They All Look The Same To Fox News

4 comments June 6th, 2007at 08:26pm Posted by Eli

For some reason, Fox News just can’t seem to keep their black Democrats straight:

On the June 4 edition of The Live Desk, Fox News showed footage of House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers (D-MI) while Fox News Washington bureau chief Brian Wilson reported on the expected indictment of Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA). Later that day, Jefferson was indicted on 16 counts, including charges of racketeering, soliciting bribes, wire fraud, money laundering, obstruction of justice, conspiracy and violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. This is not the first time Fox News has shown footage of one African-American elected official while discussing another — in the previous case, airing footage of then-Rep. Harold Ford Jr. (D-TN) while talking about Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL).


The footage of Conyers was accompanied by a “Breaking News” banner that read: “Cong William Jefferson (D-LA) Facing Possible Bribery Indictment.”

On the June 5 edition of The Live Desk, host Martha MacCallum apologized for running “the wrong video to accompany” the Jefferson indictment story, but did not note the precise error — that footage of Conyers had been shown in place of Jefferson. MacCallum said: “Yesterday at this time, news of the indictment of Congressman William Jefferson came down. We mistakenly ran the wrong video to accompany this story, and we apologize for that error.” Later that day, Conyers released this statement:

Fox News has a history of inappropriate on-air mistakes that are neither fair, nor balanced. This type of disrespect for people of color should no longer be tolerated. I am personally offended by the network’s complete disregard for accuracy in reporting and lackluster on-air apology.


Indeed, as Conyers suggested, Fox News made a similar mistake during the November 6, 2006, edition of The Live Desk, as Media Matters documented at the time. Footage of Ford played on-screen while MacCallum said, “I was reading something about evolution and it talked about virility and, you know, health and fitness and survival of the fittest. It’s sort of a natural instinct, in many ways, to look at someone like Barack Obama as you point out, and say, you know, he looks young, he looks healthy, he looks strong.”

Umm… does that last quote come across as kinda creepy and inappropriate to anyone else? Maybe I’m hypersensitive (or just wary of the source), but it kinda sounds to me like she was calling Obama a strapping young buck negro there. On the other hand, maybe it’s not so different from Roger Simon talking about Mitt Romney…

Entry Filed under: Media,Racism,Republicans,Wankers


  • 1. Ruth  |  June 7th, 2007 at 5:04 am

    Fox’s appeal to its audience is its refusal to recognize reality. Much reporting on Hillary Clinton carries that ‘ambitious not young woman’ tone, it’s the lack of ability to see individuality that defines Fox’s ‘reportage’. Nuance is for the pointy-headed libruls. They’ve got their story line and they’re sticking to it. As background for the Hillary stories I wouldn’t be surprised to see Lassie growling.

  • 2. virgotex  |  June 7th, 2007 at 8:01 am

    you know, he looks young, he looks healthy, he looks strong.

    Hide the wimminfolk!

    I respectfully disagree with Ruth. I think they recognize reality very precisely, and then, very deliberately, skew it – or “enhance” it- as they deem appropriate for their aims.

    I don’t watch it much so I could be wrong, but the type of outrageousness that ends up being reported on the blogs, the type of stuff in your post , for exampel, is for the most part patently different than the usual tone-deafness we get from the other networks. I believe there is a deliberateness to it that separates it.

  • 3. Eli  |  June 7th, 2007 at 8:14 am

    I’m with Tex – Fox is all about propaganda and misinformation. If they get called on it, they either deny or claim it was just an honest mistake.

  • 4. Ruth  |  June 7th, 2007 at 3:26 pm

    ‘refusal to recognize’ means more that there is an obstinance in sticking to a point of view that they know will go over with their type of viewers. I guess if they do see it and that’s the origin of the effort to fight it, the effect is the same. But I work with some one who has constantly to re-orient himself to keep from admitting to things that we can see clearly, and I do see that as refusal to admit to what is more evident every day.

Contact Eli



Most Recent Posts




June 2007
« May   Jul »

Thinking Blogger

Pittsburgh Webloggers

Site Meter

View My Stats *