Jump to content
IGNORED

Faux "News" 2: U.S. State TV?


GreyhoundFan

Recommended Posts

"Why Fox News’s ‘straight news’ is a crock"

Spoiler

On Thursday night, the Democratic candidates had the national stage to themselves. They argued for an expanded role for government in health care, greater restrictions on firearms and dramatic action to address climate change. To hear unfiltered GOP pushback, you can go to GOP.com. Or you could sample the propaganda segment that aired on Fox News on Friday at 10 a.m. right in the middle of what the network views as its “straight news” coverage.

Hosts Bill Hemmer and Julie Banderas on the program “America’s Newsroom” welcomed Lara Trump, a senior adviser for Trump’s reelection campaign, to reflect on the debate. And reflect she did.

“I didn’t feel like the American people got a good sense of what they are going to get out of the Democrats other than getting their guns taken away, which they were very clear on, full government-run health care, Medicare-for-all in many respects,” said Trump in kicking off her analysis. “And sadly all you heard was them trying to bash the president, call him a racist, call him a white supremacist.”

Precisely the material you’d expect from a Trump campaign operative. What was remarkable, however, was the degree to which Fox News’s “straight news” anchors assisted in advancing the campaign’s lines of attack. For instance, here’s how Banderas formulated a “question” about health care: “They were talking about health care, they were saying and ridiculing Trump for taking Obamacare, Affordable Care Act, away,” said Banderas. “I’ve always laughed at the term ‘Affordable Care Act’ because it is not affordable.”

Trump agreed, then went on a rant against Democratic health-care policies, including: “Americans do not like what they see when it comes to the Democrats’ health care proposals.”

With that, the anchors had an obvious opening: What about the president’s plan — what would he do to improve the situation? Or: The president vowed to repeal and replace Obamacare in his last campaign but failed to do so. What’s next? Or even: The president has vowed to protect preexisting conditions, but his administration is participating in litigation that would undo those protections. Why?

What did Fox News do instead? Behold: “There was a banner flying in Houston last night. I want to share that with our viewers. It says, ‘Socialism will kill Houston’s economy. Vote Trump 2020,’” said Hemmer, as the banner crawled across the Fox News screen, giving it a bit more exposure.

There’s more: Banderas wanted to talk about the economy and what a killer issue it is for the Trump campaign. Observe how she did that: “Did you notice the economy didn’t come up?” asked Banderas of Trump. “That’s usually the No. 1 topic that you bring up when you’re running for president, but they had nothing to say about it. Why? Because the economy is doing wonderful. Why, though, do you believe that the Democrats did not even bring up [the] economy?”

Why ask a question that you’ve just answered?

In a fleeting embrace of journalism, Hemmer asked about background checks, launching Trump into a discussion of gun rights. Reacting to Democratic candidate Beto O’Rourke’s plan to “take” people’s AR-15s and AK-47s, Trump stammered through a talking point that you don’t often hear in this debate. We’ve carefully punctuated her words in accordance with the transcript to highlight how little confidence she had in this point: “If you watch that debate last night, they were very clear, especially Beto O’Rourke, that he is taking your guns away. That is his answer to this problem,” said Trump. “You see other countries that have done that and the rise ,uh — things go up. Like, you know, uh, knife, uh, incidents go up. People, you know, using knives or using cars to try and injure people to do the same sort of thing. So, it’s, you know, it’s not the guns that shoot people, it’s people who have mental-health problems and people who are very troubled who commit these acts.”

The comeback was clear for Hemmer and Banderas: How many people would have died at Sandy Hook if the killer had to rely on a knife? How many people could the Las Vegas mass murderer have slain from the 32nd floor of a hotel if he’d had to rely on a knife? And what about Australia, which in the mid-1990s banned certain firearms and executed a buyback program — and then watched as its homicide rate has dropped ever since?

No such accountability. The conversation moved along to other polemical caresses.

There are times, to be fair, when “America’s Newsroom” and other “straight news” precincts on Fox News press Trump administration officials with journalistic rectitude. They also often feature stories that the full-time propaganda shows like “Hannity” and “Fox & Friends” shun or “cover” only to dismiss. Shepard Smith’s weekday afternoon show and Chris Wallace’s Sunday program both do strong work on accountability regardless of who holds power.

Caveats aside, the charade that unfolded on Friday morning at the hands of Hemmer and Banderas couldn’t germinate in a real “straight news” operation. Their colleagues, their bosses, their underlings — they would mutiny. At Fox News, it’s just another segment. In May, Media Matters released a study showing that each day between Jan. 1 and April 30, the “straight news” operation at the network spread misinformation. It’s a reminder that when you’re running a 24-7 news operation, there’s time for a diverse palette of programming sensibilities.

Someone should see to it that President Trump watches his daughter-in-law’s interview from start to finish. It might chill his recent inclination to tweet attacks on the network.

