppressive than it was during the prosperous 1990s? or the Reagan years? please, be specific and don't just throw out "you'll pay higher taxes" because even the rich are only going to pay the same as they did during the reagan years. how much should we pay in taxes when we're fighting two wars? how much more oppressive is our tax structure vs. other western nations?

concerned about oppressive taxation

The proposed tax on highest earners is less than during Reagan's time.

Reagan the oppressor?

Please stop repeating that talking point/lie.

Taxes are much higher than the 80s. In case you are sincere in your misunderstanding, allow me to point out the obvious -- taxes are comprised of MORE THAN THE MARGINAL TAX RATES. Google Schedule A, for one thing. Then consider the increases in State taxes, property taxes, sales taxes and VAT, etc., etc., etc. The RAIN tax in my state. Beer tax. Cigarette tax.

Get the point? Good. Now let's get to the REAL problem --- out of control government spending.

Stop with your talking points.

Obama is not raising state property or sales taxes. Those would be the legislators you voted for in your home state. Obama is raising the tax on smokers. The diseases that result from our smoking are expensive and thus the tax goes to offset that.

If these are about spending then why does FOX continue to refer to them as anti-tax protests. let's go to that liberal rag the WSJ. It sure is about more than marginal rates.

Sen. Obama's middle-class tax cuts are larger than his partial rollbacks for families earning over $250,000, making the proposal as a whole a net tax cut and reducing revenues to less than 18.2% of GDP -- the level of taxes that prevailed under President Reagan.

The top two income-tax brackets would return to their 1990s levels of 36% and 39.6% (including the exemption and deduction phase-outs). All other brackets would remain as they are today.

- The top capital-gains rate for families making more than $250,000 would return to 20% -- the lowest rate that existed in the 1990s and the rate President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut. A 20% rate is almost a third lower than the rate President Reagan set in 1986.

- The tax rate on dividends would also be 20% for families making more than $250,000, rather than returning to the ordinary income rate. This rate would be 39% lower than the rate President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut and would be lower than all but five of the last 92 years we have been taxing dividends.

- The estate tax would be effectively repealed for 99.7% of estates, and retained at a 45% rate for estates valued at over $7 million per couple. This would cut the number of estates covered by the tax by 84% relative to 2000.

As far as state and property taxes, think you would have to take that up with your local officials. Funny I haven't seen one sign criticizing local politicians.

I really don't have much of a problem spending to repair and build up our infrastructure it is much better than spending it to build up other countries.

Fixing the electrical grid will improve our national security.

Fixing the roads will save me a bundle on car repairs.

The diseases that result from our smoking are expensive and thus the tax goes to offset that.

It will be used for Schip, insurance for kids not smokers

I must have read wrong. It's still a great program though.

Dawn, please read the entire threads before adding your inanity. Did I say Obama was raising property taxes? No, I did not. reddirthippy postulates that we are merely returning to the taxation levels of the 1980s which is untrue.

And, reddirt, you haven't seen the entirety of my communications to my state and local politicians, have you? No. Too bad, you would have loved my missive on the rain tax.

The purpose of the TEA Parties today was federal SPENDING and taxes. However, the coverage did refer to the entire tax burden including a specific mention of Oregon's 2000% tax increase on micro-brews.

And, somewhere along the lines here, someone who shall go unnamed has wrongly assumed that I endorse the Fox News characterization of the Tea Parties. Had I not been out of state, I had planned to attend ours. The focus of the organizers was spending and bringing attention to our extreme concern over the direction the federal government is taking the country. Not, as FNC said several times, rage and anger over the level of taxes. There is a difference.

Premise:

Is that new since the election? Now that the FCC is part of the Obama administration perhaps?

I would love for you to source anything supporting other networks having shown concern for oppressive taxation. I haven't seen it on MSNBC, CNN or NBC. It's gotten a mention on CNBC and that is the only other network I've seen show one whit of concern.

Then followed by a comment contrasting Reagan's (a president) fiscal policies.

So you linked oppressive taxation with "liberal media" not reporting the oppressive taxation meaning the media agrees or is at least complicit with Obama's fiscal policy.

When someone pointed out that Reagan's taxes were higher and you refuted (post a link perhaps?), you countered with a punch including state taxes.

Since the premise centered around Obama's "oppressive taxation" and the following stream of debate, you were responding with a talking point against Obama.

I countered.

Obama is raising the tax on smokers. The diseases that result from our smoking are expensive and thus the tax goes to offset that.

When is the obese tax kicking in? Obesity has since past smoking as a larger drain on the health care system.

The smoking tax had nothing to with diseases or health at all for that matter. It only had to do with raising government revenue.

