glitter-graphics.com
WELL ... ALMOST.
In any event, this particular e-mail received of Your Correspondent is the sort as is too good to not share with you readers:
For reporting that is an embarrassment to the profession of journalism,
and for being beholden to corporate paymasters rather than the citizens
of America, Fox "News" wins this week's Media Putz Award..
The MSM loves to tell us that there is Fox "News" with O'Reilly,
Hannity, and Beck and then there's Fox "News" on the rest of the time.
Fair and Balanced.
Hmmm, well, based on what we've seen lately from the "news" part of Fox
"News," their argument is as thin as the pastrami in a New York City
deli.
Chris Wallace is seen as the legitimate face of Fox "News." After all,
Wallace, son of a real journalist in Mike Wallace, has hosted "Meet the
Press" on NBC and was on "Primetime Thursday" on ABC. Certainly, Fox
plays that up when accused of news bias.
Here was the chance, the ultimate chance, to toss a few hard questions
to Rush Limbaugh, prove the naysayers wrong, show them that Fox has a
real news department. But Wallace's cushy softball interview with Rush
Limbaugh is much more typical of the style of "journalism" Wallace has
brought us for many years.
"I think you're a great broadcaster. How can you possibly be worth that kind of money?"
When you go back to Wallace's interview with former President Clinton
in 2006, you find Wallace asked some tough questions. But that Chris
Wallace, rarely seen in public, wasn't on display with Limbaugh.
"Do you think the individual mandate is constitutional? Do you think
the government has the right to tell people, You're going to get health
insurance, and if you don't get it, you're going to pay a penalty?"
This question of Limbaugh could have been phrased in a way that would
have sounded legitimate. The question, exactly the way Wallace phrased
it, sounds like he agrees with Limbaugh, described in a court of law as
leading the witness. Then again, when you are all on the same side,
every question is a leading one.
And this doesn't even factor in that Limbaugh was allowed to spew out
"facts" that weren't even close to being true, but that seemed just
fine with Wallace.
LIMBAUGH: I mean, just a couple days ago, they talked about these
650,000 jobs that they've created or saved. There's no such thing as a
saved job. Besides that, they've destroyed jobs. They've lost 3.3
million jobs in this country since Obama's stimulus plan, and it's
going to get worse.
Wallace couldn't even ask Limbaugh where he got such a ridiculous set of numbers. And Wallace wouldn't dare correct him.
Then there's Gretchen Carlson. Okay, she works on "Fox and Friends," a
pseudo-news show even by Fox standards. But they do interview
newsmakers, and they do work on a morning show on a channel that
masquerades as a news outlet.
Carlson was interviewing a rather prominent newsmaker in Rep. Michele
Bachmann recently. The interview was typical Fox fluff, including
Carlson's reference at the end to providing a link to Bachmann's "Super
Bowl of Freedom."
But no one mentioned the conflict, where George Will of all people,
disclosed that Bachmann used to be Carlson's nanny. Yet, the "news"
department at Fox didn't have an issue with Carlson interviewing
Bachmann and a lack of disclosure over their relationship. Do you think
Keith Olbermann could interview his nanny (if he even had one) without
mentioning a conflict of interest and not receive scorn from the MSM?
Carlson's two "questions" weren't any tougher than those seen on a 3
a.m. infomercial. And when Bachmann referenced the "whites of their
eyes," Carlson's eyes didn't even blink.
You have to wonder how many times Carlson has interviewed or talked
about Bachmann even before Will's disclosure. And why are we finding
out about the Carlson/Bachmann relationship from someone other than
Carlson or Fox? Not disclosing conflict of interest issues is a no-no.
Steering a conflict of interest into a 1-on-1 interview? That's how
they do it at Fox.
At least, Wallace and Limbaugh don't have a relationship. But given
Wallace's reaction to Limbaugh afterwards, you might want to start
making dinner reservations.
"I just want to give you my reaction. First of all I had never met him.
Very nice, very sweet and I've have to say vulnerable guy and if you
watch the interview you'll see because he talks very candidly about
drug rehab..."
Wallace's softball questions brought out the mean, petty, obnoxious
side of Limbaugh, which is actually all of his sides. The "very nice,
very sweet and… vulnerable guy" Wallace speaks of isn't there in the
room.
Ruth Marcus and Jake Tapper, among many many others, owe us an apology.
Fox "News" may fool the MSM into thinking it's a legitimate news
outlet. But we're paying more attention to Fox than they are, so we
really know what's going on. Chris Wallace and Gretchen Carlson -- two
reasons why Fox "News" gets put into quotes, and once again, wins this
week's Media Putz award.
Fox "News" has previously won the Media Putz award on July 9, 2009, April 16, 2009, and on May 15, 2008.
(And there is Deeper Significance behind the preceding: Buzzflash.com has just launched an online campaign known as Turn Off Fox, with the aim of getting people to have businesses change the channel away from Fox Prolefeed ... not to mention urging people to stop watching it as well.)
*************
SOMETHING THE CULTURE WARRIORS (OR SO THEY SEE THEMSELVES AS) WOULD JUST LAUGH THEIR HEADS OFF @: Not many know this, but the Australians were the first to establish a films-rating system, approving films as either For General Exhibition or Not For General Exhibition (i.e., Adults Only).
Which the film censor board in the Canadian province of Ontario refined in the mid-1930's with perhaps the first such in North America: Films were either deemed Suitable for All or Suitable for Adult Audiences after passing through the censor's shears in the name of G-d, King and Empire.
And we have the current letter-grade-based ratings system of G, PG, PG13, R and NC17 ... but if you ask me, why not just simplify things and deem films as being:
- "Suitable for All"
- "Suitable Only for the Elites"
- "Suitable for Culturally-Deprived Environments"
- "Suitable for Idiots and Morons" (as an alternative to the preceding)
(In any event, the films likely to pass in the last category, regardless of the labelling, are more than likely to be deliberately-dumped-on "elegant pornoo!" lacking any relevant plot or story because the Lower Classes thus targeted "don't have any general ideas anyway," and besides, so this line of thinking holds--the sort of line Fox Prolefeed likes promoting in the first place for all their warped delusions of Kulturkrieg grandeur--"need to be kept in their place," and deliberately.
(And the best way to do it? Nothing but cheap and cheerful "pornoo" as is little more than random and unrelated sex scenes, complete with explicit depictions of the genitalia and the obligatory "money shot." Occasionally including scenes of animal mating to break the monotony more than anything else, let alone distract Joe Sixpack from Reality. And deliberately.) 
glitter-graphics.com
"...and that is is a way."