 

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Even Laura Ingraham's brother is sick of her crap:

 

  • Upvote 6
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn, you beat me too it!  But, yeah, Curtis Ingraham is so over his sister Laura.  Guess they won't be singing kumbayah at Thanksgiving. 

  • I Agree 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am gleefully announcing these happy tidings:

"It's Management Bedlam": Madness At Fox News As Trump Faces Impeachment

Quote

In public, Donald Trump’s allies are putting on a brave face, repeating talking points, mostly staying on message. But in private, there are few who believe that the allegations leveled by an intelligence agency whistle-blower that Trump abused American foreign policy to leverage Ukraine into investigating Joe Biden won’t result in considerable damage—if not the complete unraveling of his presidency. “I don’t see how they don’t impeach,” a former West Wing official told me today. “This could unwind very fast, and I mean in days,” a prominent Republican said.

Trump’s final bulwark is liable to be his first one: Fox News. Fox controls the flow of information—what facts are, whether allegations are to be believed—to huge swaths of his base. And Republican senators, who will ultimately decide whether the president remains in office, are in turn exquisitely sensitive to the opinions of Trump’s base.

But even before the whistle-blower’s revelations, Fox was having something of a Trump identity crisis, and that bulwark has been wavering. In recent weeks, Trump has bashed Fox News on Twitter, taking particular issue lately with its polling, which, like other reputable polls, has shown the president under significant water.

Meanwhile, Trump’s biggest booster seems to be having doubts of his own. This morning, Sean Hannity told friends the whistle-blower’s allegations are “really bad,” a person briefed on Hannity’s conversations told me. (Hannity did not respond to a request for comment). And according to four sources, Fox Corp CEO Lachlan Murdoch is already thinking about how to position the network for a post-Trump future. A person close to Lachlan told me that Fox News has been the highest rated cable network for seventeen years, and “the success has never depended on any one administration.” (A Fox Corp spokesperson declined to comment.)

Inside Fox News, tensions over Trump are becoming harder to contain as a long-running cold war between the network’s news and opinion sides turns hot. Fox has often taken a nothing-to-see-here approach to Trump scandals, but impeachment is a different animal. “It’s management bedlam,” a Fox staffer told me. “This massive thing happened, and no one knows how to cover it.” The schism was evident this week as a feud erupted between afternoon anchor Shepard Smith and prime-time host Tucker Carlson. It started Tuesday when Fox legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano told Smith on-air that Trump committed a “crime” by pressuring Ukraine’s president to get dirt on Biden. That night, Carlson brought on former Trump lawyer Joe diGenova, who called Napolitano a “fool” for claiming Trump broke the law. Yesterday, Smith lashed back, calling Carlson “repugnant” for not defending Napolitano on air. (Trump himself is said to turn off Fox at 3 p.m., when Shep Smith airs.) Seeking to quell the internecine strife before it carried into a third day, Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott and president Jay Wallace communicated to Smith this morning to stop attacking Carlson, a person briefed on the conversation said. “They said if he does it again, he’s off the air,” the source said. (Fox News spokesperson Irena Briganti denied that management had any direct conversation with Smith).

The ultimate referee of this fight will be Lachlan Murdoch. In recent months, Rupert’s oldest son has been holding strategy conversations with Fox executives and anchors about how Fox News should prepare for life after Trump. Among the powerful voices advising Lachlan that Fox should decisively break with the president is former House speaker Paul Ryan, who joined the Fox board in March. “Paul is embarrassed about Trump and now he has the power to do something about it,” an executive who’s spoken with Ryan told me. (Ryan did not return a call seeking comment.) But a person more sympathetic to Trump has told Lachlan that Fox should remain loyal to Trump’s supporters, even if the network has to break from the man. “We need to represent our viewers,” the source said. “Fox is about defending our viewers from the people who hate them. That’s where our power comes from. It’s not about Trump.”

 

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Must say that Chris Wallace is schooling Stephen Miller so hard on Fox right now.  He's not having it with Miller's bullshit talking points instead of answering his (Wallace's) specific questions.  Wallace is not losing his cool. 

Stephen Miller is being a condescending ass to Wallace, and is accusing the Whistle blower of being a Deep State operative, when it's Trump who is the real Whistle blower! He's also blathering on about how the Deep State has leaked, falsified, and otherwise tried to take down Trump for the entirety of his tenure. No seriously, Miller is putting out the "Deep State trying to take out Trump" narrative. 

Also, it takes about two minutes of watching Miller to realize that his quivering righteous indignation stems from fanaticism -- he's a true believer.   

That said, I think that Miller has been carefully coached, probably by Kellyanne and others, on how to relentlessly stay on a talking point until he can get it out, how to be arrogant and condescending to anyone he considers too stupid to have total buy in with his idiotic bullshit. 

That's my take. 

MAGAts will see it as Miller totally owning Wallace. 

I find it fascinating that there's a firewall between the talking heads side of Fox (Chris Wallace, Shep Smith) and the blathering heads: Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham, et al..