Well ellie it isn't just fox it is also headline news cnn, my local stations. Surely you will admit that if all those other taxes are going up Obama's reductions will counter them.

And admit it wasn't a talking point/lie but a simple fact.

I addressed the spending.

reddirt,

Obama is raising taxes, not lowering them. The lowering rhetoric is part of the lie. He gives with one hand ($13/week) and takes with the other (these are already imbedded and will show up soon...unfunded state mandates attached to stimulus, amnesty for illegals, etc., etc., ad nauseum). One must consider the big picture and the total cost of government. I must turn in now...till tomorrow (probably night).

A summary of the right:

1. Young people shouldn't have to pay taxes to support old people.

2. Old people shouldn't have to pay taxes to support schools.

3. Single people shouldn't have to pay taxes to support schools.

4. Anarchist shouldn't have to pay taxes to support wars.

5. Rich people shouldn't have to pay taxes to support lazy.

I don't want to pay for NASA, tornado relief, roads, SCHIP, COBRA, land preservation, military operations, ER payment skippers, UNICEF, illegal aliens, mentally ill.

Me me me me me. Why do I have to support people?

Well, if you want to live in a society with a roving poor and armored upper class, please feel free to check out India or South Africa.

*Ellie some links to support your claims would help.

Yeah these aren't about taxes, hannity has huckabee on(Atlanta anti tax tea party) and it all about promoting the fair tax. Hannity just claimed he is a Reagan conservative. I see signs "what would Reagan do?" Guess my earlier post was on point.

Fair tax --- A tax that would tax health care, rent, any services, electric bills, raise taxes on the poorest and reduce it for any one in the 30% or above bracket

and they are pushing the turnout claims of 6mil. but! but! when it was immigration rallies and millions turned out it was just some radical lefties.

Hannity is a partisan hack. He's just as bad Olberman.

While, there's a legitimate reason for the "tea-bag" parties, it's been so sensationalized it's hardly even a glimmer of what it SHOULD be about. It's just more Republican posturing and anti-Obamaism.

If the parties were actually about unjust taxation, government spending, and the expansion of the federal government to a national government - the parties would actually have some credibility. To me, all the parties are about is getting the Republicans back in power. I'm not going to advocate for that, not after they've abandonned opposition to all things I've previously mentioned. Let's not forget the Republican party gave us such government entities as the DHS. Why are these psuedo-conservatives attempting to put them back in power?

They should be advocating the removal of the Republican party from the political spectrum. Advocating for a truly conservative party that actually adhere's to conservative principals - not just on election cycles, and just not to the extent of "I'm more conservative than the Democrat (but, I'm still a moderate-liberal.) I guess they're too religious (figuratively and literally) to see their own hypocrisy.

If FOX is the only news channel concerned about oppressive taxation...

What is your definition of "oppressive taxation?" Really. What's too high in your book?

While you're at it, when's the last time our tax rate has been as low as it is right now? When?

What is your definition of "oppressive taxation?" Really. What's too high in your book?

After hearing some people speak you'd think we'd lived in North Korea.

the shifting logic on the tea party reminds me of the shifting logic on why we went to war in iraq. sorry, but when you're busted you're done, don't try to come up with another reason. obama lowered taxes. tax rates are lower than previously, so stop the silly talk about local taxes and rain taxes and hidden taxes that will be revealed soon. it reminds me of my 6 year old trying to make up an excuse.

Maybe the context will help you understand. Stop Spending Our Future.

CliffDogg,

I have to say, from an independents point of view, I'm not sure where all this spending is going to get us? Who are we helping? Will it work? There has never been this kind of spending even when you adjust it for inflation. What about our kids future? And how does one cut taxes and yet increase spending to an unprecedented point? These are just questions that are legitimate.

Perrie - I agree, I am concerned with the level of debt we're getting into and how we're going to crawl out of that hole. But given where we are and the limited choices we have to stimulate the economy, almost all economists agree we need to kick-start the economy with spending to get money back into business and workers hands. But I am concerned - we've never gone here before. But these tea parties are not simply about that.

That said, these tea parties and the motivation for them are a joke. Let's be real. It's anti-Obama. W spent money like crazy and these teabaggers didn't march in protest. We lowered taxes while fighting 2 wars, not very responsible, yet nobody marched. Why march now, just because of this spending? I don't think that's the only motivation. We're even lowering taxes on must of those marching. But the rich & corp taxes are going up, so why march? It's being stoked by the right-wing media (just follow the money) because (1) it's their base (2) it's their money.

CliffDogg, you are wrong on the Bush v. Obama spending. Obama has either gotten approved or has pending spending plans that will put us up to $12 Trillion in debt -- during a shrinking economy, no less.

