FOX News aka Pravda?

Tapped is on the story of the former FOX News producer Charlie Reina's outing of the "Memo" sent out daily to everyone a FOX News literally giving the talking points for the day's news. It should be jaw dropping to doubters of FOX News's conservative bias to read the kinds of spin they were told to give in their coverage. The defense will be that this did not affect their "reporting," only the other "content" of the show. This could be true, but the "reporting" of which they speak is the 2 minutes ever half hour of headlines, hardly much other than the first paragraph of a newspaper story.

When you read the Reina's comments it is clear that FOX News is pure conservative propaganda. Now, the damaging element to Reina's claims are that he does not produce one of the actual memos and that he is a former employee of FOX. Those facts will be where the FOX faithful will focus their scorn.

Here is the ironic part. Reina was the produce of FOX News Watch, the media critique program. I regularly watch that show and I can sometimes not want to through stuff at the TV while viewing it. I have to wonder; will the out of the memo be covered in their show? They tape it today and air it tomorrow, so there is plenty of time to discuss it. Do the have the balls to do that? I doubt it.

UPDATE: FOX News has responded. From this VP at FOX we learn one simple fact: there is a daily memo. She seems to not how it was characterized, but there is one, so this is a guy making that up. Her real purpose was to do use Plan 6, call him a disgruntled employee.

UPDATE #2: PressThink has this covered.

Who Done it?

There are several possible suspects, but no clear evidence of the party(s) responsible.

UPDATE: XRay has more on this story.

UPDATE#2: Rob Bernard commented on this last night.

Blogging like Rabbits

We seem to have more and more area Blogs every week. Here is Radio Free Newport:

"Music, literature, politics, commentary, criticism, news by Amy & Dave Purcell, and Michael Kearns. All powered by Guinness, dogs, and Buddhist thought."

A group blog that looks fun. After I have a read for a few days I likely will add it to the blogroll.

It Only a Freaking Movie

Someone should tell Reagan's flock that this is only a movie. If the Kennedys can take the dozen movies made about them and if Nixon could take the movies made about him, I think showing that Nancy's was difficult is not going to do much. Reagan is not a deity! He is just a man. Where's the anti PC crowd? I hope FOX includes this in their PC watch.

Hell, it is not even a movie; it is just a TV show for Zeus's sake.

Stay Tuned

I am building up steam to review CinWeekly. I have a whole lot to say about it, but I likely will not have time today to get it done. One small question for those folks. Why do they refer people on their print cover to cincinnati.com and not their stand-alone URL cinweekly.com? That is a strange choice. In this press release they don't even give the cinweekly.com address. The link on the main page for cincinnati.com is not very prominent. I think this will not establish cinweely.com as much as it could.

Blame the Victim, or Blame the Woman

Ok, Peter Bronson's column states that a woman recanted her statement that the person on trial raped her. Did she recant that she was raped at all? Does Bronson care to ask that question? Wasn't this woman threatened by her "friends" as indicated in the column? So she is the real criminal here? Am I missing something? If she was raped, and if she named the wrong person, then isn’t there still a rapist walking the streets? This comment took the cake:

She said she went into the woods to sell sex for $20, then changed her mind and was raped.

Peter, why not just come out and say "she was asking for it?" If this man did not do it, then I am glad he was found innocent. If this woman was raped, then where does the investigation stand or does her mistakes, allegedly made out of fear, mean that another criminal will walk the streets without facing trial?

Article XII Repeal and the Bigotry of Sam Malone

18 of 26 council candidates support the repeal of Article XII (allows gay discrimination). It appears that candidate Sam Malone wants a uniform majority rules morality:

"It's mighty funny how some folks communicate their religious conviction, and yet compromise on the issue. I have a problem with that," Malone said. "I think we're talking about morality. We're talking about family values. The community has a right to say what the morality of the community shall or shall not be."

Sam, so when does the individual get to be who they are? Why do I have to live by your oppressive religion's standards? What is immoral about not discriminating against someone because they are naturally different? I do mean naturally, from birth. Religious dogma has no place in public law. Sam, do you favor making discrimination against women and ethnic/racial/nationality minorities illegal? If yes, then why do they get "special rights?" Sam, I am part of the community you seek to lead. Why is my view less important than your pious dogmatically challenged opinion?

8 of the 9 GOP candidates are against repeal of Article XII. Anti-gay views run rampant in this town, and the Republicans lead the way.