Edited by Howl
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a video of the Wallace/Miller interview:

I can't believe that Miller was able to appear during daylight hours. I thought vampires could only appear at night. I like how he touts that he's worked in federal government for almost three years. Whoop-de-doo.

  • Haha 1
  • Thank You 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Fox News claims scoop that was buried in a New York Times story months ago"

Spoiler

“Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace advertised some breaking news near the top of his excellent public-affairs show on Sunday. “Fox News has learned the president’s private attorney, Rudy Giuliani, was not acting alone in trying to get dirt from Ukrainian officials on 2020 rival Joe Biden,” said Wallace. “Two high-profile Washington lawyers, Joe diGenova, who’s been a fierce critic of the Democratic investigation, and his wife Victoria Toensing, were working with Giuliani to get oppo research on Biden.”

The two, said Wallace, were working with Giuliani “off the books apart from the administration” and that only President Trump knew about the operation — tidbits that were attributed to a “top U.S. official.”

The official Twitter account of “Fox News Sunday” advertised the development:

New York Times reporter Ken Vogel had something to say about the “breaking” part:

That May 9 article by Vogel focused on Giuliani’s travel plans — “Rudy Giuliani Plans Ukraine Trip to Push for Inquiries That Could Help Trump,” reads the headline — and his attempts to “to push the incoming government in Kiev to press ahead with investigations that he hopes will benefit Mr. Trump.”

Deep in his story, Vogel reported these details:

Mr. Giuliani has been working on the effort with other allies of Mr. Trump whose involvement has not been previously reported, including Victoria Toensing, a lawyer who was named last year, along with her husband, as part of the legal team representing the president in the special counsel’s investigation. The appointment was rescinded less than one week later amid concerns about conflicts of interest, but Mr. Trump’s legal team suggested that Ms. Toensing and her husband, Joseph E. diGenova, would assist the president “in other legal matters.”

Vogel reported that, as part of her work on the case, Toensing had met with a Ukrainian prosecutor. She was to accompany Giuliani on a trip to Ukraine, though Giuliani later backed out of the trip. Both Toensing and diGenova have appeared frequently on Fox News’s prime-time programs, which are sympathetic to Trump.

After the Erik Wemple Blog asked Fox News about crediting the New York Times, Wallace was quick to hop on the phone. “The idea that something that a New York Times reporter wrote in May in the 17th paragraph of his story that was cast about how Rudy Giuliani was helping the president was the basis for our report in the heat of the impeachment battle would be funny if it weren’t a bit sad,” Wallace told the Erik Wemple Blog, making clear that he’d never read Vogel’s story. The information, says Wallace, was “totally different” and in a “totally different context.”

After summing up Vogel’s May story, Wallace riffed, “Is that the same as saying as reporting now that Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing have been part of Rudy Giuliani’s effort to dig up dirt on Joe Biden and quoting a top U.S. official that their efforts were off the books and nobody knew about them except the president of the United States? If you think that’s the same story, Erik [Wemple Blog], go with it.”

Okay, we’re going with it.

Without regard to where Vogel and his editors decided to place this information, they reported and verified it. That they did so in May, nearly five months before the Ukrainian/impeachment scandal started roaring, shouldn’t count against them; it should count for them. At the time that the story was initially published, the diGenova-Toensing angle was appropriately placed as a tertiary plot point, considering that the Ukraine matter wasn’t big news back then. These days every little detail commands its own headline.

As for Wallace’s claim that only the president knew about these maneuvers, diGenova has gone on record as denying it: “That’s totally false. The president was not involved with any of this,” diGenova said in a Monday radio interview. Wallace stands by his reporting.

“Fox News Sunday” is the crown jewel of Fox News. It is responsible for a good chunk of the interview-accountability journalism that happens each week in the United States. It partakes in precisely none of the shenanigans that Fox News’s prime-time programs visit upon outlets such as the New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, etc. — which is to say, trash them all the time, except when they publish negative stories about Democrats.

That said, there’s no reason Wallace can’t be generous enough to concede that the Times had this item first — a clean scoop.

We believe the host when he says he didn’t know about the Vogel story and hadn’t read it. Perhaps his source read it, though, or was oblivious to what was already in the published record on this scandal. Stuff like this happens all the time, largely because people don’t read enough. That’s the main takeaway from this miniature imbroglio.

Another takeaway: The Post — in its editorial and news pages — the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal have again played outsize roles in landing revelations on the Ukraine story, just as they did during the Mueller investigation. Read newspapers.

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Hannity: The ‘media mob’ is corrupt. Also, look at this great Politico story!"

Spoiler

It was 8:59 p.m. ET on Monday when Fox News host Sean Hannity began what is the most self-contradictory, hypocritical dance in cable news. “I promise you, the media mob, the single most repugnant, corrupt, lying group of people in this country, with a political agenda for one party. We’re going to lay out the truth, each and every detail: The president did absolutely nothing wrong. Nothing,” said Hannity as he did his best to minimize the Ukraine scandal encircling the Trump White House.

It was 9:19 p.m. ET when Hannity decided to vest that lying media mob with truth-telling authority. “Let me explain how — if we go to the Politico article, please — the problems for Joe Biden are serious here and especially — look at Politico, 2017. I have the copy right here. This is — if you look at it. I’ve got it right here somewhere,” said Hannity, as he scrambled to grab his copy of this precious piece of mainstream-media reporting.

He continued: “It is July — I’m sorry, January 11th and it is in 2017. Let me go back and read from this particular article because this gets to the heart of everything the Democrats are doing and what they have done wrong and what they’re going to continue,” said Hannity.

Look at that. Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump and by publicly questioning his fitness for office.

In case “Hannity” viewers hadn’t noticed, the host announced at the top of his program that Washington media was aligned with “one party" — the Democrats, of course! — only to whip out an article that grinds against the interests of that “one party.” The article in question was written by Ken Vogel and David Stern, and it laid out how Ukraine “tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office” in the 2016 presidential election.

Hannity read that sentence and others to his audience, citing the conclusions as gospel. The Politico story detailed the bizarre tale of a Democratic operative researching the role of Paul Manafort — who served for a spell as Trump’s campaign chairman — in the politics of Ukraine and its relations with Russia:

A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation.

The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort’s resignation and advancing the narrative that Trump’s campaign was deeply connected to Ukraine’s foe to the east, Russia. But they were far less concerted or centrally directed than Russia’s alleged hacking and dissemination of Democratic emails.

The Vogel-Stern story also added more details to an earth-shaking development in the 2016 campaign: “Documents released by an independent Ukrainian government agency — and publicized by a parliamentarian — appeared to show $12.7 million in cash payments that were earmarked for Manafort by the Russia-aligned party of the deposed former president, [Viktor] Yanukovych.”

Politico is a bastion of Washington establishment media, having been founded in 2007 by news executives who had worked at The Post. Its reporters, in turn, have filled the cubicles of The Post, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, CNN, and on and on.

It’s hard to one-up Hannity’s duplicity in moments like this one. Yet his guest, Trump’s personal attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani, managed to do so. “Vogel and whoever the other person’s story was in Politico,” said Giuliani. “I bet Politico regrets printing that, actually, because now they’re doing everything they can to cover it up. But, in fact, they laid out the reasons why if I didn’t investigate it, I’d be guilty of malpractice.”

Asked whether Politico “regrets printing that,” spokesman Brad Dayspring responds, “No. 'POLITICO doesn’t cover it but check out this POLITICO article covering it’ is quite a circle.”

 

  • WTF 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hannity is focusing his vitriol on sleepy creepy crazy Uncle Joe's son Hunter, even though Hunter has no experience with oil, energy, or the Ukraine. Oh the hypocrisy.

  • I Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:pb_eek: 

Shepard Smith Leaves Fox News After Clashing With Pro-Trump Pundits

Quote

Shepard Smith, the longtime Fox News anchor who also headed up the network’s breaking news division, has abruptly left the network after more than two decades, shocking even some of his close colleagues. 

Smith’s final show aired Friday afternoon, when he bid his audience a surprise farewell after a particularly tumultuous period of reported infighting between the network’s hard news and opinion divisions. Fox confirmed Smith’s departure in a statement.

“Recently I asked the company to allow me to leave Fox News and begin a new chapter. After requesting that I stay, they graciously obliged,” Smith said. He signed a multi-year contract with the network in March 2018.

The anchor has no plans to move to a different news outlet “at least in the near future,” but will instead spend more time with his boyfriend, Gio Graziano, he said on-air.  

“Even in our currently polarized nation, it is my hope that the facts will win the day. That the truth will always matter. That journalism ― and journalists ― will thrive,” Smith said in an apparent nod to President Donald Trump’s war on what he calls “fake news.”

Trump has repeatedly bashed Smith on Twitter for reporting stories that took a critical look at the president and his administration, who are embraced warmly on the conservative cabler’s opinion and analysis side. Smith used his hour to fact-check the president’s claims, once delivering a sober address to his audience after Trump claimed migrants were about to “invade” America. On Thursday, upon hearing unfavorable polling results, Trump complained that Fox News was “much different than it used to be in the good old days,” naming Smith as one supposed culprit. Although the president is an avid Fox News viewer, he is known to turn the channel off during Smith’s show, between 3 and 4 p.m.

Smith had also earned the ire of Tucker Carlson, whose far-right opinion show “Tucker Carlson Tonight” often pushes dubious narratives and occasionally dabbles in conspiracy theories. 

Last month, Fox News brass warned Smith against criticizing Carlson on-air, which he did after Carlson attacked Fox legal analyst and former judge Andrew Napolitano for saying Trump had broken the law when he pressured Ukraine to dig up dirt on a political rival. Carlson’s behavior, Smith said, was “repugnant.”

Executives told the hard news anchor “if he does it again, he’s off the air,” one source told Vanity Fair in September.

