O'Reilly out at FOX!

[Childless]

2 hours ago, Zola said:

"All the lies you want to believe."

Friend of mine has a sister who eats, sleeps, breathes all things right wing and Republican. Among the more ridiculous stuff she claims are fact,beyond things like Obama was a Kenyan-born Muslim, is that she believes Hillary Clinton is a robot. Seriously. She saw a video where Hillary turned her head a funny way that apparently confirmed it in her mind for her. That's really what she said. A robot, ffs! 

How can you have a logical, reasonable conversation with someone who would actually believe something like that? You can't.

Well, shit.  If scientists have managed to create robots that advanced then I want one!  I'll never have to cook or do another chore again.  What a blissful existence!  Where's my Hillary-bot?

[GreyhoundFan]

"For Sean Hannity, sycophancy works as business model"

Spoiler

Sean Hannity was right. “They so hate me, but every network is going to have to run my interview now,” Hannity said on his radio show Tuesday, after he scored an exclusive with Donald Trump Jr., the latest figure to land in the mucky waters of the Trump-Russia story.

The interview happened Tuesday night on “Hannity,” the Fox News prime-time staple. It was predictable. Looking confident and dismissive of the news that has him in the headlines, Trump Jr. patiently answered questions from the host and repeated some of the points he’d made to the New York Times as the newspaper pursued four big stories in four days about the executive’s June 9, 2016, meeting with a Russian lawyer. The meeting was preceded by an emailed promise from a go-between-cum-music promoter, Rob Goldstone, of dirt on Hillary Clinton.

“In retrospect, I probably would have done things a little differently,” Trump Jr. admitted to Hannity, in what would turn out to be the money quote of the interview. “Again, this is before the Russia mania. This is before they were building it up in the press. For me, this was opposition research.” Sure, Hannity managed to ask some newsworthy questions, but Trump Jr. got what he came for: A sympathetic interviewer whose guiding imperative appeared to be to refrain from embarrassing Trump Jr.

And yes, other news outlets picked up the quotes. CNN, the Washington Post, the New York Times, NPR, BBC, the New York Daily News — just the sort of follow-up that cable-news executives cite as aspirational in their PowerPoint presentations.

Everyone is repeating the Hannity’s name, just the way he likes it.

Knowing that the media would be tuned into his program on Tuesday night, Hannity addressed them directly with the message that they have “zero credibility.” In seeking to minimize the story over Trump Jr., he relied on … the mainstream media, including an NBC News interview with that Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya. He also shamed the media for ignoring “a real Russian collusion conspiracy — that’s the Uranium One deal,” referring to an investigative story broken by … the New York Times. Also on Hannity’s radar was a January 2017 article exploring the activities of a “Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee” and working with “top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia.” That story, as Hannity noted, was laid out by Politico, a card-carrying member of the mainstream media. “Why haven’t you covered that story?” Hannity asked the media, citing Politico’s January 2017 reporting. Answer: Clinton is not the president of the United States.

Donald Trump Sr. is, and it’s all such a great romp for Hannity. Considering that the media and various instrumentalities — a special counsel and congressional committees — will be investigating the possibility of Trump campaign collusion with Russia for months and months, scenarios like Tuesday’s are likely to play out again: A Trumpite gets some negative press; the media wants answers; interview requests come piling in; and Hannity ends up with the prize. And as we all know, he has put in the work to get to this place, providing advice to the Trump campaign, participating in an ad for it, helping to pay certain travel costs, forsaking any sense of decency by pumping up a conspiracy about the slaying of DNC aide a year ago and providing nightly, vehement defense for all things Trump.

Such transgressions wouldn’t fly at other news outlets, especially ones with viewerships in the millions. They do, however, at Fox News, where ratings cleanse all sins.

He is such a nasty piece of work.

[GreyhoundFan]

The WaPo has annotated Hannity's pre-interview tirade. Definitely worth a read of the notes.  "‘You may actually learn a thing or two’: Sean Hannity’s message to the media, annotated" He is a tool of the highest degree.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Snowflake alert: "Sean Hannity is losing his mind after award kerfuffle"

Spoiler

Over the past two years, Fox News host Sean Hannity has watched his friend Donald Trump ride unhinged Twitter rants to unimaginable heights of world power.

So why wouldn’t he — easily President Trump’s most dedicated advocate in all of cable news — do precisely the same thing?

On Friday morning, CNN’s Jake Tapper reported that the Media Research Center (MRC), the outfit that monitors lefty lapses in the mainstream media through its website NewsBusters, will no longer be feting Hannity at its Sept. 21 gala with the William F. Buckley Jr. Award for Media Excellence. Buckley, of course, is the late founder of National Review and a central figure in the modern conservative movement. As Carl T. Bogus put things in his biography: “He took a disparate collection of ideas — some of which were contradictory or disdained even by leading conservatives of the day — melded them together, and personally represented this new ideology so appealingly that many people became Buckley-style conservative because they passionately admired William F. Buckley Jr.”

Quite an honor, in other words, for a guy like Hannity, who did none of that stuff. Though he claims to be a conservative, Hannity has compromised all his principles by aligning himself with Trump, a conviction-starved opportunist.

According to Tapper’s reporting, Christopher Buckley — the only child of William Buckley and an accomplished author in his own right — “expressed great dismay” to the MRC regarding the choice of Hannity. Other conservatives feel likewise and have vented their feelings on social media and elsewhere. MRC “acquiesced” and hatched a face-saving approach to pulling the award from Hannity: “It’s my understanding there was a scheduling conflict,” MRC spokesman Ryan Moy told Tapper. There’s a family connection to all this drama, too: Brent Bozell, the MRC boss, is the nephew of William F. Buckley Jr.; Bozell’s father participated on debate team with Buckley at Yale University.

From the Tapper piece: “A source familiar with the situation tells CNN that Christopher Buckley said of the concocted scheduling excuse: ‘perhaps Mr. Hannity has been offered the Ronald Reagan Great Communicator Award on the same evening and had decided to leverage upwards.'” Strange sourcing; funny material.

Now look at how Hannity has responded to all of this:

...<typical unhinged Hannity crap on twitter>

Huh. As early as June 26, MRC announced the lineup for its gala. “During the 30th anniversary, speakeasy-themed gala, the William F. Buckley Jr. Award for Media Excellence will be presented to Sean Hannity,” reads an announcement. Interesting how Hannity doesn’t start denouncing the award until now.

In fairness to Hannity, we, too, would like to review the finances of National Review’s cruises — a topic that Hannity has discussed in previous outbursts:

... <more Hannity twitter diarrhea>

For critical background on this tete-a-tetes, consider that National Review devoted an entire issue in early 2016 to attacking then-presidential candidate Donald Trump.

And as a matter of full disclosure, this whole Hannity fit happens to hit a bit close to home. Because in the midst of his slams against National Review and Tapper, Hannity managed to squeak in a tweet regarding the Erik Wemple Blog:

...<yet more Hannity crap>

Let us correct you, Sean: We didn’t write “Kill Fox and Friends.” We wrote, “Kill ‘Fox & Friends.’ ” There is a difference.

I guess he doesn't understand punctuation. Big surprise. Also, "scheduling conflict" -- suuuuuuure, we all believe that...

[GreyhoundFan]

Yeah, not happening: "New York Times requests apology from ‘Fox & Friends Weekend’ over ISIS story"

Spoiler

The New York Times has asked Fox News for an “on-air apology and tweet” over a segment that aired Saturday morning regarding a story that the newspaper had published in 2015 regarding U.S. efforts to capture an Islamic State leader. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, said “Fox & Friends Weekend” co-host Clayton Morris, “was able to basically sneak away in the cover of darkness after a New York Times story went to press in 2015.”

