O’Reilly Catches Jon Stewart's Deceptive Nazi Edit.....ORLY?

So here is what O'Really happened....

January 24, 2011, Jon Stewart on the Daily Show plays a clip of Representative Steve Cohen (D-TN) stating:

They say it's a government takeover of health care, a big lie. Just like Goebbels, you say it enough, you repeat the lie, you repeat the lie, you repeat the lie, and eventually people believe it. The Germans said enough about the Jews, and people believed it, and you had the Holocaust.

Stewart then empties a cup and five dice fall out whereby he yells " And he rolls...Nazi!"  He then leads in with the comment "Many people were annoyed but none more than Fox News."  He plays some clips, then completes it with a bit of a fracas between Megan Kelly of Fox News and Richard Socarides a "Democratic Strategist" above a banner called "Implausible Deniability."

 Richard. Socarides says:

"If we want to get into who heats this and who's overheating this, every night on the very network we are on now, leading commentators use this kind of language."

Megan Kelly responds:

"That's just not true Richard.  I don't know know if you sit and watch our programing every night, but I watch it every day and you are wrong."

Jon Stewart, feigning disgust, says in a whisper:

"Megan...Megan.  I watch it every day too.  Twelve long years....I think he may be right."

He then plays a bunch of Fox News clips in which reference to Nazis or that group/time is made by a whole slew of different Fox News' "leading commentators."  It starts off with Bill O'Reilly stating:

"If you look back at what happened in Germany, you cannot escape the similarities between what Hitler and his cutthroats did back then and the hate-filled blogs, what they're doing now."

Well Bill O'Reilly took a bit o' offense to this, and in a Fox Nation piece titled: "O’Reilly Catches Jon Stewart's Deceptive Nazi Edit" lambastes Jon Stewart stating:

"If Stewart were a journalist, I would pound him into pudding. But he's not; he's a comedian, and as such, has license to take things out of context for entertainment purposes."

Hmmmm....Unless you want to get hung up on the wording of "every day" or "every night" the point Jon Stewart was making, was that indignation over the comparison to Nazis by Rep. Cohen is no less reprehensible than similar types comparisons made on/by Fox News and their "leading commentators", of which, Bill O'Reilly, is one.

Megan Kelly was pretty adamant that Fox News does no such thing.  The Daily Show showed differently.  There was nothing taken out of context because context was not needed.

Did Bill O'Reilly use a Nazi Comparison in his commentary on February 28, 2008?  Yes

Does the reason it was used matter?  No (and Jon Stewart is pretty clear about his feelings on using a Nazi comparison for anything other than the most despicable of acts against humanity.  And as nasty the comment was about Nancy Reagan, it's not in the same league as what the Nazis did.)

Context Mr. O'Reilly?  I'm sure Mr. Stewart can spoon feed that particular flavor of pudding right into that pie hole of yours.

Update 1/29/11:  Here is what Jon Stewart had to say about Bill O'Reilly's comment

What does a bad guy look like?

I was going to try and offer a 'here is what he is thinking' analysis of Fox and Friends' Brian Kilmeade's recent remark:

“not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslim.”

...but then I came across this little gem of wisdom that dribbled through his lips:

"we keep marrying other species and other ethnics and ... the Swedes have pure genes, because they marry other Swedes. Because that's the rule."

...and realized that I can't defend anyone stupid enough to believe this and then say it - out loud - to millions of people.  Didn't eugenics get discredited back in the 40's?

But alas, it still trudges onward, thanks to Fox News and the "Friends" they keep.  They seem to have a knack for putting in front of the cameras not just talking heads, but idiot talking heads blurting out the most illogical reasons and opinions for what is taking place in the world.

So on to what I wanted to write about....What does a bad guy look like?

With the understanding that Brian Kilmeade is an idiot, lets ignore the "him" in this equation and look at it from the standpoint that there are lots and lots of Brian Kilmeades in the world all prone to think illogically, egged on by fear mongers and Fox News who has settled on a business model of 'we tell you what you want to hear so you watch us and we can sell advertising.'

So lets look at a Kilmeade statement that is - and I know this to be true - shared by a lot of other people:

"From what we've seen from the Khobar Towers to the Cole bombing to the embassy bombings to the Times Square, the shoe bomber, do you think Americans have a right to look at moderate Muslims and say, 'Show me you're not one of them.'

"it's time for the military to have special debriefings" of Muslims, because "I've got to know the guy next to me is not going to want to kill me."

