Why the White House is 100% Right to Challenge Fox News
By Cenk Uygur

There are three categories of news media:

1. Opinion Outlets

 Keith Olbermann
 Bill O'Reilly
 The Young Turks
 Wall Street Journal Editorial Side

2. Partisan Press (Ideologically Driven Press)

 The Nation
 Fox News Channel
 National Review
 Mother Jones
 Drudge Report

3. Straight News

 CNN
 ABC News
 MSNBC News Programs
 New York Times
 Wall Street Journal (Non-Editorial)

There's absolutely nothing wrong with being in any of these categories. As you can see, I put our show in the "Opinion Outlet" category. I have no problem with that. We tell you our take on the news of the day. All of the categories are based on the news; but they do range based on how much original news reporting or editorializing they do. And that is an important distinction.

The Obama White House has taken on Fox News channel in an effort to point out they are not a legitimate news network. This is very important because out of all the outlets mentioned above, they are the only ones being dishonest about what category they are in. This is where the confusion lies.

Fox News admits that their talk shows are opinion based, which is obvious and indisputable. It's not straight news and it's not meant to be. No problem. The problem lies in their "news" side. They don't have a straight news division like CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc. They have propaganda disguised as news. That's a serious issue that must be addressed.

If they simply admitted as some of the partisan journals do - on both the left and the right - that they cover the news but from a certain ideological perspective, then again there would be no problem. The Nation isn't purely an opinion magazine; it does real reporting. But they have a clear ideological perspective, in their case a liberal one. The National Review is the same on the right - news stories and opinion from a conservative point of view. Again, as long as there is truth in advertising there's no problem at all.

The problem with Fox News is that they have shown over and over again that they tilt their news coverage indisputably toward a right-wing perspective and refuse to admit it. They are not purely driven by the news. They are driven by an agenda.

The Daily Show did a great segment just last week showing how Fox News acted as cheerleaders for the 9/12 Tea Party protests and gave it wall to wall coverage, yet for a protest of almost the same exact size - the Gay Rights protest last weekend - they didn't send a single camera crew. And The Daily Show didn't even mention a Fox News producer who was caught on camera riling up the crowds in the 9/12 protest and literally encouraging them to cheer louder. I don't think they sent a similar "news producer" to the gay rights march. To argue that they covered these protests straight without any leaning toward one side or another is comically disingenuous.

But this is only one of dozens of readily available examples. Think Progress has another fantastic example of exactly what the administration is complaining about - Fox News anchors parroting Republican talking points. First you see Republican representatives pushing the talking point of "Where are the jobs?" then you see Fox anchors asking the same exact question as if they are independently asking questions about the news rather than repeating propaganda (it's a perfect example of Fox's agenda - watch the Republicans first and then Fox News here).

As if all of this weren't enough, we have absolute proof from the inside that Fox purposely manipulates the news to suit a Republican agenda. There is a leaked memo from their Vice President of News, Dan Moody, where he directs his so-called reporters to find Iraqi insurgents celebrating Democratic victories in 2006 (you can read it here). Are we really having a serious conversation about whether Fox has an ideological perspective?

Unfortunately, the rest of the media seems to be unbelievably dense in recognizing this point, so they treat Fox coverage as if it's real, straight news. So, when Fox wants to drive an issue like Bill Ayers or Rev. Wright or ACORN or just about every other conservative attack against Obama, the rest of the press goes along with it as if these are all straight news stories.

Now, it's important to point out that ideologically driven press can break real stories. They should not be dismissed out of hand as not news simply because they came from those sources. As an example, Mother Jones has broken many important stories that are no less valid because they came form a source that has a clear liberal perspective. So, Fox News can - and does - break stories that are valid and should receive some press coverage from everyone. That's why partisan press provides an important voice in the national conversation.

The problem is when partisan press gets confused for straight, unbiased news. The perfect example of this is when Fox News called the 2000 election for George W. Bush first - and every other news network followed like sheep...

Click Here to read the entire piece and to subscribe to Cenk's blogs at DailyKos.

Click Here for access to free TYT podcasts.

Howard Dean vs. Rahm Emanuel
By Cenk Uygur

It has always been thus. Now comes round two.

In the first round, Rahm Emanuel and Howard Dean butted heads on what strategy was best in regaining House seats in 2006 (also to some degree in 2008). Emanuel was chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Howard Dean was chair of the Democratic National Committee. Dean's path was the famous 50 state strategy. Emanuel thought that was foolish and that the Democratic Party would be much better served spending more money in traditional political ads in more "realistic" districts.

As it turned out, Emanuel was wrong and Dean was right. The Democrats won everywhere, including districts previously thought unimaginable. Dean's efforts to reach out to all the states paid off huge dividends as the Democrats became competitive in districts no one had thought possible.

Now, we're in the second round.

This time it's the health care debate. Rahm Emanuel has been pushing for a weaker version of reform from the beginning. In his defense, he believes he is focusing on what is doable (nearly the same thing he said during the previous House elections). Emanuel has argued for a trigger from the beginning of the debate and seems to think that a public option is not realistic in this political environment.

Howard Dean has instead argued for a stronger version of health care reform. He believes the country is persuadable (the same position he had in the House elections) and is largely on the side of bolder reform already. He believes the Democratic politicians need to have the courage of their convictions and they can make a real difference.

Once again, Howard Dean is right and Rahm Emanuel is wrong. The voters didn't vote for a little bit of change. They gave the Democrats the White House and overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate. They voted for real change. The kind of change that Dean always pushes for (and often accomplishes) and the kind of change that Emanuel doesn't ever find "realistic"...

Click Here to read the rest and to subscribe to Cenk's blogs at DailyKos.

 
Note: After you watch the above video make sure you read Cenk's new article at Huffington Post, The Problem With Obama's Speech. And then watch this - TYT: Did Obama Really Offer A Public Option?.

Summary: This video is from TYT's new YouTube channel, TYT Interviews. Cenk talks to Jane Hamsher of http://firedoglake.com / about the Van Jones 'resignation' and how many progressive institutions have been directly and indirectly pressured with the threat of a loss of funding for going after Blue Dogs. You can read about it here.

Also Watch These 5 Clips You May Have Missed:

1)-Cenk Breaks Down Obama's Healthcare Speech

2)-Fox Criticizes Obama For Speaking To The Children

3)-TYT: The Back Story of How Right-Wing Groups Got Van Jones Fired/Made Him Resign

4)-Is The Mainstream Media Swift Boating Obama?

5)-A Progressive Review Of The Movie 'District 9'

PS---TYT is now on Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheYoungTurks

One of the biggest Republican talking points in response to the fact that the US healthcare system is insanely expensive but doesn't provide the best outcomes in some key areas is that 'we have the best system in the world because everyone comes here for healthcare but no one leaves for it'.

Now, aside from the fact that they're ignoring the clear and devastating (to their arguments) research, no one bothers to ask if their talking point is true. Sure, we know that people with a ton of money sometimes come to the US for healthcare, but what's the relevance to the average person with an average financial situation?

And more importantly, they claim that no one leaves the US. Is that true?



PS---Why aren't these facts being used to crush the right wing talking point? I have yet to see someone challenge a TV talking head on this issue. I encourage you to spread this information far and wide, and hopefully it'll make its way to TV before it's too late. Finally, a special thanks to DUer Sinkingfeeling who originally found these links after I posed the question recently.

The whole "do you like the DMV and Post Office" argument is BS if the goal is to argue against Single Payer/Public Option systems (having neither is why we spend about double what other industrialized countries do and we get mediocre outcomes in some key areas). I could just as easily turn it around and ask 'do you like the customer service you get from (fill in the blank private business)?' How did you like that (private) customer care rep? Was he/she clear, concise, courteous and helpful? Now that you're warmed up, answer these questions:

-How much do the people in Chicago enjoy having the cost to park at a meter quadruple since the parking meters were privatized a few months ago? Note that the spots are no bigger and the streets are no nicer.

-Have you ever received cold food or the wrong order from a (private) restaurant, even after you waited (for 30 minutes, 60 minutes or more?) to be seated?

