Al Jazeera “Real News”

Yesterday United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton claimed, "Viewership of Al Jazeera is going up in the United States because it's real news. You may not agree with it, but you feel like you're getting real news around the clock instead of a million commercials and, you know, arguments between talking heads and the kind of stuff that we do on our news which, you know, is not particularly informative to us, let alone foreigners." Because viewership is up that translates to "real news"? Many, here on the blog and elsewhere, rail against Fox News for their fabrications and stretching of the truth. If viewership is the prerequisite of "real news" then Fox News would trump them all.

Perhaps Secretary Clinton should look to the recent Census Bureau report that counted nearly 1.2 million Arabs in 2000; 860,000 in 1990; and 610,000 in 1980. Combine the rising Arab population with the increase uses of the internet and it is reasonable to conclude that increased viewership is driven by other factors unrelated to "real news". Or did CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News change their programming similar to what MTV did when they moved from music videos to reality television shows? I figured Secretary Clinton to be smarter than this. Then again she may be taking a shot at the liberal media outlets for their lack of vetting and holy alliance with Obama during the Democratic Primary and the 2010 Presidential campaign. Either way, if Al Jazeera is being considered as a "real" news source by the Obama Administration over the outlets here in the United States does make one ponder…….

Reparations

Earlier this week on Facebook a friend of mine, Von Jackson, posted an article titled "Malcolm X's legacy ignored 45 years after his murder" spurred some interesting conversation. The conversation started about the role that Malcolm X played during the struggle for Civil Rights but it quickly morphed into generation wealth and reparations due the black community for the slave trade. I had asserted that Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam used violence, at times, to make their point. To which I was told, "Chris, please LEARN and STUDY Malcolm X before you comment. Its obvious from you statement you know little to nothing about him except what you've seen on tv or read in white slanted literature." Now I respect the person that wrote this comment a lot and he and I have had several intense conversations on race. I asked him to "enlighten me" to what I should read as I admit I do not know Malcolm X like I do other historical figures.

To which my very good friend pointed out a biography and the Spike Lee movie. Well I have already seen the movie and have added The Autobiography of Malcolm X authored by Malcolm X and Alex Haley. We then went on to discuss the last time the Nation of Islam used violence. To which I pointed out that D.C. Sniper John Muhammad was a member when the rampage took place. While no direct line has ever been established between Muhammad and the Nation of Islam (NOI), neither has the leaders of the NOI distance themselves from the actions taken my Muhammad. But I did agree with my friend that we were digressing from the original intent of his article.

At this point in our conversation another friend of Von's chimed in with "Wow Chris, slavery is what made this country so rich, and is what keeps this country strong, by enslaving people all over the world, and stealing their natural resources…" and ended with "I would like you to explain to me how capitalism ended slavery..this should be interesting…(Please note I call bullshyt an awful lot, I debate on Fox News all the time, and shut them up, never losing an argument…so please make sure you have your facts straight when talk to me..)" As many of you already know I love a good challenge. Before I could retort, it was pointed out by my friend that "it was because of CAPITALISM that slavery was introduced to and flourished in this country for over 400 years…" I pointed out, "In short capitalism allows anyone to change their status in life. Capitalism is a two way street as the rich can become poor and the poor can become rich. That is how capitalism is not enslavement. Now mercantilism is what built this country at the start. The freedoms of our Constitution launched us into class movement that greases the wheels of capitalism. Thus no longer enslaving us. Now government intrusion to limit free market forces has lead to enslavement and add in entitlements."

I was told my assessment was wrong and "we are living under a system that is more akin to a Plutocracy, you are allowed to get rich in this country, as long as the already rich see that your wealth in no way henders their cause…" After which further conversation took place on conspiracy theories of 13 families controlling the world. After which the slavery angle reappeared and that it was on the backs of evil slave owners that worked their slaves to build this country. After discussing Aetna(http://www.aetna.com/news/2002/slavery_reparations_issue.html) and Wachovia Banks (http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/02/news/fortune500/wachovia_slavery/ ) role in building their business through slavery to which we found out that Aetna wrote policies on slaves and Wachovia's ties to slavery is through two acquisitions made after slave ownership took place and did not exist at time of acquisition. From that point we moved on to reparations.

I asked Corey, one of the other men participating, "Why is your anger focused on those just in America and not toward those that sold your ancestors into slavery?" I never did get a direct answer to this question; rather I got more deflection. Finally I asked, "We can either live in the past or look to a brighter future. Which one do you want to live in Corey?" Finally Corey gave a laundry list for reparations. Corey's list was:

1. 1 trillion dollars in gold, and precious metals
   
2. Whites relinquish all powers they have on Africa
   
3. At least half of the nuclear weapons in the USA
   
4. The release of all nonviolent blacks from jail
   
5. 100 billion dollars for machinery to fix the lands of Africa
   
6. Free transportation, back to Africa, for those that want to go
   
7. An apology for slavery, and to change the history books to reflect the truth
   
8. No sanctions on any nations of color
   
9. Just basically stay out of our way, once we get what is owed to us
   

Is Corey asking for anything outrageous? Should America agree to the terms above for the sins of slavery? Does the list of reparations above move us to a post-racial America?

White House vs. Fox News: The insanity continues

Sen. Obama campaigned last year on the premise of Change, Hope, and bringing people together. The Nobel group awarded Obama with the Nobel Peace Prize, not for what he has done rather for what he stands for; Change, hope, and bringing people together. So why is it then that White House officials were on Sunday talk shows imploring other news outlets alienate Fox News? White House communications director Anita Dunn claimed Sunday that Fox News Channel is "opinion journalism masquerading as news".

David Axelrod, Obama's senior advisor, claimed on to George Stephanopoulos Sunday that Fox is "not a new organization" and added "other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way." The biggest target has been Glenn Beck as is evident by the ongoing fact check blog page on the White House home page. The White House declaration of war on Fox News smacks of the paranoia of the Nixon years. The catalyst of the attack on Fox News appears to be over "Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace's fact checking Tammy Duckworth this past August. Anita Dunn is aghast by the gull of Wallace to fact check since that is "something I've never seen a Sunday show do." The kicker in this tiff is that the White House never said the fact-checking that Wallace did was wrong; rather the White House is upset that Wallace did it in the first place.

Are we really living in an age where News channels cannot fact check anyone let alone an administration official? Although it does not surprise me because little fact checking was done by ABC, CNN, NBC, CBS, and MSNBC during the 2008 Presidential election. With unemployment over 10%, 2% points higher than the White House said would happen if the Stimulus Bill was passed, why isn't the White House focusing their efforts on job creation? Our economy, as many economists have warned, is on the brink of a second recession and need a stronger effort in job creation. The "war" on Fox News Channel is pathetic and smacks of Chicago politics which is something, I thought, Obama campaigned against. Rahm Emanuel, Chief of Staff for Obama, said Sunday on "Face the Nation" when asked about Fox News Channel, "It is not a news organization so much as it has a perspective."

Since Fox News Channel has a prospective that disqualifies them as a news channel? On the criteria alone it would eliminate all "news" channels. David Axelrod explained, on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday, that "The only argument Anita was making is that they're not really a news station. It's not just their commentators, but a lot of their news programming. It's really not news. It's pushing a point of view." I think that the White House is missing the mark here. Granted Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly posses a conservative tinge that is just three hours of Fox News Channel programming. As I have been home finding a new job I have had the luxury of being able to watch programming on several news channels. The programming during the day on Fox News is no different than CNN.

At the end of the day the White House is attempting to exert their power to control the media. The White House has the majority of news channels in their hip pocket while Fox News chooses to fact check them. What happened to journalism? Isn't the journalist supposed to question, investigate, and report the facts of the situation? While true journalism has been going the way of the dinosaur for years, it fell off the cliff last year during the Presidential election cycle. Fox News Channel is reporting the news and their news commenter's – Beck, Hannity, and O'Reilly – have a 1^st amendment right to question and fact check the White House while putting their conservative spin on it. If Americans are not intelligent enough to realize this, just as MSNBC & CNN put their liberal spin on the issue, it is not the job of the White House to wage a war on Fox News. Again, I thought Obama was going to come to Washington to be above petty politics and usher in a new era of transparency and bi-partisanship????

