SATURDAY, MAY 4, 2024
What viewers were told on Fox: It's the wonderful thing about "cable news." Everybody gets to go to bed happy!
Yesterday, starting at 4 p.m., Blue America was reassured about what Hope Hicks had said. Late last night, in the 11 p.m. hour, viewers in Red America were handed its own reassuring account before turning in for the night.
Normally, Fox News at Night is hosted by Trace Gallagher, live and direct from Los Angeles. Last night, he was replaced by Jonathan Hunt, who has a British accent.
Such accents are widely understood to signal erudition. In this instance, here's the way Hunt began his segment about the Gotham trial session:
HUNT (5/3/24): Dramatic testimony today, in what is of course the first-ever criminal trial of a former president, from ex-Trump insider Hope Hicks. Nate Foy has those details tonight, live from outside New York Stater Supreme Court.
Quite a day in court, Nate!
FOY: Oh, it certainly was, Jonathan!
That's the way the handoff occurred. To watch this entire segment, you can start by clicking here.
It had been quite a day in court! Foy continued from there:
FOY (continuing directly): Today we got new insight into former president Donald Trump's mindset in the days leading up to the 2016 presidential election when women came forward and stories went public concerning alleged affairs that Trump denies.
His former adviser, Hope Hicks, testified that Trump was very much concerned about his family—that he didn't want anything embarrassing coming out during the campaign that would hurt his family, that he very much wanted to make his family proud of him and that he was concerned specifically with his wife, former first last Melania Trump, instructing Hicks to make sure that newspapers were not to be delivered to the residence so that she might see articles detailing the allegations.
Here's Trump speaking after a busy day in court:
In short, Foy mentioned Trump's reported concerns about his family, forgot to mention any concerns about the way the reports about the shakedowns by Daniels and McDougal might affect his White House campaign.
At this point, Hunt and Foy played tape of Trump's statement outside court. Eventually, Foy continued from there, mentioning no part of Hicks' testimony that could imaginably implicate Trump in any wrongdoing or criminal conduct.
When Foy had finished his absurdly selective report, Hunt introduced criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor David Gelman.
Presumably, it's hard to book top talent at 11:30 p.m. on a Friday. Gelman started like this:
GELMAN: Well, I'Il tell you one thing—the prosecutors, I think, are having a very strong drink tonight because nothing that came out of the testimony from Miss Hicks had anything to do with the matter and it didn't affect President Trump whatsoever...
The pair continued along in that semi-fantastical vein. Summarizing:
On Blue America's cable news channel, the testimony by Hicks had Trump down for the count. In Red America, the prosecutors were said to be out at a bar, pretty much getting shitfaced.
Variants of this account were performed through the course of the evening on Fox. These are the wages of cultural / political / intellectual death as mandated by the pseudo-journalistic practice called "segregation by viewpoint."
We humans! We just get dumber, then dumber and dumber, when there's no one there to push back, howl or complain.
Biden is more cognitive than any of the candidates trying to replace him.
ReplyDeleteThe ongoing lying by Fox and others in the right wing media create expectations in viewers that result in great outrage when the truth hits them in the face, as occurred when Trump lost the 2020 election when his viewers fully expected him to win bigly. That contributed to the emotion that motivated people to participate in the 1/6 insurrection. They thought the election was stolen because they had been misled for months by Fox and other right wing news.
ReplyDeleteThis will happen again when this jury produces a verdict against Trump after Fox has been saying that the prosecution is flailing. Trump will say the fix is in, and his supporters will believe him because they have heard nothing different from Fox.
There are two versions of this trial being reported. Somerby suggests that each side has some truth to it. That is incorrect. Fox is broadcasting propaganda whereas MSNBC and CNN are approximating a fair description of what happened each day.
Trump wants riots when his verdict comes down. Fox is helping him achieve that end. Somerby needs to stop pretending this isn't happening.
One would hope the incarceration of the January 6th folks would have them pause for thought. I mean DJT completely abandoned those people.
DeleteWhat you mean DJT "completely abandoned those people?" He recorded a song with his fellow America haters.
Deletehttps://www.rawstory.com/trump-bragg-hicks-jarrett-imploded/
ReplyDelete"Fox News’ Gregg Jarrett, who previously said it's a "myth that collusion in a political campaign is a crime," wrote a piece for the conservative outlet in which he insists that "Bragg's own witness, Hope Hicks, implodes case against Trump."
Somerby focuses on a lighter version of the Fox News line that Trump trial is going well for him. This description of Gregg Jarrett's report explains how Fox viewers are being misled about Hope Hicks' testimony. Fox has decided how to spin the trial and their reporters all support that line. There is not only more diversity of opinion on MSNBC and CNN, but their version is more congruent with what happened in the courtroom. For example, they are not omitting things Hope Hicks said in order present a distorted picture of her testimony, the way Fox is.
Fox is not reporting, it is propagandizing and spreading disinformation. It is wrong for Somerby to suggest any of us should be watching Fox. Any of us can find and read the transcript of her testimony. Fox viewers could too, but they are being told all is well for Trump.
Hicks also said that Trump was concerned about the impact of the news on the election. As long as that is true, it doesn't matter that he was also concerned about Melania's reaction. But it is also possible that Trump's cover up extended to Melania. If she didn't know about his affairs, she wouldn't be able to say the wrong thing in an interview and accidentally let the cat out of the bag.
No one thinks that a man concerned about his wife would have such affairs in the first place.
Fox News just focused on Hicks saying Trump didn't want to embarrass his family and Melania. They never mention how Hicks said they we in crisis mode and everything was being done before the election. The election was their main focus.
DeleteOff topic
ReplyDeleteWhy did Google remove this campaign ad?
https://twitter.com/AlexThomp/status/1786394088503152782?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1786394088503152782%7Ctwgr%5Ee10bcabc38de65b677936ae1e454f790f8d40da3%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.powerlineblog.com%2Farchives%2F2024%2F05%2Ftrump-still-too-hot-to-handle.php
Because it's a lie, David.
ReplyDeletehttps://wapo.st/3y5yhrq
Seriously, man. Don't you ever get tired of being shown up like this? Why not dig into these stories before you post them.
DeleteAlso, the ad decision was reversed.
Deletehttps://twitter.com/MrArenge/status/1786805100465275055?t=OLjsbRGLc7m142cOfAH8xw&s=19
The ad went viral after the initial google ban.
DeleteDavid and his ilk are not, and have never been, prone to fact checking on the internet, leaving the hard work of cleaning up after him to others. That is, if you define hard work as putting your finger on a touch screen a few times. He literally refuses to raise a finger when doing so would debunk a false narrative he is propagating. This has been called to his attention on multiple occasions. The dynamic here is that of purposeful intellectual laziness and dishonesty. That is all it amounts to.
DeleteDavid is a good man, but Zionism poisoned his soul.
DeleteDavid says Google banned a Trump campaign ad. They had banned it.
DeleteMike L.then accused David of not knowing the facts before posting and says the ad was banned because it is a lie.
Then Mike L discovered that Google had rescinded this decidion.
Learn to read.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteMore decidions should be rescinded.
DeleteAnd plenty of decisions should be resdinded.
DeleteDavid came here innocently wondering why the bad people at Google banned the trump ad? Right Cecelia? Cause Dickhead in Cal just can't figure out why they chose to ban the lying sack of shit's bullshit ad? David just wants everyone to know what a fucking VICTIM Donald J Chickenshit is of the nasty liberal media. LOL!! David is a fucking dishonest troll.
Delete"intellectual laziness and dishonesty"
DeleteDoes the Right-wing own the patent on this?
Hillary, David complained about a Google decision that THEY sooner or later decided to rescind.
DeleteWhen David posts, Google listens?
Fuck you, Cec! Quit dancing around the issue. Was Dickhead in Cal sincere in wondering why the ad was banned? Stop calling me Hillary.
DeleteIs there a link for the removed ad back on Google, as an ad? I can view it on Twitter etc as a video, but, contrary to Arenge’s claim, it appears to no longer be an ad on Google.
DeleteThe ad has been removed from Google, it presented false information about illegal immigrants receiving subsidies for rent.
DeleteGoogle also removed hundreds of ads during the 2020 election.
Anonymouse 9:56am, you’re getting increasingly nonsensical.
DeleteDavid wonders why the hell google (with its vast power/outreach) had banned a Trump political ad. David writes a post asking commenters what we think.
Mike L says it was because the ad was a lie and David should have ascertained that before posting his ‘moot’ question.
Karma then delivers Mike L a lesson when he finds out he should have updated himself before posting because GOOGLE had decided to rescind that ban.
What’s your dilemma?
David wonders why the hell google (with its vast power/outreach) had banned a Trump political ad.
DeleteWrong. David knows perfectly well why it had been banned. He's just being his bitchy passive-aggressive-troll, whiney self-pitying magat self.
