Fox News gets a little desperate for its latest Obama hit job

March 20, 2008

Conservative efforts to characterize Barack Obama as Scary Black Man 2008 have picked up considerably of late, but this Fox News piece, disseminated widely by far-right blogs, reflects a certain desperation.

Barack Obama’s campaign has rejected the support of the New Black Panther Party, after removing an endorsement by the group from its Web site Wednesday.

Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor issued a statement rejecting the Panther backing, and told FOXNews.com: “The page in question has been removed from our campaign Web site. It’s our policy with any content generated by a group that advocates violence.” […]

The New Black Panthers, who inherited their name from the Black Panther Party of the 1960s, had the page on the Obama campaign’s public forums. The group’s message said it is backing Obama because he “represents ‘positive change’ for all of America. Obama will stir the ‘Melting Pot’ into a better ‘Molten America.'” […]

The NBPP is identified as an extremist hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a tolerance education organization. The Anti-Defamation League calls NBPP “the largest organized anti-Semitic black militant group in America. … Under Shabazz, the group continues to organize demonstrations across the country that blend inflammatory bigotry with calls for black empowerment and civil rights.”

Fox News’ “report” goes on and on (and on) explaining how awful the New Black Panther Party is, and why no one should want anything to do with the group.

Unhinged right-wing activists extrapolated from this that the Obama campaign had touted support from the NBPP and gave the group its own page. One conservative went so far as to say Obama’s site was “caught bragging” about the NBPP’s support, and the Obama campaign was “dumb” to “post the endorsement.”

Given how excited the right got over all of this, it’s probably worth taking a moment to debunk this nonsense.

Rather than reinvent the wheel here, I’ll just let Sam Graham-Felsen set the record straight.

So Fox News evidently decided to pour through our millions of user-created pages on My.BarackObama.com and put a screenshot of inflammatory content on the front page of FoxNews.com.

You see, more than 700,000 people have created accounts on the system. You can create one right now if you choose, in about a minute — anyone can.

Now, from time to time people get up to no good — creating fake profiles (like one for Sean Hannity created today), or posting profane or inappropriate content. When they do, the community reports the offending content and if it violates our terms of service it is removed (as the Sean Hannity profile was).

My.BarackObama.com has been at the core of our bottom-up organizing strategy. The tools available have been put to work by a community of supporters that is bigger and more powerful than anything presidential politics has ever seen.

Evidently, Fox News didn’t think it was a big deal that hundreds of thousands of ordinary Americans are participating in the democratic process creating groups and local events in communities all across the country.

But they did think it was a big deal that one random person on the Internet, without the knowledge of the Obama campaign, posted a profile in the system with the image of the New Black Panther Party on it.

When we were alerted of the existence of this page, we pulled it down. Yet even after we pulled the page, Fox News continues to disingenuously and prominently feature this “story” on their homepage.

It’s really not complicated. The Obama campaign didn’t give the NBPP its own page, the campaign didn’t “brag” about the NBPP’s support, and the campaign didn’t “post the endorsement.” They created a system in which anyone can create a page, someone created an NBPP page, and the campaign deleted it. There’s nothing here.

But Fox News and several high-profile conservative bloggers got hysterical anyway. And they wonder why they suffer from credibility problems….

One talk radio host in Charlotte got sucked in by this. And she says she’s nonpartisan … tsk, tsk …

  • But Fox News and several high-profile conservative bloggers got hysterical anyway. And they wonder why they suffer from credibility problems….

    I am sure Bill O’Riely will discuss this in his “no-spin” zone clearing all this up and taking FoxNews to task for this hit job. /snark

  • It’s sad how retarded the right wing media is, because the average conservative does bring some good things to the table every now and then. But the media that they support is determined to keep them ignorant, and which is the chicken and which is the egg is anyone’s guess.

