Well, Rupert Murdoch has now made FOX “News” appear tame in his dealings in the UK. Employees of his tabloid paper, News of The World, hacked the mobile phones of celebrities, politicians and pretty much anyone else they wanted. A few of them got in trouble with the law back in 2007 when this was revealed, but thanks to The Guardian’s reporting, Murdoch “settled in court” with some of the victims: In other words, paid them a total of about 1 Million Pounds and told them to shut up. Well, so much for that… Absolutely Rupert Murdoch is a son-of-a-bitch and should be banned from holding a license to practice business. It is going to be hard for his evil stepson Papa Bear O’Reilly to deny this one, using such trumped up sludge as free speech. As if he’d know…

Here is a summary of the reporting, but The Guardian has extensive coverage of this issue, so explore its site further if you’re interested.

I know it is hard to believe, but I think we have found the answer to the US auto industry’s troubles:

Autoworkers Compete to Keep Jobs, Livelihoods on New Reality Show

I just want to clear the air of something that is on one hand funny, but also sadly representative of the conservative movement in this country. I’m talking about the ultra right-wing’s dissociative behavior where its members continue to prove how out of touch they are with reality. FOX “News” is leading the pack with its slander and blatant lies, but more importantly the fuel it is giving to comedians everywhere. For anyone under the age of 35 who attended university or for anyone else in this world under about 30 years old (or for that matter with half a brain), the term “tea bagging” is a familiar one. FOX “News” thinks it has something to do with protesting taxation, but they better think again. Keith Olbermann, the MSNBC commentator and former sportscaster, is certainly familiar with the term and wrapped as many euphemisms as possible into this 10 minute piece the other night (so to speak).

But first, for those of you who aren’t familiar with the definition of tea bagging, here are two options to consider thanks to UrbanDictionary.com:

First: Tea bagging

The act of lowering one’s balls onto someones face, or into their mouth while they are laying down. Kind of resembles dipping a tea bag into a hot cup of water.

Second: Tea bagging

A horribly misguided attempt by the most extreme of the American conservative right to find some basic form of party unity by lashing out against everything that the Obama administration has done since entering the White House.

“The Republican tea-bagging of the White House is a glorified waste of time and effort propagated by the Fox News Network in order to boost their TV ratings.”

“Hey Bob, did you go to yesterday’s Republican Tea Bagging Protest?”

“No I didn’t, Joe, because I have a legitimate understanding of the way the economy works.”

See also: “grasping at straws”

See also: “immature hissy-fit”

UPDATE: I’m sorry, but this has just gotten the best of me and I had to include Rachel Maddow’s discussion with Air America correspondent Ana Marie Cox (really, that’s her name):

UPDATE II: I’m just so, so sorry! I have to up the ante once again as we show how Stephen Colbert Tea Bagged the Alamo or Glenn Beck or not at all… This whole thing is starting to feel like a party that Eliot Spitzer might have hosted at this hotel (but please take note that “in and out privileges are for registered guests only.”

Scott Horton, who writes for Harper’s Magazine, has a wonderfully succinct piece about FOX “News’” supposed balance. FOX has admitted in the past to being the PR wing of the Republican party, so why do they keep pretending to present a fair and balanced report? My guess is that it works, that’s why. I personally have friends who watch FOX and quote it verbatim, lies and all, as if it is fact. The Horton write-up is well worth the read, but my favorite part was how he pointed to this brilliant clip from The Daily Show. Jon Stewart and his team barely have to try when it comes to finding comedic material on FOX. This is just too good to be true:

Lesley Stahl, of 60 Minutes fame, has posted an interview she conducted earlier in the week with Rachel Maddow of Air America and MSNBC fame. I have respect for Stahl and what she has done with her career, but I often find her interviews to be a bit soft and idyllic. Rachel Maddow, on the other hand, is an intellectual tempest in sheep’s clothing. A force to be reckoned with, this former Rhodes Scholar, AIDS activist and lover of labs (read the interview) is scary smart and a joy to read, listen to and watch.

The volley for serve between these two strong personalities was an entertaining, if at times fluffy read, but there was one comment that concerned me. Stahl asked,

“What about your competition, Fox? …Everybody thinks MSNBC is moving in that direction. …That people there are trying to make you into the un-Fox network, the liberal place to go.”

Maddow’s response discussed the intent behind the creation and shaping of each network and that this intent was of more importance in shaping each network.

“Well, if you think about the way that Fox was founded, though – Fox was founded by Roger Ailes. It was created from his perspective as a political operative. His background was as a Republican activist of the highest order. There’s no equivalent on MSNBC. I think MSNBC is trying to find hit shows.”

While I agree the two networks were founded on different principles, I wish Maddow has discussed the difference between commentary and news reporting, as it relates to any perceived “network agenda”. This line has become so blurred over the last decade that even the good journalists see themselves more as commentators rather than reporters and this has a detrimental affect on how news is reported and perceived.

On the other hand, one of the better parts of the interview was when Stahl asked Maddow about what she’s called “fake balance” in news shows.

LESLEY: … What is that and are you saying that your show is real balance?

RACHEL: I’m not saying that my show is real balance. But I think that the idea of fake balance is worse than not trying to be balanced at all. And what I mean by fake balance is to take any given political or factual issue, a news issue, and to approach it as if there’s a yes and no, pro and con, left and right take on it. On the issue of global warming, for example, that is something that interest groups on one side, as a political issue, tried to make that there was a real debate about the facts. And there really wasn’t a debate about the facts there. And to have a debate about the facts was sort of, at its root, dishonest, because it’s scientific information and, you know, fighting about the interpretation of what we ought to do about it them and whether or not the science is important and all of those things, absolutely fine. Fighting about whether or not we agree with the facts is an argument that is designed to reframe, and for the benefit of one interest group.

LESLEY: … The one you raise about global warming is really interesting because I’ve had to grapple with that myself. When you have the vice president of the United States, Cheney, arguing that global warming, whatever he said – I’m not quite sure he went so far as to say it was a crock, but close. Isn’t there some kind of a newsperson’s obligation to present that view when someone at that high a level is propounding that position?

RACHEL: … But then I think the news story is – the vice president of the United States is propounding radical ideas that are disproven by the facts. And he has taken a position, in contravention of what is known about this issue, which is a radical and counterfactual position and this is something that we should be talking about, about the vice president. The fact that he, in the position that he’s in, is taking that stance, itself becomes a story.

Like I said, Maddow is scary smart and really good at what she does. The interview is enjoyable and can be read in its entirety here.