No one was happy with Bush's spending, but it produced a deficit of $500 billion (or a small fraction of GDP). In 2009, Obama's is projected to be four times that amount (@ 18% GDP).

The link in 4.22 contains all the info on his extended plans along with context. Hint: It's four times the cost of WWII and greater than the GDP.

Cliffdog,

I am not a big political animal, but I am sure there are just as many people who are marching about this large amount of spending as those who marched against the war. I am not taking these protests as anti-obama, although I'm sure there are those there that are. But I am also sure there are people like me, who are not quite convinced that all this spending will get us out of the hole we are in. In case you haven't noticed, they are marching in England who are unhappy about all the spending going on there. I doubt the BBC is stoking any fire there.

Perrie is too humble to do it, so I will link to a comment of hers that contains a link showing some of the ridiculous pet projects covered in the stimulus.

What it's being spent "on" is the big problem. As to the magnitude of the debt being created by Obama, check out this short video. Adjusted, it's four times the amount of WWII-era, and equal to the present GDP. Let's hope WWIII doesn't break out while we're trying to pay interest on it.

Thank You Ellie,

I have to agree with her. This unlimited spending scary. My husband and I are fiscally conservative, and it has done us well. I want to know where my tax dollars are going.

I think with the instability in the world today...I mean with Iran and Korea and Pakistan, suddenly I do find myself thinking of WWIII.

As for spending money to create jobs, that's fine if your talking about infrastructure. But there is a ton of money going to places that we don't know where, or to support failing banks and business. That is not where I want my money going. Sometimes filing chapter 11 is a good thing. It forces you to restructure or die. Otherwise there is no incentive to change.

Jerry,

There was nothing to ask, because the money was going to the war. And then it came down to whether you were for the war or against it.

I am not a right winger, I am an independent moderate. I think there are reasons to ask where our money is going. I don't believe in following ANY administration blindly. I think they all should be held accountable. There are things I want my money going to to help the economy and things I don't. I know you feel like this might be a free for all to be picking on Obama, but I feel that he should be held just as accountable as Bush was. At least that's my humble opinion.

The question that has been asked over and over, but is yet to be answered, is where were all the Right Wingers when Bush was spending money like a madman?

I'm going to answer this again, assuming it is a sincere question and not a mere repetition of a rhetorical talking point that the left really doesn't want to hear the answer to (wow, bad sentence structure...sorry).

The magnitude of Bush's spending was "do-able". Didn't necessarily agree with all of it; but, it was theoretically manageable. And, calling it ALL Bush spending is as inaccurate as calling all this spending Obama's. The Congresses of the first six and last two years of Bush's terms and the current congress are actually more culpable for the spending. But that is semantics.

That said, Obama's spending is unmanageable by any measure. As stimulus, many economists think it needs to be bigger (to equate to some critical mass of the GDP in order to get it moving). However, virtually everyone is in agreement that the spending by Pelosi, Reid and Obama is very ineffective as true stimulus. Slapping the label, "stimulus" on their bills and initiatives is, to reprise a tired phrase, putting lipstick on a pig.

Jerry,

Bush was held accountable. The spending was for a war. People didn't like that war and that's why we have President Obama. I would say that is being held accountable. Just ask any Republican who didn't get McCain as their Commander and Chief.

I know you don't like him, but have faith, he will manage it.

I don't TRUST THEM. Do you make similar warranties about Pelosi, Reid, Emanuel, et. al.? Seemingly daily there are more reasons I don't, Jerry.

Don't forget PBS and NPR...

Jerry, you are quite conveniently overlooking the precedent set by the rest of the media during the election. Or else you are being intentionally obtuse which, to tell the truth, I haven't "noticed" with you.

What makes you think they didn't have reporters at the events, anyway? And, I stand by my position that the whole Fox News complaint strategy is a red herring designed to divert attention from the message of those in attendance today.

It's a hypocritical one on the part of the left, too, since they went equally out of their way to detract from the demonstrations....don't see that mentioned here.

I never saw chris matthews or Olberman hosting an obama rally. I saw setting up camp outside of the debates and republican conventions.

Ellie if you have links to back up what you say, that MSNBC and CNN advertised (with commercials) and set their own hosts at events and claimed it was grass roots. Then you will be able to say the same thing.

For those of us that actually watched the 2 years running up to the election, MSM had no clue about the dems grass roots movement until obama started sweeping the elections. They THOUGHT hillary had it in the bag and their media heads were sent spinnng when she wasn't winning. Thats coverage. They weren't predicting they were reporting what happens as it happenend.