    But it’s safe to say that if we didn’t have the wingnut media, people who go around saying things like this wouldn’t be anywhere near the presidency:

    “The situation has improved dramatically over the last year. The Iraqi people are going about their normal lives.”

    http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL2076179920080320

    The guy can’t even do his surrounded-by-soldiers market photo op because of the ongoing violence, and he’s telling us that “the Iraqi people are going about their normal lives”. I guess in McCain’s world “normal lives” includes getting killed and/or struggling to survive without power or water.

  • There’s no such thing as non-partisan talk radio in Charlotte. I used to listen to WBT on my way to work so I could keep up with traffic. But after a few weeks of sky high blood pressure, I decided that I’d rather deal with the traffic than the bullshit.

  • Ed, we stopped being a civilized society when we went down the blow job 24/7 drain years ago.

    Iraq just cemented it.

  • Look we know by now that the Wright thing is merely the mainstream’s way of trying to derail Obama, Stewart got it right that Obama is actually talking to people like adults and the media doesn’t like that, where would they be without their soundbites? If people actually started to think for themselves they’d be gone, bread and circuses is all they got.

  • I love you left wing nut jobs, I cant believe you continue to complain about fox for being a conservative media outlet, while every other media outlet that exists is biased for liberals

  • Lots of posts about Obama but near silence about the hit job on Hillary perpetrated by ABC, who apparently searched the newly released White House records to see whether she was present in the White House on the days Bill was with Monica.

    Is outrage only reserved for the favorite candidate on this blog? Does that seem like fair treatment or has everyone become so accustomed to seeing her treated unfairly that it is hardly worth commenting upon?

    I can’t work up much sympathy for Obama over this triviality when there are much larger fish being fried today.

  • Lots of posts about Obama but near silence about the hit job on Hillary perpetrated by ABC, who apparently searched the newly released White House records to see whether she was present in the White House on the days Bill was with Monica.

    If by “near silence” you mean its very own post, then yes, Mary, you’re right once again:

    http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14950.html

  • Yes, yes, the media is SO LIBERAL– the very same media who GOES TO MCCAIN’S HOUSE FOR FREAKING BBQ and sees no conflict of interest.

    You know, the so-called liberal media that gives Joe Scarborough 3 hours in the morning, Lou Dobbs another hour or two and Glen Beck 2 hours a day. All without any “conservative” or “GOP operative” labels.

    Liberal media my ass.

  • The OBAMA channel, (Fox News) has different shows in a 24/7 time frame, HOWEVER, they are all talking about Obama 80% of their air time. Fox is as usual, “Preaching to their Choir” as no person with half a brain could stomach their OBAMARAMA staring Insanity Hannity “the parrot” who repeats the same thing over and over, night after night and his house boys Juan Williams and Colmes. Does it not say volumes about a station where all the commentators have the same frame of mind?

  • Where there’s smoke

    … there’s one random user webpage out of 700,000?

    Funny, I remember that saying a little differently.

  • Well, from Fox’s POV, Obama has a terrible fault: he’s black, but he’s not angry. His black ancestor wasn’t brought here in chains 150yrs ago. He wasn’t raised in the ghetto; he was raised by the white half of his family. So he’s comfortable with both blacks and whites and baying for the blood of neither. It’s his lack of anger that makes him so attractive.

    Can’t have that; that’s not scary; that could pull some Indies away from McSame. Whom the fRight may not like very much either, but, at least, he’s *their* Terrible Grandpa. So, the only way they can frighten people away from Obama is by proximity to other blacks, who might be more scary. Hence the ads mixing Obama with Malcolm X. Hence the — dragged out Wright — controversy, following the Farrakhan controversy, following Michelle Obama controversy, following the Muslim controversy (after all, black Muslims are twice as sacry as brown Muslims) etc, etc, etc.

    Mind you, Fox has able enablers in the campaign of Obama’s opponent. No, not *that* one; McSame has just suspended (though not fired) someone in his campaign for circulating (by -email) one of the composite scare-videos…

  • O don’t bother Mary. She’s been diligently pouring over 11,000 pages of luncheons and foofoo appointments for one substantial fact to prove her “Hillary was Co-President” theory.

  • TR — yes, one meagre post about Clinton and several each day about poor little Obama and his Wright problem and how everyone is now picking on him.

    There is real persecution of Clinton by HuffPo and ABC compared to a reasonable and thorough vetting of Obama over an issue that should be receiving the attention it is. Which deserves complaint?

    Over on AmericaBlog, Aravosis is complaining because the Clinton campaign is suggesting to superdelegates that this may make Obama less electable, as if that were some sort of dirty campaigning instead of an entirely reasonable suggestion given the polls. If Dems were focused on beating McCain, they would be addressing this unfair treatment of Clinton by the MSM, instead of throwing her to the wolves. When Clinton is nominated, this neglect of supporting her interests, not just those of Obama, will come home to roost.

    Now it just illustrates the hypocrisy here — MSM mistreatment is less of a concern if it is happening to the candidate you don’t support (e.g., Clinton instead of Obama). As I said, I can’t get worked up over this triviality, but Carpetbagger thinks it is worth a whole post — ever vigilant in Obama’s cause!

  • Note to Obama: What part of unelectable do you not understand? You are dropping by the second in every poll. Went out to eat tonight & the waitress I had was a HUGE Obama fan. Not any more………………..she called him “The Anti-Christ”. Rev. Wright is NEVER going away & you never answered the question in your civil rights speech why you didn’t leave that church. I agree with the statement that how can African Americans be so outraged over Don Imus’s statements but whites are just supposed to give Obama a pass on Rev. Wright? Not going to happen. Ever.

  • Hey Mary….

    No one likes Hillary anymore. The media doesn’t have to do anything to her, her slimey tactics have spoken for her…..

  • yes, one meagre post about Clinton

    Mary, what exactly about that Clinton post was “meagre?”

    You asked why the topic hadn’t been covered. TR pointed out why you seem to have an empty space in your head where your brain should be, and then you complain that it’s not enough that the Carpetbagger devotes a whole post to the exact topic you were accusing us all of ignoring.

    You have jumped the being-full-of-shit shark.

  • Now it just illustrates the hypocrisy here — MSM mistreatment is less of a concern if it is happening to the candidate you don’t support (e.g., Clinton instead of Obama).

    Really? Did you actually read that post? Go look at the comments from some of the non-Clinton supporters:

    Me: “Well, I don’t like her much these days and I don’t want her to be the nominee for sure. But this “story” is absolute bullshit. I’d say Brian Ross should be run out of the profession, but most of his colleagues are panty-sniffing gossip whores already, so he’s right at home.”

    JKat: “i think it’s disgusting ..it’s smear politicas trying to masquerade as news . .and ditto for drumming ross out of the journalism corps .. this was a hack job . a pure political hit ..and shame on AP as well … i’m not a clinton person”

    Shalimar: “Cafferty summed up my opinion on the Lewinsky crap pretty well. I didn’t care then, don’t care now, and find it pretty disgusting that the people who prioritize our news coverage are fascinated by this nonsense.”

    Mark: “I’m with TR; as much as I never thought Hillary Clinton would make a particularly good president, and as much as I’ve learned to dislike her after watching her pursuit of just that, this is a cheap story that knows it’s cheap.”

    Even though we’re not pulling for her, we all called the story bullshit and denounced it in no uncertain terms. And so did Steve.

    If that’s not good enough for you, why don’t you go start your own blog? Steve is not beholden to your desires or to mine or to anyone else’s here. It’s his blog, and he can do what he wants with it.

  • Note to Obama: What part of unelectable do you not understand?

    Classy.

    So when we Obama supporters call for Hillary to end it because she’s behind in votes, delegates, states and money, you Clinton supporters cry bloody murder about how unfair it is to call for someone to quit. But if Obama falls behind in some polls, he’s unelectable and we should all just pack it up and go home.

    No double standard there…

  • There is real persecution of Clinton by HuffPo and ABC compared to a reasonable and thorough vetting of Obama over an issue that should be receiving the attention it is. Which deserves complaint?

    Mary – Are you serious? This isn’t a post on Wright. This is ONE post on a bogus Fox News story about how a user-created Black Panther page on Obama’s site somehow proves that he supports militant racists. Just like CB wrote ONE post on the Clinton thing, What exactly is the problem?

    And look, this is how it works: You write a post if you’ve got something new to say. When the Wright thing broke, you have a story. If there’s an important break on the story, for example, someone important saying something or Obama giving a historic speech dealing with it, that’s another news story. Now please explain where exactly the follow-up post on the Clinton thing comes from? What else is supposed to be said? As for Wright, when the MSM writes about it, it’s not to show Obama as a victim, but to show that this is a problem for him and somehow makes him unelectable. Wow, what a huge anti-Clinton bias that is.

    Besides, it’s the Hillary people who keep playing the victim card. When we write about this stuff, it’s to showcase the bogus claims; not to drum up sympathy. I find it quite funny when you claim that Hillary’s being victimized just because people aren’t showing how victimized she is. That’s one of the reasons I always preferred Obama, as I want a president I can support; not one I pity. And if you want to read a blog that only focuses on how everyone’s picking on poor Hillary, I suggest your write it. That’s how this works. This isn’t the newspaper business and if you really think people will read a Poor Hillary blog, go for it.

  • There is real persecution of Clinton by HuffPo and ABC compared to a reasonable and thorough vetting of Obama over an issue that should be receiving the attention it is. Which deserves complaint?

    I’m afraid to ask but did you even read the post you’re commenting on here, Mary

    Which part of the topic of this post seems like a “reasonable and thorough vetting of Obama?”

    Undoubtedly you’re just carrying on about Wright, even though this post has NOTHING to do with Wright.

    Reading comprehension, something you might want to take a shot at.

  • The media has been playing softball with Mccain and Hillary the past few weeks, ignoring all the McCain Gaffes, his weasling out of public funding, his relationship with lobbyists, while with hillary she still hasn’t released her tax reports, she scrubbed her schedules, and her claims of experience are weak at best. And yet a few statments by some pastor that doesn’t speak for Obama has dominated the news.

  • One token post, one chorus of outrage. No analysis, no context, no perspective on how this may hurt her campaign. Nothing about how the continuing MSM bias may have already hurt her strength and perhaps put her in this position today. Nothing about why it was wrong or what it means — beyond the idea that ABC is into porn or some such nonsense. You’d almost think it wasn’t a political act.

    People here have been clamoring for transparency, for disclosure of papers. What did you think was going to be done with those papers? Do you seriously believe there will be anything new in them? Why did you think there wouldn’t be this kind of assassination using the barest evidence? Are you unaware that other folks are trumping up passages to revive every single previously investigated empty accusation?

    Talk about distractions from Obama’s troubles — what role do you think this spotlight on Hillary’s marriage plays in that drama? Is this all a coincidence, especially the timing?

    Those of you asking that she release her tax returns. Don’t you think the same sort of charade will play out then. It doesn’t matter what is in them. It will result in a grossly unfair mischaracterization in support of the current anti-Clinton memes.

    THAT is why I don’t believe anything you say or post TR. You have no shame about this sort of thing. You can call me whatever names you like, but it doesn’t change a thing about this situation. THERE was no scrutiny of what has happened, nothing comparable to what occurs on behalf of Obama every half hour.

    The mock outrage about this event stinks. Yes, it was wrong, but you don’t just say that (heads nodding everywhere) and then move on. Look at what happened!

  • The post I am comment on is nothing more than business as usual at Fox. This do this kind of thing all day long. It is trivial, especially because everyone can see it is an unfair attack. Why did that merit a whole post? Most of the things posted about Obama here are like that. But something major happens to Clinton and its nearly ignored. (TR notice that nearly does not mean the same thing as completely)

  • Mary, what “position” is Mrs. Clinton in today, exactly? Oh, you can only mean in the position of having lost the primary. That she and her supporters seem willing to do anything to avoid admitting it, even to the point of seriously damaging the prospects of very party she asks (that is, demands) to lead is precisely why I dropped my support for her and now support Obama. You can blame “the media” for Mrs. Clinton’s statements and behavior (including her documented, unabashed lies, such as her claims that she never supported NAFTA) as much as you like (which, no insult intended, sounds so very Republican, doesn’t it?), but the facts are there. Perhaps, as I did, you might reach that painful point where the stark, verifiable reality of Mrs. Clinton’s lack of ethics, character, and human concern for anyone but herself overcomes you’re strong feelings for her candidacy. Perhaps not. In either case, the only one responsible for her “position” today is her.

  • Mary, for someone who doesn’t want to respond to me, you sure do devote a lot of attention to me.

    But come on, now. MixedMudd, Will, Coral, Doctor B. and Jim all responded to your craziness in this post with equal amounts of scorn. Don’t neglect them.

  • I’m not a fan of the NBPP but Malik Shabazz was correct when he confronted Hannity on his association with white supremacist/neo Nazi Hal Turner. Hannity first denied knowing Turner, then said he had banned him from his radio show (without mentioning that the ban came after he repeatedly allowed Turner to spew his racism), then said, “I’m not running for president.”

    Hypocritical Hannity is in no position to be judging other people’s associations nor their divisiveness.

    http://www.newshounds.us/2008/03/20/hannity_denies_past_association_with_white_supremacist_but_evidence_suggests_otherwise.php

    Hypocritical Hannity has quite a record of bigotry.
    http://www.newshounds.us/2008/03/16/ask_al_sharpton_to_reconsider_sean_hannitys_participation_in_martin_luther_king_commemoration.php

  • with no particular preference to either candidate – has anyone read the WHOLE Fox story . The Obama Campaing has taken out a statement about the incident and pulled off the endoresement . Case closed . Dont you guys have other things to do than rave and rant … By saying stuff if you think you can show support to any side you are wrong and being imature . The true enemy is not Obama or Hillary – its the republicans .
    Divided we fall ….

  • CB, can you do something about the posters piling on against any Clinton support? I know mary isn’t the greatest commenter… But really, why would anyone who’s nicer reply, with these thugs around?

  • Oh please. It’s not piling on against any Clinton support, just three particular Clinton backers who are off the deep end — Mary, Greg and Comeback Bill.

    Look at their comments in this post.

    Mary got mad because no one had talked about the asinine Clinton-Lewinsky “story.” When I pointed out that Steve had made a post about it already, she said that “it just illustrates the hypocrisy here — MSM mistreatment is less of a concern if it is happening to the candidate you don’t support.” When I showed her that several Obama backers denounced the story despite their dislike of Clinton’s candidacy, she insisted it still wasn’t enough.

    Greg, meanwhile, has this wisdom to offer: “The OBAMA channel, (Fox News) has different shows in a 24/7 time frame, HOWEVER, they are all talking about Obama 80% of their air time. Fox is as usual, “Preaching to their Choir” as no person with half a brain could stomach their OBAMARAMA” Fox News, the station that spread the lies about Obama attending a madrassa and hosts nonstop O’Reilly attacks on him, is an example of “Obamarama.” OK, then.

    Comeback Bill didn’t post here, but if he had it would’ve been a variation on past hits like “Obama supporters need to get over themselves. Get a job in the blue collar sector and quit all the latte sipping Lexes driving liberal bull.”

    Tell me, Crissa, how exactly are we supposed to respond to commenters like that?

  • TR

    These are the only Clinton supporters who post on this blog; and they are consistently attacked by everyone else here.

  • These are the only Clinton supporters who post on this blog; and they are consistently attacked by everyone else here.

    No, they’re not. Just the most visible due to the scorn they attract.

    Nell posts regularly for Clinton, and largely civilly. Despite her complaints here, Crissa’s never attracted people’s ire like they have. And Dennis D and I had a nice and civil exchange in the “tracking poll” thread.

    • Comments are closed.