Fox said a series of rotating anchors will host “Shepard Smith Reporting” at 3 p.m. ET until a new program is announced. 

Calling Smith “one of the premier newscasters of his generation,” Jay Wallace, president and executive editor of Fox News Media, said those at the company respect Smith’s decision and are “deeply grateful for his immense contributions to the entire network.” 

But some who worked with him over his 23 years at Fox were left stunned.

“It was a total shock today to find out he’s leaving,” wrote Fox reporter Bret Baier on Twitter. “He anchored breaking news ― fast-moving events ― better than anyone. I wish him well in whatever lies ahead.”

Caught off-guard on-air, Fox host Neil Cavuto and White House correspondent John Roberts appeared briefly lost for words when they learned of Smith’s departure.

“Woah,” Cavuto said. “I’m a little stunned, and a little heartbroken. I don’t know what to say.” 

He added, “Sorry if I’m a little shell-shocked here ― I’m gonna miss my buddy.”

“I’ve just been trying to compile my thoughts, too,” Roberts said, prefacing a question about stocks he was supposed to answer. “I walked out here to do the hit and suddenly got hit by a subway train ― holy mackerel!”

 

 

  • Thank You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And me.  This is a loss for Fox "News" and the last shred of truth seeking. The only person left is Chris Wallace. 

Oh, and William Barr visited Murdoch at Murdoch's home a few days ago. Nobody is saying what they discussed, but it was just after Trump bitched that Fox never shows good poll results about him.  

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Why Trump is flirting with abandoning Fox News for One America"

Spoiler

When President Trump attacks most news outlets, there is an air of glee in his tweets, a lusty relish he reserves for those he has deemed true enemies. But when he attacks Fox News, as he did Thursday, his tone becomes one of bewildered disappointment. “@FoxNews doesn’t deliver for US anymore,” he moaned. “It is so different than it used to be.”

It’s an understandable disappointment, coming on the heels of a Fox News poll that showed 51 percent of Americans want Trump impeached and removed from office. The president sees Fox News as part of his propaganda arm, an institution full of advisers, friends and future administration officials. And since it is those things, it can be confusing when even the mildest criticism airs. 

But recently, Trump has been pairing his criticisms of Fox with threats. “We have to start looking for a new News Outlet,” he tweeted in August. “Fox isn’t working for us anymore!” On Thursday, he followed up his anti-Fox News tweets with one in favor of a competitor : “Thank you to @OANN One America News for your fair coverage and brilliant reporting. It is appreciated by many people trying so hard to find a new, consistent and powerful VOICE!”

More than any other in Fox News’s history, this is a threat with teeth. Somehow even more pro-Trump and less journalistic than Fox, OANN, or One America News Network, is on the way to becoming Trump’s favorite network — and as a result, one of Fox News’s biggest challengers. And it’s doing so by taking a page right out of Fox’s playbook.

Fox News appeared on the scene in 1996 with two major advantages: an underserved market and powerful friends. At the time, there was no cable news network that specifically catered to the conservative audience that had flocked to Rush Limbaugh’s wildly popular radio show, which went national in 1988. Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes, Fox’s founders, believed they had identified a market with vast potential.  

Launching a cable news network required more than deep pockets and a good idea. As Fox News was getting ready to go on the air, it found itself shut out of a major market, New York City. So Murdoch turned to a powerful Republican ally: Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani strong-armed Time Warner, the city’s cable provider, and ensured that as Fox News took off, New Yorkers could tune in. Four years later, the network developed close ties with the George W. Bush campaign (Bush’s cousin, John Ellis, was the head of the “decision desk” at Fox News on election night in 2000) and the Bush administration. Fox News could now claim powerful friends and political influence. 

Fox News also had a clear adversary: CNN. Murdoch had been at odds with CNN founder Ted Turner for more than a decade and was looking for a way not only to best his nemesis but to discredit his work. What better than a channel that would sneer at the “Clinton News Network” for its rampant “liberal bias?” 

Fox News was soon setting the agenda for major stories from the Monica Lewinsky scandal to the recount fight in 2000 to the tea party protests in 2009. In the process, it became a key institution of Republican power. 

When OANN began broadcasting in 2013, it didn’t immediately challenge Fox, which was so dominant that the notion of an effective threat from the right seemed laughable. Instead OANN joined other new outlets that sought to broaden the range of right-wing offerings. There was the Blaze, launched by conservative host Glenn Beck in 2012 after he left Fox. Popular right-wing sites like Newsmax and Breitbart started their own networks, too. These outlets sensed a market beyond Fox: viewers who liked border walls and birtherism and other ideas that seemed fringe to the mainstream but fascinated the base.

An anti-establishment wave was rippling through the conservative base, aimed not just at the Republican Party but at leaders in the conservative movement. In 2012, when they were challenging Mitt Romney for the Republican presidential nomination, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum — both former Fox contributors — openly attacked Fox as too moderate. 