Meanwhile, republicans couldn't decide if they liked huckabee, romney or mccain. Their fund raising was way down and their grass roots were pathetic. It took a major news organization plus corporations investing money in order to inspire the 'right' into a cause that people didn't discover they had until Santelli ranted it a few months ago.

Next Fox ripped off the libertarian's ideas, started pumping it up with commericials and hour to hour news coverage and "teabagging" history was made. Talking about things before they happen, is not coverage, its called advocating.

sigh. I shall not henceforth communicate with anyone who uses gratuitous profanity. It's the typical bad manners of the left, circa Alinsky, and it cheapens you.

For a critique with some integrity, see this LA Times report. Excerpt (sorry, it's longish):

MSNBC's hits on the tea parties may have paled compared to Fox's relentless support, but Olbermann, Maddow and Matthews were hardly subtle in rooting for the gatherings to bomb.

Maddow dismissed the "tea tantrums" last month, offering as proof that extremism was afoot a video of a Cleveland tea party in which a few participants doubted that Obama was U.S. born.

Those folks have about as much credibility as the dunderheads who say President Bush planned the 9/11 attacks. But getting a few nut jobs to sound off hardly proves that the whole tea party movement is inherently irrational. Weren't Democrats raising alarms about huge deficits just a few months ago?

...When a conservative guest suggested Matthews might actually want to attend one of the rallies, he chortled, suggesting he already knew what the events would be about because of the presence of the likes of Hannity, Gingrich and "the usual suspects."

Opponents of Obama's economic policies remain in the minority for now. But the time of small government, anti-tax crusaders likely will come again. Matthews might want to get himself out of the studio and into the field, lest he miss that development.

I think you skipped the first few paragraphs.

It's a real team effort over at Fox News.

You'd expect conservative commentators like Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity to be hyping today's wave of anti-tax "tea parties." But Fox personalities labeled "news" anchors are right there with their blessings too -- one telling us the protests will focus on "how much of our hard-earned money is going to the federal government," another assuring us the tea parties themselves are sparking economic activity.

The Fox promotions people have been pumping up the volume, with ads celebrating hundreds of rallies and citizens who are "demanding real economic solutions." That's in contrast, you see, to the fake solutions President Obama wants to foist on the American people.

There's something dispiriting, though not surprising, in watching the conservative movement's favorite news outlet shamelessly promote a political happening, while simultaneously claiming its coverage will be "fair and balanced."

While I agree this article is indeed very fair and balanced, taken in its entirety it stands in opposition to many of the arguments you've made above, which seems like it would be counterproductive for you since you're basically assigning credibility to an article that torpedos your own position.

And that position would be....?

And, I stand by my position that the whole Fox News complaint strategy is a red herring designed to divert attention from the message of those in attendance today.

I am inferring from this quote that you contend that these tea parties are a grass roots movement representing the viewpoints of citizens disgruntled with the US government. The article you cite is mostly backing the contention that the tea parties are heavily influenced and promoted by Fox News and that complaints about Fox's involvement is not so much a red herring as it is the actual story.

I have no idea what effect the prospective Fox coverage had on attendance. I can tell you that, had I been in my state, I would have been at the demonstrations to voice my concern over the outrageous spending on the part of this government.

It seems the MSM will only cover such demonstrations in Washington or whatever. Not everyone can afford to do that. The hometown demonstrations are brilliant, imo. I hope they will continue, on any given day. GTG now. Back tonight.

I think it would be very hard to measure that effect because the coverage itself has become so entangled with the original message.

I do have to disagree on the coverage though. I commented on this in another thread; I've been puzzled by the allegation that the MSM is ignoring these demonstrations. I work in the DC metro area and we've got a CNN feed on the TVs in my office and it's been pretty much non-stop coverage since the day before yesterday. Is there a particular media source that hasn't covered the demonstrations that this refers to? NY Times, LA Times, Chicago Trib, etc?

sox,

The thrust of the article is Fox's coverage being...criticized. I can't really comment on CNN's coverage except to say the thrust of CNN's coverage was Fox. I saw a couple of interviews of Party goers who came in contact with CNN reporters. They alleged CNN staff were rabble rousing. Another interesting angle.

Specifically, NT Times didn't report it -- at least not front page. The charge is that had almost 200,000 people organized in hundreds of markets to protest a liberal cause, the coverage would have been much different. Heck, 6 code pinkers are "major news." But, I digress.

Specifically, NT Times didn't report it -- at least not front page. The charge is that had almost 200,000 people organized in hundreds of markets to protest a liberal cause, the coverage would have been much different. Heck, 6 code pinkers are "major news." But, I digress.