Why was “Fox & Friends” obsessing over a 2015 New York Times story in July 2017? Because Fox News Chief Intelligence Correspondent Catherine Herridge recently interviewed Gen. Tony Thomas, leader of the Special Operations Command, at the Aspen Security Forum. And the general said some interesting things. One of them: Thomas said his people were “particularly close” to Baghdadi via a spring 2015 raid that killed Islamic State figure Abu Sayyaf and captured his wife, Umm Sayyaf. It also netted a fair bit of intelligence.

In any case, Thomas’s contentions appear to have prompted this tweet from President Trump:

...

In its Saturday morning broadcast, “Fox & Friends Weekend” was all over it. Co-host Pete Hegseth, summarizing Thomas’s words to Herridge, said, “We would have had al-Baghdadi based on the intelligence we had, except someone leaked information to the failing New York Times in 2015 — this is the previous administration, and as a result he slipped away,” said Hegseth. From there, Morris took the baton, saying that the raid on Abu Sayyaf rounded up data that enabled the United States to close in on Baghdadi. Then Hegseth said that the information published in the New York Times helped the bad guys. “When that goes on the Internet, as the failing New York Times does, that can be read there and elsewhere, so he understands what they know, goes underground, goes somewhere else, changes his plans. That’s one of the other reasons it’s the failing New York Times. It’s not just failing in its credibility,” he said. “It’s failing our country.”

After a bit more Times-bashing, Hegseth said, “You need a patriotic journalist.”

Sounds like a nice, clean hit on the New York Times, except for some complicating considerations that the Times itself highlights:

1) That May 2015 raid against Abu Sayyaf? It was announced by the Pentagon — not via anonymous whispers, but via press release in the name of then-Defense Secretary Ashton Carter. Here’s the text:

Last night, at the direction of the Commander in Chief, I ordered U.S. Special Operations Forces to conduct an operation in al-Amr in eastern Syria to capture an ISIL senior leader known as Abu Sayyaf and his wife Umm Sayyaf. Abu Sayyaf was involved in ISIL’s military operations and helped direct the terrorist organization’s illicit oil, gas, and financial operations as well.

Abu Sayyaf was killed during the course of the operation when he engaged U.S. forces.

U.S. forces captured Umm Sayyaf, who we suspect is a member of ISIL, played an important role in ISIL’s terrorist activities, and may have been complicit in what appears to have been the enslavement of a young Yezidi woman rescued last night.

No U.S. forces were killed or injured during this operation.

The operation represents another significant blow to ISIL, and it is a reminder that the United States will never waver in denying safe haven to terrorists who threaten our citizens, and those of our friends and allies.

I thank the extraordinary men and women in uniform who executed this complex and challenging mission, along with all those who supported it. Their professionalism, dedication, and valor are a deep source of pride and inspiration to us all.

In the letter requesting an apology from Fox News, New York Times’s Danielle Rhoades Ha writes, “Baghdadi would have known that Umm Sayyaf, Abu Sayyaf’s wife, was being held, if not from his own communications network then from the Pentagon’s announcement and news reports about that announcement. If the U.S. government wanted to keep the detention and likely interrogation of the wife secret, the Pentagon would not have publicly announced it.”

On June 8 of that year, the New York Times reported on the intelligence generated from the raid. The lead of the story: “American intelligence agencies have extracted valuable information about the Islamic State’s leadership structure, financial operations and security measures by analyzing materials seized during a Delta Force commando raid last month that killed a leader of the terrorist group in eastern Syria, according to United States officials.” It also noted, “Mr. Baghdadi meets periodically with regional emirs, or leaders, at his headquarters in Raqqa in eastern Syria. To ensure his safety, specially entrusted drivers pick up each of the emirs and demand that they hand over their cellphones and any other electronic devices to avoid inadvertently disclosing their location through tracking by American intelligence, the officials said.”

