Kermit and Miss Piggy take questions at a news conference responding to the allegations that the new Muppets movie pushes a dangerous liberal agenda on kids:
We can see all the conservative parents trying to explain to their children why they can’t watch the Muppets anymore. Sorry, junior, but Miss Piggy made a joke about Fox News at a London press conference in response to Eric Bolling’s comments on Fox Business Network’s Follow the Money last month, so you cannot watch these felt creatures flop around on screens anymore.We really can see this.
Fox News cites non-existent part of the Constitution to hype argument for Justice Kagan recusal from healthcare case.
Fact: The constitution has no Article 28, has no Section 144 and does not contain the language quoted by Fox News.
Yet another reminder that Fox News lies.
LTMC: This isn’t a lie. It’s yet another disgustingly unprofessional journalism mistake made by the worst excuse for a news organization since Soviet-era Pravda.
The language in question is real, but it’s not part of the constitution, and it sure as hell isn’t in section 144 of anything. This language comes from 28 U.S.C. §455, a federal statute which governs the recusal of federal judges:
(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. (b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances: … . (3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;
I’ll be completely honest with you: despite the fact that I’m a law student, I didn’t know the statute where this language came from at first glance. Do you know how I found it? I simply typed it into google as a quote and searched for it, and found it on FindLaw.com, a website which is available to the public.
I’ll say that again: a 30-second google search could have gotten Fox News staffers the correct answer. And I don’t think I’m being unfair here: I would even give them the benefit of the doubt if the wrote “Article 28, Sec. 455,” because then it would be easier to explain as an honest mistake. But where did “sec. 144” come from? There’s no section 144 in any article of the constitution; and even if they were thinking of Title 28 of the U.S.C, it can’t even be explained as a typo, because the key strokes don’t match up, by proximity or pattern! The only answers we’re left with are, 1) reckless disregard for the accuracy of work product, or 2) they literally just made shit up. It’s beyond unspeakable how bad they are at their job. But I guess a reasonable standard of accuracy is a lot to expect for a news organization that mistook a dance club for a nuclear power plant.
Fox News falsely dubs alleged White House attacker as “‘Occupy’ Shooter”
Fact: Investigators have reportedly “found no connection between him and the Occupy protestors.”
LTMC: I’ve written about this sort of thing in the past, specifically with respect to Fox News. As I’ve mentioned before, I rarely post about Fox News because frankly, they have been discredited so many times that it can often feel like I’m just banging my head against a wall when pointing out their lack of journalistic integrity. But this is yet another example of why everyone has a duty to convince their Conservative friends and family that Fox News is not actually a legitimate news organization. Your friends and family can be Conservative, that’s ok. Just tell them not to get their facts from Fox News. Fox News makes unprofessional journalistic mistakes, blatantly mischaracterizes stories (as here), and flat-out lies on a regular basis.
This head-line is not an honest mistake. It is an intentional, blatant lie that is intended to discredit the Occupy Movement. No self-respecting individual of any political persuasion ought to rely on Fox News for information, because they will simply wind up being misinformed. It’s not a reliable source of information, period.
To wit: I recently wrote a fairly long book review in which I cited countless internet media sources, including HuffPo and Reason. I will never cite Fox News. Ever. And it has nothing to do with Fox News’s Right-leaning bias. There are other Right-leaning media sources which are absolutely cite-able: the Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal, and even the New York Post are all perfectly cite-able sources of factual information. Fox News is not. They just make too many factual mistakes to be reliable. And no one, not even Conservatives, should rely on them for news.
Update:HipsterLibertarian informs me that I erred by listing the “Washington Post” as a conservative news source. It appears that I was thinking of the Washington Times, not the Post. I’ve updated the paragraph above to reflect the change.
Fox News has a new poll up. I think you know what to do.
Do it.
Challenge Accepted.
You know, I have to say that when I first saw this message on my dashboard, the poll in question still clearly favored the “no” category. It’s about an hour later, and now, the poll clearly favors the “yes” category:
This is obviously just one insignificant internet poll: the sort of fare that one can find all over the web. But we’re also talking about a swing of thousands of votes in a very short time. This is a testament to the new social media. The internet has become a volatile force indeed. The initial seed of an idea from one person can quickly grow into a viral network of action; particularly since, in a case like this, the effort needed by any one individual is minimal. Yet the aggregate effect, substantial.
One is reminded of Gandhi’s popular entreaty:
Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it.
This particular episode seems a trivial venue in which to experience enlightenment…but I think I understand this statement better now than I ever have.
Sure, we cherry pick evidence, we spin world events, and we impose our worldview when we talk about policy. Everyone does that. But generally speaking, our opinion leaders don’t go on national TV, look straight into the camera, and just outright lie about stuff. Theirs do.
And you know, if you’d been told over and over that Obamacare meant getting government permission every time you want to go to the doctor; if you’d been told over and over that the economy is in bad shape because a tidal wave of regulations are strangling American business; and if you’d been told over and over that stimulus spending didn’t create one single job — well, what would you think about Barack Obama’s presidency? Not much, I imagine.
It’s awfully hard to fight stuff this brazen. Everyone understands that politicians fudge details and engage in partisan hypocrisy. All part of the game. But most of us don’t expect them to flat out lie. So when they do, we figure there must be something to it. It’s a pretty powerful formula, especially when the mainstream press no longer seriously polices this stuff, and isn’t much believed even when it does. The answer remains frustratingly elusive.
Building a rundown for broadcast requires a keen sense for smooth transitions. After a story on debt ceiling negotiations, if you have a story on Wall Street’s reaction, you’d want that story to follow.
After a story on debt ceiling negotiations, if you have a story on the World’s Ugliest Dog contest… wait until the D block for that one.
Now let’s say you have this: a story on the Norway massacre and a story on the Park51 Muslim community center.
Let’s also say you’re building your newscast before any evidence arises as to know is responsible for the attacks in Oslo and Utøya.
If you’re a responsible journalist, you either kill the Park51 story or you move it further down in the newscast. Why? Because if you lead into a piece about the controversial “Ground Zero mosque” with a story on a terrorist attack, your viewers will likely associate the two, although no one has confirmed the identity of the attacker or the motive.
If you’re FOX News, you go ahead and let that association happen anyway - because catering to Islamophobia is your niche.
I usually try not to bother too much with identifying the Ethical bankruptcy of Fox News, but I think this is a particularly good example of exactly what makes them so bad: they don’t come right out and say that there’s a connection between the Oslo attacks and Muslim Extremism. They suggest it by running a story about Park 51 right on top of the Oslo story, thereby placing images of both 9/11, Ground Zero, and Muslim “controversy” in the same mindshare of their viewers as the Oslo bombing.
You can see them doing similar things when they make conscious decisions about how to phrase their story headings, or what words they choose to describe a story. For example, they might have a lead-in for a story about Obama’s attempt to close Guantanamo that looks like this:
“BOLD LEADERSHIP, OR ENDANGERING AMERICA? YOU DECIDE!”
This headline is flawed for two reasons: a) it presents the audience with a false dichotomy of choices. Bold leadership and endangering America are not mutually exclusive. One can conceive of one leading to the other, even. But more subtly (and importantly), this headline is flawed because, b) it purposefully and consciously places the critical, skeptical choice second, rather than first. Doing so implies through rhetorical selection that this is the correct choice. This actually requires a little explanation, because it’s an argument from tendency, not from causality.
When people argue through comparison, they usually present the “bad” choice first. Here’s three random argumentative examples to illustrate the point:
1. “How would you react if you were punched in the face? Are you just going to sit there and take it, or are you going to fight back?”
2. “What would you do if you found out your best friend is stealing from you? Are just gonna let it happen, or are you gonna put a stop to it?”
3. “What makes more sense in the long run? Spending your money on booze and hookers every night, or saving your money so you can afford a new car?”***
this is a rather subversive rhetorical tool that Fox News uses all the time and on purpose. Of course, Fox News can plausibly deny that they’ve done this on purpose because there’s no hard and fast rule saying that English speakers always need to place the “bad choice first” when making an argument-by-comparison. Yet Fox news can rely on the tendency of English speakers to do this anyway in order to make the second choice seem like the correct one. It is essentially Yellow Journalism with plausible deniability. Fox News uses proximity and rhetorical devices with the intention of drawing their audience in to make passive assumptions and connections about the material in their broadcasts. This is why even many Conservatives who admit Fox News has a Conservative bias still feel they are a legitimate News source, because Fox News can plausibly deny that they use these rhetorical tools on purpose to manipulate the audience’s perception. The subtle genius of their Modus Operandi is that the viewer does the work for them.
***(Personally, I’d take the booze and hookers, but that’s just me)
Fox News also regularly makes blatant and unprofessional factual mistakes and omissions in its reporting. This flawed reporting is then used by Fox’s opinion leaders on-air. While MSNBC regularly posts stories that potentially make Democrats and Liberal organizations look bad, Fox News does not do the same for Conservative organizations or politicians with anything resembling parity. A quick glance at today’s MSNBC Politics page gives us this story about Obama getting inspiration from “corporate speak.” Hardly a flattering headline. We then look at today’s Fox News Politics page and we see not a single headline that potentially makes Conservative politicians or Conservative organizations look bad.
There is plenty to hate about MSNBC. But Fox News is not just biased: they are bad at journalism. MSNBC at least tries to do journalism. Fox News is not and has never been a legitimate news organization.
“To put it simply, if there’s a candidate for judge who comes from a criminal defense background running against a candidate for judge who comes from...”