So let's be fair, when was the last time Fox covered any protest as much as the tea baggers?

If they were truly fair and balanced and not advocating, you'd think that protests that got double attendance would have got double the coverage.

Jerry, if you'll go back and re-read, it was sox who didn't know my position. He, like many others here assumed...wrongly it turns out.

Ellie, I don't think I got it wrong. I quoted your position statement:

And, I stand by my position that the whole Fox News complaint strategy is a red herring designed to divert attention from the message of those in attendance today.

You said you thought Fox was a red herring taking attention from the message of the tea parties, and I disagreed. I might still be wrong, but I didn't misunderstand your position.

Also, you did wrongly assume that I am a "he." Female pronouns for me, please!

Sorry for the gender confusion sox...hard to tell sometimes! :)

Many on this thread assume that I support Fox's coverage and/or promo. Not necessarily. For one thing, there was different coverage on different shows, from what I gather (didn't see it all). But, my main point is that the message of the Tea Party is so frightening to the left that they will try instead to "Alinsky" the movement by employing his (and their) dishonest tactic of picking another target, freezing it, polarizing it. Has nothing to do with the issues. When they have no reasonable point, they resort to this tactic and ridicule. Thus, the red herring comment...not to be confused with an endorsement of Fox's coverage, which many assume I said.

See my comment in #11.4 for my actual position on media consumption (Tea Parties or any other event/issue).

Ellie, thanks for clarifying. I think part of the issue here is that the Tea Party's message is not a clear, monolithic thing. As others on the vine have noted, some people seemed to be protesting taxes at the federal level, others at the state and local. Some were protesting Obama's governance, others congressional spending, still more were protesting "the welfare state." All of these are big, complex issues that could each individually generate their own protests and counter-protests. When we see them all being lumped together like this I think it does have a tendency to come off as "oh- just more of the Republicans complaining because they lost the election."

By no means do I believe that all 200,000 or so people who came to the tea parties did so because they're sore losers looking to vent. However, I do think that Fox News did the genuinely motivated grass-roots portion of that 200K a grave disservice by essentially trying to generate a media circus. They made it very easy for onlookers to dismiss the whole thing as a corporate stunt.

I would be really interested in seeing a conservative protest without all the interference from Fox and the paid professional lobbyists. I think it would do a lot to get conservatives and moderates and liberals all talking in an atmosphere where we weren't busy trying to discover who the man behind the curtain is. That would be a great and healthy thing for Americans from all political stripes.

And don't worry about the gender bending- I know my name is non-gender specific. I was just tweaking you. :)

sox, one of the problems with a "spontaneous" or "organic" movement is the lack of a defined platform this early. My hope is that the parties and congress will take note and adjust themselves severely and quickly to allow us a real shot at affecting change in the next election. As a supporter of "the movement" I am happy there is some muscle to help push it along and organize it. That is a monumental task. But, this is a monumental problem, too.

Jerry, a very good idea, but you assume we will take the time from our sparring to read them! (just joking) Actually, if ever I feel like I might be misunderstanding someone, I do read their bios or other comments to get an idea of where they're coming from. It's easy to miss intonations, etc., on the internet!

(inside voice) The Fox News hosts who attended Tea Parties are all commentators, not reporters or anchors.

Promo's for the coverage announced by FNC news anchors were programming notes which are commonly used by all news networks.

The goal of every employee at Fox is a) keep their job, and b) rise up through the corporate hierarchy. In all normal corporations, the way to rise up through the hierarchy and to keep your job is to perform as nearly as possible what you guess is the unwritten and unspoken real goals of the upper management. The unwritten and unspoken real goals of Fox management is precisely the same as the goals of MSNBC management - to enforce the cabal of power that gives this class of people their privilege and special rights.

I haven't seen any separation between content and opinion in the MSM in 20 years - I mean literally there is no separation, or to say it differently all "news" is inaccurate by design and in support of the goals I've stated above. Sometimes, a pretense of objectivity is an important part of misleading people; if you admit you are giving opinions not news than you lose some of the power to mislead. Maybe that is what you are talking about, that artificical pretense that there is some hard "news" or "facts" being presented in the barrage of slanted, crafted propaganda. But it always has a pupose, and the purpose is always a corporate purpose. Corporations don't pay people to just do their own thing or act morally, do they. Everything a corporation does is for a purpose. Fox is no different than any other of these entities.

Sharn, I pretty much agree with your thoughts in #11.3. I ask, what is the alternative? Government owned media. What about objectivity of nationalized news? Same issue. It is a far better system we have now. News consumers simply must heed the adage, caveat emptor. I make a point to listen to both sides, which we can do under our current system.

