The Bright Coast

Progressive Thoughts from San Diego Alums on Law, Politics, and Culture

Fair and Balanced Fox News Goes “Nuts” re Teabagging

Posted by demkid on April 17, 2009

So of course, FNC has turned the Susan Roesgen clip (which I posted 2 days ago) into an opportunity to whine about the mainstream media, and how they supposedly “insulted and ignored” the tea parties and protesters.  Naturally, when discussing the clip, FNC fails to show the entire thing, where Miss Roesgen talks with the guy who compares President Obama to Hitler.  They also don’t really seem to get that the interview was cut off because the older guy interrupted her and the interviewee.  The thing that I really love, though, is that when Fox News cries about CNN being biased in the coverage of the FNC-sponsored protests, they continue to be blatantly biased themselves by wildly inflating numbers.  (By “continue” I’m alluding to Neil Cavuto inflating the crowd estimate in Sacramento.)  Here’s a screen grab from an FNC segment that aired yesterday; the full clip is here.

Fox News: 750 = Thousands

Fox News: 346 = Thousands

You’ll also notice, if you watch the clip, that the individual crowd figures that appear also seem to be exaggerated.  Finally, in case you think the guy being interviewed is a “fair and balanced” source, he heads the Media Research Center, a conservative group that’s out to show a “strident liberal bias” in the national news media.

Update: Nate Silver over at fivethirtyeight has put together the most comprehensive list of tea parties and nonpartisan attendance estimates.  The total number of attendees was 300k-plus in 346 cities.  You’ll notice that my earlier inkling as to the crowd figures noted in the FNC clip is backed up: 3 of the 6 numbers were inflated.

Advertisements

11 Responses to “Fair and Balanced Fox News Goes “Nuts” re Teabagging”

  1. ray said

    wow how big of you to use a slander sexual word like tea bagging what are you 12 years old???btw learn to read the guy didnt hold a sign that compares President Obama to Hitler. even if some one did(which no one did ) she didn’t make a big deal when she did a story on code pink and they held a sign that compares bush to Hitler so how is this not bias?? why is it when bush is in charge it is ok and patriotic to protest yet now obama is in office and you are trying to take away our right to free speech and say we cant protest ?????? i thought we had the same rights???are you trying to say only you have civil liberties?? and if that is the case you are anti american and a joke like cnn

  2. totalIQofthisblog said

    Ha ha ha. Glad to see someone else is tired of this crap.

  3. demkid said

    I’m trying to take away your right to free speech? Oooookkkk. I’m all for protesting no matter what view you may have, but I’m also for knowing what you’re talking about while protesting. I’m also for the media covering stories accurately. Oh, by the way, all you have to do is watch the clip I posted 2 days ago for the Obama-Hitler comparison. Learn to read.

  4. BH said

    And now you’re censoring the comments? I thought you weren’t trying to take away our right to free speech! I guess I can’t blame you; the guy who points out the mistakes in every post was making you look pretty dumb.

  5. demkid said

    Yep, you got it. I’m glad you’re such a loyal reader!

  6. brightcoast said

    Wait, what, slander? Do you mean libel? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel

    How is emphasizing the fact that teabagging is a double entendre libel?

    BTW pointing out that people are making negative inappropriate comparisons is not censoring free speech, but rather exercising one’s own. By complaining that this post points out and comments on an incredulous comparison you are in effect trying to stifle our freedom of speech. I suggest you understand the nature of the right before you accuse people of being “anti-American.”

  7. BH said

    I think incredulous doesn’t mean what you think it means, is what I think.

  8. brightcoast said

    Incredulous

    In*cred”u*lous\ (?; 135), a. [L. incredulus. See In- not, and Credulous.]

    1. Not credulous; indisposed to admit or accept that which is related as true, skeptical; unbelieving. –Bacon.

    A fantastical incredulous fool. –Bp. Wilkins.

    2. Indicating, or caused by, disbelief or incredulity. “An incredulous smile.” –Longfellow.

    3. Incredible; not easy to be believed. [R.] –Shak

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/incredulous

    Oh no?

  9. BH said

    No.

  10. […] successful those gatherings were and how they were influencing public opinion.  (Note my April post on Fox News inflating numbers and Silver setting things straight.)  As with most of his analysis, […]

  11. […] surprise me, because it’s not a new strategy for the Right.  If you remember, I posted on the inflation of crowd estimates for the initial tea party rallies back in April.  I […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: