The Day Parody Died

If you were ever skeptical that Fox "News" misrepresents little details like "facts" and "information," your skepticism just suffered a major blow:

On August 18, 2000, journalist Jane Akre won $425,000 in a court ruling where she charged she was pressured by Fox News management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information.

The real information: she found out cows in Florida were being injected with RBGH, a drug designed to make cows produce milk – and, according to FDA-redacted studies, unintentionally designed to make human beings produce cancer.

Fox lawyers, under pressure by the Monsanto Corporation (who produced RBGH), rewrote her report over 80 times to make it compatible with the company’s requests. She and her husband, journalist Steve Wilson, refused to air the edited segment.

In February 2003, Fox appealed the decision and an appellate court and had it overturned. Fox lawyers argued it was their first amendment right to report false information. In a six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals decided the FCC’s position against news distortion is only a “policy,” not a “law, rule, or regulation.”

That's right - a court ruled that Fox "News" could continue "reporting" false information. Not "alternately interpreted" information. Not information up for debate. Pure, straight-up false information. As "news."

I'd comment more, but there's little more to be said. There is no depth deep enough, no bottom low enough, that Fox "News" won't sink to.

Wasn't There a Non-Clinton Candidate Who Won a Non-Indiana State Last Night?

Scott believes that, in the wake of the North Carolina and Indiana primaries last night, not even the media can avoid that Clinton's chances are virtually nil, and while that certainly appears to be possible (it's a good sign when even the thick Tim Russert is acknowledging as much), I'm not so sure it's a certain thing that the media is going to be giving this "Clinton cannot statistically win" narrative. I woke up this morning to see MSN (the homepage when I open the internet), cnn.com, and the NY Times all with enormous pictures of Clinton on the front, discussing the Indiana primaries. At best, Obama's numerically way more significant win in North Carolina was secondhand news, deserving of no photos and smaller font; at worst, they didn't even mention North Carolina. And all morning (and into the afternoon), CNN's [the network] broadcasts have had three major stories: Clinton in Indiana (and later, the fact that she's loaned herself money); John McCain; and Myanmar. Um, guys? Um....how to put this delicatetly.........wasn't there another Democratic candidate? With a lead in the delegates? And a greater total vote count (excluding the non-election of Michigan)? And more states won? Across a broader swath of society? Who won a state last night? That was bigger than Indiana? And finally - shouldn't you maybe at least pretend not to be a farce and a mockery of journalism by talking about him a little, too?

I have no doubt that some media outlets and television "personalities" may finally be getting it through their heads that, statistically speaking, Clinton is done in terms of primaries. And it's one thing to focus on Clinton first and Obama second (biased? Probably. Defensible? In a way). But to do your stories on Clinton, and then McCain, and then Myanmar, with no mention whatsoever of Obama or North Carolina???? That's....I don't know. Racist? Stupid? Ridiculous? Ignorant? (Insert adjective)?

As I suspect many people do, I wish this were over - I'm just tired of it. But to even pretend to offer "real news" and "objective reporting" and all of that tripe that professional journalists on major news outlets claim to love, and then to pull this kind of garbage, is just ridiculous. You'd think Clinton had a stake in CNN or something. Sheesh....

Now THAT'S the kind of intelligent political discourse this country needs...

It was only a matter of time before her outrageous quest for attention blew up in her face.