While nonconservatives grew more concerned about the network’s power over GOP politics, conservatives were worried that Fox News had become too soft, too invested in Republican Party successes and not enough in conservative priorities. 

Now OANN is hoping it can make Trump its own powerful ally, as Giuliani was for Fox years ago — and make Fox the adversary that CNN was for Murdoch.

Though Fox News transformed to become more Trump-friendly after the election, OANN outmaneuvered it: From the day Trump launched his campaign, the network has been aggressively pro-Trump, and Trump has rewarded it in kind, tweeting about it 34 times in the past four years — far less than he has about Fox, but quite a lot for a relatively unknown cable outlet. By 2019, his support had become so apparent that mainstream news outlets began referring to OANN as “Trump’s new favorite network.” 

OANN prides itself on lavishing the president with praise. Last year, it ran the documentary “Trump@War,” directed by former presidential adviser Steve Bannon, which, the ad copy boasted, “highlights the challenges faced by President Trump and his supporters with political adversaries and the mainstream media as the President fights to fulfill his campaign promises to the American people.” The network’s anchors frame stories in language that could have been penned by Trump himself, introducing packages with lines like: “The president keeps another promise, slashing regulations to a historic low.” Coverage is rife with the conspiracy theories that circulate widely in Trumpland, from accusations that the Obama administration spied on Trump’s campaign to stories that Muslim immigrants have caused a spike in crime in Britain.

The idea of a network that’s Trumpier than Fox isn’t new: In the last few months of the 2016 campaign, when it seemed likely that Trump would lose, rumors began burbling about Trump TV — a new network that would carry not just the conservative message but the Trump message. It had a brief preview: Tomi Lahren, who had gotten her start on OANN in 2014, appeared on a Facebook Live feed of “Trump TV” in October 2016 — a shot across the bow of Fox News lest it consider a more moderate direction in the wake of a failed Trump campaign. 

Trump, of course, wound up with other demands on his time after the election, so the rumored launch never happened. And OANN on its own hasn’t unseated Fox News. But the impeachment inquiry creates genuine dangers for Fox: Already, fissures are developing between those who report and those who opine. The new Fox News polls have intensified this by making clear how shaky the president’s position is. OANN does not have this baggage and increasingly runs anti-Fox stories alongside its pro-Trump ones (a recent piece positioned Fox as the “Never-Trump network” — a sign that OANN, previously reluctant to go after Fox, now has fewer qualms).

There have been no high-profile Fox defections to OANN; Sean Hannity still advises the president; the heavily watched evening opinion lineup is still all-in for the White House. In many ways, OANN — which is carried on cable and satellite systems that reach about 35 million households, far fewer than the 96 million that Fox reaches — is a cudgel, a way for Trump to show his displeasure and keep Fox in line. 

But OANN is the clearest challenge to Fox yet, because it puts pressure on the network to change its coverage and offers a viable alternative if Fox News does stop supporting him as much. If it’s not exactly breathing down Fox’s neck, it could still be the MSNBC to Fox’s CNN: In March, it boasted that it was the “fourth rated cable news network,” a bid for mainstream status (though those figures come from ComScore, not Nielsen ratings, because OANN is not counted by Nielsen). Should Fox continue to disappoint the president, OANN has an opening — and soon Trump’s new favorite network could become Trump voters’ favorite, too. 

I was placed on a project with a team from TX. The other day, one of the guys shared his screen. His first bookmark on his browser? OAN. I wanted to throw up. I already didn't like him as he has stabbed me in the back in the past, but the fact that he had something so polarizing on his work computer was just another nail in the coffin of regard in my eyes. My boss is also a rabid OAN watcher. One time, during our weekly one on one touchbase call, he mentioned how it's just "so much better" than Faux and that I should watch it. I struggled to avoid screaming, but said, "thanks for the tip" and changed the subject back to work. I figured he would probably be very unhappy that I watch Rachel Maddow.

  • Sad 1
  • WTF 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, another Faux talking head telling the truth, what a surprise:

 

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish he'd fall in said crack and seal his mouth shut: "Sean Hannity’s world cracks"

Spoiler

Supporters of President Trump are told quite often that he is corrupt, incompetent, vile and so on. There’s one place where they can go, every weeknight, to hear a frothing rebuttal of those critiques. “The call in question shows no quid pro quo. Nothing. No funds were withheld from Ukraine,” Fox News host Sean Hannity said on his Oct. 8 show, absolving the president of allegations that he pressured top Ukrainian officials to investigate the Bidens in return for various considerations.

“And, by the way, when President Trump mentions Biden, in a totally innocuous phone call, with no quid pro quo at all, then it becomes a national crisis,” he said in an edition of “Hannity” from earlier this week. “Oh, even he can’t come up with criminality or high crimes or misdemeanors because there is no quid pro quo. There’s nothing wrong with the phone call. No pressure. Everybody, even the Ukrainians say no pressure,” said the host on Oct. 4, referring to analysis by CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin that Trump’s actions don’t appear to be criminal.

