FOX – They Can’t Handle The Truth

Guest on Fox News to Discuss Benghazi Attack Is Given a Quick Exit 

Defense reporter Thomas Ricks was invited on FOX news to talk about Benghazi and when he said that FOX was trying to create a controversy where there wasn’t one and that FOX was just an extension of the Republican Party they cut him off. Watch:

Auf Stumbleupon zeigen
Auf tumblr zeigen

  • slamfu

    Lol, nice. Way to keep it classy FOX :)

  • bluebelle

    Good for Ricks for speaking out. There is no way that Fox would have focused on this attack with such ferocity if it had occurred under a Republican administration. What has been missing from their coverage is a historical perspective and basic fairness

  • EEllis

    Umm those trashing fox, you do realize that the commenting policy here would be violated by his statement since he was addressing the “authors” and not the issues. If this site could wipe a post why shouldn’t fox bump a commenter.

  • bluebelle

    So you think that a major news network should have the same policies as a political blog???
    The amazing thing is that so many viewers watch them without questioning their bias or without caring that they are an arm of the RNC!

  • ordinarysparrow

    Love this video… watched it three times already…made my day…i loved his speaking truth to distortion….

  • http://themoderatevoice.com/ RON BEASLEY

    EEllis
    He was not a commentor but a expert brought on for that reason. He was cut off because he spoke truth to power. I’m not a big fan of Thomas Ricks but he was spot on here and FOX couldn’t handle it. I doubt he will be invited back. Paul Craig Roberts called them on their BS 10 years ago and has never been back.

  • zusa1

    Cut him off? It seems to me he said what he came to say. Funny that there is little to no reference to the bias that is MSNBC ever mentioned here.

  • EEllis

    So you think that a major news network should have the same policies as a political blog

    Any reason why not? Something about a blog makes the policies ok for it but not Fox? Maybe it’s the opposite that the blog has policies that are the same as fox. To be honest I can see a policy like that being more important to Fox as there is less time and a show trying to explore a particular issue being required to allow guests to go in different directions makes little sense.

  • sometimes

    I do love how Benghazi is framed, “growing concerns.” WTF does that even mean? Ricks is a smart guy, I’m surpassed that Fox even put him on given how critical he has been of W.

  • EEllis

    because he spoke truth to power

    He gave an off topic opinion and they moved on. Wow how impressive……
    Look I know some people are not concerned but some are. Dismissing the issue as hype when a US ambassador was killed is at least a big of an under reaction as the claim of Fox’s reporting being an overreaction.

  • rudi

    @EE
    If JG edited a front pager at TMV for his political bias it would the same as what Fox did. Until commentators cross a line in personal attacks, no one is shot down here for comments.

  • Rcoutme

    @zusai: there are lots of references to MSNBC being biased. Quite often the references suggest MSNBC is the liberal equivalent of Foxnews. I am not sure that such a comparison is actually accurate, though.

  • DR. CLARISSA PINKOLA ESTÉS, Managing Editor of TMV, and Columnist

    when the repubs show the same ‘so deep’ concern about the terrorist attack on the USS Cole murdering seventeen young men from the USA and maiming 39 others, they’ll be believable. Till then, no. Not only no, but h no. THis sudden interest in oh how it all happened, was missing when there were 56 harmed. No such ‘deep concerns’ about the prez were raised then. The Repubs seem to think people dont remember their wastes of funds to impeach a fellow with a willy wander, nor the immense amounts of time to grandstand about a woman on life support. We do remember, especially the millions of dollars paid to the Ken Starr prosecution that made him rich, and especially the time and money to impose on a situation with a family of an injured person which was none of their business.

    It has become more and more written in fire that SOME of the Repubs think they ought waste ALL the taxpayers money playing the dozens. Play away, but with your own money, and not on my time or dime.

  • http://elijahssweetespot.com tidbits

    There is a difference between attempting to learn the facts (investigative reporting) and attempting to manufacture a scandal (muckraking).

    BTW, if someone at TMV were to engage in muckraking, it would not violate commenting rules, as I understand them, to point out that the article was based on scandalous inuendo rather than fact or that the article had an agenda in the eyes of the commentor. That’s different than calling the author a scum sucking piece of vomit.

