Fox "News"
First there's this Romenesko letter, from former Fox News producer Charlie Reina:
As with many conflicts, particularly the manufactured kind, dishonesty, greed and ignorance are the culprits behind Fox News Channel's so-called “War on Christmas.” But their enabler, as Dr. Phil might call it, is that well-intended but wholly misguided scourge of society -- political correctness. Rather than promoting tolerance, inclusion and understanding, as advertised, p/c has had the opposite effect. It has made us not a freer society, but one of timid, tongue-tied slaves to convention who substitute glib code words for the more difficult task of actually treating each other with respect. It’s the kind of shortcut that sooner or later circles back to bite you.But first let’s look at what political correctness is, and is not, in this context. Wishing your customers or co-workers, “Happy holidays,” isn’t p/c; it’s common sense. Try saying, “Merry Christmas, happy Hannukah, a joyous Kwanzaa and a prosperous New Year” every time you leave the office, and before long they won’t let you back in. But taking something that’s recognized everywhere – by people of all religious beliefs -- as a Christmas tree and renaming it a “holiday tree” is political correctness, pure and simple. It adds nothing, reaches out to no one. It’s as offensive as it would be to call a Menorah a “festive candelabra,” or Santa Claus “Jolly old Good-guy Nick.” Granted, as a cause for war, this holiday p/c is no Pearl Harbor. But in its own naïve way, it provides the warmongers with just the ammunition they want.
It’s no surprise, of course, that this phony call to arms, this “Christmas (ergo, Christians) Under Attack” hysteria, emanates from the bowels of Fox News Channel. The network is, after all, ground zero in the culture wars that polarize so much of America these days. Make no mistake about it: Fox is on a mission. Its slogans say, “Fair and Balanced” and “We Report, You Decide.” But in the six years that I worked there, what I heard most from Fox management were mission statements – about turning things around, taking news back from the liberals, and giving “middle America” a voice long denied it by the “east coast media elite.” In other words, using its news report to bring about change -- in the media and, ultimately, in the direction of American culture.
...But what really separates Fox from the competition is its unabashed use of religion as a divisive weapon. Common sense -- and common courtesy -- have long dictated that personal religious beliefs be kept out of news reporting unless the story at hand involves religion. But on Fox, it’s not uncommon for an anchor to raise the issue of a guest’s religion, or lack thereof, a’ propos of nothing. The most glaring example I can recall is a 2002 interview with a guest who had been cited for his charitable acts. At the end of the discussion the anchor said (paraphrasing here), “So I understand you’re an atheist.” The guest acknowledged that this was so. “Well,” said he anchor, “we’re out of time now, but I’d be glad to debate you anytime on the existence of God,” and, with that, ended the segment.
This past July, during FNC’s hurricane coverage, another anchor asked a guest: “Do you think God was looking over the people of the Gulf Coast,” by sparing them from a new storm on the heels of Hurricane Ivan? A loaded question if there ever was one. Not only does it presume that the guest believes in God (which, anyone at Fox will hasten to tell you, 95% of Americans do); it puts anyone who might answer, “No,” for whatever reason (including, simply, a deference to hurricane science) on the spot. Now that guest has to decide: Do I answer honestly and be seen on national television as a heathen, or do I take the easy way out and just say, “Yes”? Not much of a choice, as any fair and balanced newscaster should realize.
Fox anchors will tell you that no one in management dictates that they bring up religion. But my experience at FNC is that, once management makes its views known, the anchors have a clear blueprint of what’s expected of them. In this case, the point man is network vice president John Moody. A scholar and biographer of Pope John Paul II, John is a devout Catholic who seldom holds back on matters of the church, or in framing his views in “good guy, bad guy” terms. For example, during the 2001 Senate hearings on John Ashcroft’s appointment as Attorney General, Moody’s daily memos to the staff repeatedly touted Ashcroft as “deeply religious” and the victim of Democrats’ intolerance. One memo suggested a question of the day: “Can a man of deep Christian faith be appointed to a federal job, or will his views be equated with racism, intolerance and mean-spiritedness?” He added: “(K)eep pounding at the question: should Ashcroft’s detractors try to be as tolerant as they would have him be?”
Fox News' director of media relations Paul Schur, a real class act, responds to Reina as expected:
Charlie's rants [below] about Fox News are both predictable and sad. For his sake, we hope he stops howling at the moon and moves on with his life. We wish him well in his current role making cabinets out of his garage.And then there's this site, fuckchristmas.org, with a hilarious rant about Fox's John Gibson and more:
...Now he’s all worked up about Christmas being stolen. What is this, the fucking Fairytale Network? It’s a national fucking holiday and we’re spending gobs of our hard-earned tax dollars on wreaths and lights for your special Santa day. But these bastards are all “But they call them Holiday trees!” Here’s a clue: no, they fucking don’t. Ok, maybe in a couple places, like on FOXNews.com and at the White House, but if Christmas is under attack, I’m Kris fucking Kringle.And guess who’s stealing Christmas, according to Gibson. Go on — guess. “A cabal of secularists, so-called humanists, trial lawyers, cultural relativists, and liberal, guilt-wracked Christians — not just Jewish people.” (Emphasis mine. Pure, unadulterated anti-semitism, his.) A cabal? Are you fucking kidding me? Could we try to be a little more fucking original with our Jew-hating?
Speaking of Jew-hating, Pat Buchanan has joined the hype-a-thon of the supposed Attack on Christmas, too. Or, as he put it, “What we’re witnessing here are hate crimes against Christianity.” Sorry? We’re not so hot on paying for an inflatable camel for your goddamn nativity scene and suddenly we’re Slobodan fucking Milosevic? Fuck you. Get some goddamn perspective, you little prick. When they start hunting Christians in the streets, it’ll be time to start yelling “Hate crime.” And no, it won’t count when they start chasing you with the torches. That’ll be called “The Most Wonderful Time of the Year.”
...Can we back up just a couple steps here? At what point did a basic understanding of the separation of church and state become a fucking war on religion? And how did we get to the point where you can call an organization set up to defend our civil liberties “Terrorists” on national television and no one fires your ass? Enough. Fuck all of you lying little shitheads who wish the world was out to get you so you could play the poor oppressed victims. Wake up assholes — you’re the cowboys, not the fucking Indians.
“But we want to display our Christmas tree on city property!” You can, go right ahead. “They’re stopping us from praying in school!” They’re not, so fuck off. “We’re not allowed to say ‘Merry Christmas’ anymore!” Are you fucking kidding me? Knock yourself out. Say it at work, scream it in your high school lunch room, hell, tattoo it on your fucking forehead for all we care. Guess who’s gonna be there defending your right to do every one of those things? The fucking ACLU. One of these days you bastards are going to drive those fuckers out of business, and then you’ll see some actual attacks on your religious liberties. I thought conservatives were supposed to be all proud and independent? When did they turn into a bunch of fucking crybabies?
Let’s back up even fucking further, shall we? Can anyone tell me how old Christmas is? Anyone? Two thousand years, give or take, right? Gee, who’s been reading their No Child Left Behind History Textbooks? Try fucking four thousand years. Huh. Twice as fucking long as your little baby king has been around. How could that possibly be, unless. . . waitaminute. . .
Christmas isn’t fucking Christian. Ok, now we’re talking.
That’s right, that Yuletide cheer you’re spreading? What exactly do you think Yule is? It's the fucking Pagan celebration of solstice. And those “Christmas” traditions? They’re not just like Pagan rituals, they fucking are Pagan rituals. Way before your Jesus got all magical with the bread and fishes, the Romans were celebrating the birth of Mithra on . . . guess? Go on – guess. December fucking twenty fifth. What a weird coincidence. Practically the whole thing is ripped off from the fucking Druids and the Romans. Twelve days? Check. Exchanging gifts? Check. Mistletoe? Check. And you’d better fucking believe that those decorated trees that Gibson and Co. are so bent out of shape over are as Pagan as the Rune and Crystal Shack at Pentagramfest 2005. You might as well be building miniature fucking Stonehenges in your den.
