Mediaite: CNN's John Roberts to Join Fox News

CNN's John Roberts will join Fox News as senior national correspondent based in Atlanta and will be reporting on major domestic and international stories for the network, reports Colby Hall of Mediaite.

Some industry insiders are sure to see this as somewhat of a coup for Fox News, as Roberts will shore up the news side of FNC’s news programming. Anytime a news network can add an award winning journalist who has covered nearly every major news story of the last two decades for both CBS News and CNN. Some suggested that Roberts was poorly utilized at CNN hosting a morning news program, but Roberts did have some terrific reporting moments when he was brought out of the studio, namely while interviewing BP COO Doug Suttles, asking him “how he slept”?

It appears that Fox News will use Roberts in a similar vein, getting him out of the studio and reporting in the field on major news stories. Not only is this a win for FNC, but for fans of old school journalists as well.

Fox is Even a Bigger Winner Tuesday Than the GOP By Trouncing CNN, MSNBC

Fox had its biggest midterm election night ever, reports Brian Stelter of The New York Times, by clubbing its competitors by about 300 percent.

Fox pulled in 6.96 million viewers in prime time, while CNN averaged 2.42 million viewers, and MSNBC averaged 1.94 million viewers. That's 287 percent more than CNN and 358 percent more than MSNBC.

Stelter reported that the Nielsen Co. would not have comparison numbers against the broadcast networks until tomorrow, but early indications are that Fox would beat them, too.

Among viewers 25 to 54 years old, Fox News averaged 2.43 million in prime time, Stelter writes. CNN averaged 1.03 million among that demographic and MSNBC, 669,000.

Fox averaged 3.06 million viewers during the midterms in 2006, when there was a Democratic wave, Stelter reports. Fox has grown significantly in popularity since then.

CNN, by contrast, has shrunk — it had averaged 2.97 million viewers in the midterms in 2006. MSNBC’s prime-time averages were almost the same in 2006 and 2010.

(On the night of the presidential election in 2008, CNN averaged 12.3 million viewers in prime time, Fox averaged 9 million, and MSNBC averaged 5.9 million.)

The cable news channels’ ratings were inflated all day because of the election, but Fox ratings were inflated more than the others. Fox averaged 3.02 million viewers from 6 a.m. Tuesday to 3 a.m. Wednesday.

Juan Williams: NPR Was Looking for a Reason to Fire Me

Juan Williams, now a full-time Fox contributor, said on "Fox and Friends" this morning that he believes that executives at NPR were looking for a reason to fire him and found the ammunition with his comments about Muslims earlier this week.

"I think they were looking for a reason to get rid of me. They were uncomfortable with the idea that I was talking to the likes of Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity."

Host Gretchen Carlson asked Williams about Congress defunding NPR. Here was his reply:

You know what? I love NPR. I think that NPR is an important institution. I think oftentimes the quality of journalism is fantastic. I’m not about attacking NPR. But I do think this, Gretchen. If they want to compete in the marketplace, they should compete in the marketplace. They don’t need public funds. I think they should go out there, if they think the product is so great, go out and sell the product. And what happens is, too often, then, they want to make it out like, “You know what? We are a public jewel and we need the protection of the federal government. We need federal funds that come through the member stations and they pay for this product.” Nonsense. They are on a federal dole, is what it is And they better admit it and step up if they want to compete.

But Republicans on Capitol Hill are already looking into the possibility of pulling the financial plug. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) is expected to discuss such a proposal sometime today.

NPR CEO: Williams' Feelings About Muslims Should Be Between Him and 'His Psychiatrist'

Proving that everyone care be careless when making public remarks, NPR chief executive officer Vivian Schiller said today that that whatever feelings Juan Williams has about Muslims should be between him and "his psychiatrist or his publicist."

NPR issued a statement saying Williams' remarks "were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR."

"Juan has been a valuable contributor to NPR and public radio for many years and we did not make this decision lightly or without regret," NPR spokeswoman Dana Davis Rehm said in an e-mailed statement.

