Maddow Recycles Absurd Claim That FNC 'Never Criticized George W. Bush for Anything'

NewsBusters by Lachlan Markay | Nov. 15, 2010 (News Analysis)

(Blog Post) MSNBC talker Rachel Maddow whined about "Fox News's water-carrying for the Bush Administration" during her interview with Jon Stewart last week. She also claimed that Fox "never criticized George W. Bush for anything. Even when he was doing things that were sort of not conservative. They never criticized him." Unfortunately for Maddow and the legions of like-minded Fox haters making similar claims, the meme is patently false. Full Story »

Posted by Jon Mitchell

More Info

Related Comments: Bad Journalism (4)

3.3

by Jon Mitchell - Nov. 16, 2010

The author seems unduly defensive against criticisms of Fox News, but the rebuttal of Maddow's claim is resounding. She overstepped in claiming that Fox "never" criticized Bush, allowing Markay to assemble a long list of counterexamples.

Jon posted this story.

See Full Review » (11 answers)

2.1

by Michael Shaver - Nov. 17, 2010

In the larger scheme of things a website dedicated to exposing and combating Liberal media bias is "a good thing", to paraphrase the ultimate domestic goddess Martha Stewart. News Busters using their signature take no prisoners approach in delivering their media smack down of Rachel Maddow has produced an article that delivers the damning evidence disproving Ms. Meadows claim that the Fox network "never criticized George W. Bush for anything, even when he was doing things that were sort of not conservative, they never criticized him". Lachlan Markay delivers a solid piece using 20 quotes or more, all taken out of context, to make his case against the irresponsible Maddow. It is a lively tome that is soothing to my reptilian ... More »

I apologize, I do not mean to offend those that rely on News Busters for their daily journalistic quota but I must be honest, these guys are funny. One of the things I'm wondering is why would they post the links with each one of the quotes? I admit I did not read everyone but each of the quotes I checked were completely contradictory to the point they were making. Truthfully can you blame them? Like Fox news and many other outlets they have discovered that the easy way is the most ... More »

Since George W. Bush released his memoir “Decision Points,” familiar cries from the left have surfaced once again claiming that the Fox News Channel was – ... More »

See Full Review » (15 answers)

Michael Shaver – Nov. 17, 2010 - 02:05 PM

This is one of those stories that I keep coming back to because it represents everything that’s wrong with journalism today. Obviously Rachel Maddow should’ve never said never she should’ve stuck to the issue that was important, it’s not what Fox is saying it’s why are people listening. What’s comical is she handed them this opportunity on a silver platter and this is the best that they could come up with. Either they are idiots or they view their listeners and readers as idiots. There is one thing that I know with absolute certainty and that is they don’t expect anyone to check the veracity of the quotes they are using. I may not be using the same definition of criticism as they are but after reading these quotes in context my conclusion is that they have proved absolutely nothing. Here is my summation of the first five I encourage anyone else that desires to please take a critical look at what has been offered and provide your insights.
1. Out of context the conversation over semantics which was a set up for slam dunk by David Rivkin
2. This is a quote expressed out of exasperation, there really isn’t enough information to deem it sincere criticism. It’s more like a baseball fan saying to his friend, “I keep telling him they need to bunt in this situation, but nobody ever listens to me.”
3. This is so far out of context it’s embarrassing, it actually Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity doing a little Colmes baiting.
4. O’Reilly’s leadership issue is not with Bush himself but with these people who he obviously feels are ineffective in their roles. “Is that leadership? Leadership is taking control of difficult situations and driving them to successful conclusions. We need tough and effective leaders. Michael Brown? Samuel Bodman?” As you can see O’Reilly wasn’t talking about Bush.
5. This quote is not so much a criticism as a jumping off point for further discussion, truthfully how often does criticism come in the form of a question?

permalink

Michael Shaver – Nov. 18, 2010 - 04:17 PM

I keep coming back to this topic, Rachel Maddow’s quote that Fox news “never criticized George W. Bush for anything even when he was doing things that were sort of not conservative. They never criticized him.” What’s outstanding to me is that a seasoned journalist such as Ms. Maddow would put herself in this position. There is no doubt that she sincerely believes what she said and no doubt that she like most of the others in her profession would rather crash and burn while defending her comments instead of taking a step back and learning from them. I think the single biggest problem that we face with the journalism of today is the fact that it can be taken out of context so easily. What is far more disturbing is the willingness we have to accept it without questioning it. Something most people don’t think about is that when these news outlets amplify the rhetoric while making absurd claims and delivering them in the most partisan manner possible they have created a unique niche and a very successful business model. Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity are just a few who are cashing in big time through books, tapes, and paid subscriber websites. One last thought for your consideration, think about how different this conversation would be if Rachel would’ve added a simple qualifier at the end of that statement. All she really needed to say was “they never criticized him in the same manner that they have criticized many others including president Obama”.

1 person likes this comment.

permalink

1.5

by Margaret McGowan - Nov. 17, 2010

NewsBusters is a highly biased source for news critiques. The list of its own errors can easily be found on its rival, Media Matters. In contrast to NewsBusters, Media Matters consistently provides full context for its Media Criticism.

See Full Review » (4 answers)

2.0

by Charles Aylworth - Nov. 17, 2010

See Full Review » (3 answers)

1.2

by C. Green - Nov. 18, 2010

See Full Review » (3 answers)

2.5

Poor

from 5 reviews (48% confidence)

Quality

2.5

Facts

2.0

Fairness

1.8

Sourcing

3.0

Style

2.5

Context

3.0

Depth

2.5

Enterprise

3.5

Relevance

2.5

Popularity

2.3

Recommendation

2.0

Credibility

2.5

# Reviews

2.5

# Views

5.0

# Likes

1.0

# Emails

1.0

How our ratings work »

Politics | Media | Media and Politics | Mainstream Media | Bad Journalism

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!