In his talk with Herridge, Thomas appeared to be referring to this story when he said this: “That was a very good lead. Unfortunately, it was leaked in a prominent national newspaper about a week later and that lead went dead. The challenge we have [is] in terms of where and how our tactics and procedures are discussed openly. There’s a great need to inform the American public about what we’re up to. There’s also great need to recognize things that will absolutely undercut our ability to do our job.” Thomas didn’t mention the New York Times by name, though a Washington Post report says that he has cited the Times before.

In reaction to Thomas’s criticism, Ha writes in her letter that not only did the story run more than three weeks after the raid, but there’s another consideration as well: “The Times described the piece to the Pentagon before publication and they had no objections. No senior American official complained publicly about the story until now, more than two years later.” In a separate story, the New York Times rebutted Trump’s tweet — a story in which the newspaper asked authorities for specifics on what information harmed their efforts. Here’s the response:

Asked for comment, Kenneth McGraw, a spokesman for the Special Operations Command, declined to say which information in the Times article, if any, was a source of concern.

General Thomas “did not name a specific publication or a specific article in his remarks,” Mr. McGraw wrote in an email. “It would be inappropriate for me to make any further comment.”

But hey, isn’t “Fox & Friends Weekend” just picking up on the statements of a top military official? What’s wrong with that? Again, the letter from Ha: “We understand that the segment and story are based on a misleading assertion by Gen. Thomas speaking at a conference in Aspen. However, that does not alleviate Fox News of the obligation to seek information from all the stakeholders in a story. With this segment, Fox & Friends demonstrated what little regard it has for reporting facts.”

The Erik Wemple Blog has asked Fox News for its reaction to the New York Times letter but hasn’t heard back just yet. We will update when we do. A Fox News spokesperson issued this statement on the matter: “The FoxNews.com story was already updated online and Fox & Friends will also provide an updated story to viewers on Monday morning based on the FoxNews.com report. For all of their hyperventilating to the media about a correction, the New York Times didn’t reach out to anyone at Fox News until Sunday afternoon for a story that ran Friday night.”

How ironic that Faux would say that another media source was "hyperventilating", since that seems to be their default behavior. I guess they were looking in the mirror.

[onekidanddone]

Helpful hint from Onekidanddone:

Do NOT go read the Fox Sews website. Nothing today about TT's involvement with TT Jr's statement regarding the adoption meeting dirt on Clinton meeting. Just after his idea was nixed he went ahead did it anyway. 

Nothing truthful about Trump there at all. Just a bunch of "main stream media" bashing and such. They are a multi-million corporation how are they not part of the main stream media?

Speaking of multi-million, have you looked at the quality of their website? As somebody who designs websites for a living I wonder how with all their money they couldn't pay up  to have a professional looking site. Maybe because having it all disjointed with flashy tabloid headlines is the only format their "readers" can understand. None of their articles I saw were in depth or very long.

I need to go clean my brain.

[JMarie]

5 hours ago, onekidanddone said:

Helpful hint from Onekidanddone:

Do NOT go read the Fox Sews website. Nothing today about TT's involvement with TT Jr's statement regarding the adoption meeting dirt on Clinton meeting. Just after his idea was nixed he went ahead did it anyway. 

Nothing truthful about Trump there at all. Just a bunch of "main stream media" bashing and such. They are a multi-million corporation how are they not part of the main stream media?

Speaking of multi-million, have you looked at the quality of their website? As somebody who designs websites for a living I wonder how with all their money they couldn't pay up  to have a professional looking site. Maybe because having it all disjointed with flashy tabloid headlines is the only format their "readers" can understand. None of their articles I saw were in depth or very long.

I need to go clean my brain.

Yeah, nothing about Scaramucci or Seth Rich (whose family is suing Fox News for perpetuating the myth that Rich was murdered because he was a leaker).

[Childless]

13 hours ago, JMarie said:

Yeah, nothing about Scaramucci or Seth Rich (whose family is suing Fox News for perpetuating the myth that Rich was murdered because he was a leaker).

And they wonder why their numbers are slipping.  No one is going to watch or read your news if you aren't going to talk about what's happening.  People want to know about Scaramucci, the Russian investigation, etc.  If you aren't going to report on it, they will go find another conservative sight that will (and there are plenty).  Ignoring it doesn't mean it isn't happening and doesn't make it go away.

[AmazonGrace]

In the ongoing saga, "I'm too foxy for the Fox": 

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/345424-fox-news-host-eric-bolling-sent-lewd-photos-to-female-co-workers-report

Eric Bolling sent wiener photos to lady co workers and of course there is a tweet:

 

[fraurosena]

Oh wow. If true, bye-bye Hannity!

 

FYI,  RIS = Russian Intelligence Service.

[GrumpyGran]

1 hour ago, fraurosena said:

Oh wow. If true, bye-bye Hannity!

 

FYI,  RIS = Russian Intelligence Service.

One of my fantasies is to see Sean Hannity go down in flames. But I didn't think it would be like this. I'm surprised the Russians would consider Hannity intelligent enough to be worth the effort. 

[fraurosena]

25 minutes ago, GrumpyGran said:

One of my fantasies is to see Sean Hannity go down in flames. But I didn't think it would be like this. I'm surprised the Russians would consider Hannity intelligent enough to be worth the effort. 

I think lack of intelligence would be exactly what they were looking for...

[fraurosena]

Another Fox Fool has been caught and suspended for sexual harassment. 

Fox News Host Eric Bolling Suspended After Lewd Photo Accusation

Spoiler

Longtime Fox News host Eric Bolling has been suspended amid allegations that he texted a lewd photo to multiple female colleagues in years past.

A Fox News spokesperson confirmed Saturday that his suspension is "pending the results of an investigation, which is currently underway."

Law firm Paul Weiss, which has investigated complaints lodged against other high-profile network employees, is conducting the investigation, the spokesperson said.

The suspension comes a day after HuffPost reported that he sent an unsolicited photo of male genitalia to at least two colleagues at Fox Business and one colleague at Fox News.

HuffPost's reported cited 14 sources. The publication did not reveal the sources' names, but said they are current and former Fox colleagues of Bolling's who recognized the phone number to be his based on previous work-related and informal communications.

The messages were sent several years ago, on separate occasions, the women told HuffPost.

Four sources outside of the text message recipients confirmed to the online news outlet that they had seen the photo, while eight others said the recipients had spoken to them about it and said they were upset and offended by it.

One recipient said she texted Bolling to never send such a photo again, and said that he didn't respond.

Bolling's attorney denied the report.

"The anonymous, uncorroborated claims are untrue and terribly unfair. We intend to fully cooperate with the investigation so that it can be concluded and Eric can return to work as quickly as possible," Michael J. Bowe said Saturday.

NBC News was not able to independently verify the allegations. A Fox News spokesperson had said earlier that the report caught the network by surprise.

"We were just informed of this late Friday afternoon via a Huff Post inquiry and plan to investigate the matter," the spokesperson said in a statement.

Bolling, a co-host of the Fox News program "The Specialists," is among the most vocal defenders of President Donald Trump on the network. His contract was recently renewed, and in a statement in June, Fox News co-president Suzanne Scott said Bolling's "insight is valued, and we are pleased to have him at the network for many more years to come."

The accusation against him is the latest to beleaguer the media outlet, which has recently seen the departures of big names, including former host Bill O'Reilly and late Fox News CEO Roger Ailes, amid such allegations.

O'Reilly has called sexual misconduct complaints against him "unfounded," and his attorney has said he is the subject of a "brutal campaign of character assassination." Ailes continued to deny any wrongdoing up until his death in May.

