Views » May 20, 2008

Fox News’ Criminal Pundits

By James Thindwa

The sensationalist media inquest into Sen. Barack Obama’s associations has cheapened the national debate. It has also exposed the hypocrisy and double standard of the conservative media.

Fox News, which has championed this “guilt by association,” questions Obama’s fitness for office because of his relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, a distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

But if Fox News truly believed in guilt-by-association, the network would have severed ties with some of its pundits and consultants.

Mark Fuhrman — of O.J. Simpson infamy — is now one of its talking heads. Fuhrman, if you remember, was convicted of lying under oath during Simpson’s murder trial when he denied having used the word “nigger.” For right-wingers unburdened with racial sensitivity, Fuhrman’s easy use of the “n” word was probably not a big deal. And for Fox News, flouting the law is OK as long as the cause is right. O.J. Simpson was guilty, legalities be damned.

G. Gordon Liddy, sentenced to 20 years in prison for his role in the 1972 Watergate break-in (he served almost five), enjoys a post-prison celebrity status among conservatives. Liddy turns up on Fox News as a respected commentator, and has cultivated a fan base as a right-wing talk-radio jock. While Fox’s pundits froth at the mouth condemning Ayers for his membership in the Weather Underground 40 years ago, Liddy, whose crimes created a constitutional crisis, is embraced and celebrated as a conservative hero.

How about Oliver North? His claim to fame was the Iran-Contra affair in the ’80s, when he illegally sold weapons to Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini and transferred the money to Nicaraguan Contras, in violation of U.S. law. He was charged with 16 felonies and convicted of three, which were later overturned because the prosecution had used testimony given under a grant of immunity. For his mockery of the Constitution, North became a right-wing folk hero, eventually landing a job at Fox News as an Iraq War correspondent. He was subsequently given his own television show, “War Stories.”

Former Bush adviser Karl Rove is now a paid commentator on Fox News. Though Rove has not been convicted of any crimes, he has had an uneasy relationship with ethics and the law: reportedly the mastermind of the political firing of nine U.S. attorneys; allegedly outing CIA operative Valerie Plame; spreading rumors in 2000 about Sen. John McCain having fathered a daughter with a black woman; and selling the Iraq War for political advantage. But to Fox News and its conservative base, Rove is a hero.

William Kristol is not a former convict, but as salesman-in-chief for the Iraq War he has committed crimes of conscience. Kristol has a permanent seat on Fox News Sunday. Despite his discredited claims about Saddam Hussein’s nuclear programs and his many attempts to link Hussein with al Qaeda, Kristol continues to be featured as an expert on the war.

Bill O’Reilly, the big daddy of Fox News, reached a settlement in November 2004 with a colleague who had reportedly recorded him attempting to have phone sex with her as he masturbated with a vibrator. This history contradicts the self-righteous protestations in his book Cultural Warriors and his screeds against “liberal” wrongdoers.

Newt Gingrich, Fox News’ most erudite and self-righteous pundit, has a checkered past that includes reportedly serving divorce papers to his cancer-stricken wife while she lay in her hospital bed. The former House Speaker also admitted to an affair with an aide while he was still married, even as he championed President Clinton’s impeachment. Most liberals believe these private matters should not disqualify people from public office. However, the pedantic moralists at Fox News cannot exempt themselves from the standards they apply to others. Their hypocrisy needs exposing.

Conservatives have created a two-tier system of accountability: one for progressives, the other for themselves. But their claimed moral rectitude belies an indulgent attitude toward questionable legal and ethical conduct. Mark Fuhrman, G. Gordon Liddy and Oliver North betrayed the rule of law that conservatives like to crow about.

Fox News and its right-wing functionaries threaten the fabric of our electoral system. The push back should start with denying them legitimacy. That means exposing their hypocritical invocation of the “rule of law,” challenging their simplistic “anything goes” standard of patriotism and denouncing their use of guilt-by-association.

• Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
• Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  The sensationalist media inquest into Sen. Barack Obama’s associations has cheapened the national debate. It has also exposed the hypocrisy and double standard of the conservative media.

  Not to worry the liberal media is keeping up with them. (As evident in this article.)

  In ancient times (BTV) radio reports were generally of two types:
  News Reporters
  News Commentators

  Now everyone seems to think we care what he thinks and very little news is adequately documented.

  The rush to be first trumps all. The grab for attention is its only competition.

  Posted by whattheheck on May 20, 2008 at 11:48 AM

  OK whattheheck I’ll bite. How is the liberal media keeping up with FOX and the conservative media?

  Posted by Baraka on May 21, 2008 at 1:02 PM

  Baraka,

  Nearly all reporters (and the writer of this article) of either liberal or conservative stripe are rather blatant in their slanted evaluation of candidates.

  “The sensationalist media inquest into Sen. Barack Obama’s associations has cheapened the national debate. It has also exposed the hypocrisy and double standard of the conservative media.”

  Double standard and hypocrisy:

  Hypocrisy in this article… “Bill Ayers, a distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago.” (The guy was with the Weathermen, for Pete’s sake!)

  The double standard as applied in the McCain/Rev. Hagee association. NewsWeek & TIME/Obama and FOX/McCain coziness.

  To express outrage or disgust at the conservatives using the same tactics in defending the liberals is just silly.

  Posted by whattheheck on May 26, 2008 at 11:01 PM

  I agree, although the Bill Ayers connection is a canard. An association with anyone doesn’t make you a supporter. When the association is as tenuous as Ayers then it just muck raking. On the other hand I see McCain seeking the support of Hagee as somewhat duplicitous. depending on your political point of view I can see both as fodder for the same weapon.
  Baraka

  Posted by Baraka on May 27, 2008 at 4:41 AM

  Baraka,

  Although I voted to put Obama on the ballott for the US Senate, I really didn’t know much about him. I am not sure if what I’m seeing is a real change in his style of campaigning, but I think so.

  I think he has learned that to give a open, honest, possibly long held opinion on any subject is to invite an opponent or media clobbering.

  Obama’s statement on clinging and bitterness, his wife’s first time pride, Iran as a tiny nation (small threat), etc.

  Since he is relatively new at national scrutiny, it is taking a while to become adept at spotting these pitfalls. Occasionally a veteran will slip, but eventually successful candidates can develop a meaningless kind of Greenspanish style of using the camera/mike exposure without any definitive commentary.

  As voters we want someone who will say only what we wish to hear, but be honest and forthright. To have a political history we like without exhibiting human weaknesses. He/she must express an opinion which differs sharply with a previously stated one, but must be open to change.

  The longer the campaign, the more difficult I find it to vote for anyone. As a voter this usually leads me to vote against the person I dislike the most.

  Posted by whattheheck on May 27, 2008 at 12:44 PM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 7 posts.

Also featured Winning the White Working Class
Does the E.U. Hate You?
No Strings Attached?

Full contents
Previous issues
Subscribe and save!

Also by James Thindwa

• No Jobs Make Mean Streets
  As urban economies collapse, gun violence risesPosted on September 12, 2008
• Holding Barack Accountable
  In recent weeks, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has treated his supporters to a… morePosted on July 8, 2008
• Where is the Dream?
  From antiwar activism to economic justice, black progressives face challenges in organizing Posted on January 31, 2008