Motley Moose – Archive

Since 2008 – Progress Through Politics

FOX Covers FOX Employee Promoting FOX at FOX Rally to FOX Viewers – Open Thread

FOX News spent all of Saturday covering the rally in Searchlight Nevada, hometown of Harry Reid.  The event was a Tea Party rally, a movement created out of whole cloth by FOX.  The keynote at the rally was FOX employee Sarah Palin, who railed against the coverage of the recent spilling-over of violence that she and other FOX employees have instigated against Democratic Party politicians, staffers and supporters.  

In this clip from FOX News Channel today we see FOX Employee Palin telling the FOX-created movement’s followers that what America wants is “Fair and Balanced” news (FOX Broadcasting’s official tagline), which the entirely FOX-viewing crowd cheered at so that their friends watching FOX back at home could see them cheering the FOX employee on stage.

This is making me dizzy.


Now, I know that FOX is the personal property of Rupert Murdoch and as such can basically do whatever it wants without bothering with such niceties as journalistic ethics.  Just this evening I watched a panel of FOX employees interview each other about ABC News’ choice of Christian Amanpour for one of their shows – the surprisingly unanimous conclusion of the FOX employees was that what all of the other news channels lacked was that certain bit of impartial clarity that only FOX employees can provide.

But even so, when a “media” company creates a political movement, then hires the politician most associated with that movement, and sends that employee to speak at their movement’s events so that their employees can cover their employee’s speech where she discusses her employer, the very fabric of space and time begin to show the strain.

Is there any limit to what FOX can do to manipulate public opinion for their own financial and their owner’s political gain?


  1. Shaun Appleby

    What Photo-Shop has done to imagery.  You can’t believe anything you see/hear.  They have almost succeeded in reducing the ‘coin of the realm’ to lead slugs.  As it happens, that’s the currency they are peddling themselves.

    To demagogues and authoritarians the first step is always to erase the confidence of the ‘masses,’ such as they are, in their own discrimination, insight and scepticism on matters of state.  I think this is the one remaining genuine and serious risk to the notion that liberal values are promoted by the trend to prosperity, education and egalitarianism.

  2. Rupert Murdoch is infallible. Not if he thinks he can take his newspapers behind a paywall and still have people read them online. Not only charging for content, but charging more than the print version costs. He’s even got a premium on ipad content, as if people couldn’t simply bypass that by using regular net access on their ipad. I predict this experiment is going to turn out badly for Murdoch. Hope he loses millions on it.

  3. …like the ‘infinity effect’ of a camera filming its own screen…

    If there is one name that can be used to describe the decline of British Print journalism, the break up of Fleet Street, 20 years of limbo dancing under lower and lower standards, till the whole of our press has been affected by a Tabloid Mentality of cheap PR gossip about sex and celebrity, combined with trite right wing talking points about every subject on earth: one name readily comes to hand…

    Rupert Murdoch.

    When I was a teenager, living in the equivalent of a US project, the one thing that really hooked me into literature and debate was a publication called The Sunday Times. In the 70s it was like your New York Times, but on stilts. Harold Evans was the editor. It had brilliant arts and culture coverage. An amazing investigative journalist team, and its magazine led the way in gritty photo journalism essays.

    Then Murdoch made his first move into UK publishing, took it over, sacked Evans, and thus – from the top downwards – began the slow remorseless debasement of British discourse and public life.

    I have mixed feelings only on one thing. Murdoch achieved this because he spotted that the Unions had a monopoly stranglehold on the press in those days, and ran inefficient restrictive practices. Murdoch was bold and strong enough to take on the Unions and their monopoly power – though let’s not pretend this was for reasons of market place fairness. Murdoch was happy to replace one stranglehold with another, and let’s not forget his love affair with authoritarian China.

    So I have one question of myself, and of the economic free marketers among us:

    Was it a price worth paying? Was Murdoch’s breaking of the strangehold of the Unions over print production any compensation for his strangehold over the production of debate and ideas?

  4. but worth noting.

    The wingnuts were out in full force on FreeRepublic as soon as the news of President Obama’s visit to Afghanistan was announced. I came across this link on Balloon Juice –

    It becomes more and more obvious that these people hate America.

    To: mlocher

    And how do we send money to the Taliban? Oh, that won’t work. They’re on the same sie.

    To: hinckley buzzard

    What’s this a-hole up to now?

    Probably searching for Christ so he can crucify him.

    To: meatloaf

    Our troops suffer enough hardships.

    BO needs to leave them the hell alone.

    To: AmishDude

    He might be afraid of the US military

  5. I’ve been reading some Anti War diaries on other blogs. Though I appreciate that Americans are suffering the loss of their sons and daughters, I’ve been talking a bit more to some serving officers in Helmand.  I’ll paste below the response to one of them who said ‘Afghan’s are paying for Obama’s mistakes’

    If it’s the suffering of the Afghan people you’re concerned about, then ISAF is a better bet than the alternative.

    The British troops I’ve spoken to who have served in Helmand think the surge will be great – for those Afghans who want to escape the Narco Taliban Nexus.

    They also warned me that more casualties will arise as they take on the enemy in more forward roles, leaving base, and stabilising larger areas of territory. Basically this means protecting the majority from the large Taliban minority who tax them, force them to fight or – more likely – provide the only income in the area. Most the soldiers are bought for 200 bucks a day for seasonal wars. There’s no other work going.

    There’s a completely Non Neo Con argument for a temporary surge while deals are done with the less extreme local leaders, and the ANA is trained up.

    Your viewpoint is valid. But so is mine. And the soldiers I know who served in Helmand.

    To them. the hundreds of British lives lost so far would truly be wasted if we retreated and left the Taliban to run free again

Comments are closed.