MediaMatters, just like it's countless conservative counterparts, rarely "lies" about anything.
But they just as rarely tell the whole truth.
Failure to tell the whole truth out of limitations of column space or time restraints is one thing. Failure to tell the whole truth to give the illusion of fact that is nowhere near the truth is something quite again.
While I have caught Fox News in factual errors, I have not caught them in any intentional misstatement intended to mislead the public or promote a lie.
Then you haven't been looking. I can load you up with examples. I'm out of town right now but say the word and I'll get to it maybe tomorrow. You already know I can do it.
Fox News is pretty good to admit and correct their errors when called on them too. MediaMatters not so much.
Once again, you're poisoning the well with no evidence at all. Are you saying that the video of Dana Perino is edited? Or what? If I linked the exact same video from walmart.com, would it suddenly become credible? Sorry but this hangup on what the URL is just makes no sense. We're not using the MM commentary to make any point (we don't need to; we make our own); we're using the video clip they have linked, because it's convenient to do so. You're trying to pretend the source is MediaMatters, but in truth the source is Fox News.
I do believe FoxNews goes to some lengths to be honorable about their slogan: "We report fair and balanced. You decide." MediaMatters makes no such effort. Too many people equate O'Reilly and Hannity as the face and voice of Fox News when in fact they host one hour nightly in weeknight programs that are promoted as commentary and not as straight news reporting.
Their news reporting is as good as anybody else's and better than some.
First point about "fair and balanced": Fox uses several different methods to slant the news, most of them indirect if not subtle, using above all the power of suggestion. A chyron crawl saying "Is Obama the antichrist?" doesn't technically
declare anything; it's there to plant a
suggestion. Running video of one event to make a different event look like more (or less) than it is is another method; again, no overt statement needs to be made. And of course the editor's choice of what constitutes "news" is yet another method. I'll bring examples of all of these to the table. And more.
The quip "MediaMatters makes no such effort" remains an unsubstantiated rumour that you keep trotting out with no clothes on, but TheDoctorIsIn made a good point about comparisons just above.
Second point:
Too many people equate O'Reilly and Hannity as the face and voice of Fox News when in fact they host one hour nightly in weeknight programs that are promoted as commentary and not as straight news reporting.
True, they represent two hours out of 24. But they do represent the two biggest hours of prime time, so equating them as the face and voice of the channel is not only the inevitable result of where they sit in the daypart, but the fact that they are in those slots tells us that that is what Fox News
wants their face and voice to be.
And true, they're commentary programs. You know that and I know that because we come from media. The average unsophisticated viewer makes no such distinction, nor does either one go to any effort to point it out. On the contrary, the whole time they're ranting, the viewer sees a logo in the corner that reads "Fox
News". On top of that their topics are political current events. So once again, through the power of suggestion, FNC is saying in subtle and indirect ways that what you're looking at is "news". That's misleading if not dishonest.
Keep in mind about all this suggestive bent that runs rampant through the broadcast day: Roger Ailes comes from politics. He consulted for Nixon, Reagan and Bush and played a major role in those candidates' campaigns of 1984 and '88. He knows the power of suggestion (read: politician BS talk) as well as anyone does. He's a political marketeer. So it would be strange if Fox Noise did
not take the tactics it does.
Finally your last line about their "news reporting". We could almost forget that Fox actually
has any news reporting since it's played down so much, but if we'd like to make the technical distinction between news and commentary, yes they do good work for the little they do. I happen to think Shep Smith is one of the best anchors on any channel. But that's the minor, "real news" part of Fox "News", and aside from the editors' choices of what makes the news cut and what doesn't, that's not what we're talking about when we speak of the bias of Fox News (< capitalized when I mean the proper name of the business, minuscule when I mean the actual concept of
news). In short, when we opine on "Fox News", we're talking about the hair-on-fire part. Which is the part they emphasize by putting it in prime time.
Part 2 when I get time. Love ya Foxy