You are right, though, we must "adjust" or "interpret" for the fact all news is corporate. And, many news organizations, especially papers, are struggling and doing -- or not doing -- things they might not have done 20 years ago.

R. Donald Snyder you are correct that Faux spinned news has convinced the tea baggers that they are richer than they actually are and those that are getting paid extremely well (hannity & liimbaugh) have the poor persons best interest at hear (more like underfoot)

Kind of like Obama having the poor person's best interest at heart.

FOX has a vested interest in maintaining and promoting the health of the lunatic right wing fringe, since they're are their viewer base. Without them FOX would have no one watching them at all.

You made me laugh! Check out the last neilson ratings, must be a lot of right wing fringe people out there, this is a clip from an MSN article written on March 31st, 2009. (still new user can't post links)

In prime time, FNC bested CNN and MSNBC combined with an average of 2,250,000 viewers (up 24%) during Q1 2009, compared with CNN’s 1,126,000 (down 10%) and MSNBC’s 950,000 (up 22%). In total day, FNC also rated higher than the competition with 1,203,000 total viewers (up 26%) compared to CNN’s 740,000 (up 17%) and MSNBC’s 473,000 (up 20%). FNC ranked fifth among all basic cable channels for the quarter in total day viewership while CNN and MSNBC followed at 14th and 28th, respectively.

Doesn't look like FOX has any problems attracting viewers. I myself watch/read Fox, MSNBC, CNN, Wall Street Journal, MSN, and local newspapers. You can't have to much info and since all news outlets these days lean left or right you can never trust a single source for anything.

I actually like to watch FOX Noise myself sometimes. I mean even a left wing liberal like me needs a good laugh from time to time and the fools on there never let me down. They're as funny as SNL sometimes.

forthsecond,

You are profanely and profoundly tedious. Perhaps you've heard of the porkulus? Son of TARP? TALF? AIG? General Motors? Plans for carbon taxes? You don't have to actually have already paid the tax to protest the leadership. And, as Jerry says, stick to the point.

What was the Tobacco tax? Was that tax put on the Canadians or Chinese or was that tax on the Russians.

Sharn, too bad you weren't that vocal against the criminals previously in office. They're all crooks, you just have crooks you like better.

I don't like any of these crooks. They are all corrupted and owe their soles to special interest. For the good of all Americans this needs stop.

Vote them all out of Washington. Make them come back home and face the communities that they have taken advantage of.

Do you know what their retirement plan consists of.

I won't tell you. Go find it out for your self. I don't care who you are, if that does not make you mad as hell then you have a chip missing in your brain.

How do you know? Were you there?

The story was not on the front page of the NY Times. Obama said he was "unaware".

That's fine. The left can keep their heads in the sand. See you all in 2010.

Obama said he was unaware? Wow you know that is a huge lie. Just one more. But if that is true then you can see show disconnected he is from the public in this nation.

And besides. He is only a very small part of this problem. Thankfully he has been the catalyst that got things going.

Good for him.

But if you are foolish enough to believe this was just a few Wackos on parade. Consider this. Small town in New Mexico. (that's about all we have here in small towns.) 750 attendees to our gathering.

We intend to Flush the "Washington" and clean it out to remove the stench of Washington.

Congress has lost it's way and we intend to help them find their way home.

Obama said he was "unaware".

Could you please provide a source?

Bob, I think it was actually Gibbs who Brent is referencing. Gibbs said he didn't know if President Obama was aware of the events. I haven't found any place where Obama mentioned the tea parties at all.

soxforthewin, thanks, it didn't sound right to me.

It's a good point. People that can actually answer that question didn't go because they saw the hypocrisy in allowing political parties to infiltrate an ideological protest. Especially, when the political party in attendance has proven to be in direct opposition to the ideologue.

So Dr. Disgusting. What's wrong with that?

That is part of what we want.

We are pissed at bush. There, since that is settled, can we move on to barry? It's like you people somehow think bringing up bush automatically means barry and those in power now can do whatever the hell they want. They can't. Quit whining about bush, we already know he's a dillweed. Start looking at barry and open you eyes FFS.

Clearly you've missed the point here. This event was primarily staged by FOX then they turn around and report it as a major news event. Sort of like Fire Marshall Bill dousing himself with gasoline then lighting a cigarette. It was staged primarily as an anti-Obama rally when in fact its original purpose was an anti-Bush rally. FOX is a disgrace to journalism.

Fair and balanced my ass!

You make no sense. What good would it do to be anti-Bush, he's not in the position anymore. Your obviously unaware who is President now and makes the decisions.

