The Washington Post won’t criticize Fox!

TUESDAY, JUNE 11, 2013

Dearest darlings, it just isn’t done: Professional courtesy plays a large role in American pseudo-journalism.

And no, it isn't just Rachel Maddow! Consider the editorial in yesterday’s Washington Post about the IRS mess.

In our view, the editors made an obvious, constructive point in their editorial. Without diminishing or excusing the “troubling conduct” of the IRS, the editors blasted the overstated scandal-mongering of the GOP.

They even named some names:
WASHINGTON POST EDITORIAL (6/10/13): Capitol Hill saw three more days of hearings last week about the Internal Revenue Service, none of which offered much more insight into the genesis of the agency’s troubling actions over the past three years. Who conceived the idea to target groups with conservative-sounding names for extra scrutiny as the IRS processed their applications for tax-exempt status? We still don’t know. How could that have been considered an appropriate option? And why did targeting resume a few months after a senior manager shut it down?

In the absence of answers, Republicans have begun to fill in the blanks with overheated rhetoric—for example, the possibility of a White House “enemies list,” as House Appropriations Committee Chairman Harold Rogers (R-Ky.) said last Monday. Rep. Ander Crenshaw (R-Fla.) and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) talked about the scandal originating in “Washington” or “Washington headquarters.” Mr. Issa called the president’s spokesman a “paid liar.”
Quite correctly, the Post blasted the GOP for getting ahead of the facts as they promote scandal. The Post even defended Lois Lerner, the designated witch of this episode, referring to the actual findings of the report by the Inspector General.

“[I]n the absence of evidence linking anyone directly connected to the president with the IRS’s decision to sort applications the way it did, talk of ‘enemies lists’ and similar hyperbole are inflammatory and counterproductive,” the editors wrote. We agree, but we couldn’t help noting a hole in this editorial.

The editors named several names, as you can see in the passage above. They even named Darrell Issa, a major Republican player.

But what sorts of names didn’t make the cut? Names like these: O’Reilly, Hannity, Van Susteren.

If it’s “overheated rhetoric” the editors hate, they can find a steady dose on Fox in the past few weeks. They can also find a steady dose of bogus facts, as we have documented again and again.

Millions of people have been aggressively disinformed by the multimillionaire hosts on Fox. But so what? The Post is happy to name minor names like Crenshaw and Rogers. But the editors refuse to name the much bigger names at Fox.

Why has Fox been playing this way? They know it’s completely allowed.

20 comments:

  1. Ahaa, its nice conversation concerning this paragraph at
    this place at this weblog, I have read all that, so at this time me also commenting at this place.



    Feel free to visit my web-site waist to hip ratio

    ReplyDelete
  2. Were these organizations targeted because they had "conservative-sounding names" or because the names are strongly associated with political activity?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is the one and only critical question, and it appears indisputably true that it was the latter. There was no "targeting" of conservative applicants, only applicants with indicators that they might not qualify for tax exemption. There is no reason for TDH to make the disclaimer that he is not "diminishing or excusing the 'troubling conduct' of the IRS."

      If the targeting had nothing to do with the political philosophy of the applicant, then there is nothing "troubling." They were simply doing their jobs and doing it correctly. Of course, too many people have jumped all in on this phony scandal, and too many Democrats didn't have the guts to demand that no conclusions be drawn until all -- ALL -- the evidence was in. They will never admit the IRS agents were doing exactly the right thing, even though it's becoming obvious they were.

      Delete
  3. Hey, it's fine to hate on FOX -- they suck. But it's just wrong and unfair to point out how the rest of the press (including my favorite MSNBC hosts) help FOX get away with it.

    Besides, no one (except a ton of my "liberal" friends) pays any attention to newspapers or MSNBC. They're irrelevant.

    Only FOX matters. And the only thing you should say about it is that it's awful and the people who watch it are terrible people.

    Leave all the faux-outraged media enablers alone, you mean old Somerby!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Democratic operatives abused the IRS to target Republicans. Bob and WaPo are blaming Republicans for complaining about it.

    Under President Nixon, Republican operatives broke into a Democratic campaign office at the Watergate. Would Bob and WaPo blame Democrats for complaining about that bread-in? I don't think so.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Quaker in a BasementJune 11, 2013 at 3:05 PM

    Democratic operatives abused the IRS to target Republicans.

    Evidence please. I say you're making stuff up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Quaker in a BasementJune 11, 2013 at 3:08 PM

      More:

      http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/images/stories/Democratic_Status_Update_Memo_IRS_Investigation_060913.pdf

      Delete
    2. Quaker, the two newspaper quotes below supply the evidence you request.

      BTW Bob and WaPo ding Darrell Issa because he "talked about the scandal originating in 'Washington' or 'Washington headquarters.'" But, the second quote below provides specific testimony that the scandal was being micromanaged from Washington.



      IRS targeted Tea Party groups

      The Internal Revenue Service apologized Friday for subjecting Tea Party groups seeking tax-exempt status to special scrutiny. An inspector general's report to be released this week provides a timeline of events.


