I hear ya Clownsense, making it stop has been my mantra for years now.

I have to wonder just how many viewers are dropping away from Faux Views and the rest of the corporate-leaning media; I know I have and I doubt that I am alone (not that I ever watched Faux except as an anthropology assignment). The more they call those who want the war to stop traitors and senile, then the more they are insulting the majority of Americans. As they keep this up (and they will), the more their viewers will start to view them with increasing suspicion. Afterall, these media types have been following a scorched earth policy for years now, but when the average person starts realizing that the fire is being aimed straight at them they won't like it much. In this alone, the media (and especially Faux) are nailing their own coffins shut.

If you agree with what Murtha has said, then make your support known to him and your representatives. It is time to push back, hard, and show our representatives that we want action with no more Bush boot-licking.

Your diatribe is typical of the "stuff" spewed forth from the Bush-haters. I stand amazed over the inept and often dishonest "revelations" coming out of the mouths of the lions, both in Congress and out of it. Our nation is in dire jeopardy with the Nancy Pelosis, John Murthas, Ted Kennedys, Harry Reids, etc. now in charge. Their hatred of our president is detestable and unprofessional; they themselves are vile and their motives questionable. No Sir, I'm afraid you will have to pick a more probable person to tear down, other than Brit Hume. When the very people who are in charge of protecting our country, hate its president so much that they would compromise our fighting men overseas; when they are only interested in elevating themselves and their own plots and devious devices, then we are doomed. The Democratic party will then have served its purpose, in that they will have destroyed America. Our president is struggling to protect a nation that does not want to be protected. How revolting !!!

-- Jo Maniaci

Straw men everywhere and nary a fact to be found. Another proud Fox viewer, I suppose.

What's the characterization of Olbermann's Special Comment? KO's comments are very pointed and severe in their criticisim of bush. I agree with every one of Olbermann's criticisms for they are truth, but they have taken agressive verbage in the public domain to new heights. My guess is that smoldering extremists in US corporate media republican propaganda organizations such as hume have evaluated the reaction to Olbermann's caustic truth telling and decided they can ratchet-up their lying and smearing to new personal lows.

.

Here is a short story about Fox that I took off the web.

Condi loves FOX

By: John Amato @ 10:05 AM - PST

No, this isn't breaking news about her love life.

(Reuters) — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice let slip her news media preferences Thursday, saying, "I love every single one" of Fox News network's correspondents and also favors CBS anchor Harry Smith.

In comments overheard on an open microphone between morning television interviews, including one with Fox, the top U.S. diplomat said: "My Fox guys, I love every single one of them."

Not that this should surprise anybody.

my comments,

The owner of Fox Rupert Murdock often slams the United States in the press when he is out of this country and it routinely goes unreported here by our press. Murdock is a big time globalist just as Fox is.

News Hounds have a category for posts on Brit's show "Special Report" (how a daily show can be special I don't know):

http://www.newshounds.us/special_report_wbrit_hume/

Some post titles:

Hume Attacking DEMOCRATS for Voter Suppression Efforts

Special Report Provides Platform for Dick Cheney's Gloom and Doom

Special Report Also Follows Script of Fox News Memo

(I love this one) Hume Bashes Local Station for Being "Unfair and Unbalanced"

Some quotes:

Brit on President Bush (Dec 2006):

" his attitude is confident. He seems comfortable. He seems to enjoy the work. He said the burden of this office is not heavy, it's light."

Brit helping George Bush blame the Generals for the failed strategies in Iraq:

"Is it fair to say then that the approach in Iraq has been more of what Casey and Abizaid wanted more than anybody else?"

Brit trying to keep John Bolton employed in the Bush Administration after his nomination failed in the 109th senate:

"But there are other capacities, perhaps in the State Department, not requiring Senate confirmation. Perhaps here that you could have given him. Did you try to get him to do that?"

Brit tying 9/11 to Iraq:

"The 9/11 attacks have led to counter attacks by American armed forces in two countries, and those conflicts are still ongoing"

I'll stop here with a comment, it's hard to specifically quote Hume to show his bias. Most of his evident bias comes from the questions not said, and the items left out of his reporting. I suppose this is why he's been able to maintain some shred of apparent credibility in journalism circles. He mostly lies by omission. The newshound archives are good at noting all the pertinent facts in many stories that Hume leaves out, always facts that would support Democratic positions on issues and detract from Republican ones. On occasion, he conducts a "fair" interview, but never a tough one of a Republican, and never a softball one of a Democrat. Glenn's catch in this post is something of a Hume aberration, a slip up if you will.

Nonetheless, it's not a slip that should be considered unrepresentative of his body of work, but instead one that reveals it.

I expect our resident contrarians will quickly complain that Olbermann is just as "partisan" as Hume or any Fox anchor you can name.

First: No, he's not. If anyone wants to make this point, please find Olbermann quotes of equivalent partisanship and evident falsehood as what Hume is quoted by Glenn as saying. I guarantee you cannot.

Altho I don't know of Olbermann's ever trafficking in a (knowing) falsehood, he most assuredly is partisan, which is why I like him. His was a voice crying in the wilderness for quite some time, finally recognized by those who felt disenfranchised and now increasingly acknowledged and popular. But certainly I don't tune into him expecting to hear neutral assessments of Iraq or George Bush; I look to Olbermann because he is the anti-Fox, and it is about damned time.

Really, if Hume et al. were not the highest-rated cable news network, I don't think their shenanigans would be so troubling. Shooting for objectivity is all well and good, but no human being is capable of it. Olbermann's regular dressing downs of Bush aren't in the mold of journalist, either -- those are rank punditry of the urgently necessary variety. Honestly, the real difference is that Olbermann is on the correct side, and the Fox crew is replete with neocon Bush-bots. The task is simply to make sure that the public grows to understand that Fox is not fair, not balanced, is partisan, and -- most importantly -- that they are wrong. Not that Olbermann isn't partisan, or that Hume is in some objective sense less of a "real" journalist than Olbermann.

Another point to address is that old calumny "unserious." If an opposition party can't demand that the president consult with it before starting a war, then the only meaning left for "serious" is "dead."

it's a good thing they're really good at character assassination:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/19/12838/2667

Conservatives know how to chant together, but that's about it. Any alternative to their failure must be muddied.

Yeah, we knew that.

.