Last night, as denizens of the liberal blogosphere likely know by now, the Huffington Post published an internal memo from Fox News’ veep of news.
The memo informed Fox news employees to “be on the lookout for any statements from the Iraqi insurgents, who must be thrilled at the prospect of a Dem controlled Congress,” and “just because Dems won, the war on terror isn’t over.”
Yes, and your point is? With all the righteous indignation that was spewed back in 2003 when ex-Fox Newser Charlie Reina claimed that the news division sends out a daily memo explaining to employees how to spin the news rightward, and other news-memo leaks over the years, this path is pretty well-worn.
Besides, at this point in the great Bias Wars, anyone who claims that Fox doesn’t tilt right is either lying to themselves or being disingenuous for the sake of argument. There’s nothing wrong with Fox having a conservative point of view — as long as everyone is honest about it. But lefty outlets like the Huffington Post just can’t seem to get their fill.
It is interesting to note, however, that on November 9, the day the memo was released, on the Fox News show “Live Desk,” host Martha MacCallum claimed that there are “some reports of cheering in the streets on the behalf of the supporters of the insurgency in Iraq, that they’re very pleased with the way things are going here and also with the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld.”
Never mind that saying “some reports” — without evidence to support your contention — makes the whole claim suspect, what was odder still was that just before going to commercial on three separate occasions, “Live Desk” aired — without explaining what it was showing — three clips from a documentary called “Obsession: The Threat of Radical Islam.” The clips of what we assume are terrorist training camps simply ran before cutting to commercial, leaving us scratching our heads as to what exactly Fox was trying to do.
But the non-bombshell memo reminds us of another non-bombshell memo that partisans in the blogosphere tried to hype.
In October 2004 a memo from ABC News Political Director Mark Halperin was leaked, in which Halperin outlined some things ABC reporters should look out for in covering the Bush/Kerry presidential race. (Let’s not forget that Halperin is same guy who recently told Hugh Hewitt that reporters are “overwhelmingly liberal,” hate the military and have “huge biases” either for or against “gays, guns, abortion, and many other things.”)
Anyway, Halperin’s innocuous memo said that
…the current Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done.
Kerry distorts, takes out of context, and mistakes all the time, but these are not central to his efforts to win.
We have a responsibility to hold both sides accountable to the public interest, but that doesn’t mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides “equally” accountable when the facts don’t warrant that.
I’m sure many of you have this week felt the stepped up Bush efforts to complain about our coverage. This is all part of their efforts to get away with as much as possible with the stepped up, renewed efforts to win the election by destroying Senator Kerry at least partly through distortions.
The righty blogs erupted, claiming that ABC’s “liberal bias” had finally been exposed, when in reality all Halperin said was that if one side fudges facts more than the other, it’s the job of ABC’s reporters to call them on it, instead of reverting to the weak-kneed “he said, she said” method of reporting which is currently sinking American journalism.
Probably the best line written about the Halperin non-story came from the often unintentionally hilarious right-wing blog, Powerline, which wrote, “Drudge has the most astonishing media bombshell ever. ABC News’ Political Director Mark Halperin has directed the ABC News staff to support John Kerry … Is it conceivable that President Bush can survive the media onslaught, unprecedented in American history, that has been unleashed against him?”
Stuff like that makes it hard to decide whether rabid partisans like Powerline — and take your pick on the left — actually believe what they’re saying, or if they’re just trying to play to the crowd.
Regardless, the latest Fox News memo takes it place alongside the Halperin memo and other infinitely insignificant memos. It exposed nothing important, but it sure made for some good copy.





Paul McLeary Posits:
There's nothing wrong with Fox having a conservative point of view -- as long as everyone is honest about it.
padikiller responds:
But there is no room in McLearyland for the "well-worn" criticism of the liberal bias of the Washington Post....
There is HUGE difference between a FOX News editor advising his people that the Iraqi insurgents are happy about the Dem takeover of Congress (now THIS is some scandalous big news, right?) and ABC News admitting that it doesn't wish to hold both sides of the political debate "equally accountable"!
It is too damned bad that Mr. MCLeary can't recognize this difference...
The Fox News editor is warning his people to be on the lookout for news... The ABC News director is telling his people how to skew the news...
Anybody who can't recognize the difference between these two statements (or the significance of his difference is an idiot..)
Posted by padikiller on Wed 15 Nov 2006 at 06:43 PM
"There's nothing wrong with Fox having a conservative point of view -- as long as everyone is honest about it."
The fact is that Fox "Fair and Balanced" is not and has never been "honest about it." Quite the opposite. The fact that most people see through the dishonestly doesnt make it less dishonest.
Posted by Catch22 on Thu 16 Nov 2006 at 10:07 AM
Why did I just know that padikiller would excuse the conservative bias while attacking liberal bias.
Once again, it just proves that the whining about bias is not in the quest for good journalism, it's just a desire for bias that you agree with.
Posted by not the senator on Thu 16 Nov 2006 at 12:52 PM
I suppose this little piece of non-news helped eclipse the real news: that FOX News funds terrorists. Palestinian terror groups and security organizations in the Gaza Strip received $2 million from a U.S. source in exchange for the release of Fox News employees Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig. A representative from the Gaza-based Popular Resistance Committees, said his organization's share of the money was used to purchase weapons, which he said would be utilized "to hit the Zionists."
Way to go FOX News! I am sure that by downplaying this, you will dampen the encouragement that negotiating with terrorist groups will give to others. And thanks to CJR Daily for conveniently ignoring this in favor of non-news.
Posted by Tony MacFarlane on Thu 16 Nov 2006 at 02:19 PM
not the senator wrote obtusely:
Why did I just know that padikiller would excuse the conservative bias while attacking liberal bias
padikiller responds devastatingly
WHAT "conservative bias" are we talking about EXACTLY?...
What could be possibly construed as "biased" about the following statement from a Fox editor?...
"...be on the lookout for any statements from the Iraqi insurgents, who must be thrilled at the prospect of a Dem controlled Congress"
Is it "biased" for a news editor to tell his reporters to "be on the lookout" for news?... Is it "biased" for an editor to state an obviously reality- namely that the Iraqi insurgents are quite certainly happy about the Democratic takeover of Congress?.. Are statements from the insurgents not "news"?....
Or how about this later statement from the same Fox editor?...
"...just because Dems won, the war on terror isn't over"
How in the HELL can THIS statement possibly be construed as being "biased"?....
You McLearyites are off your damned rockers!....
On the other hand...
THIS statement from an ABC News director is entirely different....
"We have a responsibility to hold both sides accountable to the public interest, but that doesn't mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides "equally" accountable when the facts warrant that... I'm sure many of you have this week felt the stepped up Bush efforts to complain about our coverage. This is all part of their efforts to get away with as much as possible with the stepped up, renewed efforts to win the election by destroying Senator Kerry at least partly through distortions."
THIS statement reflects an actual bias... A plainly stated preference for the Kerry campaign over the Bush campaign... A scary admission that ABC News clearly felt that Kerry's side was "more equal" than the Bush camp, and so deserved better treatment from "professional journalists"... And a paranoid and downright silly claim that the Bush campaign's complaints about skewed press coverage were secretly rooted in a nefarious conspiracy of some sort..
Anyone who can't distinguish between the Fox statements and the ABC News statement is neurally-challenged...
PERIOD...
Posted by padikiller on Thu 16 Nov 2006 at 05:39 PM
Padkiller,
You quote the Halperin memo as: "We have a responsibility to hold both sides accountable to the public interest, but that doesn't mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides "equally" accountable when the facts warrant that."
However the actual memo reads: "We have a responsibility to hold both sides accountable to the public interest, but that doesn't mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides "equally" accountable when the facts DON'T [emphasis mine] warrant that."
The corrected version fails to support your argument for bias -- Halperen is pointing out that not all instances of distortion are equal, they should be weighed in terms of scope as well.
Posted by UnSpun on Fri 17 Nov 2006 at 02:15 AM
UnSpun wrote:
...the actual memo reads: "We have a responsibility to hold both sides accountable to the public interest, but that doesn't mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides "equally" accountable when the facts DON'T [emphasis mine] warrant that."
padikiller responds:
You are right about my error in copying the quote, but I fail to see the logical significance.... The negative here created by the word "don't" is superfluous- the phrases "if the facts warrant" and the "if the facts don't warrant" result in the same logical outcome when taken in context...
The "facts" are what they are... And the role of "professional journalists" should be to provide them... And to let readers delve into the realm of accountability...
The particularly damning admission of the ABC News director- and the incontrovertible proof of plain bias on his part- is his silly claim that the Bush campaign's demand of fair coverage from the media was a secret component of a some vast right-wing conspiracy to hurt John Kerry...