-Have you ever waited in a long grocery store line with just a few items while people ahead of you with full carts haggled over pennies and coupons? Did they squash the bread under canned goods when you checked out? Did they scan the same item twice?

I am not by any means suggesting that I want public restaurants or grocery stores, etc.. But when it comes to The Commons that we all depend on, yes, I want the government in and the profit-motive out for health insurance, because again the facts show that means lower costs with good service (note that the Business Roundtable Report On Healthcare "represents CEOs of major companies"). And of course the real answer to the above questions, parking costs excluded, is "sometimes".

PS---Honestly, the vast majority of the time my mail gets where it needs to be on time and at a very low cost. And I've had courteous people and short lines at the DMV in addition to the opposite...just like with any private business.

I know, I know, you're going to say I shouldn't have bothered in the first place. But when I saw the already infamous Glenn Beck Meltdown(TM) I couldn't resist having my GF forward it to her Republican pal/former classmate.


1. My Original Email Sent To Republican



1A. Original Response From Republican



2. My First Response To Republican



2A. Response #2 From Republican



3. My Final Response To Republican




Conclusion: She (the Republican) sent an angry text to my GF saying that she can't argue with me because it has to be "his way or the highway and if you disagree with him you're automatically wrong". She added that she wished I would acknowledge that we both have some good points and that neither one of us is completely right, or something like that. And she refuses to respond to my email because she doesn't like my attitude.

In other words she wants me to put my well researched facts/points on par with her generic, poorly thought out Republican talking points and factoids. Keep in mind her Dad has informed most of her political views, and he's a big Rush Limbaugh fan who thinks the Dems will tax his success, etc. Obviously I don't have a monopoly on truth, not even close. But it's obvious that she didn't put in 1/10th the research, thought and effort into her responses and she's pissed at having her long held beliefs and assumptions challenged.

Conservative Media vs. Progressive Media
By Cenk Uygur

The NY Post is run by Rupert Murdoch to further his conservative agenda. It loses $50 million a year. The Washington Times is run by Rev. Sun Myung Moon to further his conservative agenda. By some estimates Rev. Moon has sunk $2 to $3 billion into it and it has never been profitable. The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review is run by Richard Mellon Scaife to further his conservative agenda. It loses $20 to $30 million a year.

The Weekly Standard used to be owned by Murdoch to further his conservative agenda but is now owned by Philip Anschutz to further his conservative agenda. Either way, it loses $5 million a year.

Do you know how many people read The Weekly Standard? They have a circulation of 80,000. To put it bluntly, that's pathetic. That means almost no one reads it. Its main purpose is not to turn a profit but to spread Republican propaganda in the guise of news. Conservative billionaires use these publications to give legitimacy to their political opinions, but don't actually expect to make any money for them. They're an investment, in propaganda. But without their wealthy benefactors, these publications would immediately go bankrupt and cease to exist.

On the other hand, progressive media has now built a self-sustaining business model on the web that makes money because people actually read the websites or watch the shows. I can't speak for other progressive outlets (Huffington Post for one seems to have a very healthy valuation). But I can speak for us. The Young Turks is a progressive web show that is popular and profitable all on its own. The Young Turks now has numbers that make conservative outlets look like a joke by comparison.

In fact, today the show crossed the 100 million views barrier on You Tube. The Young Turks now has 100,106,994 views on our You Tube channel alone. This doesn't count views on our own website and the dozens of other outlets we're on, including Sirius XM Radio. Last month we had 7,289,549 views on our You Tube channel. Now think about The Weekly Standard's sad, little 80,000 number (and how many of those people actually read the magazine?). And these clowns lose $5 million a year to run that operation. Spending over $5 million a year to reach 80,000 people? That amuses me.

Let me give you one last stat. The Young Turks is now averaging over 350,000 views a day on You Tube. That is more than four times The Weekly Standard's circulation. And we get that in just one day! And we do all of this at just a fraction of what they spend. How can they possibly compete with us in the long term?

The bottom line is that most of these conservative media outlets don't stand a chance. Sure, some will have staying power in representing a certain percentage of the population. Those are the ones that focus on opinions. But no one is taking their "news" operations seriously. On the other hand, a progressive colossus is rising on the web and the conservatives are powerless to stop it...

Click Here to read the rest and to subscribe to Cenk's DailyKos blog.

Conservatives are going nuts over the prospect (which sadly doesn't exist) of a single payer health care system in the US. We even have prominent Republican senators lying about the Public Option, although thankfully Howard Dean is trying to keep them honest. At any rate, I wanted to share 2 critical points everyone should know well for discussing these topics with friends, family and coworkers.

NOTE: I know this might be obvious to many/most of us, but it's not always concisely stated or framed in a way that's easy to share with others who aren't as informed as we are.

1. The US health care system is not the best in the world. But don't take my word for it, instead look at the evidence provided by the Business Roundtable Report On Health Care, "which represents CEOs of major companies". You read that right. When the right winger/libertarian in your life gets ready to dismiss the following information as somehow being biased by socialist interest groups (or some other such nonsense), make sure you point out who the Business Roundtable represents.

From MSNBC:



2. No one is actually pushing for "socialized medicine". How would giving people a choice to opt in to a public plan possibly be described as "government taking over health care"?

That point is so obvious that I shouldn't have to make it. Apparently a less obvious point is that the Single Payer system many progressives (myself included) favor is also not "socialized medicine". Very few countries have actual "socialized medicine" which would be accurately described as the government not only providing the insurance, but also running the hospitals, i.e. hiring and firing the doctors and nurses, purchasing the equipment, etc.

If someone insists on trying to fear monger with the word socialism, they could at least try to be a little accurate. The Single Payer system most progressives want could possibly be described as "Socialized Insurance". And even in that case it would likely just mean a public plan that would provide basic coverage for all Americans. If you wanted something special like a private room, experimental treatments or cosmetic surgery, the private insurance companies would still be around to provide coverage for those extra services.

PS---Sadly we're nowhere close to a single payer system, and there's a chance we're not even close to a good, non-watered down public option. But if someone insists on BS talking points about long wait times and low doctor pay, you can also share the information in this great piece:

10 Myths About Canadian Health Care, Busted

Note: I've been out of the loop in some ways the last couple of weeks, so I apologize in advance if these points have already been made.

Flashback: Outrage Over The Right Wing Extremist Report Revisited

The biggest story this week has been the murder of Dr. Tiller by what appears to be a radical right wing extremist. Sadly, this horrible act of violence is nothing new, as was beautifully explained by Rachel Maddow.

Another big story not long ago was the shooting of 3 Pittsburgh police officers by another right wing extremist who feared our President would take away his guns. Gee, I wonder where he got that idea? There was also the under the radar story of an army reservist who shot some cops in Florida for what appears to be the same reason. At any rate, I think it's time to revisit the reaction from right wing pundits and bloggers regarding the DHS Report on right wing extremism (of course they conveniently ignored the previously released report on left wing extremism, more on that later).

-Robertson: DHS Official Behind Extremism Report Must Be Someone Whose ‘Sexual Orientation…Is In Question’

-Right-Wing Fake Outrage On "War Against Veterans"

-Michael Savage sues Napolitano for right-wing extremism report.

-DHS Rightwing Extremist Report Same Tactic Used By Hitler, Stalin, Mao, et., al.

-'Extremism' report 'tip of the iceberg' Lawyer: Napolitano's promise to 'reword' document 'scary' (From May 21st)

-Glenn Greenwald responds to right wing reaction to DHS report


I think you get the idea. The right on the other hand...

A Republican representative repeated the tired line today that "the U.S. has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world". He said this while trying to defend some new Republican tax proposals, and he added that if we don't cut the corporate tax rate we're sure to lose more jobs overseas. There's just one small problem with his argument:

According to the non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO), nearly two-thirds of U.S. companies and 68% of foreign corporations in the U.S. paid NO federal income taxes from 1998-2005.

This is from a report back in August, so you'd think it would've become public knowledge by now, but unfortunately it hasn't. I wonder if that's because the "second highest tax rate" lie is rarely if ever challenged in the mainstream media, especially on television.

