FOX (News) is KING of THE HILL

February 12, 2014

©2014 jbjd

Ever searching for reliable sources of real news, I recently began reading The Hill, after viewing its Associate Editor A. B. Stoddard, a regular panelist on the FOX News show Special Report with Brett Baier. Generally, I found the site to be both informative and well-balanced. Perhaps this is why I was so irked by this latest experience.

On February 10, The Hill published an article by its columnist, Bill Press, denigrating the Republicans on their stance on immigration, at the bottom of which was provided this mini-bio: Press is host of “The Bill Press Show” on Free Speech TV and author of The Obama Hate Machine.

Here was my comment:

Press’ ‘article’ closes with this mini-bio: Press is host of “The Bill Press Show” on Free Speech TV and author of The Obama Hate Machine.

Inasmuch as The Hill has condescended to provide this forum to Mr. Press; it could mitigate the damages to its credibility by also including the fact, he is the former Chair of the California Democratic Party. PRESS BILL PRESS to EARN his PRESS CREDENTIALS.

Later, I viewed this clip from a February 9 segment on Media Buzz, the FOX News show which analyzes media coverage of “a wide range of topics, including technology, social media, politics, culture and sports,” in which the host, Howard Kurtz, showing ‘how it’s done,’ introduced Mr. Press both as a “nationally syndicated radio show host and former Chairman of the California Democratic Party.”

Note to The Hill: as indicated in the oath; just because it’s the truth doesn’t mean, it’s the whole truth.


Freedom costs.


November 5, 2012

© 2012 jbjd

Assume, for the sake of argument, that FOX News is both unfair and unbalanced. (And just because according to the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism, MSNBC is even more unfair and unbalanced, doesn’t mean, it’s right! Likewise, ignore CNN’s Candy Crowley, so-called moderator of the Presidential debate, who insinuated herself into the exchange for the purpose of establishing the false meme that, as early as September 12, 2012, Obama called the September 11 assault on Benghazi a terrorist attack. After all, she apologized, on CNN, immediately after the debate was over.)

Further, assume FOX reporters and analysts like Jennifer Griffin and Catherine Herridge continue to focus on various aspects of the murders in Benghazi only for political reasons, namely, to draw support away from President Obama and onto Governor Romney. (I won’t guess the reason you attribute to the recent coverage from Eli Lake at The Daily Beast; or ABC’s Jake Tapper, or David Ignatius from the Washington Post…)

And assume that, before yesterday, November 4; CBS’ on-line version of “60 Minutes” featuring Steve Kroft’s interview of President Obama on September 12, 2012 had this part of the story right, namely, Obama called Benghazi a terrorist attack from the beginning (notwithstanding 2 weeks later, he told the U.N. General Assembly, this was a spontaneous riot triggered by a Mohammed video).

Okay. But on November 4, CBS finally released video of that same Kroft interview of Obama, only now edited to include snippets which they had previously omitted and which arguably had contributed to a false interpretation that the President had really called the September 11 attack against Ambassador Stevens,  “terrorism,” as early as  September 12. (RealClearPolitics featured the video on their front page today.)

As you can see (and hear); regardless of whether Obama says he said on day 1 this was a terrorist attack; obviously, he did not.;60minutes

Now, read today’s FOX analysis that President Obama lied in the 3rd debate against Governor Romney, when he – the President – insisted he had been calling the attack in Benghazi a terrorist attack, all along.

What President Obama really said in that ’60 Minutes’ interview about Benghazi

Know what this means? As a fair and balanced consumer of news; you need to recalibrate your assumptions.

P.S. You may ask; except for its use as political capital, does it even matter precisely when the President called Benghazi a terrorist attack, anyway? Yes, indeed it does. Because as you will see; under the U.S. Code and numerous policies and procedures promulgated by everyone from the DoD to the DoS; the President’s response obligations are triggered by whether this event was considered a terrorist attack. Furthermore, determining whether pre-attack conditions should rightly have triggered conduct intended to forestall the events of September 11, is also critical to a full analysis of what went wrong. That is, investigators must determine not only what the President knew but also when he knew it.

%d bloggers like this: