Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Congressional Black Caucus..."Are they Out of Touch with the Black Community?"

Expand Messages
  • CARLETTA FELLOWS
    ColorOfChange.org FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Contact: Trevor FitzGibbon, Alex Howe Friday, March 30, 2007 Fenton
    Message 1 of 4 , Mar 31, 2007
    • 0 Attachment

      ColorOfChange.org

       

       

      FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:             Contact: Trevor FitzGibbon, Alex Howe

      Friday, March 30, 2007                              Fenton Communications, 202.822.5200

       

      Rev. Jesse Jackson Denounces Congressional Black Caucus Institute’s FOX Debate

       

      ColorOfChange.org says CBC’s decision is “shamefully out of touch” with Black voters; launches national campaign calling on CBC to reverse course and for presidential candidates to reject Fox debate

       

       

      Rev. Jesse Jackson today denounced the Congressional Black Caucus Institute’s planned presidential debate partnership with FOX. He called for yesterday’s decision to be reversed and for presidential candidates not to attend a FOX debate.

       

      Jackson said, “I am disappointed by the Congressional Black Caucus Institute's partnership with FOX, and strongly encourage them to reverse that decision.  Why would presidential candidates, or an organization that is supposed to advocate for Black Americans, ever give a stamp of legitimacy to a network that continually marginalizes Black leaders and the Black community? FOX moderating a presidential debate on issues of importance to Black Americans is literally letting the Fox guard the henhouse – FOX should be rejected.”

       

      Fox’s smears against the Black community are compiled in Outfoxed director Robert Greenwald’s new YouTube video called Fox Attacks: Black America – which is located at www.ColorOfChange.org and has been viewed by over 230,000 people in two weeks.

       

      Yesterday’s decision came after Black Members of Congress and the CBC Institute were contacted by thousands of members of ColorOfChange.org – a 75,000 member online citizen lobby for Black Americans.  Privately, some CBC members expressed that the Fox deal was a bad idea, but not a single member would take a public stand like Jackson did today. 

       

      "The CBC cannot claim to represent Black Americans and at the same time legitimize a network that calls Black churches a cult, implies that Senator Barack Obama is a terrorist, and uses the solemn occasion of Coretta Scott King’s funeral to call Black leaders ‘racist,’” said James Rucker, head of ColorOfChange.org. “The CBC Institute’s decision is shamefully out of step with most Black voters -- and now Black voters will hold our leaders accountable and demand they end their partnership with Fox."

       

      Today, an online petition is being launched at www.ColorofChange.org demanding the CBC end their partnership with Fox, and asking presidential candidates to reject the Fox debate in favor of CBC Institute’s CNN debate – which has already been announced.

       

      Thousands of new members have joined ColorOfChange.org in recent weeks as the organization started putting pressure on the CBC not to embrace Fox – showing the high energy of this issue.

       

      “Fox has a long history of treating Black people unfairly. They are not a trusted news source for most Black Americans,” added Benjamin Todd Jealous, former executive director of the National Newspaper Publishers Associations (NNPA), a 98-year old federation of more than 200 Black community newspapers.

       

      ##

       

      Key links:

       

      ColorOfChange.org petition and Fox Attacks: Black America video:

      www.ColorOfChange.org

       

      NYT: Fox Sets 2 Debates With Congressional Black Caucus
      http://tinyurl.com/2r3ze4

      Daily Kos : CBC wants to do Fox debate

      http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/3/29/211911/625  

       

      MyDD.com: Color of Change versus the CBC Institute

      http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/3/29/22235/8200  

       

      Jack and Jill: CBC Makes The Wrong Choice on Fox Debates

      http://tinyurl.com/2jftjg

       

      CBC Institute has announced another debate with CNN

      http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/3/10/124331/342

       

       


       
      Carletta Fellows

      " The volcano of Mount St. Helen is beyond our capacity to control. The time bombs of our so-called inner cities were built by man, and he has both the power and the resources to dismantle them. He only needs the will!"

      John Hope Franklin
      Mirror to America; The Autobiography
    • Ronald_E_Miller
      Is wanting to open a channel to the tens of millions of Americans that watch Fox News and who don t subscribe to the left-of-center worldview but are decent,
      Message 2 of 4 , Apr 1, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Is wanting to open a channel to the tens of millions of Americans that
        watch Fox News and who don't subscribe to the left-of-center worldview
        but are decent, hard-working people who want to understand "out of
        touch?" If so, then I guess the CBC qualifies.

        I for one think it's to our detriment to constantly slam the door in the
        faces of those with whom we disagree politically. If someone is
        constantly angry with me, I have no interest in talking to them or being
        around them, and groups are no different than individuals. Communication
        and respect for different views is the beginning of understanding, and
        we either want to be understood and fully integrated into American
        society or we want to be avoided and remain a separate class. We need to
        choose the direction in which we want to go and then be honest about it.
        To claim we want to be part of the American mainstream yet continue to
        freeze out those who don't agree with our prescriptions for society is
        disingenuous.

