It’s that time of year again–a time of
- Christmas trees
- Nativity scenes
- singing carols
- exchanging gifts with family and friends.
And, if you’re an employee of Fox News, creating fresh ways to stir up controversey over a non-existant “war on Christmas.”
Stirring up false controversies is a daily assignment for the alleged reporters of this company owned by Right-wing patriarch Rupert Murdoch.
Consider the attack on the American diplomatic mission at Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012.
The attack caught the United States by surprise. Clearly, with the 11th anniversay of the 9/11 attacks approaching, America should have beefed up security at its diplomatic missions throughout the Middle East.
But Fox News wasn’t content to simply make that claim. Instead, it accused President Barack Obama of deliberately sacrificing the four Americans killed in Benghazi that night–including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.
So long as Fox “reporters” spoke only with other Right-wing critics of the Obama administration, the slander went unopposed.
But then Fox News interviewed Tom Ricks, the Pulitzer Prize-winning warfare expert who had covered the U.S. military for the Washington Post from 2000 to 2008, and the author of The Generals.
Thomas Ricks
The exchange between Ricks and Jon Scott, co-host of Fox News Happening Now went as follows:
SCOTT: Pressure mounting on the Obama administration over its response to the deadly attack on our consulate in Benghazi….
Two senators even expressing concerns about a possible White House cover-up. Let’s talk about it with Tom Ricks. He is author of The Generals. He has spent decades covering our military. He joins us now….What do you make of it?
RICKS: I think that Benghazi generally was hyped, by this network especially, and that now that the campaign is over, I think he’s backing off a little bit….
SCOTT: When you have four people dead, including the first dead U.N. ambassador–U.S. ambassador in more than 30 years, how do you call that hype?
RICKS: How many security contractors died in Iraq, do you know?
SCOTT: I don’t.
RICKS: No. Nobody does, because nobody cared. We know that several hundred died, but there was never an official count done of security contractors dead in Iraq. So when I see this focus on what was essentially a small firefight, I think, number one, I’ve covered a lot of firefights.
It’s impossible to figure out what happens in them sometimes. And second, I think that the emphasis on Benghazi has been extremely political, partly because Fox was operating as a wing of Republican Party.
SCOTT: All right. Tom Ricks, thanks very much for joining us today.
* * * * *
But Christmas is special, so, each year, the executives at Fox find a new way to stir up emotions by resurrecting the “war on Christmas” slander.
This year, it fell to Fox hostess Megyn Kelly to carry the ball. And she did so on December 11 on “The Kelly File,” her popular Fox News program.
Referring to an article by Slate writer Aisha Harris on “Santa Claus Should Not Be a White Man Anymore,” she said:
“When I saw this headline, I kinda laughed and I said, ‘Oh, this is ridiculous. Yet another person claiming it’s racist to have a white Santa.’
“And by the way, for all you kids watching at home, Santa just is white. But this person is maybe just arguing that we should also have a black Santa. But, you know, Santa is what he is, and just so you know, we’re just debating this because someone wrote about it, kids.”
Of course, Santa Claus is a completely fictional character. Arguing about his skin color is as pointless as arguing about his weight.
But Kelly wasn’t content to talk only about Santa. So she turned next to Jesus, a historical figure about whom we have not a single reference to his appearance, let alone a picture.
“Just because it makes you feel uncomfortable doesn’t mean it has to change. You know, I mean, Jesus was a white man, too,” Kelly said.
“He was a historical figure; that’s a verifiable fact–as is Santa, I want you kids watching to know that–but my point is: How do you revise it, in the middle of the legacy of the story, and change Santa from white to black?”
Santa Claus a verifiable historical figure? Not even Charlie Brown, in the annually telecast “Peanuts” special, would make that claim.
In George Orwell’s classic novel, 1984, Oceania is always at war with Eurasia or Eastasia. Its citizens are kept in a constant state of frenzy as they’re directed to search for endless “enemies of the state.”