And last month, Fox Business Network suspended longtime host Charles Payne after an allegation of "professional misconduct" by a female political analyst who claimed she was coerced into a sexual relationship under the threat of reprisals. He tweeted that it was an "ugly lie I vehemently deny to my core."

It seems that misogynistic and sexually abhorrent behavior is a prerequisite for men to be hired by Fox.

The creep list so far: 

- Roger Ailes

- Bill O'Reilly

- Charles Payne

- Eric Bolling

[AmazonGrace]

Hannity has Eric and Lara on and is threatening to sue Obama for unmasking. 

[onekidanddone]

On 8/5/2017 at 0:29 PM, GrumpyGran said:

One of my fantasies is to see Sean Hannity go down in flames. But I didn't think it would be like this. I'm surprised the Russians would consider Hannity intelligent enough to be worth the effort. 

Using him simply as a propaganda puppet I suppose.

[GreyhoundFan]

"Hannity slams McConnell as spineless hours after vowing not to start ‘petty political disagreements’"

Spoiler

Fox News host Sean Hannity called Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell "weak" and "spineless" hours after vowing to stop "all petty political disagreements" in light of new threats from North Korea.

". @SenateMajLdr No Senator, YOU are a WEAK, SPINELESS leader who does not keep his word and you need to Retire!" Hannity wrote on Twitter in a post dated 5:30 a.m. Wednesday. He appears to have sent but deleted the same tweet at around 11 p.m. Tuesday, about eight hours after he had vowed to avoid political disagreements for 12 hours.

Hannity's tweet also linked to a report on ABC News, but which one is unclear because the link was broken. A report about McConnell venting that President Donald Trump has “excessive expectations” for legislative priorities was featured on the homepage, however.

Nearly 14 hours before Hannity bashed McConnell, the Fox News host vowed to stop "petty political disagreements."

"In light of dangerous NKorea threat, I'm stopping all petty political disagreements for at least next 12 hours. Let's see what others do." Hannity tweeted at 3:11 p.m. on Tuesday.

His comment came after it was revealed that North Korea produced a miniature nuclear bomb small enough to fit on an intercontinental ballistic missile. Trump has since said that North Korea would be met with "fire and fury like the world has never seen" if the threats continued.

I guess he made it two hours past his vow. What self-control. (note sarcasm).

[GrumpyGran]

25 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

"Hannity slams McConnell as spineless hours after vowing not to start ‘petty political disagreements’"

  Hide contents

Fox News host Sean Hannity called Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell "weak" and "spineless" hours after vowing to stop "all petty political disagreements" in light of new threats from North Korea.

". @SenateMajLdr No Senator, YOU are a WEAK, SPINELESS leader who does not keep his word and you need to Retire!" Hannity wrote on Twitter in a post dated 5:30 a.m. Wednesday. He appears to have sent but deleted the same tweet at around 11 p.m. Tuesday, about eight hours after he had vowed to avoid political disagreements for 12 hours.

Hannity's tweet also linked to a report on ABC News, but which one is unclear because the link was broken. A report about McConnell venting that President Donald Trump has “excessive expectations” for legislative priorities was featured on the homepage, however.

Nearly 14 hours before Hannity bashed McConnell, the Fox News host vowed to stop "petty political disagreements."

"In light of dangerous NKorea threat, I'm stopping all petty political disagreements for at least next 12 hours. Let's see what others do." Hannity tweeted at 3:11 p.m. on Tuesday.

His comment came after it was revealed that North Korea produced a miniature nuclear bomb small enough to fit on an intercontinental ballistic missile. Trump has since said that North Korea would be met with "fire and fury like the world has never seen" if the threats continued.

I guess he made it two hours past his vow. What self-control. (note sarcasm).

Boy, it's getting harder to live in TrumpWorld. Hey, Hannity, by vowing to "stop all petty political disagreements" you just admitted that you engage in petty political disagreements. Make sure you put that on your resume. I think you got lost in the moment there.

