Frum: Fox News Has an Interest in Making People Angry
"On CNN's "Reliable Sources," WaPo's Howie Kurtz asked David Frum about his comment that "Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us and now we're discovering we work for Fox."
The former George W. Bush speechwriter told Kurtz:
"What that means is that Fox, like Limbaugh, has an interest in pushing the Republicans to the margins, making people angry. When people are angry and alienated, they don't vote. They succumb to feelings of helplessness. What people need right now are feelings of power, that they can make a difference by participating in politics."And Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) cautioned a constituent to not believe everything she hears on FOX as well.
Both of these statements come from Conservatives:
Senator Coburn in response to a woman telling him that Americans would be put in jail if they didn't purchase health care (a blatant lie perpetrated by FOX and other propagandist).
"COBURN: I want everybody else to get answer a question, ask a question, so let me. The intention is not to put anybody in jail. That makes for good TV news on Fox, but that isn’t the intention. There is the intention, though, to use the Internal Revenue Service to hold you accountable and you have to prove that you have bought health insurance."
Later in the town hall meeting he said:
"And what we have to have is make sure we have a debate in this country so that you can see what’s going on and make the determination yourself. So, don’t catch yourself being biased by Fox News that somebody’s no good. The people in Washington are good. They just don’t know what they don’t know."
"At the end of the town hall, Coburn implored the audience to stay “informed on the issues.” “Don’t just watch Fox News or CNN. Watch them both,” said Coburn. He then seemed to refer back to the woman who asked about health care reform putting people in jail, saying that he was “disturbed that we get things like this lady said and others have said on other issues that are so disconnected to what” he knows “to be the facts.” “That comes from somebody who has an agenda that’s other than the best interest of our country,” said Coburn. “So, please balance and be careful as you take in. Make sure you get a balance.”
h/t Think Progress
This isn't news to me or other liberals. FOX News is a propaganda machine and has been caught in many instances giving out wrong or deliberately false information, and for promoting the fake grass roots tea parties.
It is encouraging to see people like Frum and Coburn speak out publicly and tell the truth about FOX News, warning those who get all their information from that one source that they're being duped, played for suckers, and being fed lies and disinformation.
Here's a site that documents, with FOX videos, all the errors and deliberate lies that keep certain members of the right enthralled with this faux news cable show.
Here's a link to evidence where FOX News photoshopped pictures of people they don't like and then aired the touched up photos on their morning show. I expect this behavior from mean-spirited children and idiots. From a cable "news" station? Not so much.
Below is summary of a result of a survey taken in 2007 that tested the news savvy of cable news audiences. FOX News' audience were the least informed--and since it hasn't changed its programming, this is probably as true today, 3 years later, as it was then:
The results about Fox News echo findings of previous surveys. In 2003, University of Maryland researchers studied the public’s belief in three false claims — that Iraq possessed WMD, that Iraq was involved in 9/11, and that there was international support for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
The researchers stated, “The extent of Americans’ misperceptions vary significantly depending on their source of news. Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions.” Fox News viewers were “three times more likely than the next nearest network to hold all three misperceptions.”
28 comments:
It takes work to hold a balanced viewpoint, something many on the right, and left do not wish to have.
As you posted Shaw, it is encouraging to see Frum, but more so Coburn, step up. It should not take long for him to cast into the RINO pit alongside Frum who was put out to pasture long ago for not hewing the company line.
Good for Coburn.
The idea that Roger Ailes could in any way, shape or form be considered a 'journalist' or even ever having worked in the field of journalism speaks volumes to the success of his actual field of endeavor.
Propaganda and partisan hackery.
And his 'vision' drives the entire Fox operation at this, the most despicable 'news' outlet outside of the former Soviet bloc. The Fox version of the news is as inventive as that of the pre 1991 Pravda.
Dick Nixon would be proud of little Roger.
Arthurstone,
I recall reading it was the angry Talk Radio folks which gave Ailes the idea for Fox News, or ClusterFox as I like to think of them.
Frum has been trying for some time to drag conservatism out of the lunatic-fringe dead end it's run into. Needless to say, what he says is not well received among the hard-liners.
That anyone, even Foxtards, believes that Iraq was connected with 9/11 is astonishing.
FOX was connected with 911. I thought everyone knew that by now.
Infidel: "That anyone, even Foxtards"
I see that those on the right are not the only ones using partisan insults crafted from hate-speech toward the mentally disabled. But that doesn't make it right, either.
why do you think combining Fox news with bastards=Foxtards is a insult to mentally disabled?
Its hardly partisan to insult a cable news station that does not give fair and balanced news.
I'm wondering if you run around the blogs and scold righties people for insults to Obama?
It will be interesting to watch David Frum's future evolution after he's been ideologically "unleashed." He may have more freedom to speak his mind now than ever before.
These insults tend to come from Rahm Emanual's favorite word to bash the mentally disabled as opposed to "bastard". And yes, I do object to insults against Obama which cross the line in such a fashion, though I don't seek out right-handed people's blogs to do so.
Shaw, here's a great quote to add to your banner on the nuclear issue.
“President Obama has picked up on the notion that we can seek a world free of nuclear weapons, and that was very strongly felt by President Reagan,” said George Shultz.
I am sure you, but perhaps not the current GOP crowd will immediately disown the former Sec State as nothing but a RINO.
Here's the link to a great article.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-04-08/reagan-would-approve/?cid=hp:mainpromo2
It's been a while since I've been in blogland and after reading a few blogs and comments I remember why! Not a whole lot has changed. It's good to be back if only for a little while though! :-)
I still read Fox News but also read other news sources. To use it as my one and only source would be foolish just as it would be foolish if things were reversed and liberals used only a slanted version of the news.
I actually don't find anything wrong with a conservative/liberal slant on the news as long as you don't live and die by it.
Unless you can get all sides of a story you are probably not getting the complete truth!
Welcome back Jenn,
We've missed you.
Damn, it would be nice if politics could represent a civilized and balanced effort FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY rather than their own myopic, partisan viewpoints (and pockets).
But of course that'll only happen down the rabbit hole,
@Jennifer - "I still read Fox News but also read other news sources"
I read "Anglo Celt" from Ireland, "Argyll and Dunoon" from Scotland, "Sydney Morning Herald" from Sydney Australia and the "Herald Sun" from Melbourne Australia.
You can get an incredible range of opinions about American politics (and some not so comfortable opinions about Americans) from those sources.
Give it a shot, it's fascinating.
The genius of Fox News is their recognition of the innate laziness and lack of curiosity of too many of us. While television 'news' divisions have long suspected this to be the case Fox, to their credit and to our everlasting shame built an entire hugely successful business on that basic idea.
Complicated issues made simple for people too 'busy' to really give a s**t.
In fact Fox seems able to turn virtually any story it chooses to run into a bumper sticker analog.
Great for them. It's cheaper to forego bureaus and actual reporters and staff studios with highly volatile and none-too bright anchors. Not so great for us.
" that Iraq possessed WMD, that Iraq was involved in 9/11, and that there was international support for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq."
What a sloppy list. We can start with the the last one. It takes just one other nation supporting the US-led invasion to make there be "international support". Support from the UK, one of many nations that supported fighting back against the terrorists in Iraq, completely buries the idea that international support is a "misperception".
Arthur said: "Complicated issues made simple for people too 'busy' to really give a s**t."
Yeah, so let's go to ABC instead. Where the "journalist" interviewing the President throws softballs so soft you might as well call them soap bubbles, and he happens to have been a press secretary for a Democratic president. That's real news, right?
Fox is the very worst of a bad lot dmarks. I haven't watched network television news since January 1981. Images of that particular presidential inauguration haunt me to this day. But I get a glance at the gym now and again and certainly videos of the Fox crowd in action don't cause me to regret my decision.
It's not that difficult to become informed. The first step is turning off the television.
"It's not that difficult to become informed. The first step is turning off the television."
And next you burn the books, right?
dmarks,
Really. That's quite a leap.
Arthurstone talks about his VOLUNTARILY not watching teevee news which, for the most part, is superficial with an emphasis on gore and glamor, and you leap to the assumption that he's burn his books?
How did you get there?
Really.
'And then you burn the books right?'
No.
You read them.
Shaw: Voluntarily shunning TV (which is spelled TV, unless we insist on calling networks names like See Enn Enn) makes as much as sense as shunning books. But I suppose I could have said something less "inflammatory", such as "cut up your library card".
Gore and Glamour.
'Shunning TV makes as much sense as shunning books.'
No
In their present day incarnation one informs & one entertains.
But don't take my word for it. Ask Roger Ailes.
Both inform. Both entertain. It's no different.
If you doubt me, Arthur, tell me which you would rather do. Read Sean Hannity's latest book, or watch Bill Moyers on TV.
Come on dmarks. Let this one go.
Informed people don't become so watching television.
Period.
Actually, they do. Time to let go of the idea that shutting out information and being closed-minded makes you informed. Your stance makes as much sense as refusing to go to a library.
And you didn't answer the question, which turned your idea completely upside down.
So where do I mail your complimentary stack of Ann Coulter books? Of course they are better than anything on TV right?
And while you are getting informed by those books, I can turn my mind to mush with boob-tube offering such as the TV miniseries "Moon Shot".
Because there's no way to get informed at all about the Apollo program by seeing actual televised moon landing footage, right?
Post a Comment