This, in turn, allows the unseen rulers of Oceania to run their dictatorship without interference.
It’s a blueprint for power not lost on the men who run Fox News.

A&E, ABC NEWS, CBS NEWS, CNN, DUCK DYNASTY, FACEBOOK, FIRST AMENDMENT, GENTLEMAN'S QUARTERLY, GLAAD, HOMOSEXUALITY, NBC NEWS, PHIL ROBERTSON, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, RED SCARE, SENATOR JOSEPH MCCARTHY, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER
FREEDOM OF SPEECH ISN’T FREE
In Bureaucracy, Business, Entertainment, Social commentary on December 19, 2013 at 1:10 amThere are several reasons to not watch “Duck Dynasty”:
These are perfectly legitimate reasons to switch channels when this A&E “reality series” comes on.
But there’s one reason that shouldn’t apply: Blacklisting Phil Robertson, the family patriarch, because he expressed his opinion during a Gentleman’s Quarterly (GQ) interview.
GQ itself best summed up the image and values of the Robertsons: “a family of squirrel-eating, Bible-thumping, catchphrase-spouting duck hunters.”
So when A&E signed them up in 2012, the network should have known what it was promoting–and that the words “politically correct” didn’t apply.
Thus, the network shouldn’t have been surprised when Robertson, asked during an interview for his views on homosexuality, frankly stated them.
At 67, he is an unabashed Christian fundamentalist and a proud member (along with the rest of his family) of the White’s Ferry Road Church of Christ.
Phil Robertson
“It seems like to me, a vagina–as a man–would be more desirable than a man’s anus,” said Robertson, a Louisiana native. “That’s just me. I’m just thinking. There’s more there. She’s got more to offer.
“I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical my nam. It’s just not logical.
“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong. Sin becomes fine. Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.
“Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers–they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”
The First Amendment to the Constitution declares, in part:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech….”
Thus, the most important legislative body in the nation is strictly forbidden from interferring with the rights of Americans to express their opinions.
Unfortunately, the Founding Fathers didn’t have the foresight to imagine wealthy conglomerates such as A&E usurping powers that were denied to Congress.
Thus, when the issue of GQ hit the newsstand–and the Internet–A&E quickly announced that it was indefinitely suspending Phil Robertson from appearing on the “Duck Dynasty” series.
“We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson’s comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty.
“His personal views in no way reflect those of A+E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community. The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely.”
The network stated that the rest of the family (who almost certainly share his views, but haven’t done so publicly) would remain on the program.
Of course, the homosexual/lesbian/transgender community were outraged by Robertson’s views–which were precisely those of an Old Testatment-quoting patriarch.
And they have every right to be upset. They have long been and continue to be targets of abuse–much of it violent. And no doubt they see Robertson’s views as justifying further such abuse aimed at them.
And they weren’t shy about expressing their views about Robertson–and his beliefs. According to a statement released by GLAAD (formerly Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation):
“Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe.
“He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans–and Americans–who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples.
“Phil’s decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors who now need to reexamine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families.”
From a First Amendment perspective, so far, so good–two diametrically opposing opinions on a vital social issue. May the best argument win.
But according to A&E, there can be only one prevailing view on homosexuality–whatever view the network’s topmost officials decide is correct at any given moment.
This is the liberal version of the 1950s “Red Scare” reign of Wisconsin Senator Joseph R. McCarthy. Anyone accused of being a “Communist,” a “Comsymp” or “fellow traveler” could suddenly find himself out of work.
This was especially so in the area of television–where simply being labeled “controversial” could earn you a pink slip.
Love him or loathe him, Robertson has never hidden his views from anyone.
A&E surely knew what it was getting when it signed him and his Louisiana family up for this “reality series” which brings in huge profits from its 14 million viewers.
Only when those profits are threatened by the public statement of views that A&E officials surely knew long ago has the network tried to distance itself from its ratings-winner.
Share this: