for bringing attention to this. We got to call this stuff out fast and early, cause theres gonna be alot of it.

But whats missing in their response is an apology to Michelle. What classless bastards.

No surprise there.

to be used whenever receiving bad press about our blatant racism, sexism, lies and fear-mongering:

"misspoke"

"poor judgment"

"inappropriate"

"misquoted"

"out of context"

Not that I'm keeping track, but this makes, what, three or four times this week?

yeah, right, Faux News...riiiight.

I guess we have to be prepared for several months if not years of this sort of thing, where coded and not so coded racist tag lines will get affixed to various discussions on the "Fair and Balanced" network, only to be strategically disowned once they're already out there.

Whoever chose to use these words should be suspended without pay for two weeks. Same punishment as for the commentator who said Chelsea was being "pimped out". Same for the "terrorist fist pump " Hill.

No one should believe that the scurrilous use of a term that has racist and sexist connotations was just "poor judgement," rather it was the journalistic equivalent of Fox News "showing its slip," exposing the casual racism of the channel (and of Rupert Murdoch.) The poor judgement was in letting people know what Fox really thinks.

Of course, there will be more episodes of "poor judgement" at Fox unless they prove that they mean to put a stop to this, and the way they do it is to fire people for such an outrageous action. Until that happens, everyone at Fox will anticipate a public "wrist slap" with a private "atta-boy" or "atta-girl" hint to keep it up.

Until Fox fires someone, they are liars.

Not a fan at all of Fox, but I give them credit for the acknowledgement of the poor judgement. Not sure if it was an official apology but it strikes me that they are trying to be responsible citizens.

"Laughingstock" - was that good judgement?

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/337.html

I guess Fox has standards in excess of others in some cases.

"A producer exercised poor judgment." That's FNC's defense.

I work in TV; I've been in live studios and control rooms. To get anything on air requires several independent judgments.

There is a Line Producer who is responsible for keeping the broadcast together, the overall traffic cop herding individual recorded packages, live interviews and the anchors' copy organized, to time, and on point.

There is usually a Supervising or Executive Producer in the control room as well, although usually they may not be involved in too many operational decisions for the broadcast; they spend their time mostly on phone calls or emails dealing with the management side of the bropadcast. Their presence is meant to ensure no snafu's on air such as happened here.

There is usually a rather lower-level Control Room Production Asssitant or Associate Producer working with the Chyron operator (who is responsible for the physical act of typing the text in and getting it processed in the character generator) on correct spellings, titles, numbering the individual slides that appear on air.

The Associate Director marshalls all of the various elements of the broadcast (cameras, tape playback machines, satellite links, chyron, etc.) and is charged with making sure everyone and everything is ready for the time that the Director calls for them. A critical position, but mostly a technical one, although the AD can also call an element into question if it is incorrect, poorly executed, or just doesn't feel right.

The Director calls the shots, literally: selecting the cameras, cuing anchors, music, requesting the chyrons up and out, setting the pace of the show from moment to moment. Similar to the AD, the Director can also stop things from showing up on air. Or, if a mistake does show up once, prevent it from going up again. It is a fast-paced job, but by the time you direct a national live broadcast, you have to be pretty good.

Overall I would say there are at least 3-4 "Producers" who have to concur with getting something on air. Otherwise, there are many others who can stop an element from getting on air.

For something like the "Baby" slug to show up, not once but many times, is not the work of one producer, but an entire news operation.

I would like to see a protest walkout by every black person working at Fox stations -- mailroom guys on up to anchors -- with lots and lots of really smart spokepersons explaining how they're not going to swallow this destroy-Obama crap and lots and lots of publicity about it.

I see they used the "a few bad apples" argument that was used at Abu Ghraib. As we know, there were more than "a few bad apples" there (we have documented evidence.) But that line is how they will go about limiting the damage.

Multiple people live in the environment of Fox News where this kind of comment is standard. Here are the next steps I expect from Fox News and their defenders.

1) Play the victim card, "They hate us because we are successful."

2) the "liberals want us to be 'politically correct' all the time!" game

3) the "can't you take a joke?" card

4) the "don't you like free speech?" card

5) the "if he can't stand up to a little ribbing then how can he be the president?" card

Rinse, repeat.

While right-wing TV and Radio is profitable they will keep doing what they are doing.

[or IS that a chyron?]

Laughingstock is fully within the bounds of political debate, especially when utterred by a politician (not a supposedly unbiased media outlet).

Baby Mama is not.

of seeing every minority employee of Fox "News" file an EEOC complaint against FNC for maintaining a hostile, racist working environment. I have never worked in an environment where those types of comments would be tolerated, let alone become the substance of our message.

...or lack thereof.

Unfortunately, Fox has created a culture of smear and jeer that gave a producer the environment in which he or she could feel that the "Obama's Baby Momma" chyron was "cute".

It's like a parent claiming their errant child's behavior is no reflection on them.