Fox News- Fair and Balanced

[George Gervin's Afro]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200708290012

During the August 29 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, during a segment discussing an August 28 column by Cuban dictator Fidel Castro in the Cuban newspaper Granma, on-screen text falsely asserted, "CASTRO'S DREAM TEAM: WANTS CLINTON AND OBAMA IN '08," referring to Democratic presidential candidates Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY) and Barack Obama (IL). Also during the segment, an on-screen graphic depicted Castro, Clinton, and Obama enclosed in a red heart. In addition, during the August 28 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, guest host Michelle Malkin previewed an upcoming segment by falsely claiming that "Fidel Castro, of all people, endorses a Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama presidential ticket." Malkin went on to ask, "What is that all about?" In fact, at no point in his column did Castro endorse Clinton or Obama. Indeed, he attributed to Clinton and Obama a pro-democratic view that he called an "error," and he said of Clinton and Obama, "They are not making politics: they are playing a game of cards on a Sunday afternoon."




From Castro's column:

Today, talk is about the seemingly invincible ticket that might be created with Hillary for President and Obama for Vice President. Both of them feel the sacred duty of demanding "a democratic government in Cuba". They are not making politics: they are playing a game of cards on a Sunday afternoon.
The media declares that this would be essential, unless Gore decides to run. I don't think he will do so; better than anyone, he knows about the kind of catastrophe that awaits humanity if it continues along its current course. When he was a candidate, he of course committed the error of yearning for "a democratic Cuba".

Enough of tales and nostalgia. This is written simply to increase the conscience of the Cuban people.


From the August 29 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:

BRIAN KILMEADE (co-host): Fidel Castro, a dictator.

STEVE DOOCY (co-host): Sure.

KILMEADE: Hasn't lost an election in a long time.

DOOCY: Sure.

KILMEADE: And now he's holding on to life. But before he does that, he's a student of our electoral process, and he thinks he knows who the unbeatable, impenetrable team is.

DOOCY: Impenetrable?

GRETCHEN CARLSON (co-host): I'm surprised he did not only just pick Obama, because it was Obama, recently, who said that, yeah, he would start up any conversation with any dictators around the world, while Hillary Clinton, during that debate, said, "Hmm? Not so fast, I might have to do a little more research before I would do that."

DOOCY: Yeah, and of course anybody running for president of course needs to win Florida. And to win Florida and the very influential, powerful Cuban exile community, you gotta say stuff like, "Well, there should be democracy in Cuba." Anyway, Castro said, quote, "Today, talk is about the seemingly invincible ticket that might be created with Hillary for president and Obama for vice president. Both of them feel the sacred duty of demanding a democratic government in Cuba." All right. Also, let's tell you a little about this, kids.



From the August 28 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

MALKIN: And Fidel Castro, of all people, endorses a Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama presidential ticket. What is that all about? We hope you stay tuned for those reports.
[...]
MALKIN: Very quickly, Laura [Schwartz, Democratic strategist].

SCHWARTZ: Minimum wage, raising it. Energy legislation --

SCHWARTZ: I wouldn't discount the working class in this country, Karen [Hanretty, Republican strategist]. That's the problem with the Republican Party today. I know that's another situation, but they've ignored the working class, and that's -

SCHWARTZ: Hey, what about those working poor, those families in the inner city that can't even make enough to live -

MALKIN: Well, Fidel Castro agrees with you, and he's endorsed the Hillary-Obama ticket, so there you go. Ladies, thank you.



This is why I heart Media Matters..


Gee I wonder why the dems don't want Fox News sponsoring debates..hmmmm

[101A]

Media Bias is real (http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664)



Date: December 14, 2005
Contact: Meg Sullivan ( [email protected] )
Phone: 310-825-1046

Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist

While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.

These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.

"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."

"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.

The results appear in the latest issue of the Quarterly Journal of Economics, which will become available in mid-December.

Groseclose and Milyo based their research on a standard gauge of a lawmaker's support for liberal causes. Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) tracks the percentage of times that each lawmaker votes on the liberal side of an issue. Based on these votes, the ADA assigns a numerical score to each lawmaker, where "100" is the most liberal and "0" is the most conservative. After adjustments to compensate for disproportionate representation that the Senate gives to low‑population states and the lack of representation for the District of Columbia, the average ADA score in Congress (50.1) was assumed to represent the political position of the average U.S. voter.

Groseclose and Milyo then directed 21 research assistants — most of them college students — to scour U.S. media coverage of the past 10 years. They tallied the number of times each media outlet referred to think tanks and policy groups, such as the left-leaning NAACP or the right-leaning Heritage Foundation.

Next, they did the same exercise with speeches of U.S. lawmakers. If a media outlet displayed a citation pattern similar to that of a lawmaker, then Groseclose and Milyo's method assigned both a similar ADA score.

"A media person would have never done this study," said Groseclose, a UCLA political science professor, whose research and teaching focuses on the U.S. Congress. "It takes a Congress scholar even to think of using ADA scores as a measure. And I don't think many media scholars would have considered comparing news stories to congressional speeches."

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.

The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third.

"Our estimates for these outlets, we feel, give particular credibility to our efforts, as three of the four moderators for the 2004 presidential and vice-presidential debates came from these three news outlets — Jim Lehrer, Charlie Gibson and Gwen Ifill," Groseclose said. "If these newscasters weren't centrist, staffers for one of the campaign teams would have objected and insisted on other moderators."

The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet. While this news program proved to be right of center, the study found ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found.

"If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching Fox's 'Special Report' as ABC's 'World News' and NBC's 'Nightly News,' then they would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news," said Milyo, an associate professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Missouri at Columbia.

Five news outlets — "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," ABC's "Good Morning America," CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown," Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and the Drudge Report — were in a statistical dead heat in the race for the most centrist news outlet. Of the print media, USA Today was the most centrist.

An additional feature of the study shows how each outlet compares in political orientation with actual lawmakers. The news pages of The Wall Street Journal scored a little to the left of the average American Democrat, as determined by the average ADA score of all Democrats in Congress (85 versus 84). With scores in the mid-70s, CBS' "Evening News" and The New York Times looked similar to Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., who has an ADA score of 74.

Most of the outlets were less liberal than Lieberman but more liberal than former Sen. John Breaux, D-La. Those media outlets included the Drudge Report, ABC's "World News Tonight," NBC's "Nightly News," USA Today, NBC's "Today Show," Time magazine, U.S. News & World Report, Newsweek, NPR's "Morning Edition," CBS' "Early Show" and The Washington Post.

Since Groseclose and Milyo were more concerned with bias in news reporting than opinion pieces, which are designed to stake a political position, they omitted editorials and Op‑Eds from their tallies. This is one reason their study finds The Wall Street Journal more liberal than conventional wisdom asserts.

Another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom was that the Drudge Report was slightly left of center.

"One thing people should keep in mind is that our data for the Drudge Report was based almost entirely on the articles that the Drudge Report lists on other Web sites," said Groseclose. "Very little was based on the stories that Matt Drudge himself wrote. The fact that the Drudge Report appears left of center is merely a reflection of the overall bias of the media."

Yet another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom relates to National Public Radio, often cited by conservatives as an egregious example of a liberal news outlet. But according to the UCLA-University of Missouri study, it ranked eighth most liberal of the 20 that the study examined.

"By our estimate, NPR hardly differs from the average mainstream news outlet," Groseclose said. "Its score is approximately equal to those of Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report and its score is slightly more conservative than The Washington Post's. If anything, government‑funded outlets in our sample have a slightly lower average ADA score (61), than the private outlets in our sample (62.8)."

The researchers took numerous steps to safeguard against bias — or the appearance of same — in the work, which took close to three years to complete. They went to great lengths to ensure that as many research assistants supported Democratic candidate Al Gore in the 2000 election as supported President George Bush. They also sought no outside funding, a rarity in scholarly research.

"No matter the results, we feared our findings would've been suspect if we'd received support from any group that could be perceived as right- or left-leaning, so we consciously decided to fund this project only with our own salaries and research funds that our own universities provided," Groseclose said.

The results break new ground.

"Past researchers have been able to say whether an outlet is conservative or liberal, but no one has ever compared media outlets to lawmakers," Groseclose said. "Our work gives a precise characterization of the bias and relates it to known commodity — politicians."

-UCLA-

[CommanderMcBragg]

FoxNews is just as biased to the right as they claim others are biased to the left.

[DarkReign]

FoxNews is just as biased to the right as they claim others are biased to the left.

According to the study, youre dead wrong.

But then again, I never understood why people give 2 shits about what the MSM is or is not, in terms of political spectrum.

I learned to read very young, therefore I can ascertain on my own whether an article is left or right leaning. I dont need political science teachers conducting studies to debunk useless myths.

Is the MSM more liberal leaning? Sure, why not. Feel better now?

[xrayzebra]

I had posted this on another thread. But if Fox is wrong so is
CNN.

As posted on CNN:

August 29, 2007
Where Castro stands on '08 race, Gore too

Castro wrote a Clinton-Obama ticket is "seemingly invincible".

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Add another name to the list of political observers who think a Clinton-Obama ticket would be unbeatable: Cuban leader Fidel Castro.

In an editorial in Cuba's communist party newspaper, Granma, the ailing dictator said the pairing of the two White House hopefuls seemed "invincible," according to an English translation on the paper's Web site.

Castro, who has overseen communist rule of Cuba since 1959, did, however, make it clear that he is no fan of the two Democrats' support of democratic reform in Cuba.

"Both of them feel the sacred duty of demanding 'a democratic government in Cuba,'" Castro wrote. "They are not making politics: they are playing a game of cards on a Sunday afternoon."

And I am sure I can find it in any number of places. Smear
I don't think so. It is what it is. One Socialist endorsing
other Socialist.

[ChumpDumper]

And I am sure I can find it in any number of places. Smear
I don't think so. It is what it is. One Socialist endorsing
other Socialist.Where is the quote where Castro endorses that ticket, x?

[xrayzebra]

All I know is what is in the article above. The operative sentence
is:

In an editorial in Cuba's communist party newspaper, Granma, the ailing dictator said the pairing of the two White House hopefuls seemed "invincible," according to an English translation on the paper's Web site.

I tried to find the article in Granma but couldn't here is the
link if you want to look:

http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2007/prensa-nacional-i.html

[ChumpDumper]

In an editorial in Cuba's communist party newspaper, Granma, the ailing dictator said the pairing of the two White House hopefuls seemed "invincible," according to an English translation on the paper's Web site.Not an endorsement.

[xrayzebra]

Men's daily reports it as an endoresement.

Guess who thinks Hillary-Obama is an 'unbeatable' ticket

Posted By Greg Strange On August 30, 2007 @ 9:30 am In Vox Populi | 1 Comment

It's pop quiz time, but don't be nervous. This will be fun, I promise.

Here we go. Do you know who recently said the following quote: "The word today is that an apparently unbeatable ticket could be Hillary for president and Obama as her running mate."

Now, if you didn't actually read about this it could be quite difficult to guess because it could be virtually any left-leaning person on the planet. I mean, take your pick. Michael Moore, Barbara Streisand, anyone from Sweden.

Or it could be anyone who has an interest in America withdrawing from its offensive fight against Islamic terrorism and going back to the old reactive mode of passively sitting by and waiting for each new terror strike. That would include all Islamic terrorists and, if we get right down to it, most inhabitants of the Islamic world who, if not outright supporters of terrorism, make endless excuses for those who commit it and would love to see America taken down a few notches.

Okay, either you know the answer or you don't. Guessing is probably out of the question. So, without further ado, the answer is . . . drum roll, please . . . Fidel Castro!

That's right. The seriously ailing, probably near-dead, gadfly communist dictator, whose squalid reign of oppression and poverty has lasted nearly fifty years and ten American presidencies.

And what Democratic candidate doesn't cherish an endorsement from a diehard Marxist who provides universal healthcare for his citizens? Hey, remember Hillary-Care? Sure, it bombed, but make a few tweaks and . . . Voila! Castro-Care for everyone.

By the way, this [1] quote from Castro appeared in a column he wrote on U.S. presidents. Would you care to guess who Castro's favorite American president is? Here's a clue (which is probably too easy and will instantly give it away): He's every world-class dictator's favorite American president patsy.

Bingo! Jimmy Carter. The president who never met a mass-murdering tinhorn dictator he couldn't appease. Castro claims Carter is his favorite because he was never an accomplice to efforts to violently overthrow the Cuban government. More likely it had to do with Carter's towering naiveté and his allowing of the entrance into the U.S. of over 100,000 Cuban emigrants during the famed [2] Mariel boatlift of 1980, which gave Castro a golden opportunity to depopulate his jails and mental institutions and send them to Florida. Viva la Carter!

I'm going to stop short of saying that Castro's endorsement of a Hillary-Obama ticket will be a shot in the arm for the Democrat Party's chances in '08. But isn't it interesting how America's enemies and detractors always prefer that Democrats be in power? Hmm . . . I wonder why that is . . . (scratching my head in perplexity).

Greg Strange provides conservative commentary with plenty of acerbic wit on the people, politics, events and absurdities of our time. See more at his website: [3] http://www.greg-strange.com/

Article printed from MND: News and Commentary Since 2001: http://mensnewsdaily.com

Investors business daily suggest it is an endorsement


Investor's Business Daily

View Archive | Printer Version

Castro's Endorsement

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Posted 8/29/2007

Campaign '08: An implied endorsement from a dictator is nothing to brag about. But Fidel Castro's mingles praise with contempt. Maybe Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama should rethink their easy Cuba stances.

Related Topics: Election 2008 | Latin America & Caribbean

Writing this week in a communist party newspaper, the jurassic tyrant picked a Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama ticket as a likely winner in next year's U.S. election.

He cited it as one of many things he's been right about, alongside his prediction of the victory of Jimmy Carter, whom he now praises as much as he once rolled him like a fine Cohiba.

Even as rumors swirl about how alive he may be, Castro's rambling, self-justifying essay sounded a lot like him and revealed perfectly how tyrants think. Castro nattered on about playing golf with Che Guevara, getting a visit from an obsequious Bill Richardson and appreciating Bill Clinton for sending in the jackboots to snatch 6-year-old Cuban rafter Elian Gonzalez from his Miami relatives and forcing him back to Cuba in 2000.

But his tipping of Hillary/Obama as the next administration is probably worth the most attention, because it came right after Castro cited his forecast about Jimmy Carter winning his election and giving away the Panama Canal in the 1970s.

And it follows Cuban Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque's high praise of Obama's recent proposal to scrap current U.S. policy depriving the Castro regime of hard currency, a change Castro has sought for years. "The blockade has to be dismantled and the rights of Cuba respected," Perez Roque said last week.

Hillary Clinton, who's been more publicly circumspect about Castro than Obama, also has Castro's attention. According to Cuban-American author Humberto Fontova, Clinton was filmed as recently as 1995 affectionately embracing Cuba's de facto first lady, Vilma Espin, the late wife of Castro's brother and successor, Raul Castro, at the U.N.'s fourth annual women's conference in Beijing.

It's clear the dictator's attention focuses like a laser on U.S. leaders he sees as weak. Both Obama and Clinton have either proposed or done things Castro favors.

That's also why it has triggered Castro's contempt. Even as Castro praised Clinton and Obama as winners, he saw through their campaign-trail calls for democracy in Cuba. "They are not making politics, but playing a game of cards," he said.

Clinton and Obama ought to ask themselves why Castro thinks he has so little fear from their presidencies. An astute observer of U.S. politics for 50 years, Castro knows that Obama and Clinton will do far more to entrench his regime than encourage freedom.

It's notable that Castro had absolutely nothing to say about the mighty Ronald Reagan, who destroyed communism as a force in the world, and very little to say about Bush, whose 2000 victory was, according to Castro, dismissed as cheating by Miami Cubans.

Clinton and Obama take a good look at that mixed praise and contempt that amount to an unwanted endorsement. It's a major sign that Castro pegs them as hollow.

Return to top of page




© Investor's Business Daily, Inc. 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. Reproduction or redistribution is prohibited without prior authorized permission from Investor's Business Daily. For information on reprints, webprints, permissions or back issue orders, go to www.investors.com/terms/reprints.asp.

[xrayzebra]

Actually I could care less. No big deal anyway. But his suggesting
they would be big ticket and unstoppable doesn't surprise me.

Does it you?

[ChumpDumper]

Actually I could care less. No big deal anyway. But his suggesting
they would be big ticket and unstoppable doesn't surprise me.

Does it you?Yeah, it does if we're supposed to think Castro is astute. I don't think Hillary would take Obama as a running mate.

And the quotes don't support the theory that this is an endorsement. If you said communist China would easily win a war against Great Britain, does that mean you are endorsing communist China?

[boutons_]

Malkin, Coulter, Harrris, Dole, why are prominent conservative women so fucking freaky and/or bitchy?

[Ocotillo]

Malkin, Coulter, Harrris, Dole, why are prominent conservative women so fucking freaky and/or bitchy?

You forgot to include Steve Doocy in that group.

[L.I.T]

Malkin is a hack; plain and simple. I have no political leaning either way (I live overseas), but on my recent vacation in the States I was actually shocked that they had someone as inept as her on television.

It's as if she's trying to be an Olberman, or the female version of O'Reilly, she just have the chops to pull it off.

And getting on topic, if Republican pundits are using a column written by an aging half-dead dictator to support their political agenda they must really really be running out of substantive talking points.