Michael Gaynor
Tragically, Fox News is not truly conservative, fearless or bias-free
By Michael Gaynor
How about change for the better and going with the brighter and the bolder? How about Laura Ingraham for O'Reilly, Michelle Malkin for Beck and Mark Levin for Hannity? As for respectable liberal substitutes for Matthews, Olbermann and Ms. Maddow, any suggestions?
The late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan was right: we are entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts.
In September of 2008, National Journal's Stuart Taylor stated a terrible truth: "The media can no longer be trusted to provide accurate and fair campaign reporting and analysis."
In Stuart Taylor Wants An Honest Newspaper! (September 24, 2008) (http://www.webcommentary.com/php/ShowArticle.php?id=gaynorm&date=080924), I welcomed Taylor's statement and warned that the search for objective reporting in the mainstream media was difficult:
"Like Diogenes looking for an honest man, Stuart Taylor is seeking an honest newspaper covering the current presidential race.
"Good luck!
"I think it has been some time since 'media' could be 'trusted to provide accurate and fair campaign reporting and analysis,' but the campaign reporting and analysis of 'media' with respect to the 2008 presidential campaign plumbed new depths of inaccuracy and unfairness."
Taylor: "We still have many great journalists, but I no longer trust the major newspapers or television networks to provide consistently accurate and fair reporting and analysis of all the charges and countercharges. This in an era when the noise produced by highly partisan TV hosts and blogs creates a crying need for at least one newspaper that we can count on to play it straight."
That need remains.
Taylor: "...many in the media have been one-sided, sometimes adding to Obama's distortions rather than acting as impartial reporters of fact and referees of the mud fights."
That remains true too.
Taylor: "The New York Times did a huge (3,120-word) front-page story on February 21 implying that McCain had had a sexual affair with a female lobbyist while doing her political favors. But the article lacked strong evidence either that there had been a sexual affair or that McCain had crossed legal or ethical lines to do favors. Would The Times have printed the same story had the senator been Barack Obama or John Kerry? I doubt it."
I was not in doubt. I was sure that such a story would be suppressed.
I wrote:
"I would not count on The Times to publish such a story about Obama even if it had strong evidence."
"In the name of truth in advertising, The Times should change its slogan from 'All the news that's fit to print' to 'All that fits our agenda.'"
I wrote those statements BEFORE ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief contacted me and The New York Times killed an Obama/ACORN expose on which she had been working with Times national correspondent Stephanie Strom because it was feared that the expose could be a "game changer."
In his article Taylor, no Palinite, stated: "...I am...deeply skeptical when I see front-page headlines like 'As Mayor of Wasilla, Palin Cut Own Duties, Left Trail of Bad Blood' (Washington Post, September 14), or 'Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes' (New York Times, same day). Such loaded language is a badge not of a newsroom committed to impartial investigation but of an ideological echo chamber."
Taylor acknowledged the obvious (to conservatives): "a double standard driven by liberal bias at most major news organizations."
I opined: "But for that media bias, Obama's connection to Rev. Jeremiah A. 'God damn America' Wright, Jr. would have been the big news in March 2007, Obama's presidential campaign would have fizzled faster than that of his vice presidential choice, Senator Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. of Delaware, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York would have won the 2008 Democrat presidential campaign easily, and Palin would not have been McCain's vice presidential choice and Obama's successor as the sensation of the campaign."
What needs changing is the media bias that successfully deceives so many people.
The only major news organization now suffering from liberal media bias is Fox...and it is hardly bias-free or fearless.
MSNBC's Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow obviously are Obama apologists who are unfair and unbalanced and not even trying to be fair and balanced.
Fox News pledges to be fair and balanced. It does a much better job than the alphabet networks, but it is only conservative compared to its competitors and the top Fox stars are not as bold or bright as their promoters assert.
Bill O'Reilly isn't a true conservative. He bullies people who can't hurt him and makes sure to criticize Obama only on policy. That works well enough for Obama. I pay attention to O'Reilly for the Ingraham Angle and hope he takes a day off. I record him to skip most of his program. Will he ever retire?
Glenn Beck is an egotistical buffoon who doesn't realize how much he doesn't know. He says many of the right things, but even tells little lies to make himself look better. Example: he said he had invited the ACORN 8 on his show, but only two had come because of scheduling problems. The truth, as set forth in an email by his producer, was that his show wouldn't pay to bring in all of them. (Beck wanted to show his audience that he wasn't afraid of black people, as ACORN national spokesman Scott Levenson had charged, but not enough to pay the cost of flying the other six to New York.) His recent radio interview of Michelle Malkin revealed plenty: he's a jerk and she really can be very gentle with a jerk without compromising her views. http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/09/video-beck-michelle-malkin-go-toe-to-toe-over-massa-interview/
Sean Hannity isn't an empty suit. He looks like an impressive spokesperson and speaks well. But his intellect and knowledge don't match his glibness and looks and he doesn't dig enough and follow through. Example: Too much time on the Carrie Prejean story, too little exposing critically important facts about Obama. Example: Hannity had Rev. Wright on his tv show in March 2007 and could have undone the Obama campaign then if he had Rev. Wright's video then...and it was for sale in the Trinity Church bookstore. When Hannity used it a year later, it was great television, but too late to stop Obama.
How about change for the better and going with the brighter and the bolder? How about Laura Ingraham for O'Reilly, Michelle Malkin for Beck and Mark Levin for Hannity? As for respectable liberal substitutes for Matthews, Olbermann and Ms. Maddow, any suggestions?
© Michael Gaynor
How about change for the better and going with the brighter and the bolder? How about Laura Ingraham for O'Reilly, Michelle Malkin for Beck and Mark Levin for Hannity? As for respectable liberal substitutes for Matthews, Olbermann and Ms. Maddow, any suggestions?
The late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan was right: we are entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts.
In September of 2008, National Journal's Stuart Taylor stated a terrible truth: "The media can no longer be trusted to provide accurate and fair campaign reporting and analysis."
In Stuart Taylor Wants An Honest Newspaper! (September 24, 2008) (http://www.webcommentary.com/php/ShowArticle.php?id=gaynorm&date=080924), I welcomed Taylor's statement and warned that the search for objective reporting in the mainstream media was difficult:
"Like Diogenes looking for an honest man, Stuart Taylor is seeking an honest newspaper covering the current presidential race.
"Good luck!
"I think it has been some time since 'media' could be 'trusted to provide accurate and fair campaign reporting and analysis,' but the campaign reporting and analysis of 'media' with respect to the 2008 presidential campaign plumbed new depths of inaccuracy and unfairness."
Taylor: "We still have many great journalists, but I no longer trust the major newspapers or television networks to provide consistently accurate and fair reporting and analysis of all the charges and countercharges. This in an era when the noise produced by highly partisan TV hosts and blogs creates a crying need for at least one newspaper that we can count on to play it straight."
That need remains.
Taylor: "...many in the media have been one-sided, sometimes adding to Obama's distortions rather than acting as impartial reporters of fact and referees of the mud fights."
That remains true too.
Taylor: "The New York Times did a huge (3,120-word) front-page story on February 21 implying that McCain had had a sexual affair with a female lobbyist while doing her political favors. But the article lacked strong evidence either that there had been a sexual affair or that McCain had crossed legal or ethical lines to do favors. Would The Times have printed the same story had the senator been Barack Obama or John Kerry? I doubt it."
I was not in doubt. I was sure that such a story would be suppressed.
I wrote:
"I would not count on The Times to publish such a story about Obama even if it had strong evidence."
"In the name of truth in advertising, The Times should change its slogan from 'All the news that's fit to print' to 'All that fits our agenda.'"
I wrote those statements BEFORE ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief contacted me and The New York Times killed an Obama/ACORN expose on which she had been working with Times national correspondent Stephanie Strom because it was feared that the expose could be a "game changer."
In his article Taylor, no Palinite, stated: "...I am...deeply skeptical when I see front-page headlines like 'As Mayor of Wasilla, Palin Cut Own Duties, Left Trail of Bad Blood' (Washington Post, September 14), or 'Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes' (New York Times, same day). Such loaded language is a badge not of a newsroom committed to impartial investigation but of an ideological echo chamber."
Taylor acknowledged the obvious (to conservatives): "a double standard driven by liberal bias at most major news organizations."
I opined: "But for that media bias, Obama's connection to Rev. Jeremiah A. 'God damn America' Wright, Jr. would have been the big news in March 2007, Obama's presidential campaign would have fizzled faster than that of his vice presidential choice, Senator Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. of Delaware, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York would have won the 2008 Democrat presidential campaign easily, and Palin would not have been McCain's vice presidential choice and Obama's successor as the sensation of the campaign."
What needs changing is the media bias that successfully deceives so many people.
The only major news organization now suffering from liberal media bias is Fox...and it is hardly bias-free or fearless.
MSNBC's Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow obviously are Obama apologists who are unfair and unbalanced and not even trying to be fair and balanced.
Fox News pledges to be fair and balanced. It does a much better job than the alphabet networks, but it is only conservative compared to its competitors and the top Fox stars are not as bold or bright as their promoters assert.
Bill O'Reilly isn't a true conservative. He bullies people who can't hurt him and makes sure to criticize Obama only on policy. That works well enough for Obama. I pay attention to O'Reilly for the Ingraham Angle and hope he takes a day off. I record him to skip most of his program. Will he ever retire?
Glenn Beck is an egotistical buffoon who doesn't realize how much he doesn't know. He says many of the right things, but even tells little lies to make himself look better. Example: he said he had invited the ACORN 8 on his show, but only two had come because of scheduling problems. The truth, as set forth in an email by his producer, was that his show wouldn't pay to bring in all of them. (Beck wanted to show his audience that he wasn't afraid of black people, as ACORN national spokesman Scott Levenson had charged, but not enough to pay the cost of flying the other six to New York.) His recent radio interview of Michelle Malkin revealed plenty: he's a jerk and she really can be very gentle with a jerk without compromising her views. http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/09/video-beck-michelle-malkin-go-toe-to-toe-over-massa-interview/
Sean Hannity isn't an empty suit. He looks like an impressive spokesperson and speaks well. But his intellect and knowledge don't match his glibness and looks and he doesn't dig enough and follow through. Example: Too much time on the Carrie Prejean story, too little exposing critically important facts about Obama. Example: Hannity had Rev. Wright on his tv show in March 2007 and could have undone the Obama campaign then if he had Rev. Wright's video then...and it was for sale in the Trinity Church bookstore. When Hannity used it a year later, it was great television, but too late to stop Obama.
How about change for the better and going with the brighter and the bolder? How about Laura Ingraham for O'Reilly, Michelle Malkin for Beck and Mark Levin for Hannity? As for respectable liberal substitutes for Matthews, Olbermann and Ms. Maddow, any suggestions?
© Michael Gaynor
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