How does one show that they are not one of them?  Should they sign a confession?  A declaration?  Raise their right hand and swear to God and the Koran?  Take a lie detector test?  Water-boarded?

What would suffice as proof?  I contend - and  Kilmeade and his lot know this - there is no proof that can be offered.  They are asking for something that can never be achieved because you can never know what is in the heart of the person sitting next to you.

So what does this mean?  It means that the only logical way to view the culprits in the "war that was declared on us" is excepting the fact that - as he stated:

"all terrorists are Muslim"

Now if we did not learn anything from locking up Japanese Americans in internment camps during WWII then I don't know what else could be offered as proof that painting the individual with the same brush does nothing to further anything real other than to make you "feel" better. 

Apparently Kilmeade and his fellow classmates slept through their history class.  Which was a shame because the hero of conservatism, ol' Ronald Reagan himself, signed legislation which apologized for the internment on behalf of the U.S. government which stated that government actions were based on:

"race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership".

...and you thought only Obama was an apologist for America's misunderstood behavior!

You see?  That type of 1940's thinking is no different than what is being supported by Kilmeade, O'Reilly, and Fox News in general in the year 2010.

One needs to fight this illogical and harmful way of thinking simply by replacing the object of fear with an object one relates to.  Would it carry the same weight if one said:

1. All conservatives are pro-life?
2. All Tea Party members are Republicans?
3. All men are stronger than woman?
4. All woman are mothers?

In the cases above, the majority is true, yet one cannot make the statement that All are.  This is the same with Muslims.  A small fraction are radical and even a smaller fraction of those are terrorists.  The chance of a person who is Muslim being a terrorist, supporting terrorism, or having terrorist leanings is far less than a woman being a mother, so if you can't say all 'women are mothers' you can also not say 'all terrorists are Muslims.'

Or, looking at it another way:

• Mohamed Ali is a Muslim, therefore,
• Mohamed Ali is a terrorist.
• If Mohamed Ali is not a terrorist, then he is not a Muslim

But if you were to ask Mohamed Ali his take on the above he would say most likely: 'I am a Muslim and I am not a terrorist.'  At which Brian Kilmeade would say: 'Show me you're not one of them.'  And had Parkinson's not brought down the champ, Ali would have decked him yelling: 'how's that for proof, idiot!'

So what does a terrorist look like?  It depends on your definition of terrorism:

[a]cts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.

Here is what I think a terrorist looks like:

...and what does a terrorist group look like:

...as if you did not see that one coming!

One hundred churches too many

On the August 16 edition of On the Record with Fox New's non-journalist Greta Van Susteren, Sarah Palin claimed that

"[n]obody argues that freedom of religion that the Muslims have to build that mosque somewhere."

She then went on to make one of the more profound statements I have ever heard dribble from her perky mama grizzly jowls......

"there are a hundred churches already in New York....if the purpose of [a] church is to create [a] tolerant environment ... you have to ask, why didn't one of those one hundred churches already accomplish such a thing?" [Edited for clarity]

Exactly Sarah.  Why do we need so many churches?  Nothing has really fundamentally changed with human behavior, even as we have changed a lot of our social undertakings, we are not very "Christ-Like" or even close to "loving our neighbor" as God intended for us to do.

When we had an evangelical-church going President - just like Ms. Sarah - he still found it OK to torture.  And the Tea Party folks would just as soon see every brown skin person sent packing back to Mexico (which, Ironically, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California was).   And the total lack of compassion for the children of poor families who get a free meal at school - they can eat peanut butter sandwiches my upstanding Catholic mom said mimicking her hero Rush's instructions on how to dumpster-dive for food.

I could go on and on......

So lets not build any more churches.  It's apparent that God does not find them an instrument for creating and sustaining tolerance or anything resembling love and compassion for that matter.

See Dick, See Dick Shill, See Dick take your money....

So Dick Morris, Clinton's one time pal and now a darling for the lunatic fringe on the right, wants to help you "protect your money and financial freedom" from:

President Barack Obama [who] is leading America down a dangerous path to socialism. But, en route, he will take us through an even longer recession than we need to have; rocketing inflation, and perhaps a second downturn to cure the inflation.

/yawn.

Dick Morris has "agreed to participate in a special seminar online called "The Call To Arms" hosted by my friend Christopher Ruddy, CEO of Newsmax as well as famed former CNN anchor Bob Losure."  He discloses that:

Even though they are paying me to send you this e mail; I have, in fact, invested my own money with them because I think they are onto something. We expect upwards of 250,000 people to participate.

