Eyes On Fox News Network

OK, I’ll bite. Where exactly did Housley contradict himself? This “lapse” as you put it must be important since you put it in bold type, but you don’t say what it was. So why don’t you clear up that little mystery for us?

You’re right.

After reviewing yet one more time the shout-fest between alleged reporter Housely and Barron, it appears both Barron and myself misheard Housely. In the confused mess of what should have been a journalistic report but ended up, typical of Fox, another example of conservative Fox News employees arguing with a liberal guest, we both confused him blurting out about being threatened at two chavista rallies and the anti-Chávez one he was reporting from.

I’ll modify my entry accordingly.

I sincerely want to thank you for 3 reasons. One, I strive for accuracy. Two, I like to prove that EyesOnFox is the rare blog – unfortunate since they all should – that corrects its mistakes. Three, it encouraged me to double-check some things and do more digging which led me to some damning stuff that confirms my suspicion that Fox News’ conservative bias has led it once again to filter news to keep its viewers comfortably ignorant.

The last point is crucial. Because I’m digging up more and more examples of Fox News telling half-truths. Bill O’Reilly’s rants rarely, if ever, tell the whole truth. But he’s a demagogue so it’s easy for most people to ignore his weakness.

What’s Neil’s excuse here? What’s Houseley’s excuse? Hell, he’s supposed to be a reporter. But then Fox News is supposed to be a news network and is much less than that for anyone except conservatives for whom it is much more than a news network. If you catch my drift.

Fox news should change its name to fox 1 opinion.

I am impressed that you modified your entry, though without acknowledging in it that you erred, and not apologizing to Housley. I am also impressed that you can cite far-left organizations (the only ones who are defending Chavez on this point–even Nancy Pelosi has condemned his actions) and consider them to be gospel.

I am further impressed that you condemn Housley for not reporting something that he HAS in fact reported. Repeatedly. Because he doesn’t repeat the claim IN THIS EXCHANGE, you then suggest that he’s deliberately leaving out this crucial bit of information. (Actually, it’s a claim made by Chavez defenders; I have yet to see a transcript or video of this station inciting anyone to a coup.) This is one of the favorite tactics of the Fox haters. If their favorite talking point isn’t heard in one particular exchange, then–PRESTO!–Fox is deliberately keeping it from their viewers.

As impressed as I am, I would be more impressed if you document what you claim. If you want to say Housley is deliberately not reporting this unproven charge, then back that up. Video of one exchange doesn’t prove anything. The burden of proof is on the accuser, and you haven’t even come close to meeting it.

This is so similar to your friends the newshounds. When they say Fox didn’t report this, or didn’t mention that, they are almost ALWAYS wrong. Because they make the charge without checking, based on one snippet from a 24-hour broadcast day. Sort of like the blind men and the elephant. I thought you were striving for something better than that, but apparently I was mistaken.

I’m glad I impressed you, J$. Now it’s time for you to impress me. You see, two can play the ‘gotcha’ game. Check out my reply to a recent post of yours.

http://homepage.mac.com/mkoldys/iblog/C168863457/E20070601232411/index.html

Will you clean up your act? Blow knee-jerk defensive smoke, per your norm? It’s up to you.

Let me give you credit for taking the time to make a rare appearance at EyesOnFox. In the past, you have accused me of being a “liar” on your website for not picking up things you post on your website. It’s nice of you to have the honesty to visit here to point your opinions out to me. It’s an acknowledgment of the obvious: I can’t be held accountable for events on your blog which I may or may not catch.

Now, to your point. I’m always going to couch my observations I make of Fox News with the caveat they’re limited to a single show or some limited window. Like most bloggers, I work for a living, so my time is limited. For example, in about 15 minutes personal matters will eat up the rest of my day until about 7 or 8 PM.

Obviously, I’m not going to be able to live up to the standards of, say, Media Matters which has a professional paid staff with the sorts of media access and research tools I can never dream of. I can’t watch Fox News’ cable channel 24×7 plus listen to all their radio chatter.

But why hold me to a standard you can’t attain? That’s rank hypocrisy. Judging by your brief post on Giibby’s “ooga booga” comments, you can’t even properly vet a small clip that’s wall-to-wall baseless smear (see above link).

Let’s move on to peal another layer off the ‘onion’ that’s metaphorically your argument.

You claim it’s my responsibility to express knowledge of every pertinent fact Fox News has said on a subject before criticizing them for an omission. Your suggestion absurdly gets it backwards.

If Fox News leaves key facts out in one piece – or, I assume, many pieces on a given topic – the fact they at least once mentioned it sometime covers their ass? Isn’t it Fox News’ responsibility to adequately inform their audience? Who pretends to be the “fair and balanced” professional news organization?

In the case I mention here, Fox News clearly failed in their responsibility as ethical journalists. I prove, as even you are forced to admit, Fox News did not bring out facts in this piece you claim they have knowledge of based upon past news stories they’ve run. Worse, it’s obvious from the clip both Cavuto and Horseley actively take a conservative point of view to pummel Barron.

Let’s peal another layer.

Per your usual habit, you name call. I’m apparently one of the “Fox haters.” More rank hypocrisy on your part, J$. Because you run both a Fox News fan web site and are a major contributor to one dedicated to criticizing Olbermann. By your own standards, that makes you both an apologist and a hater. See, your juvenile debate tactic cuts both ways.

I’ve got to run so let’s cut to the chase. Is it your claim that the clip I present here is an example of “fair and balanced” journalism?

.

> you can’t even properly vet a small clip

Huh? What does that mean, “vet” a “clip”? You mean I’m supposed to, what, insert my own editorial comments at various points in it? Or I’m supposed to verify that whatever it says fits someone else’s opinions? Here’s the way it works: clips are clips. I post the ones I find interesting. Sometimes I agree with them; sometimes I don’t. Some people might think they’re right on; others might disagree. There is no “vetting” involved because the purpose of my site is not to argue for a political point of view. That may be your approach, but it ain’t mine.

> You claim it’s my responsibility to express knowledge of every pertinent fact Fox News has said on a subject

If you just want to report what was said, period, it’s not your responsibility. BUt when you go off into flights of fancy about how this is all part of their secret scheme to filter out things that don’t fit some hidden agenda–then yes. If you want to claim they’re deliberately leaving out information then you are making a claim about their MOTIVES. And when you don’t tell anyone that this vital info has been reported time and again on Fox (and was old news by the time this report aired), then you are filtering out what doesn’t agree with YOUR agenda. Just to make your own speculation about motives sound credible.

> Fox News did not bring out facts in this piece you claim they have knowledge of

This is so nonsensical. It suggests that every report on any subject must rehash every last piece of information, even stuff that has been reported over and over and is a week old. I don’t know ANY broadcast news outlet that does that.

> Horseley actively take a conservative point of view

Now it’s “Horseley”. Man you really do know your Fox, don’t you. Why don’t you quote what “Horseley” said that actively takes a conservative point of view? Quote me CONSERVATIVE STATEMENTS OF OPINION from “Horseley”. I’l be interested in your response to this.

First of all, let me again get to the bottom line by repeating the question: Is it your claim that the clip I present here is an example of “fair and balanced” journalism?

Vetting, as I intended it, isn’t particularly complicated and in keeping with the definition straight off of diciontionary.com: “To subject to thorough examination or evaluation:”

The segment you posted is crap. I’ve discussed all this on your blog so I won’t redundantly repeat any of that here.

Your associated discussion on posting stuff you may or may not agree with and not having a political agenda doesn’t wash in this case.

“Fox haters attack, John Gibson fires back,” you write.

You never posted the original “ooga booga” clip so, obviously, you have no interest in discussing it, per se, until Gibby’s liberal-bashing rant against Media Matters and Think Progress surfaces.

There’s a clear political agenda on your part: defending conservative Fox News personality John Gibson. Don’t you admire the man? Goes to motive.

Especially given your history of vitriolic outbursts against Fox News critics. “Hater.” “Pimp.” “Liar.” I’ve probably missed most of it so feel free to expand the list.

Moving onto the clip I posted, you’re leaning way too hard on the crutch of a straw man.

You build your own argument, via gross exaggeration, of “every report on any subject must rehash every last piece of information…” Of course, since it’s a completely phony argument of your own construction, it’s one you can’t lose. It’s a classic straw man.

The good news for me is I can repeat what I said before because it remains perfectly reasonable and my questions to you remain unanswered (are we beginning to see a pattern? ):

If Fox News leaves key facts out in one piece – or, I assume, many pieces on a given topic – the fact they at least once mentioned it sometime covers their ass? Isn’t it Fox News’ responsibility to adequately inform their audience? Who pretends to be the “fair and balanced” professional news organization?

Note, I added emphasis in my quote above to offer you a clue.

You challenge me to “quote… CONSERVATIVE STATEMENTS OF OPINION from ‘Horsely’.” J$, you’re too easy. Maybe you should start with the most obvious quote of all that started this whole thread: him calling liberal Barron a “son of a bitch.”

Houseley’s (thanks for the spell-checking, at least your good for something – I need a good editor over here if you want the job! ) entire ‘report’ takes a conservative point of view – even you can’t have missed that.

Neil starts off debating the guy, conservative versus liberal. Then Neil calls in Houseley who substantiates pretty much what Neil said. Interview one person, anti-Chávez. Criticize the chavistas for threatening him. Claim the anti-Chávez folks don’t. He harshly criticizes Chávez’s moves against the press. Which brings us back to his ignoring, as Neil pretty much did, RCTV’s alleged treason. In Houseley’s shouting match with Barron he talks about covering the other side but he sure doesn’t care to present their position here.

Which brings us back full circle. Neil, Houseley, Mack (not included in my clip) are highly critical of Chávez, a conservative point of view. Barron, the lone liberal defends Chávez getting called “bought off” and a “son of a bitch” in the process by Mack and Houseley. If you can’t see the pattern here, J$, it’s because you’ve got your eyes covered.

Fox’s report here was heavily biased. I can accept a one-sided spew by Mack, he’s a politician. I can stand a one-side spew from Barron, he’s a politician too. But Cavuto and Houseley are journalists. And you look really bad trying to defend them only telling one side of the story.

It isn’t about needing to repeat every fact. It’s the “fairness and balance” Fox News crows about but often doesn’t deliver. Doesn’t that make their slogan pretty much a lie? Which makes me wonder, J$, why it’s a lie you continually ignore. You being so sensitive to “liars” and such.

J$, I’m going to suggest all future discussions go into the forums. While the WordPress comments are far more robust than the HaloScan crap your site uses, I’m going to end up scrolling to Mars after a few more comments.

Yes Fox is very bad but the rest of MSM is very bad too. The truth about the TV station not having the licence renewed has been misreported across MSM, not just on FOX. Coup Co-Conspirators as Free-Speech Martyrs, Distorting the Venezuelan media story

The TV station in Venezuela backed the coup against the democratically elected president, Hugo Chávez

So the only quote from “Houseley” (it’s “Housley”, dammit! ) you provide as an example of conservative opinion is “son of a bitch”? THAT is how his report toes the conservative line? Your paraphrases and characterizations are not quotes. I was looking for the words Housley spoke, verbatim. And you do not quote ANYTHING from his report itself that is conservative opinion. Thank you so much.

Tom,

Thanks for the link. It’s far better than the one I provided in my blog post.

There’s a lot of conservative bias in the so-called mainstream media. It only goes against conventional wisdom because conservatives have made so much self-serving noise carping about it when it doesn’t cater to their political bent.

I, of course, focus on Fox News. The real difference to me is the mainstream media cable news outlets, namely CNN, CNN Headline News, and MSNBC, aren’t consistently biased one way. Some of their reporting can be pretty good. Some of it can err to the right, as the FAIR piece you posted documents. And sometimes there’s a liberal bias. It depends on the context, the mood of the country (gotta satiate your audience), and the reporter.

Fox News leans one way. Worse, their bias is deeper and more dishonest. It’s agenda driven starting with right-wing media guru Roger Ailes who heads the place.

Like I keep telling you, J$, I need a good editor. I used to do a lot of writing for a living. Now, it’s the blog and email. Worse. My eyesight is shot (I’m too vain for bifocals), few brain cells remain from too much cheap beer, and being a liberal how smart can I be to start with.

You’ve got the job if you want it, son. But it don’t pay much, I gotta admit.

Sarcasm aside (or should I give it up yet?), it seems this discussion thread is running out of gas. Good thing too, my ancient old bones are wearing out mousing down the comments.

Your remaining counterpoint is I mention specific examples but I don’t transcribe them for you. That’s why I provide a video. Mr. ‘It’s Gumby dammit’ Housley presents only one side of the story, the anti-Chávez side and you know it.

Now, feel free to transcribe the segment and parse it word by word to prove he’s a regular Edward R. Murrow. To which I say, “So long and good luck to you.”

J$, I enjoyed the discussion. You’re always an interesting and worth adversary. We’ll have to do it again some time.

What a bunch of cry babies!
Barron is a blithering idiot and Housley called him out for his stupidity. Any of you morons who want to play kissy kissy with Chavez , take you sorry asses down to Venezuela and dont come back!!

Agree with ebritt or leave America. Isn’t that the sort of intolerant nationalism a tyrant like, say, Chávez would spout?

Don’t mistake anything I’ve said on my blog as me rushing to the defense of Chávez. I haven’t really revealed my opinion on the man.

My point is Fox News is a conservative propaganda factory. The segment here is just one more example. You appear to be very sympathetic to their spin. Still, do you appreciate being essentially told half-truths?

Chávez isn’t a political figure I follow all that much but in the spirit of full disclosure here’s what I think of the man.

Chávez isn’t the pure demon the Foxies have tried to make him out to be. That said, his recent appropriation of foreign oil assets is the sort of short-sighted populist Socialism which will end up boomeranging badly and hurting the people of Venezuela.

Regarding Chávez shutting down RCTV, the topic at hand, I haven’t really made up my mind but I know the critical piece of information Fox News left out in the segment I presented will carry weight. Though, I tend to always err on the side of free speech so it’ll take a lot of evidence to persuade me shutting down a TV station is a benefit to the people of Venezuela.

The demonstrations on the streets were mainly because the wanted their soaps, wich were on RCTV, to continue. They were not demonstrating for free speech or against Chavez. Another fact they happened to just miss.

Nothing wrong with this, at all, people should get it more.