[sawasdee]

1 hour ago, GrumpyGran said:

Hey, Hannity, by vowing to "stop all petty political disagreements" you just admitted that you engage in petty political disagreements

YES! But is Faux anything other than petty at any time? Oh yes, of course they are. When they are lying they are never petty  - they always go for the big lie. Seth Rich, anyone?

[AmazonGrace]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"‘Chilling,’ cried Fox News when one of its reporters was targeted in a leak case. Where’s the outrage now?"

Spoiler

Is Fox News a stalwart defender of the press freedoms it depends on?

Well, that may depend on the year. It might even depend on who is the president.

In 2013, when Fox reporter James Rosen was targeted by the Obama Justice Department during a leak investigation, a top network executive was appalled. Naming Rosen as a criminal co-conspirator was outrageous, said Michael Clemente, who at the time was a Fox executive vice president for news.

“It is downright chilling. We will unequivocally defend his right to operate as a member of what up until now has always been a free press,” Clemente said.

But, at the beginning of this month, when Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that he might find new ways to pursue news organizations that publish leaked information, some Fox staffers climbed right on board.

●“Fox and Friends” host Brian Kilmeade fanned the flames, publishing the results of his Twitter “poll,” in which he asked whether members of the media should be prosecuted for publishing leaked information. (With a leading question and no framing of the underlying issues, it was hardly a surprise that 52 percent voted yes and 23 percent voted no.)

●On “Fox and Friends,” weekend host Pete Hegseth agreed — “Absolutely!” — when Sebastian Gorka, an adviser to President Trump, described the publication of leaked transcripts as “disgraceful.” (He was talking about recorded conversations between Trump and two foreign leaders, which were published in The Washington Post.) An accompanying headline had a mocking tone: “Media melts down over leak crackdown.”

●Fox News’s Sean Hannity, ever loyal to Trump, continues to decry leaks as the media’s way of taking down the commander in chief. And when he’s not trying to settle old scores against Hillary Clinton, he’s bashing news organizations with his favorite expression: “the corrupt media.”

●A Fox News story on Sessions’s announcement gave only the briefest of nods to press rights being under siege, using a single sentence from David Boardman, chairman of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

●And Fox News’s politics editor, Chris Stirewalt, in on-air conversation with Fox News media reporter Howard Kurtz, opined that the publication of the leaked transcripts was “obviously . . . a danger to national security.” (A dubious conclusion, since there’s little reason to think anyone was endangered — unless embarrassment is hazardous to one’s safety.)

With the nation’s journalists under attack, a little solidarity would be nice — the kind of togetherness that other news organizations showed not only in the Rosen case but earlier, in 2009, when the Obama White House threatened to keep Fox News out of an interview with a newsmaker.

Jake Tapper, then at ABC News, pushed hard in questioning White House press secretary Robert Gibbs about the exclusion of “one of our sister organizations.” And bureau chiefs at CNN, NBC, ABC and CBS in Washington refused to go along with the White House plan to keep Fox News out.

Strength in numbers worked. The White House relented and included Fox News.

These days, though, some of the most prominent voices at Fox News sing in unison — not with their media colleagues but with the president’s scathing opposition to the news media.

One exception is Fox News’s Chris Wallace, whose tough skills were on display in an Aug. 6 interview with Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, eliciting the assurance — different from what his boss had suggested — that “we don’t prosecute reporters for doing their jobs.”

On the other end of the spectrum is Hannity, who after the election suggested restricting access for journalists who weren’t supportive of Trump: “In my opinion, it is time to reevaluate the role of the press in this country. . . . Does Trump really need to be granting access to biased journalists who openly oppose him?”

In 2013, a Fox News opinion piece noted the wide array of support for Rosen from news organizations across the political spectrum. The importance of the press as a pillar of democracy came through loud and clear.

These days, though, far more typical Fox News fare is a piece called “How to Catch a Leaker,” where spy-movie music swells dramatically over hokey graphics — and not a nanosecond is devoted to explaining why responsibly published leaks can inform citizens of what their government is doing in secret.

