Fox Noose: We Distort; You Divide.®

by: Rashaverak

Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 10:37:19 AM EDT


Bookmark and Share

When Clarence Thomas was seeking confirmation as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and questions were raised about his fitness based on the claims of his former subordinate, Anita Hill, Thomas launched a bitter counteroffensive, claiming that he was the victim of a high-tech lynching.  Many people recoiled at Thomas's expropriation of the term, saying it was beyond the pale.  Thomas succeeded in quelling the opposition to his nomination, and we all have seen how that worked out.

Over the past few days, we have seen an attempted high-tech lynching of the good name of a public servant, Shirley Sherrod.  Ms. Sherrod has reacted with far more grace than Mr. Thomas did, and the outcome may, for our nation, be far more positive.

Photobucket
Rashaverak :: Fox Noose: We Distort; You Divide.®
What a few days it has been!

Before Monday, few, if any, of us, had heard the name Shirley Sherrod.

Suddenly, her name, her face, and her voice burst upon the scene, courtesy of a snippet of video tape brought to us by Andrew Breitbart.  At warp speed, Fox News picked up the snippet and began relentlessly and breathlessly banging the drum... that here, captured on tape, was an official of the U.S. Department of Agriculture admitting that she did not do all that she could for a farmer in danger of losing his farm, because he was white, and she was Black.

And to top it all off, she was admitting this before a meeting of a local chapter of the NAACP, which had just called on the Teabaggers to expel the (white) racists from their midst.

The perfect counterpoint!  What hypocrites!  All of the air could be seen gushing from the NAACP balloon....

Sadly, the Secretary of Agriculture took the bait and demanded Ms. Sherrod's resignation.

Breitbart and Fox did not count on the full story coming out.  The story imploded almost as quickly as the frenzy had washed upon us.

What can we, as a nation, learn from all of this?

We can learn several things....

-- There are usually more than one side to a story.

-- We should withhold judgment and gather all of the facts before forming conclusions.

-- We must treat information from sources that have proven deceptive in the past with the strictest scrutiny.

-- We should give the accused the chance to defend themselves.

-- The people who drove this story have an agenda.  They seek to divide us.

It's an old, old story... divide and conquer.

In her brutally honest rendition of her experience those 24 years ago, Ms. Sherrod has shown us that the major conflicts in our society are not black vs. white, or black vs. hispanic, or black vs. Jew, or black vs. Asian, it is the poor vs. the rich.  It is the struggle to give everyone a fair shake, regardless of their background, regardless of their connections or lack thereof.

The Administration clearly handled the opening chapter of this story in an extremely ham-handed fashion. However, it is not too late to use the episode as a means of raising people's consciousness.

The same people who sought to sacrifice Ms. Sherrod's reputation and her job are the same people who vote against extending unemployment benefits for the jobless, while seeking to preserve tax cuts for the richest segment of society.

The same people who seek to inflame racial tensions for short-term electoral advantage are the same people who claim to put Country First, and who revel in asserting that we are One Nation, Under God

The same people who point to Ms. Sherrod as a poster child for the oppression of whites are the same people who deny marriage equality to our gay brothers and lesbian sisters, all in the name of all that is holy.

Hopefully, at least some of the people who have previously been duped by the Breitbarts, the Aileses,  the O'Reillys, the Palins, and the Hannitys will catch on to how they have been used as pawns, against their own interests.

The Obama Administration must be feeling ashamed and chagrined right now.  There is certainly room for recrimination.

At the same time, the Administration should realize that it has been handed a great opportunity to bring home the message that vested interests, powerful interests, have been caught playing the game, red-handed.

The time for real and broad dialogue about race relations, about the nature of our society, and about the role of the media is now, while the memory of this shameful and shameless episode is searingly fresh in everyone's mind.

Carpe diem!

Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Bookmark and Share
The problem is that rightwing hate machine had moved the Overton window (2.00 / 7)
so far right, that rightwing extremism is the new normal. It's simply unbelievable that the rightwing hate machine would have so much influence on the administration. Maybe we Americans ought to decide whether this hold of rightwing hate machine on our national psyche good for our country..

It is definitely not good for the Country, but (2.00 / 5)
Censorship may end up being far worse.  I subscribe to Associate Justice Brandeis's theory that sunlight is the best disinfectant.

[ Parent ]
That may be so, (2.00 / 6)
but sunlight rarely shines along the dim hallways of Faux News studios. And there are plenty of people most content to stay thoroughly ensconced in those darkened corridors.

But censorship is, of course, no answer to the problem, either.

I'm not sure there really is an answer.

"I now am bold to say to the swift changing hours,
Pass, pass upon your way, for I grow never old,
Fleet to the dark abysm with all your fading flowers,
One rose that none may pluck, within my heart I hold."


[ Parent ]
In the UK... (2.00 / 6)
We don't allow political advertising. Party political broadcasts are allocated equally to all the major parties, with a smaller number going to the smaller parties.

That's one solution to the whole 'vote buying' issue in the media.

During the six weeks leading up to an election we have The Representation of the Peoples Act, which requires the media to mention all candidates in any race at the end of a news item, and not to give undue attention to any single candidate at the expense of others.

When elections are not in flow, our TV channels have a statutory duty to show balance in their coverage of politics. This doesn't stop them exposing all kinds of goings on, and both TV and the press are hardly reverential. But Faux News would lose its license over here as a News Channel, and would be deemed an entertainment or indeed propaganda channel.

I think you used to have similar balance rules in the US until deregulation a decade or so ago. Maybe DTOzone can inform us?  

Moose Juice; debate without hate


[ Parent ]
Political Broadcasting Laws in the USA (2.00 / 6)
Wow.  I did not know that political advertising is not allowed in the UK.  That is not the case here.  In fact, were Congress to modify the present laws concerning political broadcasting to outlaw paid political advertising, the current Supreme Court would surely strike that modification down as unConstitutional... as a violation of the First Amendment.

The First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech.  There was a recent decision from the Supreme Court having to do with election-law regulations that prohibited corporations from conducting certain activities on behalf of a political candidate within a certain period of time before an election.  The decision was the Citizens United case.  The Supreme Court rules that domestic corporations have the same First Amendment rights as natural persons who are U.S. citizens.  If one is so inclined, one can read more about the decision here: http://is.gd/dKiiq.  There is a link there to download the text of the decision, and links for many related materials there.

In the US, within a certain period of time before a primary or general election, radio and television stations and cable systems must provide reasonable opportunities to legally qualified candidates for Federal public office.

With respect to Federal as well as state and local elections, if a radio or television station or cable system sells or gives time to one legally qualified candidate, it must make equal opportunities available to other candidates for the same office.  In the case of sales of time, within the electoral window, candidates must be charged at the "lowest unit rate"... the rate given to most favored advertisers, e.g., those who get discounts for purchases of a large number of advertising spots, even if the candidate is interested in buying only one spot.

The Federal Communications Commission used to have something called the Fairness Doctrine, but the FCC did away with that in the 1980s.  This was because the (Reagan Era) FCC thought that the Fairness Doctrine was unConstitutional... again on First Amendment grounds.

The Fairness Doctrine required stations that carried programming dealing with "controversial issues of public importance" to provide a reasonable opportunity to responsible spokespeople for the airing of contrasting viewpoints.  Many people inaccurately refer to this as the "equal time" requirement.  The FD did not require equal time.  Equal time relates to the purchase or gift of air time to political candidates during the electoral season.

Many progressives urge the reestablishment of the Fairness Doctrine, but I am skeptical that it would really improve matters.  Also, I am virtually certain that the present Supreme Court would strike down the Fairness Doctrine as unConstitutional, notwithstanding the fact that there is precedent stating that the FD is constitutional.... Red Lion v. FCC.  http://is.gd/dKjTd.


[ Parent ]
Sorry... (2.00 / 5)
I ought to explain: political advertising is completely unregulated in the press, billboards, leaflets etc. (though there are limits to local consituencies if not national parties). Political advertising is only banned on TV.

So is advertising for pharmaceuticals, tobacco, and alcohol at certain times...

You have such limits on certain products. Why would that limit freedom of speech?  

Moose Juice; debate without hate


[ Parent ]
No need to apologise. (2.00 / 5)
Tobacco adverts cannot run on television or radio, per FCC regulations.  The FCC rules do not ban the advertising of alcohol.  Beer and wine adverts are fairly common.  Spirits adverts are far less common, but this is a matter of industry custom, and is not the result of governmental regulation.

The Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment to allow reasonable restrictions on commercial speech.  Restrictions on political speech are subject to "strict scrutiny," and Constitutionally, they are much more difficult to justify, and more likely than not to be struck down.


[ Parent ]
fair comment (2.00 / 3)
Ok. Rash, here is what fair comment looks like. I agree with a lot of the comparisons you make.  But for me the  the critical element in the incident  is the way our news is distorted and the way that these distortions are not only carried forward by people who should know better, but also acted on at the highest levels of government. This scares the bejesus out of me. And I have been saying so for awhile. Because no democracy can long endure without freedom of the press and information. We must be able to make informed decisions--without this nothing. I firmly believe that Fox news has one agenda--to destroy our democracy. I believe the threat this propaganda organ poses is comparable to that posed in the period of the rise of the Thrid Reich--that is it is preparing the ground for a rightwing putsch. And it is winning. Breitbart barely got a slapdown in the media. We have traveled far on a road that rewards dirty tricks and propaganda, that does not appreciate the truth and the hard work of obtaining it. And I very much fear where this will end. And so that is why I put out my little tidbit about Huffpo. We are all faced with these sorts of decisions now. You think I didn't want to write for huffpo and reach 100 times the readers I was reaching. Of course, I did. But I wasn't going to sell out my ethics to do it. The problem as I see it, in part, tho, is those ethics are less and less in vogue. Anyway, if you meant well and were just being hard-hitting, ok. but if you really did mean to slime and demean, it doesn't jibe with the ideals you espouse in this piece.

Happy to mojo all that.. (2.00 / 4)
...though I'm taking R at his word - he's hard hitting rather than demeaning  

Moose Juice; debate without hate

[ Parent ]
I will confine myself, in this thread, to this part (2.00 / 5)
of your comment:

I agree with a lot of the comparisons you make.  But for me the  the critical element in the incident  is the way our news is distorted and the way that these distortions are not only carried forward by people who should know better, but also acted on at the highest levels of government. This scares the bejesus out of me. And I have been saying so for awhile. Because no democracy can long endure without freedom of the press and information. We must be able to make informed decisions--without this nothing. I firmly believe that Fox news has one agenda--to destroy our democracy. I believe the threat this propaganda organ poses is comparable to that posed in the period of the rise of the Thrid Reich--that is it is preparing the ground for a rightwing putsch. And it is winning. Breitbart barely got a slapdown in the media. We have traveled far on a road that rewards dirty tricks and propaganda, that does not appreciate the truth and the hard work of obtaining it. And I very much fear where this will end.

You and I are in complete agreement with respect to what I have quoted above.

It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation--an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people--to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well--the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.

No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers - I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed - and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution - not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants" - but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security--and we intend to do it.

III

It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.

And so it is to the printing press - to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news - that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org...

Fox News would do well to heed the words of John F. Kennedy, and foreswear its to-date modus operandi: to foster, to cultivate, and to perpetuate error, fear, division, and hatred.


[ Parent ]
I continue to believe it all works out. (2.00 / 2)
Analogies with fevers needing to break fill my conversations on things like this.  Is the FOX phenomenon pathetic?  You betcha.  MSNBS isn't a world better, but I think the bulk of error is on the Right these days on this one.

But meandering down wrong alleys is a hallmark of humanity as a whole and democracy specifically.  Either we (as a species or a nation or an individual) are capable of working through our errors and learning from them or we are not.  If not?  Well, the whole party is over.

If FOX and MSNBC had all of or even most of the voice I would be more concerned.  FOX and MSNBC together don't reach 10% of the population, though.  We here in our own way have the same potential reach, and as a culture we have millions of conversations going small and large that circle and dissect the issue.

Tom Waits said it best: "I fear if my devils leave my angels might leave, too."

"Conway, whom experience had taught that rudeness was by no means a guarantee of good faith, was even less inclined to regard a well-turned phrase as a proof of insincerity."  James Hilton, Lost Horizon


[ Parent ]
I hope so. (2.00 / 4)
Yes, despite how Bill O'Loofah loves to brag about the size of his audience, the audience share of Fox Noose is very small compared to the population of the US as a whole, or even compared to one of the three traditional broadcast networks.

Still, it seems that FN has an influence out of proportion to its audience share, for two reasons...

other networks and news media will pick up on FN stories, and echo them without checking them out (e.g., the New York Times's handling of L'Affaire ACORN); and

the activist portion of the GOP sees FN as the only trustworthy source of news, so GOP candidates who want to win primaries pick up on stories from FN and echo them themselves.

Hopefully, the rest of the media has learned a big lesson from this sorry episode, and we will see much less unquestioning repetition in other media of FN stories.


[ Parent ]
Yeah, they get a lot of external play for being ridiculous. (2.00 / 1)
At the same time traditional media can't figure out what it is next year, much less this year.  FNC (and, to be fiar, MSNBC to a large extent) gets to play silly bugger among the chaos in large part because of the vacuum of order around them.

But to think that the current media mess is a map of the future is to buy into too much dystopian gloom for my taste.  Too many definitely gloomy forecasts in my life have ended up missing the mark by a thousand miles.  Are we out of food, yet?  Can't breath/drink/walk down the street safely? Living under a communist/fascist State Dictatorship? Sorting through radioactive rubble? All of these things during my life were authoritatively forecast to have happened by now, and here there are not happening.

So much of this hinges on the very basis of "free society".  If we as an aggregate group of individuals are incapable of solving problems like this then the entire notion of free societies has been proven false, and we should accept central control for our own good.  I don't expect to ever face that outcome.

"Conway, whom experience had taught that rudeness was by no means a guarantee of good faith, was even less inclined to regard a well-turned phrase as a proof of insincerity."  James Hilton, Lost Horizon


[ Parent ]
Considering my name, (2.00 / 1)
I am hardly in a position to dispute the merits of Overlordship.

[ Parent ]
:~) (0.00 / 0)


"Conway, whom experience had taught that rudeness was by no means a guarantee of good faith, was even less inclined to regard a well-turned phrase as a proof of insincerity."  James Hilton, Lost Horizon

[ Parent ]
Breitbart: it's been tough on me, too! (2.00 / 1)
As difficult as it probably was for her, it's been difficult for me as well, especially to hear her hurl an accusation of racism at me, when my motivation is absolutely pure and is driven by a desire for this country to move beyond its horrid racist past.

[....]

[Before apologizing to her,] I'd first like to speak to her in private and outside of the media circus.

http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/...


Search




Advanced Search
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Blog Roll
Andrew Bacevich
Angry Bear
Balloon Juice
Booman Tribune
C4O Democrats
Crooks and Liars
Daily Kos
Five Thirty Eight
Glenn Greenwald
Huffington Post
Juan Cole
MYDD
Open Left
RumpRoast
Scholars & Rogues
The Field
Wonkette
VetVoice
Moose With Blogs
Atdleft
Barr
BorderJumpers
Brit
BTchakir
Canadian Gal
Charles Lemos
Cheryl Kopec
Curtis Walker
Douglas Watts
Hubie Stubert
John Allen
Intrepid Liberal
ItStands
JoeTrippi
LibraryGrape
MichaelEvan
National Gadfly
Senate Guru
Zachary Karabell




Advertisement


Back to Top

Posting Guidelines  |  FAQ  |  Privacy Policy  |  Contact the Moose  |  Contact Congress
Powered by: SoapBlox