      See http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/10/irs-apology-conservative-groups-2012-election/2149939/

      Investigators, who are still in the early stages of their probe, have not uncovered any direct evidence that senior officials in Washington ordered the agents to target tea party groups, or why they may have done so.

      But two agents in the IRS’s Cincinnati office say they believe their work was being closely monitored by higher-ups in Washington. One agent, Elizabeth Hofacre, complained to investigators that she was being micromanaged by Washington when she processed applications for tax-exempt status by tea party groups, according to a transcript of her interview with investigators.


      http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-06-07/business/39798144_1_tea-party-groups-lois-lerner-tax-exempt-status

      Delete
    3. DinC,

      Comparing this to Watergate puts a tin-foil hat right on your pate.

      Delete
    4. What you site proves, and does not even suggest, anything you claim, Asshat in Ca.

      Delete
    5. Quaker in a BasementJune 11, 2013 at 7:05 PM

      Democratic operatives, David? Target Republicans? I don't see either of those in the snips you offer.

      But hey, close enough for hack work.

      Delete
    6. Quaker in a BasementJune 11, 2013 at 7:08 PM

      the second quote below provides specific testimony that the scandal was being micromanaged from Washington.

      I see. And by "Washington" it's perfectly clear that Ms. Hofacre meant Democratic operatives bent on punishing Republicans, is that it? Try reading the inspector general's report. You'll see just who was micromanaging the efforts of staff in Cincinnati.

      Delete
    7. Bob was complaining about Issa's use of the word "Washington." It turns out that this word was justified.

      I think it's obvious that the involved people in Washington were partisan Democrats. First of all, the Dems are in power. Second, most federal employees are Dems. Third, who but a partisan Democrat would misuse the IRS to punish conservative groups?

      Nixon came close to going to prison. I'm sorry he didn't. At least some of his henchmen went to prison. There never was any possibility of Clinton going to prison for his perjury. None of his henchmen were investigated, although I bet some of them knew he had committed perjury.

      Now, Executive Branch misbehavior is well established. The AG apparently lied to Congress under oath. The IRS and other agencies are used to punish conservatives. We accept all this and go on about our business. There's nothing we can do about it anyhow.

      Delete
    8. David says, partisan Democrats but facts not in evidence

      David says, most federal employees are Dems ( note usage as pejorative - extra hackery points) facts not in evidence;

      David says, who but a partisan Dem....rhetorical hackery, several thousand yards in elevation;

      David says, executive branch misbehavior... Hack moves goalposts, equates misbehavior with felony, elevation increases by several thousand additional yards;

      David says, the IRS and other agencies are used to punish conservatives, no facts, almost pure hack work, Fox worthy ( not Jeff)

      David says, there's nothing we can do about it...yeah, but you'll still watch Fox News, spew your bullshit all over this nice little corner of the Internet and collect your check from the evil government (mostly Dems...how can you stand it?)

      David, take your meds on time or that paranoia will strike deep.

      Delete
    9. DAinCA, 1) There was never any possibility of Clinton going to jail for perjury because he didn't commit perjury. 2) Even were Clinton' s statements perjurious, none of his "henchmen" would have been investigated because knowing about perjury isn't a crime. 3) Executive branch misbehavior isn't "established" at all. 4) The AG didn't lie under oath. 5) Whatever the IRS did to the teahadist money launderers, it wasn't punishment since whatever was done couldn't have affected their operations.

      Delete
  6. Quaker in a BasementJune 11, 2013 at 11:28 PM

    I think it's obvious that the involved people in Washington were partisan Democrats.

    That is not a fact.

    In fact, it is the opposite of a fact.

    ReplyDelete
  7. First of all I want to say great blog! I had a quick question in which I'd like to ask if you do not mind. I was interested to find out how you center yourself and clear your thoughts prior to writing. I've had a hard
    time clearing my thoughts in getting my ideas out.
    I truly do enjoy writing however it just seems like the first 10 to 15 minutes tend
    to be wasted simply just trying to figure out how
    to begin. Any suggestions or hints? Many thanks!

    Also visit my site - diets that really work

    ReplyDelete
  8. Greetings! Very helpful advice within this post!
    It is the little changes that produce the largest changes.

    Thanks for sharing!

    Here is my blog post; vegetarian diet meal plan

    ReplyDelete
  9. Don't waste your time looking for cheap service there in terms of hacking that's why most people out there havent found solution to their Hack issues. Trust me, a lot have been swindled via this faceless scammers called hackers. I was a victim of these circumstance as well till I met custom consultant who is a bit of non-conformist but does delve into the dark side called hacking. He was straightforward and has proof of his jobs and finally I got my hacking issue resolved by him once and for all. He has handled other projects for me and as well working on another . If you need to get in touch You can get hold of him at CUSTOMCONSULTANT@OUTLOOK.COM. DO say Perry referred you as he might not help if you don't mention the referral. Just tell him Perry referred you.

    ReplyDelete