Mike L says it was because the ad was a lie and David should have ascertained that before posting his ‘moot’ question.
The ad was a fucking lie, Cec.
QiB linked to the fact check proving it was a lie.
I realize magats like you and David are perfectly fine with a lying sack of shit president, but the reason the ad was banned was not a fucking mystery.
Karma then delivers Mike L a lesson when he finds out he should have updated himself before posting because GOOGLE had decided to rescind that ban.
Yeah, karma is a bitch, from the "lock her up" party, watching their 2024 presidential nominee sitting on his corrupt stinking fat ass at his criminal trial - the first of four in line.
Can you prove Google rescinded the ban?
This comment has been removed by the author.
Deletenonymouse 12:57pm, I hope you get around to asking Google your non-question question too. Let them tell you why they agree with David.
DeleteIf Soros-bots and idiot-moonbats don't like a political ad, it must be banned. That's in the Constitution.
DeleteGoogle, if you're listening, explain why Right-wingers so bad at being honest.
DeleteThe salient question is, “Is the ad a lie?” If the ad has been accurately debunked and that information was available when DiC asked his question, he is discredited. It doesn’t matter what the current standing of the ad is or whether it has been carried on Tic Tok, Titter or Pornhub.
DeleteKevin evaluates our condition;
ReplyDeletehttps://jabberwocking.com/stop-whining/
Anonymouse 7:37pm, was the National Enquirer’s story about Hillary’s sleazy sexual affairs or sleazy political affairs?
ReplyDeleteIt is an example of Trump's sleazy National Enquirer campaign -- obviously.
ReplyDeleteHer sleazy use of email protocols? Oops, that was the NY Times that pretended to care about that "scandal".
ReplyDeleteBack in the day, Somerby railed against cable news for pitting opposing views against each other, today he whines about segregated viewpoints.
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing coherent to Somerby’s stances, his posts are just un-evidenced emotional rants.
Anonymouse 9:34am where is the disconnect between saying that the media shouldn’t be in the business of churning partisan wrath among the citizenry AND arguing that the media shouldn’t be politically aligned as to what news and positions they will report.
DeleteBob’s not incoherent. You’re just not very bright.
In this instance Bob just argues poorly, I think, producing a confused take. Crossfire famously turned debate into food fight, someone who cared about improving the state of things in journalism would call for quality debate
Deleteprogramming. Bob behaves in such
and idiotic fashion when fate hands
the left a sound argument (Trump
Himself shitting on boarder reform
and the Republicans doing his
bidding) you have to wonder if
such a debate would interest
Bob.
9:51 you missed the point.
DeleteSomerby today wants to integrate viewpoints, Somerby of the past thought that was a bad idea.
Somerby’s views are in fact incoherent.
It does not require much intelligence to see through Somerby’s nonsense, just a lack of emotional attachment to him.
The Republican presidential debates have been food fights for quite a while now. Trump tried to do that to HIllary and to Biden. There is nothing inherently dignified about the term debate.
Deletethat Somerby wants to “integrate viewpoints”.
DeleteThe media discussing conflicting views is not the same as equalizing them or meshing them into..,something.
The media discussing conflicting views opens them up to being called "Liberal", even though their corporate ownership craves the tax breaks Republicans give them.
DeleteThe point is that Pecker used the cover of the National Enquirer to accuse Clinton of the things Trump actually did. And of course it is fake news.
ReplyDeleteSomeone pretending the Enquirer would do an article on anyone’s political affairs is dishonesty of a sleazy nature itself. But, that’s our Cecelia.
ReplyDeleteAnonymouse 9:50am, well, then, what sexual affairs did the Enquirer report as to Hillary?
ReplyDeleteYou saw the cover. I didn't buy the paper or read the story. The right has been saying that Hillary had lesbian lovers (noting Abedin) forever. They accused Hillary of hanging dildos from the White House Christmas tree. Don't pretend you don't know about that stuff. It was, of course, just filthy right wing propaganda without a shred of truth, like the other stories referenced on that cover (which is real). This is what your guy Trump did to try to distract from the accusations against him.
ReplyDeleteAnonymouse 10:45am, so you don’t know what the story on Hillary was about, let alone if it was contrary as to what had happened with Trump’s sex scandals. You just thought you’d wing it and chide me for asking. .
ReplyDeleteI read that Biden won the 2020 presidential election by a landslide, in the National Inquirer.
ReplyDelete