Why Libs Hate Fox News

[red states rule]

Here is a perfect example of why liberals hate Fox News and would like to see them off the air


FNC's Hume Chastises Media for Failing to Point Out How Clinton Fired Every Attorney

Posted by Brent Baker on March 13, 2007 - 21:01.
Brit Hume led his Tuesday night Grapevine segment by scolding his media colleagues for how “news stories reporting that the Bush administration had considered firing all 93 U.S. attorneys across the country failed to mention that that is exactly what Bill Clinton did soon after taking office back in 1993.” Hume explained how that was not noted, “even in passing, in front-page stories today in the New York Times and the Washington Post, or in the AP's story on the subject.”

Earlier in the FNC newscast, reporter Steve Centanni pointed out how “the White House acknowledged there were talks in 2005, just after the President won his second term, about terminating all 93 U.S. attorneys just as President Clinton unceremoniously did 1993 after he won the White House.”

I'm working on a NewsBusters posting [now online] about how the Tuesday broadcast network evening newscasts all failed to note the wholesale firings at the beginning of Bill Clinton's first term, matching a missing element in a full story on Tuesday's Good Morning America on ABC -- as recounted in a NewsBusters posting by Scott Whitlock.

Hume's “Grapevine” item in full on the March 13 Special Report with Brit Hume:


“News stories reporting that the Bush administration had considered firing all 93 U.S. attorneys across the country failed to mention that that is exactly what Bill Clinton did soon after taking office back in 1993. The only sitting U.S. attorney Clinton did not cashier was Michael Chertoff, now the Bush Homeland Security Secretary. At the time Chertoff was U.S. attorney in New Jersey and then Democratic Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey intervened to save Chertoff's job. None of this was noted, even in passing, in front-page stories today in the New York Times and the Washington Post, or in the AP's story on the subject. By the way, the mass Clinton firings generated some news stories, some complaints from Republicans in Congress, but no congressional investigations, and not a word from Chuck Schumer.”
The March 13 front page Washington Post story, “Firings Had Genesis in White House: Ex-Counsel Miers First Suggested Dismissing Prosecutors 2 Years Ago, Documents Show.”

The March 13 front page New York Times article, “White House Said to Prompt Firing of Prosecutors,” which appears to no longer be online, at least not in its original form.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11398

 

[red states rule]

How did the liberal media treat Clinton's firing of US Attorneys?



Nets Didn't Care About Clinton Firing 93 U.S. Attorneys, Lead With Replacement of 8

Posted by Brent Baker on March 13, 2007 - 22:12.
The broadcast network evening newscasts, which didn't care in 1993 about the Clinton administration's decision to ask for the resignations of all 93 U.S. attorneys, went apoplectic Tuesday night in leading with the “controversy,” fed by the media, over the Bush administration for replacing eight U.S. attorneys in late 2006 -- nearly two years after rejecting the idea of following the Clinton policy of replacing all the attorneys. Anchor Charles Gibson promised that ABC would “look at all the angles tonight,” but he skipped the Clinton comparison. Gibson teased: “New controversy at the White House after a string of U.S. attorneys is fired under questionable circumstances. There are calls for the Attorney General to resign.”

CBS's Katie Couric declared that “the uproar is growing tonight over the firing of eight federal prosecutors by the Justice Department” and fill-in NBC anchor Campbell Brown teased: “The Attorney General and the firestorm tonight over the controversial dismissal of several federal prosecutors. Was it political punishment?” Brown soon asserted that “it's a story that has been brewing for weeks and it exploded today” -- an explosion fueled by the news media.

ABC's World News, the CBS Evening News and the NBC Nightly News on March 13 led with and ran multiple stories on the controversy, which were clearly propelled, in part, by attacks by Senate Democrats who demanded the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. But Justice Department clumsiness, which provided hooks for those Democratic attacks, does not absolve the news media of the responsibility for putting the replacement of U.S. attorneys into greater context for viewers so they would understand how Bush's predecessor removed every one (actually all but one as Brit Hume explained) so that Clinton, as is being charged in the current case, could replace them with attorneys more favorable to the administration's agenda.

Unlike ABC, CBS and NBC watchers, cable viewers got a hint of context as Steve Centanni, on FNC's Special Report with Brit Hume, pointed out how “the White House acknowledged there were talks in 2005, just after the President won his second term, about terminating all 93 U.S. attorneys just as President Clinton unceremoniously did 1993 after he won the White House.” The point made it onto CNN's The Situation Room -- barely -- thanks to guest Terry Jeffries who raised it during the 4pm EDT hour of the program.

Last week, on the same day as the Libby verdict, Katie Couric introduced a full March 6 CBS Evening News story by Sharyl Attkisson, who failed to remind viewers of Clinton's wholesale firings:


“Another big story in Washington tonight also involves federal prosecutors, or at least former prosecutors. Eight U.S. attorneys were axed by the Bush administration last year, and some Democrats say the firings were politically motivated. Today some of those ex-prosecutors told Congress about the pressure they felt from top Republicans.”
Back in 1993, the networks weren't so interested in Clinton's maneuver. The April 1993 edition of the MRC's MediaWatch newsletter recounted:

Attorney General Janet Reno fired all 93 U.S. attorneys, a very unusual practice. Republicans charged the Clintonites made the move to take U.S. Attorney Jay Stephens off the House Post Office investigation of Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski. The network response: ABC and CBS never mentioned it. CNN's World News and NBC Nightly News provided brief mentions, with only NBC noting the Rosty angle. Only NBC's Garrick Utley kept the old outrage, declaring in a March 27 "Final Thoughts" comment: "Every new President likes to say 'Under me, it's not going to be politics as usual.' At the Justice Department, it looks as if it still is."
“Washington Area to Lose 2 High-Profile Prosecutors; All U.S. Attorneys Told to Tender Resignations,” read a front page story in the March 24, 1993 Washington Post. Two days later, in an article on page A-22, according to Nexis, “Clinton Defends Ousting U.S. Attorneys; GOP Steps Up Criticism of Attorney General's 'March Massacre,'” Dan Balz cited how then-Clinton operative George Stephanopoulos, who appeared on Tuesday's Good Morning America and World News to comment on the current controversy, defended Bill Clinton's decision:

President Clinton yesterday attempted to rebut Republican criticism of the administration's decision to seek resignations from all U.S. attorneys, saying what he was asking was routine and less political than piecemeal replacements.

"All those people are routinely replaced and I have not done anything differently," Clinton told reporters during a photo opportunity in the Oval Office. He called the decision more politically appropriate "than picking people out one by one."

But Republicans in Congress pressed their criticism of the decision, announced Tuesday by Attorney General Janet Reno, with Senate Minority Leader Robert J. Dole (R-Kan.) describing the decision as "Reno's March Massacre."

Rep. Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) urged the administration to allow Jay B. Stephens, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, to stay on the job until he completes his investigation of the House Post Office scandal and the role House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.) may have played in it.

Stephens said Tuesday he was about a month away from "a critical decision with regard to resolution" of the probe....

Presidential spokesman George Stephanopoulos said it was not unusual for a president to ask for such resignations, although Republicans said presidents in the past have not asked for mass resignations, replacing them over a period of time as replacements were found.

Stephanopoulos said only those U.S. attorneys who are in the middle of trials will be allowed to continue working and said an interim appointee could capably pick up Stephens's investigation of the House Post Office scandal, with no serious disruption or political interference....


For a flavor of Tuesday night, March 13 coverage on ABC, CBS and NBC, the leads on each:

ABC's World News. Anchor Charles Gibson's tease:


“Tonight: new controversy at the White House after a string of U.S. attorneys is fired under questionable circumstances. There are calls for the Attorney General to resign.”


Gibson's opening:

“The Attorney General of the United States is under fire. Alberto Gonzales is fending off charge that he carried out a purge, firing eight U.S. attorneys for political reasons on orders from the White House. Across the country there are 93 U.S. attorneys. They prosecute cases for the government. They can be hired and fired by the President. The accusation is these eight were fired because they refused to do the Bush administration's political bidding. We look at all the angles tonight, starting with Pierre Thomas at the Justice Department.”
After Thomas, Gibson did a Q and A with Jan Crawford Greenburg and George Stephanopoulos about the situation, but Stephanopoulos, who stuck to assessing the status of Gonzales, did not mention his defense of Clinton's action.

CBS Evening News. Katie Couric led:


“Hello, everyone. The uproar is growing tonight over the firing of eight federal prosecutors by the Justice Department. The department had told Congress the White House was not involved in the firings, but e-mails released today show that the firings had been discussed for two years by officials of the Justice Department and the White House. So we'll begin at the White House tonight with correspondent Jim Axelrod.”
Following Axelrod, CBS went to a second full story from Bob Orr on how a former U.S. attorney charged that Gonzales “has let politics infect the justice system” and then Couric conducted a brief Q and A with Axelrod and Orr over whether Gonzales will be fired. Couric also noted how Axelrod's younger brother worked for one of the fired prosecutors.

NBC Nightly News. The tease from fill-in anchor Campbell Brown:


“The Attorney General and the firestorm tonight over the controversial dismissal of several federal prosecutors. Was it political punishment?”
Brown opened:

“Good evening. The Attorney General of the United States is under fire but vowing he will not resign. It's a story that has been brewing for weeks and it exploded today. The key issue, a decision by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to fire eight federal prosecutors and questions about whether that decision was politically motivated and driven by the White House. Attorney General Gonzales' top deputy has already resigned, but the President is standing by his man. We begin tonight with chief White House correspondent David Gregory.”
Following a piece on Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace's remarks about homosexuals, Brown discussed both topics with Tim Russert.

For more on coverage of this subject, check these earlier NewsBusters postings:


FNC's Hume Chastises Media for Failing to Point Out How Clinton Fired Every Attorney

Bozell Column: Bush's Eight vs. Clinton's 93

ABC's GMA Frets Over Dismissal of 8 U.S. Attorneys; Ignored Clinton’s Firing of 93 Attorneys

CBS Legal Blogger Cites Dem Donors In Swipe at Attorney General Gonzales

http://newsbusters.org/node/11390

 

[red states rule]

Will Liberal Media Stand Against Left-Wing Anti-Free Press Mob?
Posted by Rich Noyes on March 12, 2007 - 17:13.
It’s probably not that surprising that some on the far Left were complaining that the Fox News Channel was going to host a debate between the Democratic presidential candidates in Nevada later this year. They were probably completely unaware that Fox News co-hosted (with the liberal Congressional Black Caucus Institute) two Democratic debates during the last presidential campaign.

What is surprising is that former Democratic Senator John Edwards, who smilingly participated in both of the Fox debates in 2003 (picture at left), decided that he could not participate in a debate hosted by Fox. “I said, ‘Why are we doing Fox?’ I said, ‘No, tell them no,’” Edwards told the Washington Post’s Dan Balz.

The idea that Fox runs biased debates is a bum rap. Four years ago, Brit Hume moderated the first debate on September 9, with questions posed by NPR’s Juan Williams, TheBeehive.org’s Farai Chideya, and BET’s Ed Gordon, three liberals The second debate on October 26 was hosted by Gwen Ifill (who later served as moderator of the vice presidential debate between Edwards and Dick Cheney), with questions asked by FNC reporter Carl Cameron and WJBK-TV anchor Huel Perkins.

There’s no record that any of the 2003 debate participants, who included very liberal candidates such as Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich and the Reverend Al Sharpton, had any complaints of bias.

It is not exactly clear why Edwards, who was an enthusiastic participant in Fox’s debates in 2003, suddenly found it impossible to participate this year, but the Post noted that Edwards is running a much more stridently left-wing campaign this year than he did four years ago.

After Edwards backed out, the Nevada Democratic Party seized on the thin reed of a comment by Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes — a joke that basically mocked President Bush for supposedly being unable to distinguish Barack Obama from Osama bin Laden — to cancel the debate entirely.

The letter co-signed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the top Democrat in Nevada, oddly suggested that to let Democratic candidates debate on Fox’s airwave was to endorse Ailes joke, which they misinterpreted as a slight against Senator Obama (who said for his part he wasn’t bothered by the joke):


“Comments made last night by Fox News President Roger Ailes in reference to one of our presidential candidates went too far. We cannot, as good Democrats, put our party in a position to defend such comments. In light of his comments, we have concluded that it is not possible to hold a Presidential debate that will focus on our candidates and are therefore canceling our August debate. We take no pleasure in this, but it is the only course of action.”
Edwards and Reid, of course, are ratifying the quite illiberal campaign by left-wing activists to declare Fox “a right-wing misinformation network,” not a legitimate source of news.

Writing Saturday on the HuffingtonPost.com, Melinda Henneberger documented the high-fives lefties were giving each other after the debate’s cancellation:


Robert Greenwald, director of the movie Outfoxed, called the move a “victory for truth and journalism.” Some 280,000 people have viewed Greenwald’s new YouTube film "Fox Attacks: Obama" — located with the petition at www.FoxAttacks.com. "By standing up to Fox's right-wing smears," Greenwald said, "the patriotic grassroots, Netroots, Senator Reid, Senator Edwards, and the Nevada Democrats have all worked together to protect one of the most important elements of a free society - the press."

And Eli Pariser, Executive Director of MoveOn.org Civic Action, said he hoped the decision would "set a precedent within the party that Fox should be treated as a right-wing misinformation network, not legitimized as a neutral source of news."

Journalists who care about their profession should be appalled by such reasoning and repudiate the campaign to silence their brethren at Fox News, but the debate cancellation has so far been given relatively slight coverage from the other networks. And some of those journalists who work for other news organizations need to ask Senators Edwards and Reid whether or not they share the far Left’s belief that the Fox News Channel is nothing but a GOP mouthpiece.

It's impossible to imagine that the establishment media would be so silent if conservatives or Republicans were working to ostracize a liberal media outlet.

CNN, by the way, will host a Democatic debate in Nevada in November, so Democrats are choosing to bypass the top-rated cable news outlet in favor of one with less than half the audience
http://newsbusters.org/node/11370

 

[wiggles]

http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/search_results?qstring=fox+news

 

[Annie]

http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/search_results?qstring=fox+news

An aggregate referral adds nothing.

 

[Dr Grump]

But what you have to remember Tweeds is that Clinton appointed a special prosecutor even thought he knew he might end up in the shit. If only Dubya was that brave...

 

[red states rule]

But what you have to remember Tweeds is that Clinton appointed a special prosecutor even thought he knew he might end up in the shit. If only Dubya was that brave...

Clinton was found in contempt, people know he lied under oath, Pres Bush has not broken any laws, and the liberal media is showing their bias in their "reporting"

 

[red states rule]

Libs hate Fox News because they report news the liberal media ignores


Barred Broadcasters

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, which says it's the nation's biggest Muslim civil rights group, barred a camera crew from the Christian Broadcasting Network from covering a CAIR news conference today, accusing CBN of "vicious bigotry" against Muslims.

The subject of the news conference, held at CAIR's office in Washington, was a suit the group is filing on behalf of those Imams who got bounced off a U.S. Airways flight after what airline officials thought was suspicious behavior.

House Republicans, meanwhile, are protesting an invitation by Democrats to CAIR to use a Capitol conference room for another event today.

The House Republican Conference called CAIR "terrorist apologists." CAIR responded that the GOP is seen "as a reservoir of anti-Muslim hate."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258644,00.html


If a Christian group barred a Muslim group it would be the lead story on the network news

 

[red states rule]

http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/search_results?qstring=fox+news

What the liberal media ignores.........

Politicians' Pet Projects

While the president is trying to get his request for money for the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan through Congress, some lawmakers want to add provisions to the bill that would bail out avocado farmers and pay for other pet projects.

Bloomberg News reports California lawmakers will ask for $1.2 billion for avocado, mango, orange and grapefruit growers whose crops were destroyed by a January freeze. Wisconsin Democrat David Obey says he will add $750 million for children's health insurance. Louisiana Republican Sen. David Vitter says his state needs more than $3 billion for flood protection. And North Dakota Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad wants $4 billion for farmers hit by drought.

Conrad says the requests are for "urgent, emergency situations."

Edwards Raising 'Coulter Cash'

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards may have been offended when conservative columnist Ann Coulter used a slang term for homosexuals when speaking about Edwards last weekend, but he has wasted little time in trying to use it as a fundraising tool.

A page on Edwards' Web site asks for contributions to raise $100,000 in "Coulter Cash" to "fight back against the politics of bigotry." The page also says: "We must show that inflaming prejudice to attack progressive leaders will only backfire."

Meanwhile, Edwards says that even though he has a personal relationship with God, he rejects the notion that the U.S. is a Christian nation. Edwards tells the Web site belief.net: "I guess the word 'Christian' is what bothers me, even though I'm a Christian. I think that America is a nation of faith."

But the candidate doesn't believe Americans are doing a good job of living like Jesus. Edwards — who has drawn fire from some for his new $6 million, 28,000 square-foot mansion in North Carolina — says, "I think that Jesus would be disappointed in our ignoring the plight of those around us who are suffering and our focus on our own selfish short-term needs. I think he would be appalled, actually."