No quid pro quo has turned into a mantra on “Hannity” of late, as the host attempts to sanitize the actions of a president who, in his July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, lobbied a foreign head of state to “look into” a possible political rival.

It’s no surprise, then, that the performance of acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney in the White House briefing room sent Hannity into a panic. In some abstruse exchanges with reporters, Mulvaney admitted a Trump quid pro quo in his negotiations with Ukraine: “Did [Trump] also mention to me in the past the corruption related to the [Democratic National Committee] server?” he said, referring to a conspiracy theory that the actual intervention in the 2016 presidential election came from Ukraine on behalf of the Democrats. “Absolutely, no question about that. But that’s it, and that’s why we held up the money,” said Mulvaney, essentially confirming a quid pro quo, though not the Biden-oriented quid pro quo that has preoccupied news coverage in recent weeks.

In any case: The very idea that Hannity had been bashing, Mulvaney embraced with attitude: “I have news for everybody: Get over it. There is going to be political influence in foreign policy.”

On his radio show Thursday, Hannity said, “What is Mulvaney even talking about? I just think he’s dumb, I really do. I don’t even think he knows what he’s talking about. That’s my take on it.” This expert on honesty, truth, candor and forthrightness riffed some more: “I guess the truth is complicated. This is what, you know — this is why, I think, some of these people are so stupid. Read the transcript. We don’t need a non-whistleblower whistleblower. You don’t need a chief of staff’s idiotic interpretation of things, when the president and the president of Ukraine and everybody else can read it all themselves. That’s what’s amazing.”

What’s amazing is that Hannity’s world is starting to crack, just a touch.

Think of the pickle in which he found himself: If he credits Mulvaney’s explanation, he discredits the central message of “Hannity” for the past several weeks. If he calls Mulvaney a liar, well, that’s a tough one, considering that such accusation is precisely what he hurls at Trump’s opposition. So he just settled on “dumb.”

For his part, Mulvaney settled on blaming the media. In a statement released after the enormity of his blunder of candor spread within Trump world, Mulvaney explained:

Once again, the media has decided to misconstrue my comments to advance a biased and political witch hunt against President Trump. Let me be clear, there was absolutely no quid pro quo between Ukrainian military aid and any investigation into the 2016 election. The president never told me to withhold any money until the Ukrainians did anything related to the server.

The only reasons we were holding the money was because of concern about lack of support from other nations and concerns over corruption. Multiple times during the more than 30-minute briefing where I took over 25 questions, I referred to President Trump’s interest in rooting out corruption in Ukraine, and ensuring taxpayer dollars are spent responsibly and appropriately.

There was never any connection between the funds and the Ukrainians doing anything with the server — this was made explicitly obvious by the fact that the aid money was delivered without any action on the part of the Ukrainians regarding the server.

There never was any condition on the flow of the aid related to the matter of the D.N.C. server.

Even before Mulvaney’s admission-then-retraction, there was plenty of evidence that Trump & Co. had sought to tie diplomatic and aid goodies to a Ukrainian investigation of Democrats, as The Post’s Greg Sargent lays out in a timeline. Mulvaney had bumbled his way into the truth. And in the world of Sean Hannity, that amounts to misconduct.

 

  • I Agree 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

I wish he'd fall in said crack and seal his mouth shut: "Sean Hannity’s world cracks"

  Hide contents

Supporters of President Trump are told quite often that he is corrupt, incompetent, vile and so on. There’s one place where they can go, every weeknight, to hear a frothing rebuttal of those critiques. “The call in question shows no quid pro quo. Nothing. No funds were withheld from Ukraine,” Fox News host Sean Hannity said on his Oct. 8 show, absolving the president of allegations that he pressured top Ukrainian officials to investigate the Bidens in return for various considerations.

“And, by the way, when President Trump mentions Biden, in a totally innocuous phone call, with no quid pro quo at all, then it becomes a national crisis,” he said in an edition of “Hannity” from earlier this week. “Oh, even he can’t come up with criminality or high crimes or misdemeanors because there is no quid pro quo. There’s nothing wrong with the phone call. No pressure. Everybody, even the Ukrainians say no pressure,” said the host on Oct. 4, referring to analysis by CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin that Trump’s actions don’t appear to be criminal.

No quid pro quo has turned into a mantra on “Hannity” of late, as the host attempts to sanitize the actions of a president who, in his July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, lobbied a foreign head of state to “look into” a possible political rival.

It’s no surprise, then, that the performance of acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney in the White House briefing room sent Hannity into a panic. In some abstruse exchanges with reporters, Mulvaney admitted a Trump quid pro quo in his negotiations with Ukraine: “Did [Trump] also mention to me in the past the corruption related to the [Democratic National Committee] server?” he said, referring to a conspiracy theory that the actual intervention in the 2016 presidential election came from Ukraine on behalf of the Democrats. “Absolutely, no question about that. But that’s it, and that’s why we held up the money,” said Mulvaney, essentially confirming a quid pro quo, though not the Biden-oriented quid pro quo that has preoccupied news coverage in recent weeks.