Dan Gillmor, an author and a professor at Arizona State University’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism, now refers to the network in his tweets with the second word always in quotation marks: Fox “News.”

While Gillmor (admittedly not an inveterate Fox News watcher) acknowledges that the network has some strong journalists and “an alleged division” between its straight news and its entertainment or commentary components, he still can’t take it seriously: “The channel looks mostly like a Trump/Republican propaganda arm.”

When you think of Fox News’s spineless response to the Trump administration’s threats to the press, that’s increasingly hard to argue with.

Gee, Faux acts in hypocritical ways. Who'd have thunk it? <end sarcasm>

[JMarie]

I don't know if I can stomach a whole hour of Hannity, but I'll try....

He started by denouncing the activities of the alt-right.  Good for him, but he quickly shifted to complaining about the mainstream media calling Trump racist because he didn't call out specific groups, even though it was "crystal clear" who Trump was talking about.  Democrats divide the country by playing the race card every time there's a major election, Hannity claims, and they've been doing it for generations.  A few cherry-picked clips of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Black Lives Matter, Kathy Griffin, Johnny Depp, and Madonna follow.

Sheriff David Clarke (plagiarizer/one-time Homeland Security nominee) said Trump "doesn't have a racist bone in his body." Larry Elder (radio show guy) says David Duke hasn't been relevant in decades.  Deroy Murdock (Fox News guy) says Trump should have said more initially, and could have avoided a lot of controversy -- but Hannity cut to a commercial and didn't respond.  Murdock later boasted that Trump got 8% of the black vote, better than Romney's 6%.

Mike Huckabee stopped by to offer his opinion.  He thinks it's absurd that people who have been vetted for the White House (Gorka, Miller, and Bannon) to be called neo-Nazis.  Trump can't be a racist because he's lived his whole life in the spotlight, and nobody's ever called him a racist before, so why start now?  All the negative press is just the Democrats' latest attempt to get Trump out of office, he claims.

Monica Crowley (plagiarizer/former Strategic Communications Director nominee) said that The Left will never be happy with what Trump says, and he shouldn't give them any ammunition.  David Webb (Fox News guy) also thinks that Democrats will always pick apart everything Trump says.

Reverend Darrell Scott (from the New Spirit Revival Center) said that Trump did everything the way it should have been done, and The Left will find fault with whatever Trump did.  Geraldo Rivera said lots of different groups were at Charlottesville, and nobody knew who the Alt Right were.  Whoever told Trump to "go easy on the Nazis was a fool" (talking about Trump's early responses) -- and Hannity cut to another commercial instead of responding.

Hannity ended by reminding his viewers that he is fair and balanced (even though Fox News no longer uses that slogan).

[JMarie]

And oh! I forgot to mention that earlier, on Tucker Carlson's show, I saw that NRA commercial again.  The one which promises to pay your legal bills if you are arrested for using your gun in self defense.

https://www.ispot.tv/ad/wdaj/nra-carry-guard-dose-of-reality

[candygirl200413]

College was the first time I learned of many people who watched Fox for accurate news and it took me till this election to realize that they have just polluting the brains of their viewers for years. What will it take for them to be removed?!

[Cartmann99]

@JMarie, thank you for recaping that hot mess! I really do appreciate you letting me know what the brain dead Fox News crowd is spewing. 

[Childless]

12 hours ago, JMarie said:

Mike Huckabee stopped by to offer his opinion.  He thinks it's absurd that people who have been vetted for the White House (Gorka, Miller, and Bannon) to be called neo-Nazis.  Trump can't be a racist because he's lived his whole life in the spotlight, and nobody's ever called him a racist before, so why start now?  All the negative press is just the Democrats' latest attempt to get Trump out of office, he claims.

Uh, yeah, Mikey.  They have called him racist.  In fact, he's been to court over housing discrimination.