Bloodless Coup

The whole point of Fox news and talk radio is their argument that there's no such thing as objective news. Anyone who's watched Dan Rather talking about the President didn't need the fabricated memo story to realize he's against the president, it's obvious in his facial expressions and tone of voice. Centuries of philosophy and psychology have taught us that every person has individual experiences of reality. Because we all bring the effects of cultural and social environments that have formed what is our identity, because we bring all this unique experience to our connections with the world, there's not such as an objective observer of reality, and I would think someone who appreciates postmodern art could understand that. Fox News, Rush, and Sean Hannity own up to their biases, while the rest of the media wants to retain the pristine illusion that they're above it all. I'd think the 60 minutes story would have proved they're not.

You're right, the story wasn't really that funny...should've said more about mopping his floors and spilling OrangeGlo on his head. It's funny because he doesn't mop his own floors.

The problem is how can they still claim to be "news"? If they want to hire him as a feature writer or gag man (though hopefully not, b/c as you say he's not very funny) fine. But they still purport to bring you "facts" that help you "decide". When you have news reporters just making stuff up - they should probably be fired. And it's not just Fox of course. Lisa Myers should have been fired by NBC for making up stuff (anti-Hillary stuff most famously) too.

Armand,
If you look at the original thread from which this was taken, the person's first impression is that this is a joke, or at least meant to be, even if it's not a funny joke. I don't think anyone not classified as developmentally disabled is going to see this story and think it's serious. I can't believe you're taking this seriously when you had the gaul to give me a lecture on having a sense of humor. Fine, take this guy off the air, but Jon Stewart, Al Franken, and Bill Maher have to go with him.

Again ... people have different roles and different jobs. None of the three you mention are NEWS REPORTERS ASSIGNED TO COVER THE WHITE HOUSE AND BRING FACTS TO THE PEOPLE. That is what Cameron is. The three guys you mentioned are comedians. If Cameron wants to be one of those he should change jobs and stop working for a supposed news network.

Sadly, it's not always easy to tell on Fox News what is supposed to be news and what is supposed to be unfunny Republican comedy, so I will concede that maybe it's as much Fox News's fault as Cameron's.

Armand,
First, yes, that's the point, they ARE comedians, yet each does a show based on politics, so if they can blur the line, why can't this guy from Fox News.
Second, if you believe in a totally objective news service, then why is George Stephanopolous hosting what you might describe as a real news show when he had a key position within the Clinton Administration?

"I don't think anyone not classified as developmentally disabled is going to see this story and think it's serious."

well, we are talking about republicans here . . . and more specifically, the sorts of republicans who think W is a good president.

oh, and when did FOX start owning up to its bias? i could have sworn i heard something about "fair and balanced," and i'm damned sure i never heard anything about "poorly sourced," "rabidly biased," and "shamelessly partisan."

i'm not going to bother trying to show you ways in which the supposedly liberal media have been giving bush a free pass for four years (armand and others have some choice comments for judith miller, not to mention pretty much every major outlet (except knight-ridder) . . . are they unbiased, perhaps not, but FOX is closer to drudge than the new york times is to al franken, and you know it.

Mo - so is your point that comedians shouldn't be allowed to riff on politics (as for myself, i'm rather happy with the 1st Amndt. and I'm happy to get some laughs from the Daily Show), or that Carl Cameron - who's job is to present "fair and balanced" facts - should be allowed to make demeaning comments about one of the major candidates for president while covering the presidential race for a major supposed news outlet? I don't think either one of those things is appropriate.

In general, the idea that a news source has a political perspective, as long as it is recognized, does not invalidate it. I've lived in countries where there is the communist paper, the conservative paper, the Liberal (as in neo-) paper, the rag that shows boobs and decapitations on page 3, etc. In that sense, you know what you are getting, and are getting news inrepretation as much as raw facts.

The issue here is more about 1) the transparency of the perspective and 2) the portrayal of fabrications as news. In the US, I think we get a lot more posturing about a supposed neutrality that is difficult if not impossible to achieve. In some respects, I wish that news media would be more open about their perspective (why yes, this is the corporate shill channel, wanna buy some tickets to disneyworld?) though they are better now about discosing supposed conflicts of interest than they used to be. On the other hand, that does predispose people to read "their" paper and not see other views, yet I think to a degree most people in the US do not "shop around" for news and end up in a similar system on a de facto basis.

As for the portrayal of the fabrications as news, that's ridiculous and inexcusable. Morris says: "they ARE comedians, yet each does a show based on politics, so if they can blur the line, why can't this guy from Fox News." Because the comics are doing comedy (caveat, see my note on Franken below) and this guy from Fox news is not, he's supposed to be a reporter from a network that claims to be reporting facts (as others do). If it was a "joke" that got out of hand, the chain of verification at Fox has been shown to be startlingly incompetent. Of course one could speculate that it was a "quick put it up and then ask for forgiveness later, but see if people believe it" bit of nastiness that I would hesitate to call a joke at all, but rather a deliberate attempt to see what could be gotten away with, even if it had to be retracted. Maybe someone was drunk. I don't know. However, the idea that a serious journalist would engage in the kind of behavior being discussed here is ludicrous. And sure, the chain of verification with the memos is a sign that CBS has weaknesses too. I think it is an additional sin that the documents would be fabricated from within the news organization.

If we remove politics from comedy, Dennis Miller is going to have to quit too. Oh wait, he ceased being funny even before he switched sides. Never mind. Seriously though, there is a real distinction between "comedy that makes use of pertinent political facts" and "fake news." I have not listened to Franken, so I don't know what his show is like, but I wonder if he isn't trying to cross the line between "comedy using politics" to "actor involved in politics" to "political figure/pundit." Look, it worked for Reagan and Ahnold, so why not someone on the left. In the end, if we took politics out of comedy, there'd be very little left.

Joshua,
Al Franken and the NYT are more alike than you suggest; they both make up their own material.
Armand,
I'm fine letting Jon Stewart do political comedy if you let Fox News do political comedy. As poorly written as that column was, it's still better than most of Bill Maher's stuff. We live in a society where many people get their news from Jay Leno, and since the major news organizations are owned by entertainment conglomerates, it seems a little naive to think news is just news. I give people enough credit to be able to tell the difference, you don't, so be it. And what about Michael Moore, who makes a so called documentary? You might enjoy this article called "More distortions from Michael Moore."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5335853/site/newsweek/site/newsweek
The point is, how do you not give a pass to a comedy that appears within the context of a news organization but give a pass to falsehoods, political propaganda meant to pass for the truth?
Binky,
I agree that it's unfortunate most people don't shop around for news. I watched Dr. Rice and Holbrooke talking to George Stephanopolous yesterday morning, listened to Tavis Smiley and watched Jim Lehrer's show last week, but listened to Rush on the way here. I think the key is to get confirmation on what we hear from any of these sources (I have factcheck and spinsanity both bookmarked), because they all will distort realities occasionally, and occasionally they will each have a story the others will not.
As to fake news, refer to my comments about Michael Moore above. Maybe at least we can agree Norm MacDonald was the best SNL news anchor ever.

"I'm fine letting Jon Stewart do political comedy if you let Fox News do political comedy. As poorly written as that column was, it's still better than most of Bill Maher's stuff."

If Fox put it on a "Political Comedy" show sure. The whole point of Stewart is that it is a parody of a news show, down to the fake human interest segments and all. Parody. cough. Parody. hack, ptoo. The context of the fake Kerry quotes was not the Fox version of the Daily Show. It was not the Fox version of the Onion. It was not in the context of parody. It was not even presented in the local news "funny news of the wacky weird wild world of politics." Sorry. Not. the. same. thing.

your comments re franken and the NYT are pithy, but sort of ironic, considering that this thread arises from an admitted blatant fabrication (not propaganda or spin, but utter invention) run by the chief kerry correspondent by a network that, fair or balanced or not, calls itself the news (stewart is inapposite; his show runs on COMEDY CENTRAL for christ's sake).

aside from notable reporter misconduct at the NYT in non-political areas and attended by corresponding mea culpas the likes of which are utterly unknown to FOX or the GOP, you don't have a leg to stand on as to this claim. spin perhaps. i've no questions about subjectivity in reporting. but you know what? blair doesn't have a job. cameron, on the other hand, evidently still does.

as for moore, perhaps you'll be happy to know that while i think the dems are as entitled to have a much-raking bullshit artist (moore) as the GOP (rush, et al.), i consider moore to be a self-promoting scoundrel, and refuse to put money in his pocket. if the only way the left can win is to sink as low as the right, than it's a pyrrhic victory at best.

Joshua,
At least we agree about Moore, if not a place for entertainment in political news. I always enjoy a good use of "pyrrhic victory."

well, i guess that explains why you don't seem to have any problem with the war or the administrations prosecution thereof. after all, in so many words, the recent "guesswork" NIE said that pyrrhic victory was our best case scenario.