And don’t you read your own goddamn Bibles? Jesus was born when? In the middle of winter? Lot of Shepherds out watching their flocks around that time of year in Bethlehem? No, because they’d be freezing their fucking asses off. Tell you what – y’all go figure out which one of the different Bible stories about the birth of Baby Jesus® you want to believe, and then we’ll argue about whether it fucking happened like that or not.
Christians just stole a bunch of traditions from other cultures, slapped them together, stuck a fucking tinfoil star on top and called it the Most Important Holiday of the Year. Modern American Christmas makes Michael Jackson look positively organic.
But you boys at FOX still freak out every year about how everyone's out to get your special trees. This is really the most important thing you have to talk about? Whether Target says Happy Holidays or Merry Christmas? Here’s a brainstorm: there’s a fucking war on. Our soldiers are out there dying while you guys do your 14th live feed of the day from WalMart to show us what good little consumers we are. What Would Jesus Do? He’d jump over that newsdesk and kick your ass for that shit. Are you sure you want to hang your journalism credentials on a story about what some guy calls a tree?
Well we’ve fucking had it. You want to play bullshit games and scream about how God’s fucking judgment is gonna come raining down on us if we don't start watching our vocabulary? Go right the fuck ahead. But let me clue you in on something: fire and brimstone ain’t no deterrent for us. We’re not going to hell, assholes, we’re fucking in hell. We live with you.
And fuck Easter too, you fertility–rite–celebrating, whiny, self-righteous, don’t–know–the– history–of–your–own–religion assholes. Fuck off.







Couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks for that link!
deja pseu at December 16, 2005 6:45 AM
That was fucking beautiful! Thank you for posting that.
Russputin at December 16, 2005 10:47 AM
I must be getting old~ I stopped reading after the 10th "fucking".
And this whole nonsense about how to wish someone a seasoned greeting is a media fallacy, a non-event. Even here in the Northwest bible belt, I have yet to meet anyone offended by Merry Christmas, Happy Haunakkah, Splendid Kwanzaa or Happy F'n Holidays.
eric at December 16, 2005 12:51 PM
I'm an atheist and anti-god, and wishing somebody Merry Christmas because I know they celebrate it is kind of like wishing somebody "have a nice trip to Spain because I know they're going to Barcelona, not Berlin." If I don't know what they celebrate or don't celebrate, I say "happy holidays." Better than "get the fuck out of my way, assclown." Well, except for the deserving, and even then, I tend to just use the look that says that, not the exact words, which would be rather uncouth of me.
Amy Alkon at December 16, 2005 2:07 PM
What Eric said.
> You want to play bullshit games
> and scream about how God’s fucking
> judgment is gonna come raining
> down on us...
This is somewhat overheated.
Here's how not to be annoyed by Fox (CNN/Pat Robertson/whomever): Throw away your TV! Are John Gibson's perceptions really a source of concern for us?
People should be more cynical about this. Above all TV is an economic force: It's CHEAP. Cheap to produce, cheap to distribute, cheap to receive. People who get their emotions cranked by it are slutty spirits.
Crid at December 16, 2005 2:25 PM
I care because too many people believe whatever they read or see on TV. I'm just as concerned about "liberal bias." I don't like lying, whether it's done by Anne Coulter or Michael Moore.
Amy Alkon at December 16, 2005 3:02 PM
Coulter and Moore are clowns. That each of them may have dropped a penny's worth of insight along the way doesn't mean they're people to worry about.
Long before he became another screaming head on cable TV, Chris Matthews wrote a good book about politics for everyday folks. It was called "Hardball", and it read like Machiavelli for non-majors. One of the central rules for success in politics was "Never complain about the press." He had dozens of examples from his years on the Hill. His advice was entirely pragmatic, but it works with supernatural power: When you see a *politician* complaining about the press, it means he's been caught with his pants down.
But I think there's an old-testament moral component to this as well. Eventually in life, whether in our intimate circles or in the broader public, we have to stop worrying about how things are perceived by third parties. You and I have each determined that Ann & Michael are full of shit, and can make the case when called upon. How much more do we need to worry about it?
Getting our blood pressure up about things like this is A) a waste of time in developing our own insight, B) exactly what the manipulators who produce that shit want, C) probably a violation of some Talmudic proscription against gossip. Worrying about how the simple little people see things is a way of wiggling out of our own homework.
Crid at December 16, 2005 3:35 PM
That was NOT meant to diminish your aggressive energies in other contexts (chasing car thieves, taunting bad drivers, disciplining obnoxious children, etc). LA needs more of that.
Crid at December 16, 2005 3:38 PM
Why, thanks, Crid. I'm working on it! Daily.
Amy Alkon at December 16, 2005 4:10 PM
Windmills are best ridden around or enjoyed for their beauty. Jeez, that story Nancy wrote about the young boy who recently died of bone cancer should put all our self important crap to rest. I haven't got that out of my mind for two days now.
I do wish our own Ghost of blogs past (aka Lena Cuisina) would organize a holiday we could all wrap our legs around.....
eric at December 16, 2005 4:29 PM
Recently, in Tampa Bay, the Church Without Walls called for a boycott of department stores who said "Happy Holidays," instead of "Merry Christmas."
As one who celebrates Christmas, I decided I would be content to say "Merry Christmas" to everyone, regardless of what holiday they celebrated (or chose not to celebrate), because if someone wished me a Happy Hannakuh, or Happy Kwanzaa, I would accept it as simply good wishes for me, and not an attempt to offend my fragile Christian sensibilities.
But, now I've changed my position. In the interest of spiting sanctimonious, self-righteous religious bigots, I'm saying "Happy Holidays" from now on. I'm also sending Holiday cards to the Church Without Walls, and welcoming them to America, where everyone has the right to their own religious beliefs or lack thereof, and I, as a good American, will respect them all.
Patrick at December 17, 2005 8:50 AM
"People who get their emotions cranked by it are slutty spirits."
What's the point of TV if it doesn't engage any emotions?
LYT at December 17, 2005 4:17 PM
> What's the point of TV if
> it doesn't engage any
> emotions?
Exactly!
No, seriously... We all like a good emotional rubdown now and then, but TV has just one thing to recommend it in this regard: It's CHEAP. So cheap that poor people have one, invariably... If you don't have two pennies to rub together, you'll still find room in the budget for a TV so you can click your remote and zone out. And everything that happens on that box (including Fox news, viewed from either side of the aisle) will try to convince you that you have special powers of insight and are really above such things. So you'll keep on watching.
One reason I fear senescence in an old folk's home is that they'll wrap me in a diaper and wheel me into the Big Room with the others to watch the Price is Right on an aging, misaligned Trinitron under fluorescent ceiling lights. (Bob Barker, like Keith Richard, will persist even in those years.) "Dat-dut duh DUHHHHHHH!"
Wasn't it you who had the story... No, maybe it was Seipp who had a story of having to deal with a roomie in the hospital who watched TV. Who wouldn't prefer a morphine drip, despite risk of addiction?
LYT, here are the two core reasons to not watch TV: First, the people who own and operate these processes, and make the most money from them, are people that you'd probably hate on a personal basis. You know this is true... 'Fess up. Most of them are Republicans, and the rest of us --um, I mean THEM-- are just assholes.
Secondly, when you watch TV, you're almost always watching a tape or a disk file spooling off somewhere, even if it's a continent away. You're watching MACHINERY. The consumption of your immortal soul has been AUTOMATED, and you can't get that time back.
Which would be the more embarrassing statistic to have printed on the gravestone for consideration by later generations; hours spent in lonely masturbation or hours spent watching TV? "Just sit right back and you'll hear a tale...."
Crid at December 17, 2005 6:30 PM
"First, the people who own and operate these processes, and make the most money from them, are people that you'd probably hate on a personal basis."
This is, however, true of almost every product I consume. At least with network TV, none of the money comes directly from my pocket, but from advertisers trying to reach me.
Depending on what you watch, though, I don't see why masturbation and TV need to be mutually exclusive.
LYT at December 18, 2005 6:50 PM
Leave a comment