Once again, anyone who can't distinguish between the Fox News editor's call for the collection of news and the ABC News director's call for disparate "accountability" in reporting, is simply either nuts or stupid.
Posted by padikiller on Fri 17 Nov 2006 at 08:42 AM
padikiller,
Why is it a given that the Iraqis would be thrilled with a Democratic win in Congress?
Answer that question and you'll also answer your own.
Let's suppose I sent a memo to my (hypothetical) news desk: "padikiller is clearly an asshole, so go out and find me some footage of him acting like one, and we'll run it on the six o'clock news."
By your logic, that statement doesn't start with a biased premise either.
Posted by barrelhousemike on Fri 17 Nov 2006 at 11:34 AM
I completely agree with Padkiller.
Posted by tallmute on Fri 17 Nov 2006 at 01:28 PM
My apologies, my previous post left out a superfluous "dis". The previous post should read
"I completely disagree with Padkiller" feel free to devestate me with your responce.
Posted by tallmute on Fri 17 Nov 2006 at 01:32 PM
barrellhousemike wrote:
Why is it a given that the Iraqis would be thrilled with a Democratic win in Congress?
padikiller responds
It is a FACT that Iraqi insurgents are ecstatic over the Dem takeover:
"'The American people have taken a step in the right path to come out of their predicament, they voted for a level of reason,' said Ayyub al-Masri, the head of al Qaeda in Iraq."
It is useless to engage in a "debate" unless you are willing to both engage plain reality... And disavow the ad hominem stupidity....
Posted by padikiller on Fri 17 Nov 2006 at 03:16 PM
Luckily, I'm not trying to engage in a "debate," but in a debate, though I'd be glad to also have a debate about the use of scare quotes. Both you and my freshmen comp students seem to think they denote emphasis, rather than distance.
If you'd like, I've got a worksheet I can forward you. It's a real humdinger. I can also pass on the one about logical fallacies -- most of my students find that one to be quite eye opening. We look at things like "unrepresentative samples," "slippery slope" problems and "false choices."
They're always surprised to learn that such seemingly airtight arguments as "You either love Republicans or want the terrorists to win" and "America -- love it or leave it" are, in fact, not so solid. Ditto isolated quotes taken out of context, or the now-famous Santorum chestnut about gay marriage, farm animals and home appliances.
That last one always makes them laugh. "No one really said that, right?" they say, and thn I tell them it was, in fact, their very own state senator. Or, well, former state senator. To which they all applaud, and then we sing songs and eat candy apples, as is our wont.
But, please, before you accuse me of being just another hippy liberal college professor, let me assure you I don't let the Democrats off easy. They've delivered tons of fallacious statements about police states and fascism that are equally fun to debunk. Also, I own several collared shirts made by Izod and Ralph Lauren, and I bathe regularly.
I'm glad that if nothing else, padikiller, we can agree on the absurdity of ad hominem attacks. It makes me happy to know you'll be retracting yours:
"Once again, anyone who can't distinguish between the Fox News editor's call for the collection of news and the ABC News director's call for disparate "accountability" in reporting, is simply either nuts or stupid."
Kisses (heterosexual ones, of course),
barrelhousemike
Posted by barrelhousemike on Fri 17 Nov 2006 at 04:52 PM
barrellhousemike wrote:
Luckily, I'm not trying to engage in a "debate,
padikiller responds
So I can tell....
I've read your voluminous post, but I am unable to decipher its premise...
Is it that you claim that the Iraqi insurgents are actually in mourning over the Dem takeover (instead of cheering their heads off)?...
Is it that the quotes the insurgents and terrorists expressing their unbridled glee at the Dem takeover are to be ignored or discounted by "professional journalists"?
Is it that you belive that your dodging appeal to authority can somehow glide you past the inconvenient reality- that the Head Terrorist of Al Quaida in Iraq is busting his gut in pleasure over the Dem takeover?...
What is your specifice point here?...
Posted by padikiller on Fri 17 Nov 2006 at 05:10 PM
Conservatism and honesty go together about as often as oil and water.
Posted by bigdavefromqueens on Fri 17 Nov 2006 at 08:43 PM
With analysis like this coming from our top journalism schools it is hardly surprising that media is in the sorry state that it is in.
This memo is not about bias but propaganda. And if you believe the ABC memo is on par than you should be equally critical of both instead of giving both a pass.
Does CJ not teach journalistic standards? How about some accountability. Not many things shock me anymore but this coming from the top journalism school in the country left me aghast.
Posted by Alan Breslauer on Fri 17 Nov 2006 at 09:59 PM
I believe the full quote is "The American people have put their feet on the right path by ... realizing their president's betrayal in supporting Israel," the terror leader said. "So they voted for something reasonable in the last elections" from AP and CBS. He also called Bush the stupidest president ever, mocked Rumsfeld and taunted military. You are taking this man seriously Padkiller? He is trying to invoke a response, create dissension. He is jerking your chain why respond to a fanatic? Al-Qaeda is not even a major player, wouldnt call them insurgents as you do. Zarqawi did his job. He started the self-perpetuating violence. Sunni insurgents number in the several tens of thousands according to Gen. Abbizaid (sp?)in his recent meeting with Senate. Al-qaeda in Irag numbers less than a thousand perhaps several hundred. Al-Qaeda has been marginalized by Sunni themselves. From what I have read the Salafists were too harsh on their own people. Not to mention that you leave out shia militias, be it Mahdi army or Badr corps, that play a greater role in the stability of Iraq. I believe Al-Qaeda's greatest hope was for us to invade Iraq. It fulfilled all their dreams and has been a recruitment bonanza. It would seem to me that Al-Qaeda would prefer the party that invaded a middle-east country.
Posted by Matt on Sat 18 Nov 2006 at 09:07 PM
Matt wrote the most ridiculous tripe posted here in a LONG time
It would seem to me that Al-Qaeda would prefer the party that invaded a middle-east country.
padikiller rings the Reality Bell:
Seriously....
Are you McLearyites on crack?....
Why don't one of you show me a SINGLE statement of support of the GOP by a terrorist (synonymously and euphemistically labeled an "insurgent" by the MSM) in Iraq?...
Can any of you freaky-deaky whack jobs do that?...
HUH?......
If not...
LEARN THINGS....
Grow up... Get real....
Then deal with the reality here....
Posted by padikiller on Sun 19 Nov 2006 at 08:50 AM
Wow devastating retort. One point I was trying to make is that there are several insurgent groups. The Mahdi army is anti-american but also anti-iran. The Sunnis are a mix of Baathists, secularists, tribal leaders and hardline religious leaders. The Badr corp is funded and trained by Iran. Not to mention SCIRI and the Kurds. It is childish and to take these divergent groups with completely different agendas and put them under one umbrella of terrorist. Not to say they dont commmit horrorific acts against eachother. But all these groups have legitimate political wants, violent militias filled the power vacuum ands now rule the tit for tat chaos. Iraq requires a political solution, militias and military are not the answer. Another point is that Al-Qaeda celebrated the invasion of Iraq. Osama has for years stated that America is imperialist, onlt wants middle-east oil, and will invade to get it. Osama has referred to the crusades for years, Bush fulfilled his prophecy and Osama ranks swelled. Osama couldnt have wished for a better reaction to 9-11. Afghanistan was the correct response, Iraq invasion was dream come true for Osama. If possible we lost the moral high ground as Iraq slipped into chaos. Is it that hard to connect the 2 ideas? As for terrorists supporting a GOP candidate I dont know what to say other than to laugh. America is one big evil to them. This terrorist you quoted saw an opportunity to taunt his enemies and did so. The idea that Al-Qaeda is scared of GOP bc they take bold military action against them is laughable. They want that reaction. They want to be made into martyrs or bleed us in an unwinnable war. Either way they win. Al-Qaeda would not want a party that sent peace envoys to Israel/Palestine. In fact you would see great efforts to increase suicide bombers into Israel or increase in rocket attacks into Israel.
Posted by Matt on Sun 19 Nov 2006 at 12:57 PM
I've endured Matt's Never-Ending Paragraph of Nonresponsiveness..
And I see upon surviving it that I need to ask my question again...
Can one of you McLearyites show me a SINGLE statement of support of the GOP by a SINGLE terrorist (synonymously and euphemistically labeled an "insurgent" by the MSM) in Iraq?...
HUH?...
In order to weather debate in McLearyland, a McLearyite is required to surrender the neural capacity necessary to accept the baseless assertion that the Iraqi terrorists are secretly in love with George Bush and that their many, many favorable calls for the election of Dem candidates simply represent a bad case of sour grapes....
Some of you people need to ask for an extra dose of Lithium tonight...
Posted by padikiller on Sun 19 Nov 2006 at 01:29 PM
I'm sorry thought you were rational, have a good day.
Posted by Matt on Sun 19 Nov 2006 at 02:13 PM