Later this afternoon, NPR released this statement by Schiller: "I spoke hastily and I apologize to Juan and others for my thoughtless remark."

Here is NPR's first statement concerning the dismissal:

"A critical distinction has been lost in this debate. NPR News analysts have a distinctive role and set of responsibilities. This is a very different role than that of a commentator or columnist. News analysts may not take personal public positions on controversial issues; doing so undermines their credibility as analysts, and that's what’s happened in this situation. As you all well know, we offer views of all kinds on your air every day, but those views are expressed by those we interview — not our reporters and analysts.

"Second, this isn't the first time we have had serious concerns about some of Juan's public comments. Despite many conversations and warnings over the years, Juan has continued to violate this principal.

"Third, these specific comments (and others made in the past), are inconsistent with NPR’s ethics code, which applies to all journalists (including contracted analysts): 'In appearing on TV or other media. ... NPR journalists should not express views they would not air in their role as an NPR journalist. They should not participate in shows ... that encourage punditry and speculation rather than fact-based analysis.”

"More fundamentally, 'In appearing on TV or other media including electronic Web-based forums, NPR journalists should not express views they would not air in their role as an NPR journalist.'

"Unfortunately, Juan’s comments on Fox violated our standards as well as our values and offended many in doing so."

POLITICO: Williams Defends His Statement About Muslims

Juan Williams was back on Fox today defending his statements concerning Muslims, the very statements that earned him a pink slip from his employer, NPR.

As reported by POLITICO's On Media blog:

Juan Williams took to Fox to discuss the circumstances of his firing today, saying it happened over the phone and he was given no chance to come in and make a case for himself to the news organization that had employed him for a decade.

He said he got a voicemail Wednesday afternoon from Ellen Weiss, NPR’s senior vice president for news. When he called back, she asked him: “What did you say? What did you mean?”

He defended his statements.

“I said what I meant to say, which is that it’s an honest experience that, when I’m in an airport, and I see people who are in Muslim garb, who identify themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I do a double take. I have a moment of anxiety or fear given what happened on 9/11. That’s just a reality.”

Weiss said “that crosses the line,” and went on to say that he had made “a bigoted statement,” Williams said.

“It’s not a bigoted statement,” Williams said he argued back. “In fact, in the course of this conversation with Bill O’Reilly, I said that we have, as Americans, an obligation to be careful to protect the constitutional rights of everyone in the country. And to make sure we don’t have any outbreak of bigotry.

“But, that there’s a reality. You cannot ignore what happened on 9/11. And you cannot ignore the connection to Islamic radicalism. And you can’t ignore the fact of what has even been recently said in court with regard to ‘this is the first drop of blood in a Muslim war on America.’”

According to Williams, Weiss said the decision to fire him had been made “up the chain” and “there’s nothing you can say that will change my mind.”

George Soros Donates $1 Million to Media Matters to Combat Conservative News Outlets

Long-rumored as a supporter, billionaire George Soros stepped up this week to donate $1 million to Media Matters to support its mission to keep watch over conservative-leaning media.

In a statement obtained by Michael D. Shear of The New York Times' The Caucus, the organization says it plans to use the money to intensify its efforts to hold the Fox host Glenn Beck and others on the cable news channel accountable for their reporting.

"Fox has transformed itself into a 24-7 G.O.P. attack machine, dividing Americans through fear-mongering and falsehoods and undermining the legitimacy of our government for partisan political ends," the group will say in the statement, to be released Wednesday afternoon.

In an accompanying statement, Mr. Soros, a billionaire who has a history of supporting liberal politicians and causes, accused Fox News hosts of "incendiary rhetoric" and said he hoped that his money would be used "in an effort to more widely publicize the challenge Fox News poses to civil and informed discourse in our democracy."

For years, conservatives have accused Media Matters of being a front organization for Mr. Soros. In May, Mr. Beck referred to Media Matters as "the left-wing George Soros-funded media machine that is now referring to me as a jihadist." In 2007, Fox's Sean Hannity called it "Hillary Clinton's George Soros-funded group Media Matters."