Technologically Advanced Terror Groups

The new head of the country's national counterintelligence office says spies from China, Cuba, Russia and Iran are "eating our lunch."

Joel Brenner tells The Washington Times the U.S. is the top target of "virtually every significant espionage service on the face of the earth." He says China has been very aggressive in acquiring U.S.-advanced technology, often before it is even fully developed, and that terror groups Hezbollah and Al Qaeda also have thorough and capable intelligence operations.

—FOX News Channel's Martin Hill contributed to this report.

 

[jasendorf]

I don't hate FOX News. I just think it's sad that so many people bow at the alter of FOX News and believe that it's anything other than an entertainment channel.

 

[musicman]

I don't hate FOX News. I just think it's sad that so many people bow at the alter of FOX News and believe that it's anything other than an entertainment channel.

Now you're beginning to get the slightest taste of how conservatives felt during the MSM/DNC thirty-year monopoly on the dissemination of information. People were actually pretending that the fare being served up by alphabet network news shows was objective, dispassionate reporting - LOL!

 

[jasendorf]

Now you're beginning to get the slightest taste of how conservatives felt during the MSM/DNC thirty-year monopoly on the dissemination of information. People were actually pretending that the fare being served up by alphabet network news shows was objective, dispassionate reporting - LOL!

So you're equating the reporting on ABC News, CBS News and NBC News to FOX News? Really? You want to make that leap?

You've taken what is, at most, a slight lean to the left and counter it with a full-time Republican propaganda network?

 

[musicman]

So you're equating the reporting on ABC News, CBS News and NBC News to FOX News? Really?

No - I would not blacken Fox News' eye in that manner.

You want to make that leap?

And, it WOULD be a leap. You've been trying to play sleight-of hand games with concepts like "left" and "right" and "mainstream" and "extremist" for so long, you've been blinded by your own lies. Any journalistic enterprise that is not a 24-hour anti-conservative drumbeat looks "slanted right" to you. It's actually kind of sad.

You've taken what is, at most, a slight lean to the left and counter it with a full-time Republican propaganda network?

If the MSM/DNC "leaned" any further to the left, it would be Pravda.

 

[Bern80]

I don't hate FOX News. I just think it's sad that so many people bow at the alter of FOX News and believe that it's anything other than an entertainment channel.

It's as legitimate a news channel, at least then any of the other 'legitimate' news channels. They may attempt to make a little more fun becuase that's the nature of conservatives as oppossed to liberals "woe is me" and "the sky is falling" BS.

 

[wiggles]

An aggregate referral adds nothing.

Except a schlew of examples of FoxNews' blatant bias and dishonesty.

 

[jasendorf]

And, it WOULD be a leap. You've been trying to play sleight-of hand games with concepts like "left" and "right" and "mainstream" and "extremist" for so long, you've been blinded by your own lies. Any journalistic enterprise that is not a 24-hour anti-conservative drumbeat looks "slanted right" to you. It's actually kind of sad.

Interesting... I was thinking the inverse of you... to you any journalistic enterprise that doesn't goose-step with the Republican Party is a communist propaganda machine.

 

[UnAmericanYOU]

They don't like anything they can't control. The Fairness Doctrine is not coming back, they need to get over it.

I don't hate FOX News. I just think it's sad that so many people bow at the alter of FOX News and believe that it's anything other than an entertainment channel.

Well, which one is it - an entertainment channel or a "journalistic enterprise that goose-steps"? They're not the same thing, you know.

 

[musicman]

Interesting... I was thinking the inverse of you... to you any journalistic enterprise that doesn't goose-step with the Republican Party is a communist propaganda machine.

Ah - and I'm an extremist, of course? Hopelessly out of step with the mainstream, am I? Please explain the dazzling success of Fox News, then.

 

[Psychoblues]

This is one lib that appreciates every word they broadcast, every ideology they espouse and every minute they dedicate to discussions of Mann Coulter, Rush Limpthing, Sean Helplessly and others that parrot the memos and talking points as delivered to them by the administration.

The fact they are so obviously not "fair and balanced" as they purport only reinforces the arguments of those that do seek truth, justice and the American way.

Psychoblues


Americans Gotta Keep On Truckin'

 

[musicman]

I cordially invite anyone who vilifies Fox News to explain their success.