The rising meme of equivalency between Fox Noise and MSNBC

[lib_wit_it]

It has troubled me for some time that the fucking lie and spew factory that is Faux News is imagined to be countered by MSNBC. I have to admit that I haven't watched enough of that channel to be an expert, but I don't think it takes an expert to figure out that there is no equal but opposite channel.

The fact that anyone could even begin to believe that there is a Glenn Beck doppelgänger on MSNBC distresses me no end. Again, it's the outrageous myth of a liberal media bias that allows anyone to believe that there is and that it is MSNBC. Far left political ideology is so seldom even presented in the M$M that, when it is, it appears as from another world. A scary other world where people want to marry koala bears and make imprison all Republicans in a dungeon while they await Obama death panels with only Kenyan witch doctors for their health care and tofu grass for food.

Sadly, the first person I heard denouncing MSNBC as the left's version of Fux Nooz was Jon Stewart. And since then I've heard it more and more frequently.

Yesterday I stumbled upon this thread in which the people refer to themselves as "we" in the creation and propagation of the "Did Glenn Beck Rape And Murder A Young Girl In 1990?" rumor as news action. They have plans to eventually use this method on others. Here is a suggested list:


Right:
Sean Hannity (Fox News)
Lou Dobbs (CNN)
Bill O'Reily (Fox News)
Michelle Malkin (Commentator/Author)
Tucker Carlson (Commentator)
Steve Doocy (Fox News) <--holy shit this one would be fun
Andrew Napolitano (Fox News)
Dick Morris (Fox News/Author/Political Consultant)
David Horrowitz (Author/Fox News)
Kevin James (Radio)
Rush Limbaugh (Radio)
John Ziegler (Radio/Commentator)
Mike "Savage" Wiener (Radio/Author)

Left:
Keith Olbermann (MSNBC)
Ed Schultz (Radio/MSNBC)
Randi Rhodes (Radio)


Rachel is suggested later, for instance in the posting of this image:


There is one good defense of Olberman posted, but not much more protest. Entire thread here: http://didglennbeckrapeandmurderayounggirlin1990.com/discussion/index.php?topic=276.0;all

I don't know how effective their Glenn Beck has been, although he is suing them for the domain name. I'm more concerned more with the MSNBC=FN meme in general. In the thread referenced above, on poster does share my evaluation of the mistaken nature of equating them. He said:

I don't know about the others, but I am familiar with Olbermann. Anytime Olbermann excoriates someone on his show, he backs it up with clear evidence: either he has video of the asshole engaged in asshatery, or Olbermann is responding to well established facts (eg, reaming Cheney for his many war crimes.). Olbmermann does not belong in a list that includes Beck, Limbaugh and the rest.

Lumping Olbermann in with these right wing scum bags?! That is precisely the kind of traditional media, "Candy Crowley", false-equivalence that has enabled the hijacking of US politics by right wing extremism. You should be ashamed of yourself.


Has anyone read any more exhaustive, detailed, intelligent refutation of the FN = MSNBC meme? If so, please post link.

Thanks.

[unpossibles]

1. I know, some jerk I know was trying to say that Randi and Franken

were the same when I was complaining about Limbaugh and Beck once. I tried to explain that they were the same in that they represent a vocal side of politics, but different in that the ones on the left did not lie and were not assholes.

[BrklynLiberal]

4. Some people simply cannot see the difference between ranting insane lies and telling truths

passionately.

[unpossibles]

6. true. Then again, these are the same people who think that Socialism=Fascism

purely because they are both "big government" which to me is like saying an equal amount of food=garbage because they are the same amount, completely ignoring the content.

[BrklynLiberal]

2. "False equivalency" hardly begins to describe such comparisons.

There is NOTHING else in the US media that comes anywhere near as single-mindedly perverse, biased, bigoted, intolerant, jaundiced, narrow-minded, one-sided and opinionated as FAUX NOISE..

[lib_wit_it]

9. If I didn't express that opinion in my OP, let me do so now: You are correct, Sir or Madam. And it

seems to be getting worse. Am I wrong to think that a few years ago the shenanigans of the town hall hooligans would not have been presented as nonchalantly as they were this summer? Maybe I'm having false nostalgia, but I'm thinking the guns and the screaming would have at least raised some eyebrows in the M$M.

[BrklynLiberal]

16. You are right.....and the media is complicit in the dumbing-down and numbing of the public

[BlooInBloo]

3. (shrug) DUers love their equivalence between Obama and bush, which is equally false...

I fail to see what standing they have to criticize other people for this other absurd equivalence.

[Vincardog]

5. Bingo. jr actively pushed his agenda. Obama compromises his opening bid

They are in no way equivalent.

[lib_wit_it]

10. (shrug) You're hanging out in the wrong parts of DU. Either that or you're overstating your case.

[wiggs]

7. This should be a no brainer. A while ago I tried to categorize the pundits for

benefit of conversation with a conservative friend. I offer this below. I would praise almost all of the left leaning pundits more than I did in the email to my friend (especially Hartmann)...I think they are heads and shoulders above their conservative counterparts in terms of accuracy and integrity...so don't slam me too hard for my categorization.


PUNDITS WHO RELY ON FEAR, MISINFORMATION, HATE, AND POLARIZATION. Ideology is everything and they'll say anything to promote it...ends justify the means. If these guys and girls stopped doing what they do, the nation would be much better off. They don't provide "the other side of the coin" or edification...they provide falsehoods and or polarization.

On the left: Mike Malloy (listen to him occasionally and while I agree with many of his points his tactics aren't always responsible...some cringe moments)

On the right: Glen Beck, Mike Savage, Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham, Michelle Malkin, Rove, Dick Morris, Ari Fleischer.


PUNDITS WHO LOYALLY ARGUE FOR THE LEFT OR RIGHT, BUT ATTEMPT TO USE RHETORIC AND LOGIC AND DON'T SEEK TO NULLIFY PUBLIC DISCOURSE WITH MISINFORMATION...JUST THEIR OWN OPINIONS (which admittedly can sometimes be out of the mainstream)

On the left: Maddow, Huffington, Deedee Myers, Shuster, Colmes (wimp). Olberman is here....although his derisiveness is annoying it doesn't cause fear or hate. He might have ambitions to move up the list except I can't put him in the same category as Coulter and Savage and Levin and Rove)

On the right: Bucchanon, OReilly (hard one for me cause he's much more of an idealogue than Maddow or Shuster...more along the lines of Olberman, and OReilly is capable of conspiracy theories much more than Olberman), Monica Crowley, David Brooks, Dana Perino, Christopher Hitchens, Tony Blankley, anyone else from the Washington Times, Lee Elder (thankfully off the air). Lynn Cheney (although she's although she's making bid to move up on the list where other torture defenders are).

His own category: Another writer who I won't name because while his points are good he uses the most crude analogies and metaphors you can think of (purposely)...you don't want that in your head.

PUNDITS WHO AREN'T LOYAL TO ONE PARTY OR ANOTHER BUT LEAN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER ON SPECIFIC ISSUES DUE TO PERSONAL IDEOLOGY. Members of left and right both might agree with some of what these pundits say regardless of affiliation. That's not to say their positions on each issue aren't extreme (like Dobbs on the Birther issue and his obsession with immigration)...they just aren't reliably loyal. They can concede a good point.

On the left: Hartmann, Richard Wolfe, Gene Robinson, Eleanor Clift, Mark Shields, Stephanie Miller (belongs in her own category because she's a comic)

On the right: Dobbs (remember him critiquing the previous administration over the war so he can be independent...just a butthead on some things), Andrew Sullivan (who can make a lot of sense sometimes), Greta (who never visibly leans left but I can tell by looking in her eyes she hates leaning right all the time)


PUNDITS/REPORTERS WHO TRY TO APPEAR LIKE JOURNALISTS BUT WHO GO ALONG WITH CORPORATE WISHES IN CHOOSING STORIES, IGNORING STORIES, SLANTING REPORTING, ETC.

I count all these as slightly right leaning...

Anderson, Blitzer, Gregory, Crowly (big girl on CNN...can't remember her name), Brian Williams, Judith Miller (not a journalist although masqueraded as one at NY Times...spread pure propaganda from Scooter Libbey in the run up to Iraq and is now popping up again in the media), and the late Meet the Press host Tim.....whose name is escaping me due to low blood sugar (no lunch yet). None of these guys are good reporters...they are interested in ratings and keeping the corporate parent companies happy

I count these as slightly left-leaning:

Dan Rather (mostly objective and accurate...this is worthy of a whole email by itself)


PUNDITS/REPORTERS WHO AREN'T DISCERNABLY RIGHT OR LEFT AND TRY TO GET GOOD INFO OUT TO THE PUBLIC

Jim Lehrer

Fahreed Zacahria (butchered his name I'm sure)

??

Have at it! sure I've forgotten some. Feel free to make up your own categories and move them around. I don't know enough about print journalists who write for WSJ or NYT or other papers. And I don't follow Hannity or OReilley enough to comment on their guest "reporters" so I haven't placed them anywhere. Didn't include real economist writers like Klugman or Freidman. Interesting exercise just for my own edification. Tempted to do the same with a list of issues...where I stand on each.

[lib_wit_it]

15. Interesting evaluation. I like a systematic approach. I don't know every single one of your

nominees, but my initial reaction is that you, too, place the center too far to the right. Apparently liberals need to start showing up at town hall meetings with guns and forming our own militias before our views will be even acknowledged by the M$M.

BTW, you did place O'Reily. So, you don't believe he uses FEAR, MISINFORMATION, HATE, AND POLARIZATION? I disagree. Just google ~~bill o'reilly lies~ for a start.

I have, on occasion--extremely rare occasion--heard both Maddow and Olberman present something that I considered a bit disingenuous or perhaps a distortion. I don't get what makes you say Olberman might want so move up the list.

[Echo In Light]

8. Who own$ MSNBC? The owners simply made a smart business choice by allowing an anti-RW market

... b/c the views expressed by Keith, Rachel and Ed are obviously not in keeping with the overarching aim$ one of the most powerful "defen$e" contractor companies on the planet.

Also, FOX also, indirectly, serves as a red herring, making people think they're going to find unbiased (toward corporate rule, toward the War Machine) views at other M$M outlets.

[bullwinkle428]

11. Randi Rhodes was trying to sell this viewpoint, just a few minutes ago.

Pathetic and ignorant, and makes me question her on a basic intelligence level.

[spanone]

12. msnbc puts on asshat right wingnut joey scarface in the morning...liberal???

[lib_wit_it]

13. Good grief, he's not even a Democrat. But, I'll bet he's way too liberal for the average teabagger.

That's why they need *real* Republicans like Limblech and Beck.

[damntexdem]

14. Well, so long as facts mean nothing, I guess they're equivalent.

When truth and fiction are seen as equivalent, then MSNBC and Faux News must also be.

[lib_wit_it]

17. Hmmm...I know what you mean, but I think Fox Noise just prefers the fiction. After all, the truth

has a well known liberal bias! :)