Fox News vs. White House: Sound Strategy?

Has the White House lost it? I mean, what do they hope to gain with their attack and continual denial of granting an interview with Fox News. This past Sunday White House Communications Director Anita Dunn commented about the rift between the White House and Fox News by saying, "What I think is fair to say about Fox – and certainly it's the way we view it – is that it really is more a wing of the Republican Party. They take their talking points, put them on the air; take their opposition research, put them on the air. And that's fine. But let's not pretend they're a news network the way CNN is." Now I have been laid off since January and it has given me ample time to watch CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, CSPAN, and other channels that make the claim to be reporting the news. What I have learned is that not one of these channels, with the exception of CSPAN, is unbiased in the programming. I have watched conservative pundits, with the exception of The Morning Joe, removed from MSNBC in favor for more White House friendly pundits.

Regardless of the White House view of the Fox News network the numbers do not lie. According to http://tvbythenumbers.com/category/ratings/cable-news the numbers of viewers for October 12, 2009 were for the major news channels:

Total Day
FNC – 1,385,000 viewers
CNN – 458,000 viewers
MSNBC –335,000 viewers
CNBC – 182,000 viewers
HLN –314,000 viewers

Prime Time
FNC – 2,453,000viewers
CNN— 563,000 viewers
MSNBC –683,000 viewers
CNBC – a scratch w/112,000 viewers
HLN – 566,000 viewers

A few weeks back President Obama appeared on 5 Sunday morning shows and on David Letterman on Monday night. Not one appearance was on Fox News Channel. The goal of President Obama for his media blitz was to get his message out and debunk the myths and rumors being spread on his health care reform plans. One has to question the logic of the Obama Administration. Nielsen Rating data for the week ending October 11, 2009 for cable shows had The O'Reilly Factor Thursday show ranked 25^th. No other political talk show cracked the top 25.

With the ratings game going to Fox News and seemingly garnering the lion share of viewers, does it not make sense for Obama to appear on a channel that reaches the most number of people? Instead of granting the request of Fox News for interviews, the White House has starting using the daily blog to create a "Truth-O-Meter" to monitor lies said on Fox. Here is the statement on www.whitehouse.gov website: "For even more Fox lies, check out the latest "Truth-O-Meter" feature from Politifact that debunks a false claim about a White House staffer that continues to be repeated by Glenn Beck and others on the network."

Really, the White House is wasting their with pundits on Fox News Channel!! Wolf Blitzer last Sunday asked David Gergen on CNN about the White House's use of the blog strategy. David Gergen warned, "It's a risky strategy and it's not one that I would advcate. If you are going to get personal against the media you're going to find that the animosities are just going to deepen, and you're going to find that you are almost going to draw viewers to people you are attacking. You build them up is some ways, you give them stature." Bingo!!! Gergen hits the nail on the head with his assessment.

By singling out one media outlet as the White House is doing they are driving up their ratings and giving them legitimacy. Now the entire channel is not filled with pundits like Glenn Beck just as MSNBC is not riddled with pundits like Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, or Rachel Maddow. Anita Dunn while on CNN's "Reliabe Sources" complained the coverage Fox News had during the Presidential compaign ignored stories like the "financial collapse" instead featured stories that focused on "a guy named Bill Ayers and something called ACORN."

Granted Bill Ayers has not blown anything up or killed any cops lately; however he still contends that he wished they, Weatherman Underground, had done more. ACORN has seen their funding stripped, Census activities revoked, and is in the middle of a video scandal involving giving advise to a pimp and prostitute on housing. The Pew Research Center (an independent, non-partisan public opinion research organization) tracked campaign stories during the 2008 Presidentail election. It found that Fox News showed 40% negative stories on Obama as well as 40% on Republican candidate Sen. McCain. Over at CNN the contrast was a 22-point difference with 39% negative stories on Obama and 61% negative stories on McCain. Then we have MSNBC that ran only 14% negative stories on Obama while running 73% negatiave stories on McCain.

Back to my original question: Has the White House lost it?