Officials at Media Matters regularly deny that they have ever taken money from Mr. Soros, who repeats that denial in Wednesday's statement, saying,  "I have not to date been a funder" of the liberal organization. Now, he will officially be a donor, and likely a fresh target for criticism from the right.

Anita Dunn's Final Parting Shots at Fox News

Sam Stein of The Huffington Post today wrote about Anita Dunn, the outgoing interim White House communications director, and her parting shots at Fox News:

The outgoing administration spokeswoman took a clear and enjoyable dig, first at Sean Hannity for recently airing spliced footage designed to make a crowd of anti-health care protesters seem bigger than reality.

"A fun fact from this week is that an opinion show on a certain news network was using edited footage to make it appear that a rally last week, and political opposition to the president, was much larger than it appeared," said Dunn, during her appearance at the Bloomberg News Washington Summit. "Some of you may have heard about it. The people who went in and did fact checking on that, and actually exposed the spliced edited was... Jon Stewart of the 'Daily Show' on Comedy Central. Well that is where you are getting fact-checking and investigative journalism these days folks. It is a different media environment."

Showing an even greater appreciation for the "Daily Show"'s Fox News fact-checking abilities, Dunn referenced another Stewart triumph later in her question-and-answer session.

"Jon Stewart actually did one of the most amazing pieces of journalism last week or a couple of weeks ago," she said, "in which he looked at the way Fox, on their opinion shows, raises some issue that then gets reported on by their news division as 'a controversy.' ... Now, that's a point of view. That's fine. That's entertainment. It helps their ratings. But I think if you go downstairs and walk through the Newseum that's not traditionally what you think of as traditional news -- to some extent inventing the story."

Approached in the halls outside the forum, the Huffington Post asked Dunn to put Glenn Beck's recent theatrics into the context of her critiques of Fox News's coverage. She chuckled. For the past few weeks, Beck has insisted that the outgoing communications director considers Mao Zedong a political hero and has put a red telephone on his set begging for her to call and explain her political dispositions.

"I think it was news to everybody who knows me," she replied. "You know, most media consultants usually are accused of other things, but that's not one of them."

Last month, Dunn got caught up in a war of words between the White House and Fox News when she made the rather bland observation that the network carries a Republican agenda. On Friday, she was asked whether she considered MSNBC to have a counter-balancing bias -- a common retort offered by Fox's defenders. Dunn replied by noting that for three hours every morning that network handed over its programming to "a former Republican congressman who was a member of Newt Gingrich's revolution": Joe Scarborough.

Elsewhere in her remarks, Dunn acknowledged that her decision to go after Fox News was not an example of her "going rogue." White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and perhaps even the president himself gave her the green light ...

Fox's Shepard Smith Apologizes for Unbalanced Report on N.J. Race

Fox News correspondent Shannon Bream had a live interview on Tuesday afternoon with New Jersey GOP gubernatorial candidate Chris Christie. Afterward, Shepard Smith said on air that Jon Corzine, the Democratic incumbent, should have been interviewed too, and he apologized. Later that evening, Fox included a sound bite of Corzine.

Wall Street Journal's Frank Says Obama Was Right About Fox

Thomas Frank writes today in The Wall Street Journal that President Barack Obama was right about Fox, but his administration should have taken a different approach in attacking the network.

To point out that this network is different, that it is intensely politicized, that it inhabits an alternate reality defined by an imaginary conflict between noble heartland patriots and devious liberals—to be aware of these things is not the act of a scheming dictatorial personality. It is the obvious conclusion drawn by anybody with eyes and ears.

Still, one wishes that the Obama administration had taken on Fox News with a little more skill. As cultural criticism goes, this was clumsy, plodding stuff. What the situation required was sarcasm, irony, a little humor. Simply feeding Fox a slice of raw denunciation was like dumping gasoline into a fire. It did nothing but furnish the network with a real-world validation of its long-running conspiracy theories—and a nice bump in its ratings.

Garrett: Fox Has a Standing Request With White House on Interviews

Fox News White House correspondent Major Garrett gave his side of story about the White House not allowing Fox to participate in a pool interview with pay czar Kenneth Feinberg last week.

Garrett told a Washington radio show today that he's had a "standing request" to sit down with any newsmakers when the other networks are doing so for Fox News. Part of the request is to provide interviews for Fox Business, which does not have the rating's power to compete with the bigger networks.

Garrett said there was about "an hour-long effort to exclude us," but that was "resolved."

Media Matters: Fox Is a Lethal 24/7 Partisan Political Operation

In a memo directed at progressive advocacy groups, the founder and chief executive officer of Media Matters, David Brock, called "a lethal 24/7 partisan political operation.

"Fox News has exhibited a consistent willingness to ignore any and all journalistic standards to pursue political ends," Brock writes. "The failure to recognize Fox News for what it is enables the network to continue waging a massive conservative political campaign disguised as journalism."

Here is the full memo:

In recent days, a new level of scrutiny has been directed toward Fox News, in no small part due to statements from the White House, and from Media Matters, challenging its standing as a news organization.

Media Matters has monitored Fox News every day for more than 5 years. Our analysis of their programming has led us to the unavoidable conclusion that Fox is no longer operating as a “conservative news organization,” but as an outright partisan political operation – and brazenly so.

Since the election of Barack Obama, the Fox News Channel has transformed itself into something truly unprecedented: a lethal 24/7 partisan political operation with an instantaneous national reach. Fox has declared war on this White House, the majority in the United States Congress, and progressive organizations and activists. For Fox News, victory is defined as the destruction of both the Obama administration and the entire progressive policy agenda. Fox News host Glenn Beck predicted last week that he will soon "take the administration down."

The danger to progressive causes and the institution of journalism has become too significant to ignore. At Media Matters, we believe it is of paramount importance that progressive leaders have the information necessary to understand exactly what Fox News has become. We hope this brief memorandum will assist you in reaching your own decision on how best to engage this threat.

As our evidence demonstrates, Fox News has exhibited a consistent willingness to ignore any and all journalistic standards to pursue political ends. The failure to recognize Fox News for what it is enables the network to continue waging a massive conservative political campaign disguised as journalism.

We hope you find this information helpful. If you have any questions or would like any additional information, please feel free to contact Media Matters at your convenience. Together, we can hold Fox News accountable to the high standards of journalism every American has a right to expect from their media.

Sincerely,

David Brock
Founder & CEO, Media Matters for America

Major Networks Refuse to Interview White House Pay Czar Until Fox Was Included in Pool

The war is heating up a bit, and yesterday there was another example of Fox News getting support from its colleagues.

The White House had set up a round of interviews for major media outlets with Pay Czar Kenneth Feinberg but had excluded Fox. The Washington bureau chiefs of the five TV networks refused to interview Feinberg unless Fox News was included. In the end, the White House stepped down and allowed Fox to participate in the round of interviews.

"I'm really cheered by the other members saying "No, if Fox can't be part of it, we won't be part of it,'" Baltimore Sun TV critic (and regular Fox News detractor) David Zurawik told The Huffington Post. "What it's really about to me is the Executive Branch of the government trying to tell the press how it should behave. I mean, this democracy -- we know this -- only works with a free and unfettered press to provide information," he said.



Meanwhile, here are some more viewpoints of the continuing battle between the White House and Fox News. First, POLITICO reporters weigh in:


Media Matters, a left-leaning media group, offers these opinions:


Jim Rutenberg of The New York Times gives a primer on the background of this war.

Gibbs: Nobody at Fox Is a Journalist; It's Not a News Organization

White House officials once again advanced its contention that Fox News and its commentators are not journalists, rather a propaganda wing of the Republican Party. During the gaggle, an informal on-the-record but off-camera briefing between the White House press secretary and some members of the media, Robert Gibbs and ABC's Jake Tapper had this conversation:

Tapper: It’s escaped none of our notice that the White House has decided in the last few weeks to declare one of our sister organizations “not a news organization” and to tell the rest of us not to treat them like a news organization. Can you explain why it’s appropriate for the White House to decide that a news organization is not one –

(Crosstalk)

Gibbs: Jake, we render, we render an opinion based on some of their coverage and the fairness that, the fairness of that coverage.

Tapper: But that’s a pretty sweeping declaration that they are “not a news organization.” How are they any different from, say –

Gibbs: ABC -

Tapper: ABC. MSNBC. Univision. I mean how are they any different?

Gibbs: You and I should watch sometime around 9 o’clock tonight. Or 5 o’clock this afternoon.

Tapper: I’m not talking about their opinion programming or issues you have with certain reports. I’m talking about saying thousands of individuals who work for a media organization, do not work for a “news organization” -- why is that appropriate for the White House to say?

Gibbs: That’s our opinion.

I wonder if Major Garrett, Fox's White House correspondent, was in the room.

Swamppolitics.com reported that Michael Clemente, senior vice president of news at FOX News, replied by saying: "Hundreds of journalists come to work each day at FOX News all deeply committed to their craft. It's disappointing that the White House would be so dismissive of their fine work and continue their vengeful war against a news organization."

Brett Baier of Fox reported on air today that Clemente said: "Surprisingly, the White House continues to declare war on a news organization instead of folk focusing on the critical issues that Americans are concerned about, like jobs, healthcare and two wars. The door remains open and we welcome a discussion about the facts behind the issues."

Ruth Marcus, who writes for the PostPartisan blog at the Washington Post, had this to say this morning:

Sure, it's legitimate -- and standard practice -- to dispense access and coveted interviews to favored reporters and news outlets. So is subtly doing the opposite: letting a reporter who's filed a tough story know that he or she is in the doghouse by leaking a scoop to a competitor. The Bush administration routinely briefed conservative columnists before a big presidential speech; the Obama White House tends to call in ideological sympathizers. This is the way the game is played.

Where the White House has gone way overboard is in its decision to treat Fox as an outright enemy and to go public with the assault. Imagine the outcry if the Bush administration had pulled a similar hissy fit with MSNBC. "Opinion journalism masquerading as news," White House communications director Anita Dunn declared of Fox. Certainly Fox tends to report its news with a conservative slant -- but has anyone at the White House clicked over to MSNBC recently?

That statement, in turn, brought a quick rebuttal from the left. Eric Boehlert of Media Matters writes:

In a way, Marcus is simply reinforcing the age-old Beltway truism: When Democrats criticize the press it's whiny and petty, but when Republicans do it, it's savvy and brash. (Just ask veterans of the Clinton administration.)

But more specifically, Marcus is commenting on a media landscape of which she is completely ignorant. For instance, she claims Fox News operates just like MSNBC did during the Bush years. MSNBC featured Bush bashers Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann, and today Fox News boasts Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, so c'mon what's the big deal. I guess the big deal is I don't remember either Olbermann or Maddow comparing MSNBC employees to persecuted Jews during the Holocaust, which was the twisted comparison Beck recently made regarding the Fox News staff.

In other words, I don't recall Olbermann or Maddow going bat shit crazy on national television, scribbling away on a chalkboard as they fantasized about connecting George Bush to every conceivable strain of historical evil. And I don't remember either MSNBC host launching hateful and hollow witch hunts against semi-obscure administration officials, the way Hannity has latched onto the homophobic attacks against Kevin Jennings.

But guess what? The same elite pundits who are telling the White House is chill out over Fox News are the same elite pundits who for weeks have refused to acknowledge the hateful Jennings witch hunt. Which brings me back to my original question: Do journalists like Marcus even watch Fox News? Do they understand what its programming day now looks like? My guess is the answer is no, even though lots of them have taken it upon themselves to speak out as Fox News experts; to lecture the White House about how normal and mainstream the cable outlet is.

Josh Gerstein and Mike Allen of POLITICO write today that the White House effort is to get other journalists to think twice before following Fox’s stories in their own coverage.

"We're doing what we think is important to make sure news is covered as fairly as possible," a White House official told POLITICO, noting how the recent ACORN scandal story started because Fox covered it “breathlessly for weeks on end.”

“And then you had a couple days of breast-beating from The Washington Post and The New York Times about whether or not they were fast enough on the ACORN story,” the official said. “And it's like: Wait a second, guys. Let's make sure that we keep perspective on what are the most important stories, and what's being driven by a network that has a perspective. Being able to make that point has been important.”

That raises a red flag to me. Are journalists supposed to take the White House's lead as to which stories they should cover? Aren't the Post and Times capable of deciding for themselves what stories need to be chased and what is nonsense? This is a judgment call made by assigning editors every day. For instance, the birther stories are rightfully ignored by most journalists because they are blatantly absurd. Sometimes it seems, only Chris Matthews is keeping that one alive. But the ACORN story, even though being instigated by a conservative filmmaker, was news because of the videotapes that could not be ignored.

It's up to journalists to decide what they should cover, and at no point should they take their lead from the White House, whether it is occupied by a Republican or a Democrat. And if White House officials think its their role to determine for the national media what the important stories of the day are, then we are all in a lot of trouble.

And finally, for those who are interested in signing petitions. MoveOn.org has started one urging Democrat members of Congress to stay off the network as long as the president avoids appearing on it.

White House Officials Continue Their Offensive with Fox News

Leading White House advisers took the offense today in their battle with Fox News by putting on a blitz on the morning news shows.

Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told CNN's John King on "State of the Union" that Fox "is not a news organization so much as it has a perspective."

"It’s not so much a conflict with Fox News. I suppose the way to look at it and the way … the president looks at it, we look at it is: It’s not a news organization so much as it has a perspective. And that’s a different take. And more importantly, is not have the CNNs and the others in the world basically be led in following Fox, as if what they’re trying to do is a legitimate news organization …

"While it’s clear what the White House and what [White House communications director]Anita [Dunn] said, I mean the concentration of the White House isn’t about what Fox is doing. It’s a concentration about what does it take to make sure the economy’s moving, creating jobs, helping the economy grow, making sure that we responsibly withdraw from Iraq, making sure the decisions we make on Afghanistan: We ask the questions before we go ahead first into 20 - 40,000 more troops on the line, and America’s reputation, … it’s young men and women, and its resources — that’s what’s occupying the decisions and the time in the White House.”

White House senior adviser David Axelrod told George Stephanopoulos today on ABC's "This Week" that Fox News isn't a real news organization.

"Mr. [Rupert] Murdoch has a talent for making money, and I understand that their programming is geared toward making money. The only argument Anita was making is that they’re not really a news station if you watch even — it’s not just their commentators, but a lot of their news programming.

"It’s really not news — it’s pushing a point of view. And the bigger thing is that other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way, and we’re not going to treat them that way. We’re going to appear on their shows. We’re going to participate but understanding that they represent a point of view.”

Obama Slams FOX for Being 'Devoted to Attacking My Administration'

President Barack Obama, in an interview with CNBC’s John Harwood, acknowledged what he called "generally positive" coverage in the first six months of his administration, but took the opportunity to take a swing at FOX News.

“I’ve got one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration. That’s a pretty big megaphone. You’d be hard pressed if you watched the entire day to find a positive story about me on that front,” Obama said.

“We welcome people who are asking us some tough questions. I think I’ve probably been as accessible as any president in the first six months…..I think that actually the reason people have been generally positive about what we’ve been trying to do is people feel as if I’m available and willing to answer questions and we haven’t been trying to hide the ball.”

FOX Network Says No to Obama's Prime Time Press Conference

The FOX network announced this afternoon that it will not televise President Barack Obama's prime-time news conference on Wednesday, and instead stay with its regular entertainment programming.

The news conference marks Obama's 100th day as president. But FOX viewers will see an episode of the Tim Roth drama "Lie to Me."

It's the first time a broadcast network has refused Obama's request. This will be the third prime-time news conference in Obama's presidency. ABC, CBS and NBC are airing it.

It's Tea Time! Cable Networks More Concerned About Competition's Viewpoint Than Good Journalism

While certainly multiple protests around the country are worthy of attention from news organizations, some cable TV journalists have started sniping at each other in regards to coverage. Much of it is predictable, but through the course of the day it has become a bit of a side show.

James Rainey at The Los Angeles Times notes the different perspectives offered by FOX News and MSNBC:

You'd expect conservative commentators like Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity to be hyping today's wave of anti-tax "tea parties." But Fox personalities labeled "news" anchors are right there with their blessings too -- one telling us the protests will focus on "how much of our hard-earned money is going to the federal government," another assuring us the tea parties themselves are sparking economic activity.

The Fox promotions people have been pumping up the volume, with ads celebrating hundreds of rallies and citizens who are "demanding real economic solutions." That's in contrast, you see, to the fake solutions President Obama wants to foist on the American people. ...

That said, some liberal media voices seem just as intent on squelching the protesters before they've shoveled a single bag of Lipton into a single pond. At MSNBC, commentators Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews wrote off the demonstrations as the work of nothing more than crackpots or political stooges.

I've got a novel idea: How about if we wait and see what happens at these rallies? Maybe journalists can watch, report how many people are there, describe the kinds of things they say and tell us what they plan to do next.

CNN correspondent Susan Roesgen became an activist defending the federal government while pretending to cover the event as a unbias journalist. She interrupted one of the protesters and slammed the event for being “anti-government,” “anti-CNN,” and “not really family viewing.”

Roesgen asked a man holding his toddler, “Why are you here today?” The man started to respond saying, “Because I hear a president say that he believed in what Lincoln stood for. Lincoln’s primary thing was he believed people had the right to liberty and they had the right”

She then interrupted him by asking, “But sir, what does that have to do with taxes? What does this have to do with your taxes?” She continued asking questions over his as he asked her to “let me finish my point.” One crowd member was heard to yell “shut up” to the Roesgen.

When the man finished his statement about people having the “right to the fruits of their own labor” and “government should not take it,” Roesgen began arguing with him again and other protesters began to get upset.

She closed by saying “you get the general tenor of this. Anti-government, anti-CNN since this is highly promoted by the right-wing conservative network FOX and since I can’t really hear much more and I think this is not really family viewing. Toss it back to you Kyra.”

Not exactly down-the-middle reporting by a long shot. Her report is here:


MSNBC’s commentators have been hammering FOX all week long, going as low as to use some vile humor in their discussions.

On Tuesday’s “Countdown,” Keith Olbermann played clips of Fox personalities talking up tea parties. “As ever,” he said, Fox was “showing both sides ‘fair and balanced’ — supporting the tea baggers and sponsoring the tea baggers.” Rachel Maddow said that “our colleagues at Fox News are not just reporting on tea bagging, they are officially promoting it."

David Shuster had this piece:



On the other side of the discussion, FOX is serving up the tea parties by promoting them. “Fox appears to be promoting these events at the same time it is presenting them in a way that looks like reporting,” said Stephen Burgard, director of Northeastern University’s School of Journalism, told POLITICO's Michael Calderone.

Burgard called the practice “pseudo-journalism,” adding: “We have seen this before from Fox News Channel, but its role as galvanizer of opposition to President Obama's policies and leadership posture appears to be emerging.”



A Fox spokesperson said the network did not have an executive available to speak about its tea party coverage. A second Fox representative declined repeated offers to address the charge that it was blurring the lines between journalism and advocacy.

While tea party organizers say their movement is nonpartisan, the protests lean hard to the right: Newt Gingrich and Michelle Malkin are on board, as is Freedom Works, an organization run by former Republican Majority Leader Dick Armey. And more than a dozen prominent Republicans were set to participate in tea party protests Wednesday, including South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and a slew of other Republicans from Congress.

FOX: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail in 2001

The mass media has been having a field day with Rush Limbaugh's assertion that he wanted President Barack Obama to fail in his efforts to socialize the American economy. But FOX News is reporting today that a leading Democrat had the same sentiments about President George Bush, and voiced those thoughts on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001 just before the terrorist attacks.