The manufacturing sector (alone) lost more than three million jobs between 1998 and 2003, and I'm assuming more were lost from 2003-2005. While job creation and loss is more complicated than just tax rates, doesn't the fact that we lost millions and millions of jobs despite ZERO taxes for over 2/3 of corporations destroy the Republican argument that we need lower corporate taxes rates?

It should. Speaking of 'shoulds', the cable news talking heads *should* be aware of this fact and *should* use it to clobber anyone who makes this tired tax cut argument.

Is there some degree of fault on both sides for the financial mess? Yes, of course! And yes, it's easy for either side to dismiss the other entirely while ignoring their own deficiencies.

With that said, I also think it's incredibly lazy to generically say "both sides are equally to blame". I hear this constantly, especially from relatively uninformed (but generally well meaning) people. And of course some Republicans say it to cover their asses. And some Democrats say it in an effort to seem reasonable and fair. And cynics say it because they always assume the worst, and what's worse than believing that every single individual in government is corrupt?

That's what I call false equivalence, or The 50/50 argument. Factually speaking, neither side is entirely to blame or entirely blameless so to simplify things let's just call it even and split the difference. But the reality is that life is almost never 50/50. It's rarely 100/0 or 90/0, but 50/50 is equally if not more absurd in some ways.

The Bottom Line here is that it was flawed Conservative Ideology that created this economic mess (not minority homeowners, despite what Fox says). Massive deregulation coupled with huge tax cuts for the rich (among other things) are not and have never been progressive ideals traditionally associated with the Democratic Party. But yes, unfortunately there were *conservative* Democrats who, for example, helped Phil Gramm really get the ball rolling. And yes, Bill Clinton (not Jimmy Carter) DID sign some very damaging BS into law. And yes, to this day there are far too many Dems getting far too much money from far too many special interest groups that don't have OUR interests at heart (public financing anyone?).

So while it's true the culprits may wear both R's and D's on their respective sleeves, it is NOT true that it's all "50/50".

PS---Nobel-laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz wrote what might be the best article to date on how we got into this mess for Vanity Fair: Capitalist Fools

I'm not naming any names and I've never created a thread on this topic before. I don't want to embarrass anyone or hurt any feelings.

I just don't understand why some posters decide to post 3, 5 or (fill in the blank) videos back to back to back to back (Again, I'm not singling anyone out here, it happens on a regular basis with a variety of posters)?

The video section is unique in that once a video is off the homepage (you know, no longer in those little video screens) the potential for views, recs and comments plummets. Kicking a video doesn't help, unlike kicking a thread in the other forums...most people don't bother going inside the video section itself, for whatever reason, and they just click on the stuff that catches their eye from the homepage.

At any rate, I'm not making a federal case about this (just in case you were prepared to include something about "whining" in your comment), I just think it's kinda frustrating and not really respectful to others who are more moderate and judicious when posting videos.

NOTE: I think the Obama campaign should JUMP on this ASAP. It's brilliant. Why? Because it's simple, easy to remember and repeat and of course, it's incredibly damaging. It gets people asking questions (give what back? Did she steal? From who? From where? How much?!), questions the McCain/Palin campaign would rather not have to answer day after day after day.

Sarah Palin: Give the Money Back
By Cenk Uygur

Sarah Palin famously said in her Republican convention speech that she told Congress "thanks, but no thanks" for the Bridge to Nowhere. Now, this has been discredited in just about every media outlet in the country. During the Charlie Gibson interview, she didn't even deny that she in fact lobbied for the bridge when she was running for governor.

This, of course, has not stopped her from making the same claim dozens of times since it's been discredited. But what's even more interesting is that she apparently kept as much of the money as the federal government sent her. What happened to thanks, but no thanks?

Though the entire financing for the bridge did not pan out, the US government has set aside $73 million for the project. So far, a lot of money has been wasted building access roads to bridges that don't exist and never will. Of course, people get rich off these projects, so they don't give a damn where they lead as long as the money leads right back into their pockets.

So, I'd like to start a simple campaign called "Give the Money Back..."

To read the rest of this article, Click Here

 
I encourage you to help ensure that Obama wins by sending the following mass email to EVERYONE you know: Do The Facts Support John McCain?