In any case: The very idea that Hannity had been bashing, Mulvaney embraced with attitude: “I have news for everybody: Get over it. There is going to be political influence in foreign policy.”

On his radio show Thursday, Hannity said, “What is Mulvaney even talking about? I just think he’s dumb, I really do. I don’t even think he knows what he’s talking about. That’s my take on it.” This expert on honesty, truth, candor and forthrightness riffed some more: “I guess the truth is complicated. This is what, you know — this is why, I think, some of these people are so stupid. Read the transcript. We don’t need a non-whistleblower whistleblower. You don’t need a chief of staff’s idiotic interpretation of things, when the president and the president of Ukraine and everybody else can read it all themselves. That’s what’s amazing.”

What’s amazing is that Hannity’s world is starting to crack, just a touch.

Think of the pickle in which he found himself: If he credits Mulvaney’s explanation, he discredits the central message of “Hannity” for the past several weeks. If he calls Mulvaney a liar, well, that’s a tough one, considering that such accusation is precisely what he hurls at Trump’s opposition. So he just settled on “dumb.”

For his part, Mulvaney settled on blaming the media. In a statement released after the enormity of his blunder of candor spread within Trump world, Mulvaney explained:

Once again, the media has decided to misconstrue my comments to advance a biased and political witch hunt against President Trump. Let me be clear, there was absolutely no quid pro quo between Ukrainian military aid and any investigation into the 2016 election. The president never told me to withhold any money until the Ukrainians did anything related to the server.

The only reasons we were holding the money was because of concern about lack of support from other nations and concerns over corruption. Multiple times during the more than 30-minute briefing where I took over 25 questions, I referred to President Trump’s interest in rooting out corruption in Ukraine, and ensuring taxpayer dollars are spent responsibly and appropriately.

There was never any connection between the funds and the Ukrainians doing anything with the server — this was made explicitly obvious by the fact that the aid money was delivered without any action on the part of the Ukrainians regarding the server.

There never was any condition on the flow of the aid related to the matter of the D.N.C. server.

Even before Mulvaney’s admission-then-retraction, there was plenty of evidence that Trump & Co. had sought to tie diplomatic and aid goodies to a Ukrainian investigation of Democrats, as The Post’s Greg Sargent lays out in a timeline. Mulvaney had bumbled his way into the truth. And in the world of Sean Hannity, that amounts to misconduct.

 

Spoiler

I can't stomach him anymore.  I just can't.  Tucker Carlson just looks perpetually confused to me.  Laura Ingraham, on the other hand, might be good for a drinking game, especially with her opening monologue.

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Well, I don't know if y'all caught wind of John Yoo and I can't remember the other person's name on Laura Ingram ripping on Vindman, implying that he's for Ukrainian interests above the interests of the US, implying clearly that Vindman speaking with Ukrainian officials was espionage.  

There was huge blowback and even an asshole like John Yoo now realizes he stepped on his own dick, so he's now claiming that, of course, EVERYBODY MISUNDERSTOOD;  his clear meaning was that those  wily UKRAINIANS who were espionage-y, not Vindman.  Now he's admitting that what Trump did on the phone call with Velensky was quid pro quo-y.  

Fox News Guest ‘Regrets’ Explosive Espionage Claim, Says Trump Did Quid Pro Quo

John Yoo tells Chris Cuomo he was referring to the Ukrainians, not Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman.

Quote

Yoo made headlines earlier this week when Laura Ingraham accused Vindman of working “apparently against the president’s interests” while inside the White House. She also noted a New York Times report that said Ukrainian officials had approached him for advice on how to handle Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani. 

“I find that astounding,” Yoo said. “Some people might call that espionage.”

I suspect that many Ukrainians consulted with many competent American diplomats with questions about WTAF was Rudy up to and how do we respond.  

Also, I don't know why people keep referring to Vindman as a veteran, which implies to me that he's retired from the Army.  He's an active-duty military officer. 

 

Edited by Howl
  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wll, they're finally covering the Kentucky governor's race.  The current guy is refusing to concede.  The Associated Press is apparently reversing their announcement of Beshear winning, because the results are too close to call. Coverage was about a minute total.

Edited by JMarie
more stuff to add
  • WTF 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I checked the 24 hour news channels this morning.  CNN and MSNBC started the 9 o'clock hour with coverage of the election. Not Fox News.  They started with the Mormon murders in Mexico.  Horrific, yes, but there's an undercurrent of Mexico Is Evil, See, So We Must Build That Wall To Keep Them Out! Then onto the impeachment witch hunt.  Finally, at 9:15, the election.  Bevin was the least popular governor in the country.  Literally 50th out of 50. He barely won the primary. But Kentucky Republicans won 5 other big races, including attorney general.

  • Upvote 1
  • Thank You 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • GreyhoundFan locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.