  • dduck

    Rudi said: “no one is shot down here for comments.”
    Umm. several have been SHUT down.
    MSNBC is pretty bad on the other side. Are they an arm of the Dems. I don’t think so.
    I also agree, he said what he wanted, got a plug for his book and said a polite thanks was given on both sides, so who is blowing this up?
    Could Ricks be a little partisan?

  • rudi

    @DD
    When did JG or any posters shut down a comment. Commenters do get a little testy, but not anyone in power.

  • http://elijahssweetespot.com tidbits

    A tad unfair, IMO, to take half of Rudi’s sentence out of context and then shoot down the out-of-context bit. Rudi did acknowledge, in the first half of the sentence that commenters could cross a line of personal attack which is the basis for several having “been SHUT down.”

    Love ya, Duck, but I’ve gotta call you on this one.

  • slamfu

    EEllis, there are some very obvious reasons why a TV interview has different rules than a political blog, and if they aren’t obvious I can point them out. An interview is between two people who mutually agree to appear together and discuss a topic, and is usually the case, argue. Blogs are however many people want to post and is much more of a discourse free for all brawl between any number of participants on THE INTERNET. The internet is an ugly place without rules. I assure you, if you or I somehow magically involved ourselves in that discussion on FOX from our home computers, they would have censored us. But you don’t call someone on a TV show and break out the giant shepherd’s crook when they say something you don’t like and think no one is going to call you on it.

  • roro80

    Fox has a long history of bringing on people and cutting them off when they say something the producers don’t agree with. Good for him for trying — he got a lot further than most dissenters.

  • cjjack

    There is a difference between attempting to learn the facts (investigative reporting) and attempting to manufacture a scandal (muckraking).

    Which is precisely what Fox has been doing with Benghazi. Ricks rightly accused them of selective outrage, and was shown the door because of it.

    That, by the way, is how you know he ruffled some feathers. Generally speaking, when Fox has someone on who may disagree with them, the guest is shouted down by the host, or they’re outnumbered three to one on a panel, or the interview is simply edited after the fact. They were caught flat-footed by this, and it shows.

  • dduck

    tidbits, caught like the dirty rat (and lousy reader) that I am.
    Question: was that an equivalent “corporate attack” made by Ricks to Fox. I think the interview was basically over.

    P.S. The wild west TMV was stimulating.

  • http://elijahssweetespot.com tidbits

    Duck,

    Because I don’t watch Fox News much, it’s hard to say. Usually when you have an expert like Ricks on, you give him more time than this…or maybe there was more to his interview; I don’t know.

    I too miss some of our less disciplined TMV commenters, though I understand that their departure was in the best interests of civility and necessary to the nature of this site.

    BTW, I’m ok with FOX cutting off opposing views. Hell, it’s their air time. The Benghazi witch hunt I’m not so fond of, based on the idea of responsible journalism…though there’s lots of fodder for that accusation beyond FOX.

  • dduck

    Yes, CNN spends considerable time on it also.

  • zusa1

    I have to say, after seeing this clip of Ricks with Keith Olbermann in 2006, I am more appreciative of his candor:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOQn0wED88Q

  • EEllis

    If JG edited a front pager at TMV for his political bias it would the same as what Fox did. Until commentators cross a line in personal attacks, no one is shot down here for comments.

    I disagree. When asked a question he instead said that there shouldn’t be a question and that the whole issue was made up by the network. To me that would be the same as ignoring the questions posed by a post and saying that the author had an issue and was making up a an issue which can get you post edited.

  • zephyr

    Of course Fox serves primarily as an extension of the Republican Party. One would need to be deep in the fold and in active denial not to admit this. If Ricks had been sympathetic to the bogus Fox narrative we know damn well he wouldn’t have been cut off. This is not complicated stuff.

  • slamfu

    Well no, questioning a silly question is valid. That’s a classic way to steer an interview. “Have you stopped beating your wife?” FOX has manufactured an issue, and the assumption that a guest has to pretend that it’s a real issue, hence playing into their hands, is silly. They want to run a narrative, and they don’t like it when they get called on its validity. Hence he got the boot.

  • EEllis

    when the repubs show the same ‘so deep’ concern about the terrorist attack on the USS Cole murdering seventeen young men from the USA and maiming 39 others, they’ll be believable. Till then, no. Not only no, but h no.

    Now this was 12 years ago but I remember it being a very big deal and both Clinton and Bush taking a heck of allot of heat before 9/11 over this issue so I’m not certain how this is applicable. It’s hard to compare things after so many years and with the massive difference in media that has occurred but………..

    I also have to say that while the Cole bombing is of course horrible attacks that kill US Ambassadors are less frequent and could be argued as having greater political significance.

    The Repubs seem to think people dont remember their wastes of funds to impeach a fellow with a willy wander

    So a post about a tv interview is really a call to generally bash republicans and is justification for throwing in everything including the kitchen sink? Lets just say that others view things different. Mind you I think the effort to impeach Clinton was a waste but regardless of anything else Clinton lied during sworn testimony in a court of law committing perjury. I don’t care where his willy goes but I my opinion anyone who has done that should face jail time. So I totally reject the idea that it was just about his wandering willy.

    EEllis, there are some very obvious reasons why a TV interview has different rules than a political blog, and if they aren’t obvious I can point them out.

    So? He also wasn’t erased like he could of been on a political blog. That’s a big difference but the point of those rules are more similar than different. To focus on the topic rather than side issues.

  • dduck

    If if despised them so much why did he go on the Fox interview and why did he let them plug his book. Just sayin.

    EE, TMVers are to be complimented because they are such big history buffs that they like to pull up old news stories even in the middle of a current debate.

  • bluebelle

    Any reason why not? Something about a blog makes the policies ok for it but not Fox? Maybe it’s the opposite that the blog has policies that are the same as fox. To be honest I can see a policy like that being more important to Fox as there is less time and a show trying to explore a particular issue being required to allow guests to go in different directions makes little sense.

    It just reveals that they have a definite point of view and that they can’t deal with their POV being threatened by their guests. I think the reason blogs have that policy is to keep things civil, Fox’s rationale is to keep the echo chamber from being penetrated by any fragments of reality

  • EEllis

    It just reveals that they have a definite point of view and that they can’t deal with their POV being threatened by their guests.

    Or you could say that a guest wanted to talk about his opinion and not the topic that they brought him on to discuss. Look I’m not say asking if the situation is being over hyped is an invalid topic. But that does not make the topic of the increasing debate over Benghazi invalid either. This topic may be pushed by Fox but I don’t watch Fox news and have seen more than a bit other sources. Someone mentioned that it was becoming a bigger story on CNN recently. So there ware a multitude of possible conversations and oops, this one program didn’t allow their guest to drag the show where he felt it should go. I’m supposed to see some big issue here. Please.

  • bluebelle

    E ellis

    I don’t usually watch Fox either but I have tuned in recently out of curiosity, and let me tell you, they have made this issue the keystone of their political coverage There is at least as much coverage on this as there was on network news during Watergate. Their agenda is to spread misinformation and create a scandal for the administration since they were not able to defeat them at election time. OK regardless of whether the guest was off-script, even Republicans should realize the danger of living in an echo chamber, where every ray of sunshine is blotted out immediately.

    Its group-think at its worst.

  • zephyr

    Its group-think at its worst.

    Now that is a kind way of putting it.

  • sometimes

    @ EEllis:

    It is concerning what happened in Benghazi. Al Qaeda will always exist in some form, and will always be a threat. There will always be dangerous extremists in the world, be they Timothy McVeigh, ELF or Al Qaeda. It is also a risk that Stevens took in Libya – he wanted to be close to the people, to his credit. Unfortunately evil people saw an opportunity and killed him. It was a sad day for Libya and a tragic day for America. To believe or assume, however, that Obama was at fault or that there was some grand coverup is ridiculous. Americans should demand to find out what happened. But do it through a prism that would do justice to the 4 Americans who died, not through a lens to complete some BS narrative…

  • StockBoyLA

    Ha. Fox News’ philosophy is to present news that’s fair and balanced. They have done anything but present news in an honest way. They are neither journalists nor reporters.

    Fox is no longer reporting the news, Fox IS the newsmaker here. Their actions are newsworthy and Ricks reported it. I thought news agencies strived to get “scoops” and this is one scoop that fell in Fox’s lap. :)

    But back to Fox going against their own stated policy and philosophy… being fair and balanced…. since they are no such thing but insist they are… Fox should just self deport from the news business and be solely in the entertainment business. At least they would be taken more seriously in the entertainment business.

  • zephyr

    At least they would be taken more seriously in the entertainment business.

    Sure, but not by anyone you would want your daughter to marry.

  • dduck

    BTW: has Rick’s complained, or stated, that he was cut off?
    Is it possible he said what he wanted to and end of story.

  • roro80

    dduck — yes. He said he had expected his segment to last 3 minutes, instead of the 90 seconds he got.

  • dduck

    roro, thanks. Do you have a link?

  • roro80

    It’s linked in the first line of this post. :)

    First line of the linked post is: “Thomas E. Ricks, the veteran defense reporter and author, said he expected his Monday morning appearance on Fox News to last about three minutes. It ended, in fact, after 90 seconds”

    Later in the same article: In the pre-interview with the producer in charge of the segment, Mr. Ricks expressed his point of view that the Benghazi controversy had been over-covered, “so they shouldn’t have been surprised when they pushed back on that, and I defended my position,” he said.

  • dduck

    Thanks, roro, I have to remember to click on the blue headlines in the future.

  • dduck

    Hey guys, Some interesting, non-Fox stuff today on Rice/Behghazi.
    Politico: “Collins (R-Maine), the top Republican on the Homeland Security Committee, accused Rice of playing a “political role” during the presidential election by going on five Sunday talk shows and incorrectly describing the deadly Sept. 11 assault as something spurred by spontaneous protests rather than a deliberate terrorist attack.” http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84326.html?hp=t1

    NY Times, Maureen Dowd: “The F.B.I. interviewed survivors of the attack in Germany and, according to some senators, had done most of the interviews of those on site by Sept. 15, the day before Rice went on TV, and established that there was no protest.”

    NY Times, page 1: “But Mr. Morell reinforced the perception of an administration that cannot get its story straight by asserting during the meeting that the F.B.I. had modified Ms. Rice’s talking points by removing a specific reference to Al Qaeda. At 4 p.m., the senators said in a statement, the C.I.A. called to notify them that Mr. Morell had erred, and that the agency had made the change, not the bureau.” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/28/us/politics/after-benghazi-meeting-3-republicans-say-concerns-grow-over-rice.html?_r=0

    Seems Fox ain’t the only doubters.

  • zusa1

    Thanks, dd. This also helps explain the transition of spokesperson from Clinton to Rice. The last time Clinton referred to the video as the cause of the attack was 9/14. Rice took over on 9/16. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall listening to the conversations that went down on 9/15. There was no way Clinton was going to do something like this for Obama and jeopardize her credibility.

  • zephyr

    The thing about Fox that continues to amaze is how they go out of their way to sabotage their own credibility (what little of it remains outside the fold) with each passing day. It’s like a runaway train of BS and tribalism. The other thing that amazes is how so many people continue to imagine they are a legitimate news source! Given the human condition I suppose snake oil will always have a market.

  • zephyr
  • dduck

    Z, Ahem, POlitico/Collins, NYT/Dowd/front page, another bunch of conservatives, eh.

  • dduck

    Not the first time an anchor ducked a fight: “You’re not gonna come on and insult me, you’re not gonna come on and insult the network when you knew what we were gonna talk about. Done.” And he was. The anchor went to another guest….. ” Yes, MSNBC. http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/28/opinion/kurtz-fox-ricks-interview/index.html?iref=allsearch

  • slamfu

    That was a pretty neat article Zeph. Thanks.

  • zephyr

    My pleasure slam. Attempts to weed out the more rational conservative voices seems to be an ongoing process. While this benefits democrats in the long run it’s tragic to see a once strong and relatively sane party devolve this far – also sad to see loyalists trying to cling to a party that’s failed them and failed the country.

  • dduck

    Collin, NYT, Dowd, all conservatives and loyalists and add CNN.

  • 4chewnut

    “Look I’m not say asking if the situation is being over hyped is an invalid topic. But that does not make the topic of the increasing debate over Benghazi invalid either.”

    @EEllis.. really?

    what’s next.. declaring yourself, ‘just an entertainer’?

  • EEllis

    what’s next.. declaring yourself, ‘just an entertainer’?

    This question just makes no sense. As I said both topics may be valid, overhype or the political ramifications, but it seems reasonable if you are talking about one not to spend a segment having a guest go on about the other.