On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: "I certainly hope he doesn't succeed."

Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president.

"We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him," Greenberg admitted.

The pollster added with a chuckle of disbelief: "They don't want him to fail. I mean, they think it matters if the president of the United States fails."

Minutes later, as news of the terrorist attacks reached the hotel conference room where the Democrats were having breakfast with the reporters, Carville announced: "Disregard everything we just said! This changes everything!"

The press followed Carville's orders, never reporting his or Greenberg's desire for Bush to fail. The omission was understandable at first, as reporters were consumed with chronicling the new war on terror. But months and even years later, the mainstream media chose to never resurrect those controversial sentiments, voiced by the Democratic Party's top strategists, that Bush should fail.

That omission stands in stark contrast to the feeding frenzy that ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail. The press devoted wall-to-wall coverage to the remark, suggesting that Limbaugh and, by extension, conservative Republicans, were unpatriotic.

"The most influential Republican in the United States today, Mr. Rush Limbaugh, said he did not want President Obama to succeed," Carville railed on CNN recently. "He is the daddy of this Republican Congress."

Limbaugh, a staunch conservative, emphasized that he is rooting for the failure of Obama's liberal policies.

"The difference between Carville and his ilk and me is that I care about what happens to my country," Limbaugh told Fox on Wednesday. "I am not saying what I say for political advantage. I oppose actions, such as Obama's socialist agenda, that hurt my country.

Two Dressed in Black Panthers Attire Intimidate Voters in Philadelphia

There are already a number of reports of voting problems in key battleground states such as Virginia, Pennsylvania and Florida.

At one precinct in Philadelphia, guards wearing Black Panthers attire and armed with nightsticks are in front of the doors of a polling site intimidating voters. Here is raw footage filmed by a student.



Here is a news report from FOX:



And here is raw footage of the pair being dealt with by police:



David Bario, writing for The American Lawyer at amlawdaikly.com, reports:

The polls have only been open a few hours, but reports of malfunctioning voting machines and overwhelmed polling stations already are flooding in. Jonah Goldman, director of the National Campaign for Fair Elections, says he and other Election Protection partners are most concerned so far about Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Florida, where massive voter turnout is overwhelming already vulnerable voting systems.

In Virginia, election protection monitors are describing massive machine breakdowns, which are being compounded by the absence of state provisions to provide back-up paper ballots when the machines fail. Voters in Richmond, Chesapeake, Fairfax, and Arlington are stuck in long lines, and some are being given provisional ballots to speed up the process. Those provisional ballots should be treated like regular ballots, Goldman says, but there are concerns that they will not be. There also are reports of voters being turned away from the polls and voter intimidation. Over two dozen polling places opened late, leading Election Protection officials to call for voting hours to be extended by two hours. Check back for more on the situation in Virginia later this afternoon.

Pennsylvania has similar reports of long lines and malfunctioning machines. In Pittsburgh, poll workers were so overwhelmed that local election authorities deputized Election Protection monitors in the spot to deal with the crowds.

In Florida, in addition to long lines, at least two dozen polling places centered in the Tampa and St. Petersburg areas have reported malfunctioning optical scan machines.

In Virginia, water dripping from an early-morning rain onto optical-scan paper ballots have made some of the ballot impossible to scan, Ryan Enright, a spokesman for the State Board of Elections, told CNN.

Election officials are encouraging voters to dry off before filling out ballots. Damp ballots will be allowed to dry before being tabulated, Enright said. This step will mean a longer processing time for election officials, but it should not affect voters' wait times, he said.

College Journalists Uncover Voter Fraud in Ohio

Palestra.net's Tiffany Wilson and Shelby Holliday have been working a story that the professional national media has yet to pick up except for FOX News. Eighteen Obama supporters from out of state have cast votes in Ohio's early balloting.

The ballots are going to be withdrawn and no charges are going to be levied against the voters. An apology has been offered by a member of the group that brought the workers into the state.