Fox Noise: Election Coverage 09

In the wake of three high profile off-year races, republicans have declared the results are a referendum on the Obama administration and that "voters" are unhappy with his policies.  I went on the Fox News website because all the other news sources have been relatively quiet on the whole thing.  CNN followed the races on the "Ticker" and had an article on the loss of same-sex marriage in Maine, but the only article analyzing the election seemed to have mixed messages.  Think Progress seems to be equally quiet, and not surprisingly when they do talk about it, they are very hostile to the concept that it had anything to do with the president.  So I figured I would check out the "fair and balanced" website.

Here is what I found on the front page:

The first think you see is a laundry list of "you decide" questions that are asked in a conservative way, followed by the usual propaganda articles about how it was a referendum on the Obama administration.  Their version of a fair appraisal of the election apparently comes from the Chairman of the RNC.  Notice how they celebrate the GOP victories, in multiple articles, but when it comes to the defeats, they talk about lessons learned.  Heaven forbid the "fair and balanced" news channel should celebrate the democratic victory in NY 23, where the conservative candidate was supposed to win.  Why not analyze how the GOP civil war may have damaged the candidate in a district that has been conservative since the actual civil war?  That might shine an unwanted negative light on the GOP, so we can't have that now can we?

The second thing I noticed was the two elections that were prominently posted on the front page of the Fox News website.  They only posted the elections where Republican candidates won.  Again, where is NY 23?  wasn't that supposed to be a victory for conservative values because the conservative candidate beat out the republican candidate?  or do they not want to talk about the fact that Hoffman's extreme conservatism and scorched earth tactics against the GOP candidate might have cost him the race in a heavily Republican district?  Either way, the gloating continues.

Finally, I went to the bottom and checked to see what the Anchors were talking about, and who they were talking to.  here is a break down:

• Hannity is talking to two Republican Congressman (Cantor and Allen) about Democratic Liberal Extremism.
• Greta is talking to a Republican Congressman (Shultz) about how these two elections area forecast of 2010.
• Bret Baier is talking to Brit Hume (Fox News Anchor) about how health care isn't going to become law.
• Neil Cavuto is talking to former republican speaker of the house Dennis Hastert about how Health Care reform will break the bank.
• O'Reilly is taking a swipe at the New York Times
• Glenn Beck is talking to Al Gore (The only liberal) about eating meat...

So basically, 5 of the 6 anchors are talking to neo-cons about Republican talking points.  The only one who isn't is talking to Al Gore about eating meat.  Sounds fair and balanced to me!  hahaha.  what a joke!

Here's the truth.  Corzine was a screw up, who deserved to lose, and it fits with the pattern in New Jersey of electing governors of a different party than the president.  Deeds was a weak candidate in a conservative area, he was going to get killed and we all knew it.  So really, the republicans beat two weak democratic candidates, and got beat in their own back yard by a democrat.  Is that really a win for them?  and if it is, is that REALLY a referendum on the president.  There is spin and then there is outright misrepresentation of the truth.  The Republicans are flirting with that line on this one.

Common Sense