As long as people contribute Bush's actions to Obama, then someone has to school you on the difference. Furthermore, as long as Bush's policises still affect us, we are allowed to criticize him.

Criticize Bush all you want, same as Obama can be criticized. Hope we learn from both of their mistakes, but it is Obama who needs to hear all voices of our nation. What good would it do to go piss on Bush's lawn, except to let out some frustation the poster may have. People at these rallies want something done and it is all politicians they are aiming their concerns at.

He hears you. It just so happens that those who voted for him agree to spend money on much needed programs like healthcare. I don't think he is spending too much at all.

There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won't agree with every decision or policy I make as president. And we know the government can't solve every problem.

But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. And, above all, I will ask you to join in the work of remaking this nation, the only way it's been done in America for 221 years -- block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand.

In this country, we rise or fall as one nation, as one people. Let's resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long.

Let's remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House, a party founded on the values of self-reliance and individual liberty and national unity.

Those are values that we all share. And while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress.

As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, we are not enemies but friends. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection.

And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn, I may not have won your vote tonight, but I hear your voices. I need your help. And I will be your president, too.

This is an old speech. I guess that many people feel that he isn't listening.

It was one of the best speeches written. President's don't usually try to include the opposition voters in speeches.

Not the majority but a strong minority.

Just like you think Fox is "unbelievably biased" because they don't coincide with what YOU believe. I couldn't believe that CNN "reporter" at the Chicago rally..she sounded like someone from Move-On.org

It was great when Neil Cavuto was caught on a "hot mike" asking in a hopeful manner, "We probably have around five thousand people here right? We must, huh?" Then 3 minutes later when they're LIVE saying, " We were expecting five thousand here, but there's at least fifteen thousand here." Talk about right wing spin, now that is priceless.

Faux News damaged what little credibility they might have had left with their "non-partisan" (LOL) teabagging rally.

Among the key adults 25-54 demographic, Fox News was also the highest ranked in both total-day and primetime averages. The network finished the quarter with an average 511,000 viewers in the demo during primetime, up 19% from last year, and 317,000 for the total day, up 23%. CNN was, again, the only one to take a dip in primetime, averaging 343,000 viewers 25-54, down 22% from last year, and 236,000 viewers for total-day.

Guess everyone is wrong, but you.

Someone's been drinking the kool-aid or tea should I say. I don't doubt that people tuned in to watch it on television, they like me, wanted to know what gun toting nutjobs to look out for in their neighborhood. Trust me I live in San Antonio, where Glenn (closet homo) Beck broadcast from. They were asking everyone to keep their signs down so they could show as many people as possible in the camera shots. San Antonio is one of the most conservative towns in the country, it's nickname is "military city, USA". Everyone here is even laughing at the teabaggers.

MSNBC has a story about a man urinating on a woman on an airplane today but nothing about the tea parties. Honestly, somebody tell me how that's news coverage.

Maybe the woman that the man was urinating on was a teabagger. I would love MSNBC to cover the teabaggers, so everyone could have a good long laugh. Say ba-bye to Fox and the conservative party after that "fair and balanced" display, LOL!

Now BeerGut...calling Beck a homo is flattering. Did you mean to give him a compliment? or do you think gays are a joke along with gun toting nutjobs...

Faux News channel is considered to be a total joke by all other reputable news channels like CNN, MSNBC, BBC, and the network news shows. The reason? The news is supposed to be presented to viewers without spin, so that they can draw their own conclusions about a story. Granted, depending on an individual reporters political views, there will always be some slight bias. But Fox News presents the news with an obvious and overpowering conservative bias. And what's funny is that they call themselves 'fair and balanced.' What a crock of crap! To informed viewers, it's easy to see through the personalities who use choice wording to make conservatives appears strong and just, while making moderates appear weak and liberals appear irrational. This is not news. Fox can even spin stories that aren't politically based, such as turning reports on Katrina into a politcal stomping ground. This channel is home to some of the biggest @!$%#s on TV including Britt Hume, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Rilley. But the worst of all is Ann Coulter, who I'm pretty sure should be diagnosed with a mental ailment. The problem with this channel is that it's easily able to infiltrate/brainwash many non-politically active viewers.

Who cares what CNN, MSNBC, & the BBC think. They have their own agendas. They do plenty of spinning. That was great "reporting" by that hack from CNN at the tea party in Chicago.

nohandouts wrote:

Nobody's covering the tea parties quite like Fox

ON That we can agree... After spending eight years ridiculing the "loony left" FOX seemed to miss the hysterical irony of the tea bagging...

FOX got it's start in the 1990's saying they wanted "fair and balanced" coverage. Coverage that CNN was not providing. They charged that CNN was slanted left. FOX has become EXACTLY what they criticized in CNN for... slanted news... WOULD ANYONE CALL FOX "FAIR AND BALANCED" (other than FOX's commercials) The phrase "Fair and Balanced" is now a joke well understood to mean reporting with a bias.

FOX's promotion of these "TEA BAGGING'S" started with a constant drip... of mentions. FOX's reporters sought bite after sound bite on "tea bag"... parties. To say they paid lip service to tea bagging would be an understatement. On bended knee before republican party bosses they begged for more "tea bagging" ...information. This went on for weeks, until finally the big day arrived. FOX sprayed the air with joyous spurts of tea bag ecstasy!

oh it was not, quit being a drama queen. Cheering USA and singing songs is definately a lynch mob. I swear I saw people carrying nooses in one hand and their children holding the other. One person had on a KKK gown and a yound skin-head was next to him shouting...kill Obama, kill Obama.... You guys are too funny.

I don't smoke and I make under $250k so my taxes have actually gone down.

It's straight out of their playbook, Rules for Radicals. Alinsky says if you can't beat 'em, ridicule 'em. It's the credo of MSNBC, et. al.

Ellie - Your post rings very more true than you may realize. I have been seeing this at a rapidly increasing rate. The more things that are coming to light about this administration and the louder "the fringe groups" are making it known the more inane the comments from the left.

I've requested several posters to cite sources or even a simple question to clarify a point and get attacked for a period in the wrong place and never hear another mention from them about the subject of the discussion. It just goes to show they have nothing factual or intelligent to say.

It also seems to me that their snides are becoming more childish by the day. I gave the grade school playground mentality up quite some years ago. I guess if you can't beat them with the facts, just attack them seems to be the lefts new credo. Even going as far as labeling them possible terrorists (as evidenced by this link and this one) in an attempt to suppress the truth.

Yes, that's the latest "ridicule" label -- right wing extremist. Get used to it. The response is to hold the mirror up to them. It's a tactic that reveals a de facto surrender on the merits of the argument. They're awakening to the fact the emperor has no new clothes. Call them on it and state your case. Their hot air and bravado is phoney Wizard of Oz behind the curtain.

You do realize that the majority of the people who are watching Fox News are 'Far Left Liberals' like me, eager to keep up to date on the latest, desperate scheme from your dying party, right? Well, actually, I have to admit... Its not ALWAYS to keep informed. Sometimes its for the butterflies I get in my stomach while watching ppl like Glenn Beck embarrassing himself on national TV. Kinda like watching someone fall down a flight of steps on Americas Funniest Home Videos, only more twisted than that....

In other words, I wouldnt be so quick to ass ume those ratings are a sign of solidarity btwn the Ideology of Fixed News & the American ppl. But u don't seem the type to stray away from any opinion/delusion of egocentric convenience, so please, continue laughing.

RJ -

You do realize that the majority of the people who are watching Fox News are 'Far Left Liberals'

Care to cite a reliable source?

Basic math: FOX is the conservative, MSNBC, CNN, and CNN Headline are liberal. So, let's add all the conservative and liberal numbers:

Conservative (FOX) = 3,390,000

Liberal (MSNBC, CNN, CNN Headline) = 3,189,000

Huh... not as big an ideological gap as you might think after seeing them all separate. Then you have to guess how many liberals are watching FOX vs how many conservatives are watching MSNBC, or CNN, or... lots of variables, anyway.

Which leads me to the burning question: what was the point of posting the ratings?

Torabu - Good analysis. I can accept that. By your analysis it shows this country is split for all sakes of argument, 50-50. I've also noticed that has pretty much been the split for some months now on most issues.

One counter point I would make though is it takes five outlets considered to be liberal to gain a comparable viewership as one outlet that is considered conservative.

Now the query would be:

What needs to be done to bring this split together to actually progress as a nation, to survive as the nation we were founded to be, as opposed to dismantling ourselves from the inside out and becoming a shell of socialism, fascism, or whatever -ism one wants to call it

Angerywhite.... wrote:

The ratings from yesterday are in:....I join FOX in laughing at all of you.

From our perspective.... AT THE WHITE HOUSE ..... we don't see the ratings you cite as significant. I hope you understand. :)

You mean Jeaneane Garofalo, perhaps, she's not a "reporter", she's an actress/comedian/activist. I happen to like her and I also think she was right about it- minus the mental ilness.

Jeanine needs to keep her stage job and stay off the talk shows. Her history in that area failed in the free market, which should give both her and the media who would provide her with the bully pulpit fodder for thought. She's mean and usually vapid. Limited to insults and talking points.