The mole at Fox is exposed!

I knew there was a mole a FauxNews. Once or twice I’ve recently found and blogged about articles that are not so far right that they’re still on this planet and wondered how did semi-reasonable merely conservative articles make it through the wingnut editorial board.

Now we can put a name on it, Sally Kohn. In an astonishing action Kohn was permitted out of her cage and allowed to participate in a panel, including of all things HuffPo, to fact check the speeches at the Repug convention. Fact-check, can you actually say that and Fox in the same breath?

That Kohn declared Ryan spoke the most lies, a totally expected statistic, is not the least bit astonishing, but the fact that Fox would actually allow someone, apparently not an impostor, to say the darling of the Repugs speaks anything but holy truth (the same kind of inerrant truth in another book of fables), that’s News, which is the last thing we’d expect from FauxNews.

Of course, this statement by Kohn was written, so no actual FauxNews viewer (and 99% of Repugs) will ever see these astonishing revelations since they, of course, can’t read, and just barely can get the remote to work (they only need the on/off button since changing channels is unneeded, except maybe for cage wrestling). And the on-air commentators blithely ignored any fact checking and presented Ryan as the true second coming, so the party message was beamed directly into what pass for brains of their viewers.

So Fox has found a way to be fair and balanced. Run the Goebbels-inspired propaganda through the tubes to the box with the little specs of light and put the “facts” safely hidden away where only the progressives will see them. Yep, dumbing down education has worked.

About dmill96

old fat (but now getting trim and fit) guy, who used to create software in Silicon Valley (almost before it was called that), who used to go backpacking and bicycling and cross-country skiing and now geodashes, drives AWD in Wyoming, takes pictures, and writes long blog posts and does xizquvjyk.
This entry was posted in comment and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to The mole at Fox is exposed!

  1. Oh my goodness….it’s sad, but true! 🙂 Have you checked out this Freshly Pressed post yet? I just couldn’t let this one slip by without commenting. People have no reasoning power whatsoever when writing this crap…

    • dmill96 says:

      I jumped in the fray replying from your comment. We’ll see if mine makes it out of moderation.

      I actually found the post itself and the comments rather confusing. I couldn’t help but get the strong aroma of right-wing spin but hidden as really deep dog whistles. The liberal media is such an enduring myth they’ll continue to claim all those corporate controlled newsrooms are the hangouts of Rather’s and Cronkite’s even when they move to the right of Fox.

      But it was still hard to follow. I certainly didn’t see any calls to fact checking. I don’t hang out on right-wing sites much so I guess I don’t know how to parse their spin.

      • It is for that reason (“post itself…confusing”) I specified as to what exactly I was being objective with because goodness knows, there was A LOT MORE I took exception with.

        This post definitely wasn’t deserving of being Freshly Pressed. Who are these people behind “Freshly Pressed” anyway? Who picks these “19-a-day”laborious blogs? I’ll check out what you wrote most definitely! 😀

        • dmill96 says:

          EL is interesting and strangely contradictory. Her admonition that you should read some of her other posts leads to just more confusion when I read so others, esp. her response to comments. Rape, incest, and abortion are not mild subjects and when a political party takes unambiguous stands that completely contradicts a pro-choice woman I just don’t see the complaining then that someone was not polite in expressing views of her prized off-limits-from-criticism repug party (which she did to multiple people). Oh sure, the repugs can spread atrocious and hateful lies in their convention, but call a spade-a-spade in her blog and you’re being rude, even with the very discrete and polite language you (and others) are using.

          I know people can be overall for a party even though they hate its stand on one issue (as I do with Obama and the banks, his falling over backwards to listen to Timmy Geithner and then be a good little Rubinite), but most issues are pragmatic not moral. I think homophobia (and the other anti-human rights stands of the repugs), immigrant bashing (I actually support reasonable controls, like busting the employers, but building electrified fences and sending rifle-toting crazies to do a little shooting), and then women’s health issues. I’m not even a really die-hard hardcore abortion-on-demand supporter, but this isn’t just about abortion. It’s really about their puritanical notions on sex and so they want a penalty for sex (just as the raw meat types attacked Perry in Texas about the vaccine, which he only did via a crooked payoff and he was too stupid to realize the religiright likes possible death for sex). My simplistic engineering view is that if you handed out contraception on every corner, dropped some serious money into R&D on male contraceptives, abortion would largely disappear. So why not do that Repugs, you’d save more unborn by never letting them being conceived at all than you will with your types of bans. And it’s interesting class always enters into it. Knowing some of the ideas of some of my southern relatives, that most abortions sought from publicly funded provided are those “others” I’m surprised that repug racism doesn’t trump anti-abortion sentiments. So why are the repubs so prickly about this? And now the silliness that life begins even before conception, that’s about as stupid as Akin’s you-can’t-get-pregnant-from-rape.

          So given the intensity of this issue I don’t think it’s one you can compromise on, like lefties putting up with Obama whacking U.S. citizens without due process or covering up CitiCorp’s crimes. No, this is not a compromise issue. It is, IMHO, silly to say you are a pro-choice Republican. That’s like saying I’m 1 and 0 (in some quantum world, maybe). There is no wiggle room in the Repug platform or really with Mittens (given he has no principles at all, but gives into whoever pushes him hardest, i.e. the right).

          I suppose if I made 100M$/year and was looking at tens of millions in tax cuts I could sell out women’s rights for other Repug positions, but it seems to me it would take that high a bribe.

          p.s. I’m still amazed by the other comments. Media bashing is almost always right-wing and I detect nothing in the comments to suggest anything but conservative agenda, but then why so guarded. I think the left only bashes Fox, maybe Clear Channel, but the biased media accusation almost always comes from the right and almost always results from the non-Fox media actually telling the truth about the right (I’ll admit they are not as willing to call out on their own side, but the bashing of the right is rarely unwarranted). So I don’t get that bunch over there. Must be code I don’t understand.

        • dmill96 says:

          Ah, found it in another post. Ayn Rand follower. SInce that is a total disconnect from reality into some fantasy new rules of physics it allows a mind to hold two utterly contradictory thoughts at once. I’ve wasted a little too much time with that cult, including a few that worked for me. So I suspect EL is off-put by the political correctness of much of the feminist movement and swayed by her conservative repug husband, so no need for a big tax cut bribe. Maybe if I keep digging I’ll find gold standard and abolish the Fed.

        • dmill96 says:

          Ah, also a deist. I did the normal religion thing of my parents, no big deal, neither for or against. Then mistakenly spent a lot of time thinking I was agnostic, because I didn’t believe in religions but in god; wrong that’s deism. Anyway I’ve lately come to think deism is a cop-out, sorta like being pro-choice in Repug party and defending them. The crazy anti-religion stuff is so easy to attack because it makes the mistake of being too specific and also provably wrong. That’s why I think literalism is stupid. But, OTOH, the literalists have a point, who is any man to pick and chose (as Jefferson did when he literally cut bits out of the bible he didn’t believe); it’s either the word of god or it’s not, and mere mortal man can’t disagree with god. So literalists have the more logical (but then really stupid) argument. So there are a couple of ways to deal with this: a) defend it totally, b) say it’s all metaphors and/or the original texts are lost anyway and thus it’s a flawed transcript, but the original was terrific, or, c) well, there’s too much doctrine and dogma so I’ll just make that go poof but believe in the rest which is sufficiently vague (either old-school deist or new age-y) to be debatable. So deism is sorta, please-don’t-hit-me, I-don’t-in-talking-snakes-and-sun-stopping-in-the-sky.

          So maybe it’s the same with Repugs. Oh, I just won’t account for the parts where they’re really awful and easy to attack, but I’m with-’em-anyway.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s