TYT Break Down McCain's Thoughts On Community Organizing

Cenk @ RNC, Takes On Right Winger Obsessed with Sodomy

NOTE: (I corrected a couple of grammatical errors and adjusted some items thanks to all of your feedback) The election is fast approaching, yet an astounding number of people aren't aware of some critically important facts. Hopefully this email can change some of that, if we share it with enough people. I ask that you don't assume that just because you may know these facts that most potential voters do. BTW, I was phone banking tonight so I believe that we need to do EVERYTHING we can to win, and that includes getting this information into millions of homes via email!

1)-If you make less than $112,000 a year as an individual (not household income, individual income) you will pay a lot less in income taxes under Obama's proposed tax plan than under McCain's. You make up part of the 80% of Americans in this category.

If you make between $112,000-$227,000 a year as an individual you will still pay less taxes under Obama's plan than you do right now.

If you make between $227,000-$603,000 a year as an individual you will pay $12 (twelve dollars) more per year than you do right now.

2)-If you get your health insurance through your employer John McCain wants to treat your benefit as taxable income according to the Wall Street Journal. That will push many Americans into a higher income bracket meaning you could pay thousands per year more in taxes.

3)-If you think corporations don't pay enough taxes you aren't alone. According to the non-partisan GAO about 2/3 of US Corporations paid no taxes at some point between 1998-2005. Despite this John McCain wants to cut the corporate tax rate by a whopping 10% in addition to increased first year write-offs which will ultimately cost us about 1.3 trillion dollars.

4)-If you think oil companies aren't paying their fair share, you aren't alone. Exxon Mobil just recorded the highest profit for any corporation in history (again). Despite this fact John McCain wants to slash their taxes by 10% and not take back the 14 billion dollars in tax payer subsidies that the Republicans in Congress fought to give oil companies.

5)-If you think Republicans are not fiscally responsible you aren't alone. Over 70% of our National Debt was created by just 3 Republican Presidents. Republican Ronald Reagan borrowed more money than all presidents before him, from George Washington to Jimmy Carter, combined. Now George Bush may borrow even more more than Reagan. Democratic president Bill Clinton is the only president in the last 30 years to finish with a budget surplus.

6)-If you think borrowing trillions of dollars from foreign countries to put on a Giant National Credit Card is a bad idea, you're not alone. We pay hundreds of billions of dollars in interest only payments on our debt each year, meaning our tax dollars are flushed down the toilet for things that no longer benefit us, assuming they ever did. Higher debt means our money is worth less which makes gas, food and just about everything else more expensive. A conservative estimate is that the US dollar has lost over 27% of its value since the year 2000.

7)-If you think middle class families do better financially with a Democrat as president, you aren't alone. According to research out of Princeton, real middle class wage growth is double when a Democrat is president compared to when a Republican is president. Also, stock market returns are better.

8)-If you think focusing on which (current and former) candidates wear a flag pin is a waste of time that distracts us from real issues, you're not alone. After all, why should it bother you that Hillary Clinton and John McCain don't wear a flag pin?

9)-Some people say you can judge someone based on the company they keep. That's interesting, because John McCain went out of his way to get the endorsement of Reverend Hagee. Most people have never heard of Hagee, possibly because according to a non-partisan study, while the media has in fact spent more talking about Obama (than McCain) most of that time has been spent saying negative things about him.

How else could you explain that fact that so few people know that McCain's Reverend Hagee referred to the Catholic Church as "the great whore" or that he believes and is on tape having said that "Hitler Was Fulfilling God's Will For Israel"? And that's in addition to the inflammatory comments he's made regarding many other groups including women.

Also, McCain aids, advisers and fundraisers have made about ONE BILLION DOLLARS from corporate sponsors. I guess that explains why McCain's policies mostly benefit the richest and most powerful among us?

10)-Finally, many people believe you can judge a man by how he treats his family, and adultery is incredibly serious to people (and of course it's the topic of The 7th Commandment). Some people are aware that John McCain cheated on his first wife Carol with his current wife Cindy (who was 18 years younger and quite wealthy), but they aren't aware that John's wife Carol was in a horrible, disfiguring car accident before the affair began.


In light of all of this information you have to ask yourself: If the facts don't support John McCain, why should you?