OK, so if Dick Morris is in, I'm in!  I wonder if this is open to me too?

I want to encourage you to sign up for this "Call to Arms" online meeting. There is no charge to attend. After you sign up, they will give you FREE access to a members-only website. This site will help you protect your wealth and investments from the far-reaching hands of Barack Obama and the Democrats in Washington.

Woot!  I too can sign up for Call to Arms - just like good ol' Dick did.  So what's this call to arms thing all about?

On May 7, 2009, Newsmax hosted "A Call to Arms," a "national internet webcast" which invited viewers to pay $1,295 for a package including a year's worth of stock tips from Ruddy's "chief financial adviser." Ruddy wrote (PDF) that the "Million Dollar Secret Code" he promoted in the "Call to Arms" is based on the stock-picking of analyst David Frazier, whom Ruddy called his "private financial weapon." Ruddy stated that he was investing $1 million of Newsmax's money in the promotion, adding, "David believes he can bring a 50% to 70%-plus return over the next 12 months to this $1 million." The promotion would provide "About 36 Massive Profit/Minimum Risk Plays," in which "[y]ou will be given guidance about exactly what to buy, at what price, and how much. David Frazier will provide you with all of the research and analysis behind each recommendation. And you will get a 48-hour head start on me, before I can buy the exact same stock recommendations."

So....let's do the math

50% to 70% return on investment.  Wow - that's fantastic!  They believe in it enough to put one million of their own money into it.  Well hell - even if it only did 10% that would be pretty damn good!  If it is so good, why not sink all they have into what your "private financial weapon" has to say?  Why only one million?

They are gunning for 250,000 suckers, sorry I mean investors to fork over $1,295 bucks for "36 Massive Profit/Minimum Risk Plays."  250,000 x 1,295 = $323,750.000.

Lets say that their total capital outlay is one million dollars, with part of that going to their new friend, Dick Morris and to pay for the internet and mailing and promotion.

If, they got 10% of the 250,000 fools, sorry I mean investors to participate, that would bring in $32,375,000.

If involving Dick in this gets a 1% bite of the 250,000 idiots, sorry I mean investors they think are out there, well that's a net haul of $3,237,500.

1% of 250,000 is 2500 people that watch Fox News, are scared of Obama, and would believe that the Dick has found them away to protect their money.

2500 people is 50 from each state (probably more from Alaska and Arizona)

So if it costs a million bucks for them to put on this promotion, and they give advice and inform you of the risk, no laws will be broken and they will make 3.2 million dollars.

1 million invested as per Call to Arms = $750,000 maximum potential return

1 million invested IN the Call to Arms scheme = $3,237,500 potential based on 1% of the 250,000 targets they have set their sights on.

I wonder which path ol' Dick went for?  He does not say he is following their advice just that he "invested my own money with them because I think they are onto something."

You do the math.....

C'mon people use your head not Dick!


Source: Media Matters

Horse Aint Dead Yet!

Yea, OK, this Roger Ailes speech at the Bush Library has got me in a fluster. What grinds my gears is how the CEO of a company can make statements such as this. It's not media bashing that's the problem, hey his competition is weak now so kickem' to hurry it along - that's how the game is played.

No it's the "make stuff up" statistic:

"90 percent of national journalists ...... don't attend church."

That's not true, that's not what the Pew Study found or reported, but now it's out there for all the world to see. The Head of Fox News quoted a Pew Study that states 90% of Journalist do not attend church. Shouldn't he know better? Shouldn't a guy who heads a news reporting operation understand the need to check one's facts before he speaks? Or is that only what journalists are supposed to do? No, I think he knows exactly what he said and that it was false, but if it serves the greater purpose - to poison the well, then the means justifies the end.

But what end are they looking for? Two things in my opinion, one is to elevate Fox News - increasing market share and wealth for shareholders and two, to confuse just enough people so they vote the way Rupert Murdoch and his friends want them to vote.

Next:

"But they're all environmentalists"

No they are not, and you know that. you also know that non-church goers combined with environmentalist makes for a more potent poison to kill journalist and any other news source except "journalist free" Fox News.

But wait! You're not done yet!

"You can only have one god at a time. Too many journalists think they are"

Still more poison - elitist attitude, same kind them liberal professors have - you know the academic types - smart people, not like my audience of Joe Six Packs.

So mainstream media has liberal bias and Fox News - number one mind you - has no bias. None according to Mr. Ailes:

"it only appears that way because of mainstream media outlets' liberal bias"

C'mon, you got to be kidding me. You are the counter to what has always been perceived to be present. There is liberal bias because journalism attracts liberal thinking talent. That's factual but it does not mean all media is biased, because if it does then Fox News is biased as well. Your model has been to cater to the right, c'mon man its working, others are failing because they don't play to one particular audience, that is they want to keep their bias in check. That makes them boring, whereas you give your audience what you have made them want.

It's not fair and balanced in any other world than the one you and other conservatives choose to live, because in that world you have no liberal, pragmatic, enlightened, or logical thought to compare it to. Bias is always bias just as truth is always truth. Which side one leans does not alter what is factual, only perception does, and that's what has been built around the concept of Fox "News."

One day Joe Six Pack will wake up and see that a diet of candy and ice cream only made him slow and dimwitted. But for now, congratulations on your success, not only are you number one in the ratings but you can misinform just like the best of em'.

Welcome New Hires!

Howdy, my name is Roger Ailes and I would like to personally welcome you the the Fox News Family. As the Head of Fox News it has been my passion to purge from our news rooms anyone who calls themselves a Journalist. We do not hire, nor will we tolerate, anybody of that persuasion.

At Fox News, we're still hiring and expanding our coverage, just not with journalist and that goes for any of you youngsters who even set foot in a journalism class. In fact, as my good friend and former boss, ol' 41 was heard saying Fox News is the most trusted sources of news in America today, and we plan to stay that way - by being journalist free.

Now as the most successful media executive of the last 10 years, I think I know a little bit about what makes a good news channel, and it's not one that hires or utilizes the liberal bias of a journalist.

So welcome to Fox News, you Texas A&M graduates you can go right in since your school was smart enough to do away with its journalism department, so y'all are pure as snow flakes.

For the rest of you, we will need to ask a few questions before we can let you in.

Do you go to church?
Are you now or have you ever been a pagan?
Are you an environmentalist?
How many Gods do you have?
Do you think you are God?
Do you revere Chuck Norris?

If you pass, welcome to Fox News please join the Aggies for some tea, and if you don't? Out of my sight you environmentalist agnostic atheist pagan!

Thank you.



Words in blue - those used in The Eagle story
Words in green from PDF

PS for those that can't see satire, this is satire.

A Fox in the Hen House

The head of Fox News, Roger Ailes spoke on Friday at the George Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas. Now I was not there to hear the speech and I may be taking things out of context since all I have to go by is a newspaper article in The Eagle which I have now come to find out was written by a pagan.

Now, I don't like getting painted with a broad brush nor do I like it when it is done to someone else. So I am going to focus on the utter illogical nature of his comments which included:

Ailes said a Pew Study from four years ago found 60 percent of Americans expressed the belief that God is essential to morality, but that more than 90 percent of national journalists didn't think so and don't attend church.

I fact checked that - what he said was not entirely true. What the study found was 91% of those who work at national news organizations say it is not necessary to believe in God to be moral; 78% of local journalists agree. Why he thinks 90% don't go to church is probably just a made up statistic to support the other nonsense he let out of his pie hole, such as this gem:

"But they're all environmentalists," the 69-year-old said. "And I have a theory that environmentalism, to some degree, is replacing religion with those people...."

Oh Really? All of them? Even the ones who work at Fox News? Or does Fox News not use journalists? Hmmmmm it's all starting to make sense now.

• Pew study finds 91% of Journalists" say it is not necessary to believe in God to be moral."
• CEO of Fox News believes Journalists don't go to church and are pagans.
• President Bush (41) says Fox News "the most trusted sources of news in America today."
• Fox News is number one without apparently using journalists to write their news stories.
• Texas Conservatives vote in Republican Primary 95% to pass "Acknowledgment of God."
• Texas A&M is home to the Bush Library.
• Texas A&M is a conservative leaning school.
• A conservative value is "recognizing the media for its bias, bullying, deception."
• Texas A&M closes its Journalism department.
  

Damn, this is not where I was going with this blog, but it is all starting to fit together. Don't counter bias with truth, kill the messenger. Without journalists there will be no scrutiny, no skeptics, no one to call someone out, no voice for the downtrodden, the under-served, the forgotten, the meek, the poor, the average Joe/Jane without connections.

It is really starting to make sense now.....and its kind of chilling how their plan is all coming together. It all starts with demonizing the profession and putting in its place what appears to be an alternative, but one more to their liking..... another Fox to guard our hen house.