Jackson Free Press

Check this out. While conservative blog-queen Michele Malkin was talking about how it's fine to criticize Michelle Obama as long as people don't take "cheap shots," FOX News was flashing across the screen that the possible future first lady is "Obama's Baby Mama."

Racist pigs. Watch here.

Previous Comments

ID

131233

Comment

Choice Malkin quote: "I did not write the caption, and I was not aware of it when it ran (the Baltimore studio doesn't have a monitor). I don't know if the caption writer was making a lame attempt to be hip, clueless about the original etymology of the phrase, or both." What about the possibility that they were purposely creating negative "ghetto" associations to a possible future First Lady. Ironically, while this phrase was being displayed Michele was discussing what was an appropriate Michelle Obama attack and what was not. Unfortunately she could not bring herself to use this perfect example when given an opportunity.

Author

daniel johnson

Date

2008-06-27T22:34:04-06:00

ID

131237

Comment

Definitely a cheap shot attempt to associate MRS. Michele Obama with single unwed black mothers. To them she is one in the same as a hoodrat and was regarded as such, never mind she is the wife of a Presidential candidate.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2008-06-28T06:24:46-06:00

ID

131239

Comment

If you're interested, MoveOn.org has an online petition you can sign that will be given to Fox News asking them to change their behavior. They says the petition has over 100,000 signatures so far.

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2008-06-28T06:42:19-06:00

ID

131240

Comment

A Death of Irony Moment Watching the clip with Michele Malkin saying that criticism of Michelle Obama is legitimate and won't backfire on conservatives as long as the criticism centers on the substance of her statements, and isn't a cheap shot - all the while having "Obama's Baby Mama" plastered along the bottom of the screen - that is pure FOCKS News.

Author

gwilly

Date

2008-06-28T08:34:28-06:00

ID

131241

Comment

I know "full of crock news" is low, but I must admit I didn't expect them to use piad black operatives to try and dirty up Michelle Obama. This way Fox, et al, can do the racist dirty work yet hide their hands. Is Malkin the male version of Armstrong Williams? Probably so.

Author

Walt

Date

2008-06-28T13:53:04-06:00

ID

131242

Comment

Upon furthering reporting or investigation I learn Malkin isn't black but a minority of another persuasion. Either way it was wrong of her to take such cheap shots. I brace and prepare for the fallout.

Author

Walt

Date

2008-06-28T14:06:06-06:00

ID

131243

Comment

I can understand not liking the ladies on Fixed News, but let's not stoop so low and call them sluts.

Author

golden eagle

Date

2008-06-28T22:34:19-06:00

ID

131244

Comment

I wrote it off as another example of "I'd hit it--I'm a dollar menu guy!" style clueless corporate captioning, but it's racist content whether the intent behind it was racist or not. And Fox News being Fox News, it could easily have been--it's not as if much of their coverage resembles journalism in the first place. Saw a piece on Fox News a couple of weeks ago while I was getting my teeth cleaned--getting my teeth cleaned was by far the more pleasant part of the experience--and the anchor was unapologetically arguing, for 20 or 30 minutes, in favor of offshore drilling. There was no real attempt to even remotely comprehend why some people oppose offshore drilling, other than that they're liberals and that's what liberals do.

Author

Tom Head

Date

2008-06-28T23:10:35-06:00

ID

131247

Comment

Of course, if they argue against a liberal position, they get yelled at. I don't see the outrage over MSNBC being totally in for Obama.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2008-06-29T10:17:30-06:00

ID

131248

Comment

How is this racist? Years ago I held a job with single mothers and fathers and all I heard was baby mama and baby daddy. I would say, "don't you mean mother or father?" I was told NO over and over again. I hated those terms but I was made to feel like I was the racist for correcting them. I will admit, I think FOX news used very poor judgement in doing this, but why is everyone shocked? This is what they do. They ARE scum. However, while on this particular job, I met some wonderful baby mamas and baby daddys.

Author

saint H

Date

2008-06-29T13:29:55-06:00

ID

131249

Comment

Saint, the argument aside of whether a "journalistic" enterprise should call *anyone* a "baby mama" (even if it's street-cool to say it within some some circles), you really can't be missing the point here that FOX called Michele Obama (not a young single mother) a "baby mama." It is racist because, well, no one in their right mind thinks they would have done that if they weren't black. Because, well, they wouldn't have. FOX here is playing to racist stereotypes about black people.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-06-29T16:13:21-06:00

ID

131250

Comment

And to Tom's point, many people do and say racist stuff they would argue to the death isn't racist -- because the people behind that kind of talk have brilliantly decided that they can be racist without being called out for being racist -- because, you know, it's worse to call something out than to say it in the first place. Quite the ploy on the part of the dominant culture. Fortunately, FOX News et al. are bumping right up against a younger generation that ain't buyin' it no more. They might have been able to get this crap past boomers and Gen X (partly out of apathy), but the new market they better start worrying about aren't going to reward this stuff. In fact, the NY Times had an article Saturday about FOX's decline. Of course, FOX doesn't know any other way. They were started as a propaganda machine for the radical right. Where do they go when that's profoundly out of style, even among many, perhaps most evangelicals?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-06-29T16:18:23-06:00

ID

131251

Comment

Reading above, I agree on the "sluts" comment. I will be deleting that. Last call on such kind of language, Walt. You can do better, so do it.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-06-29T16:19:12-06:00

ID

131252

Comment

I think part of the issue, re "racist," is that most white folks describe it as a motivation rather than an act. If I burn a cross in somebody's front yard because I'm a Klansman and trying to scare them, that's racist. If I burn a cross in somebody's front yard because I'm a devout Christian pyromaniac, it's supposedly not. So if I burn a cross in somebody's front yard because I'm a Klansman and trying to scare them but I say it's just because I'm a devout Christian pyromaniac, I get to do whatever I want without having any of it called out as racist, because nobody can know what my internal motives actually are. That's why "I didn't mean to say/do that" is really about as far as the white person's defense should go. We don't say "I didn't back into your car because I meant to go somewhere else." If you back into a car, you backed into a car. And if you say something racist, you said something racist. It doesn't matter who you are or what was going on between your ears at the time. Gee, Kaze, I didn't mean to word what I said about X and such the way I did a couple of weeks ago; that was racist. Not real hard to do, is it? I don't have to say I'm a racist. Who gives a shit whether I'm a racist? That's irrelevant, because it's not about me. It's about the racist thing I said. But what the motive-based definition of racism does is erase the victims of racism from the equation, so that the conversation is all about the perpetrator and the perpetrator's motives. It's strictly a white person's definition of racism. It has no usefulness to people of color, and no real relevance to the world outside of white people's heads, because it has nothing to do with the experience of racism. It focuses exclusively on internal justifications for white behavior. And (to borrow a phrase from Angry Asian Man) that's racist! This is also why I think laws that focus on bias-motivated crime, while useful in the short term, are not sustainable. What we need to do is define hate crimes as what they are: Domestic terrorism. And nobody asked whether Timothy McVeigh meant to be a terrorist rather than a "non-terrorist" mass murderer, did they? Right.

Author

Tom Head

Date

2008-06-29T16:34:22-06:00

ID

131253

Comment

Who gives a #### whether I'm a racist? That's irrelevant, because it's not about me. It's about the racist thing I said. Or did. Right on. But what the motive-based definition of racism does is erase the victims of racism from the equation, so that the conversation is all about the perpetrator and the perpetrator's motives. It's strictly a white person's definition of racism. Very, very nice post, Tom. One of the tragedies of the post-Movement dialogue about race is that white people want to define what is and is not acceptable when said (or done) by other white people. It's a really nefarious way to hide a whole lotta racism. And your point about domestic terrorism is a good one. I'm not that big of a fan of "hate crime" legislation, either, because it gets so lost in a usually-idiotic discussion of what "hate" is by those who don't want to face how their racism and homophobia manifests in others around them if unchecked. I always refer to the Klan as a terrorism group; they weren't a "hate" group; they were terrorists, pure and simple. And it's funny to hear how many people would rather we just let an old terrorist die peacefully than have to pay his debt to society for his past crimes because, I guess, he's our terrorist, presumably meaning white. Funny how quickly the racist thing comes full circle, eh? Bottom line: It makes no sense to allow someone who isn't willing to admit that *any* racism still exists turn around and try to define it for us. If they think it's "in the past," they're disqualified automatically. And if they mix up anti-white bigotry with "racism," then they're barely worth listening to because they have no. clue. about racism in America. On that note, have you seen the crap being posted under the Ledger's article about our new Latina Miss Mississippi? Some bigot asked if she was legal. Wonder how that yahoo would feel if every fool thought he was in the Klan.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-06-29T16:55:02-06:00

ID

131254

Comment

And I do wonder why the Ledger is allowing its forums to become a free-for-all for racist commentary? It's horrible to think that people outside the state would read that paper and think its readers and commenters are representative of Mississippians.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-06-29T16:56:26-06:00

ID

131258

Comment

Alright, y'all. Although I defined what I meant, I guess it was still offensive. I'll be more like everyone else in the future.

Author

Walt

Date

2008-06-30T07:17:35-06:00

ID

131264

Comment

Since I can do better, I will do better. Anyway, I think the idea for Fox, Malkin, and other wrongwingers is to make Michele Obama just another "ghetto child incapable of rising above" because she hasn't forgetten her roots, traded them in, or accepted the repugnant ways of conservatives or the majority as normal, proper and necessary for her or all people. So what if Michelle herslef has referred to Barack Obama as her baby's daddy or like comments when speaking with her friends or close associates. This is too akin to the use of the N-word. We blacks are randomly and often accused of not wanting to be called by wrongwingers what we portray ourselves as in the ghettos on a daily basis when no one is looking. However, when we point out the racist bigots the wrongwingers portray themselves as on a daily basis when they think we're not listening or smart enough to discern, they give us this bull about not being racist or not seeing racism. In my opinion, these wrongwingers are looking for excuses to be what they are yet blame someone else for it. In Orlanda,Florida yesterday some vandals painted city vehicle with Obama slurs. The article on Black America Web intimated it was possibly Hillary's fans or supporters. I don't believe that. I'd first look to see where was Malkin, Coulter, and the type were.

Author

Walt

Date

2008-06-30T09:27:22-06:00

ID

131268

Comment

FOX News consistently ranks as the most-watched cable news network. They must be doing something right.

Author

QB

Date

2008-06-30T13:15:31-06:00

ID

131270

Comment

FOX News hasn't been the most-watched cable news network in a while, Harry, but when they were they certainly did do one thing right: They entertained their audience. Fluffy opinion shows, hosted by larger-than-life blowhards, tend to do that. And McDonald's is also clearly doing something right--their burgers sell very well. But if they started calling their burgers newspapers, that wouldn't make them the nation's largest newspaper publisher. Maybe if FOX News drew in record ratings by having their pundits do all of their shows in the nude, they'd be doing something right then, too? I reckon there are a lot of viewers who wonder how far down Bill O'Reilly's freckles go.

Author

Tom Head

Date

2008-06-30T13:39:10-06:00

ID

131271

Comment

Indeed they're doing something rightwing - playing directly into sick and warped minds of people longing for yesterday, yesteryear, pre-Brown v. Borad of Education, pre-Civil War and pre-American national moral conscience. To some people that's right! But I have a dream this evening that just as most folks have figured out republicans are, by and large, and nearly completely, full of sh1t, that they will one day soon see that Sly as a Fox News is likewise completely full of crap,too. I may not get there with them but I know the Lord is greater than the devil and good will eventually win over evil.

Author

Walt

Date

2008-06-30T13:40:41-06:00

ID

131274

Comment

I think Harry is right, Tom; FOX has held onto that title for a while until just recent months of roller-coaster ratings. But they're in danger of losing it right now. Here's the Times article I mentioned. It starts: When prime-time cable news ratings for the second quarter of 2008 are officially released next week, they will show that Fox News reclaimed the top spot among viewers in their mid-20s through mid-50s, those of greatest interest to news advertisers, according to estimates from Nielsen Media Research. During the first three months of the year, by contrast, CNN drew so many viewers on big Democratic primary nights and for several presidential debates that it vaulted over Fox News for the first time in six years. But the back-and-forth these last few months masks a more ominous trend for Fox News, particularly as its gears up to cover the general election campaign. The most dominant cable news channel for nearly a decade and a political force in its own right, Fox has seen its once formidable advantage over CNN erode in this presidential election year, as both CNN and MSNBC have added viewers at far more dramatic rates. Clearly, Walt, FOX is playing to, shall we say, the least thinking among us. Always have. That means that will play the southern-race-strategy in this campaign hard. It also means that we will witness perhaps the greatest opportunity we've seen in a long time for the American public to choose between right and wrong. In a way, I'm thrilled FOX is flailing in their racism; it will show people what the choices really are. And it's time.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-06-30T14:06:28-06:00

ID

131275

Comment

I've often wondered if the reason FNC dominated the ratings for so long was because they really were a better news channel or if the large number of libs who regularly tuned in only looking for crap to get outraged about actually helps boost their ratings. I can't watch their evening lineup because the right-wing bias bores me to death.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2008-06-30T14:28:18-06:00

ID

131276

Comment

Iron mentioned MSNBC earlier -- seems they're getting a boost from their political coverage, and they're doing particularly well with young'ens...at least, so says the AP. (So say we all.) MSNBC is a player in the cable news competition in a way it hasn't been before. The surge in viewership created by the presidential campaign has benefited MSNBC more than Fox News Channel or CNN, and Griffin is pushing to consolidate those gains.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2008-06-30T14:45:58-06:00

ID

131277

Comment

Just a little note about Fox News, you realize that we will have a local Fox News very soon. It will be our nine o'clock local news show with their own little twist.

Author

Puck

Date

2008-06-30T14:49:11-06:00

ID

131278

Comment

We had Fox in Houston Texas in the Eighties and Nineties when I lived there and I actually liked them back then because they were different and smaller. Apparently that was before they went crazy. I doubt Sheriff Murdock owned them back then and I surely don't remember hearing all the wrongwing crap back then that they preach now. President Ronald Pagan was in office during this time but I still don't recall all the hate being preached. Speaking of Keith Olberman, I didn't like him for years because I thought he was a little over the top, just as some people see me. Then I tuned in a minute or two to crock news and realized why we needed Oberman. We need somebody on television who is not a closet sex freak like O'Reilly. As far as I know, Oberman isn't calling up co-workers or randomly selected women at night and asking what they got on. For some people, there isn't anything wrong with this either, but for true Christians and Democrats this just isn't right. Our family values just don't allow it.

Author

Walt

Date

2008-06-30T15:14:48-06:00

ID

131279

Comment

MSNBC has had the best coverage, IMO.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2008-06-30T15:32:43-06:00

ID

131282

Comment

We had a local Fox news station in Miami in the 80's- their main shtick was sensationalism of everything: they were the first to have reporters giving live coverage outside during hurricanes, the first to have live coverage of gun battles between DEA agents and cocaine cowboys, etc. It wasn't really news as much as entertainment! I would have loved to have been in the news room when they first noticed that some people were actually taking their coverage seriously! Nowadays in my opinion, CNN is becoming more and more Foxified- and that is why I think MSNBC is starting to emerge in the ratings...

Author

Rico

Date

2008-06-30T18:59:34-06:00

ID

131847

Comment

Unbelievable. Now look how pathetically far FOX will stoop. I smell the blood in the water for that network. You can only do this kind of crap for so long and get away with it. The American public can go deaf and dumb for a while, but we historically wake up. Pass the coffee.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-07-03T05:46:07-06:00

ID

131849

Comment

This is no suprise. FNC is a cartoonish news network offering right-wing entertainment and very little in the way of serious journalism.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2008-07-03T07:25:52-06:00

ID

131851

Comment

Wow, how desperate are they going to get? It seriously seems like they have 10-year-olds running the place.

Author

ellen

Date

2008-07-03T07:30:08-06:00