        In the real world where most of us live, people of different political
        persuasions live, work, play and worship together, and many even marry
        and have families. Why can't the activists out there catch up? Society
        calls it tolerance; God calls it grace. I choose grace.

        Regards,

        Ron




        --- In PrinceGeorges_Discussion@yahoogroups.com, CARLETTA FELLOWS
        <cfellows4501@...> wrote:
        >
        > ColorOfChange.org
        >
        >
        > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Contact: Trevor FitzGibbon, Alex Howe
        > Friday, March 30, 2007 Fenton Communications, 202.822.5200
        >
        > Rev. Jesse Jackson Denounces Congressional Black Caucus
        Institute's FOX Debate
        >
        > ColorOfChange.org says CBC's decision is "shamefully out of
        touch" with Black voters; launches national campaign calling on CBC
        to reverse course and for presidential candidates to reject Fox debate
        >
        >
        > Rev. Jesse Jackson today denounced the Congressional Black Caucus
        Institute's planned presidential debate partnership with FOX. He
        called for yesterday's decision to be reversed and for presidential
        candidates not to attend a FOX debate.
        >
        > Jackson said, "I am disappointed by the Congressional Black Caucus
        Institute's partnership with FOX, and strongly encourage them to reverse
        that decision. Why would presidential candidates, or an organization
        that is supposed to advocate for Black Americans, ever give a stamp of
        legitimacy to a network that continually marginalizes Black leaders and
        the Black community? FOX moderating a presidential debate on issues of
        importance to Black Americans is literally letting the Fox guard the
        henhouse – FOX should be rejected."
        >
        > Fox's smears against the Black community are compiled in Outfoxed
        director Robert Greenwald's new YouTube video called Fox Attacks:
        Black America – which is located at www.ColorOfChange.org and has
        been viewed by over 230,000 people in two weeks.
        >
        > Yesterday's decision came after Black Members of Congress and the
        CBC Institute were contacted by thousands of members of
        ColorOfChange.org – a 75,000 member online citizen lobby for Black
        Americans. Privately, some CBC members expressed that the Fox deal was a
        bad idea, but not a single member would take a public stand like Jackson
        did today.
        >
        > "The CBC cannot claim to represent Black Americans and at the same
        time legitimize a network that calls Black churches a cult, implies that
        Senator Barack Obama is a terrorist, and uses the solemn occasion of
        Coretta Scott King's funeral to call Black leaders
        `racist,'" said James Rucker, head of ColorOfChange.org.
        "The CBC Institute's decision is shamefully out of step with
        most Black voters -- and now Black voters will hold our leaders
        accountable and demand they end their partnership with Fox."
        >
        > Today, an online petition is being launched at www.ColorofChange.org
        demanding the CBC end their partnership with Fox, and asking
        presidential candidates to reject the Fox debate in favor of CBC
        Institute's CNN debate – which has already been announced.
        >
        > Thousands of new members have joined ColorOfChange.org in recent weeks
        as the organization started putting pressure on the CBC not to embrace
        Fox – showing the high energy of this issue.
        >
        > "Fox has a long history of treating Black people unfairly. They
        are not a trusted news source for most Black Americans," added
        Benjamin Todd Jealous, former executive director of the National
        Newspaper Publishers Associations (NNPA), a 98-year old federation of
        more than 200 Black community newspapers.
        >
        > ##
        >
        > Key links:
        >
        > ColorOfChange.org petition and Fox Attacks: Black America video:
        > www.ColorOfChange.org
        >
        > NYT: Fox Sets 2 Debates With Congressional Black Caucus
        > http://tinyurl.com/2r3ze4
        >
        > Daily Kos: CBC wants to do Fox debate
        > http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/3/29/211911/625
        >
        > MyDD.com: Color of Change versus the CBC Institute
        > http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/3/29/22235/8200
        >
        > Jack and Jill: CBC Makes The Wrong Choice on Fox Debates
        > http://tinyurl.com/2jftjg
        >
        > CBC Institute has announced another debate with CNN
        > http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/3/10/124331/342
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Carletta Fellows
        >
        > " The volcano of Mount St. Helen is beyond our capacity to control.
        The time bombs of our so-called inner cities were built by man, and he
        has both the power and the resources to dismantle them. He only needs
        the will!"
        >
        > John Hope Franklin
        > Mirror to America; The Autobiography
        >
      • Erica
        (Warning: this is long.) Hello Ron, I enjoy reading your viewpoints, even though they may diverge from my own. But I find mystifying why the CBC wants to do
        Message 3 of 4 , Apr 4, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          (Warning: this is long.)

          Hello Ron,

          I enjoy reading your viewpoints, even though they may diverge from my own. But I find mystifying why the CBC wants to do anything with Fox--or Faux news, as I like to call it.

          Because they are a propaganda machine.

          First, the right-wing have "worked the refs" for years--the "working the refs" as trying to spin mainstream journalists. (Of course the "mainstream" are largely, if not mostly owned by corporations, which are not exactly bastions of left-of-center thought.) It's something media professionals do when they believe they've been mis-represented. But "working the refs" when the facts are on the journalists' side as somehow being "biased" is a high right-wing art form, which devolved into the "need" for Fox.

          You might claim things like identifying Mark Foley as a Democrat in a screen shot when they know darn well he's a Republican a "mistake." You might claim that Scooter Libby was found "not guilty" in a screen shot (when the opposite was true). But all these "mistakes" and and other assorted slants add up.

          And they add up to this: the disinformation is deliberate.

          Food for thought, from http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fox_News#Case_studies--the studies, etc. are sourced; emphasis mine:

          A year-long study by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA)[9] reported that Americans who relied on the Fox News Channel for their coverage of the Iraq war were the most likely to believe misinformation about the war, whatever their political affiliation may be. Those mistaken facts, the study found, increased viewers' support for the war.

          The study found that, in general, people who watched Fox News were, more than for other sources, convinced of several untrue propositions which were actively promoted by the Bush administration and the cheerleading media led by Fox, in rallying support for the invasion of Iraq:

          (percentages are of all poll respondents, not just Fox watchers)

          • Fifty-seven percent believed the falsity that Iraq gave substantial support to Al-Qaida, or was directly involved in the September 11 attacks (48% after invasion).
          • Sixty-nine percent believed the falsity that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11 attacks.
          • Twenty-two percent believed the falsity that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. (Twenty-one percent believed that chem/bio weapons had actually been used against U.S. soldiers in Iraq during 2003)

          In the composite analysis of the PIPA study, 80 percent of Fox News watchers had one of more of these misperceptions, in contrast to 71 percent for CBS and 27 percent who tuned to NPR/PBS.

          As the Washington Post reported[10], "The fair and balanced folks at Fox, the survey concludes, were 'the news source whose viewers had the most misperceptions.' Eighty percent of Fox viewers believed at least one of these un-facts; 45 percent believed all three."

          As Alternet reported, "For each of the three misperceptions, the study found enormous differences between the viewers of Fox, who held the most misperceptions, and NPR/PBS, who held the fewest by far. Eighty percent of Fox viewers were found to hold at least one misperception, compared to 23 percent of NPR/PBS consumers. All the other media fell in between."[11]

          The Project for Excellence in Journalism's "State of the News Media 2005" concluded that Fox was "the most one-sided of all major news outlets." On Iraq, 25 percent of 2,000 stories analyzed were negative and 20 percent were positive. "Fox News Channel was twice as likely to be positive than negative, while CNN and MSNBC were evenhanded." Also, "with the exception of Republicans who prefer Fox News," Americans don't seek out news sources that reinforce their beliefs.[12]


          Also, you can hear from the lips of someone who worked there, Charlie Reina:
          "The roots of Fox News Channel's day-to-day on-air bias are actual and direct. They come in the form of an executive memo distributed electronically each morning, addressing what stories will be covered and, often, suggesting how they should be covered. To the newsroom personnel responsible for the channel's daytime programming, The Memo is the bible. If, on any given day, you notice that the Fox anchors seem to be trying to drive a particular point home, you can bet The Memo is behind it."
          Again, everything there is sourced.

          David Brock, who used to work on behalf of the right-wing types, wrote an open letter to Rupert Murdoch, challenging his ridiculously claim that his is an objective network. His work is sourced, too.

          Here are just some hilarious Fox screen shots --some of them more infamous than others, and all pretty funny until you realized that this really happened and is not "photoshopped" i.e., not purposely re-done for laughs. I mean, "Are Saddam Hussein's WMDs in Hezbollah's hands?" when WMDs aren't there? And they were looked for, even though it was known that there were no WMDs to be found. Of course, Joe Wilson  peeped us on all that. Likely you would not have heard that on Fox News.

          Finally, and this is from a column by Mark Mellman, an opinion piece by a Democrat, so perhaps you won't agree with his opinion, but it's FACT not opinion that Fox ran a "story" on Sen. Obama attending a "Muslim Madrassah." It's so ridiculous that it shouldn't even be commented upon--did he get special instructions or something as a six-year-old?--but they made up a story out of whole cloth to deliberately smear him.  And apparently it's not enough for him to be a Chrisitian--of course, we'll leave alone the tiny fact that no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States --because his church has been attacked, too. Apparently, right-wingers don't embrace the church's "Black Value System" of emphasizing family, education and de-emphasizing a definition of being middle class as keep-up-with-the-Joneses materialism.

          Now, perhaps most viewers are unaware of the extent of disinformation that is broadcast regularly. It seems to me that a real news organization would present the facts and that viewers could still be conservative, politically. Then again, Fox may be a good source of laughter and enterntainment.  But don't pretend that it actually strives to be objective or "fair and balanced." (Given the lunatic rantings from their featured "stars" like Bill "Loofah" O'Reilly, I'd call it "fairly unbalanced.") I don't think the CBC is out of touch, but out of their collective mind. Certainly, they are talented and intelligent enough to find a serious venue for a serious discussion of the issues.

          Best,
          Erica


        • Ronald_E_Miller
          Thanks for the information, Erica. I only know of Fox News from the perspective of my conservative friends who watch it religiously. My intent was not to stand
          Message 4 of 4 , Apr 4, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Thanks for the information, Erica. I only know of Fox News from the
            perspective of my conservative friends who watch it religiously. My
            intent was not to stand for or against Fox News. People I respect from
            both sides of the political spectrum have passionate and completely
            divergent opini0ns about them, and both sides present evidence to
            support their views, so I simply excuse myself from the discussion for
            reasons I'll explain momentarily.

            The point I was trying to make is that Fox News has a huge audience that
            is worth reaching. I would also guess that most of them have no inkling
            of the issues you've raised. Only we activists care about such things
            (grin)!

            The reason I don't have a dog in this hunt is because I don't watch Fox
            News. Personally, I don't watch TV much at all, and I never watch TV
            news programs unless there's a special that catches my interest or I'm
            in a hotel while on travel, in which case I generally watch CNN.

            I read a lot of news, however - the Washington Post, both online and in
            print, the Washington Times online, the Baltimore Sun online, MSNBC and
            CNN online, and local news outlets online, such as the Gazette and the
            Calvert Recorder. I also get great referrals from boards such as this
            one and from friends who know I'm a political news and opinion junkie. I
            will also do searches on topics of interest to me and find valuable news
            and commentary that way.

            This diverse and possibly eclectic way of taking in the news allows me
            to:

            1) Develop a broadly informed opinion on issues of interest to me.

            2) Detect the bias in the news presented to me. For example, I can read
            the same story in the Washington Post, Washington Times and Baltimore
            Sun, and they emphasize different points and take different angles to
            tell the story. I've learned to get what I need and put the bias aside,
            so I'm less bothered by it.

            3) Learn from others with different points of view. I love an
            intelligent, well-crafted argument regardless of whether it's from the
            left or right, and sometimes my point of view can be modified or changed
            by what I read. I also learn how to better defend my point of view by
            understanding what aspects of my beliefs others find objectionable and
            finding ways to respectfully address those objections if possible.

            Anyway, the bottom line is that I'm indifferent to Fox News as a news
            outlet, but I'm passionate about reaching out to more people and
            broadening our agenda beyond the enclaves of liberalism or progressivism
            (I'm not sure which is preferred and I don't want to be pejorative). Our
            present agenda only aligns us with half of the country and doesn't
            address the full range of who we are as a people or what we need to
            "ascend," to use a popular term today. Individual responsibility and
            accountability and educational and economic empowerment - the so-called
            "conservative" solutions - should be as important to us as social
            justice and governmental activism - the so-called "liberal" solutions -
            but it is my humble opinion that we are out of balance in that regard.
            If we emphasize one point of view at the expense of the other, it's like
            flying a plane with only one wing. There are solutions to our most
            pressing problems that have great appeal to moderate and conservative
            Americans, and we should make room for both the solutions and the people
            who support them.

            Thanks for the kind words - take care!

            Regards,

            Ron


            --- In PrinceGeorges_Discussion@yahoogroups.com, "Erica"
            <enashthomas@...> wrote:
            >
            > (Warning: this is long.)
            >
            > Hello Ron,
            >
            > I enjoy reading your viewpoints, even though they may diverge from my
            > own. But I find mystifying why the CBC wants to do anything with
            Fox--or
            > Faux news, as I like to call it.
            >
            > Because they are a propaganda machine.
            >
            > First, the right-wing have "worked the refs" for years--the "working
            the
            > refs" as trying to spin mainstream journalists. (Of course the
            > "mainstream" are largely, if not mostly owned by corporations, which
            are
            > not exactly bastions of left-of-center thought.) It's something media
            > professionals do when they believe they've been mis-represented. But
            > "working the refs" when the facts are on the journalists' side as
            > somehow being "biased" is a high right-wing art form, which devolved
            > into the "need" for Fox.
            >
            > You might claim things like identifying Mark Foley as a Democrat in a
            > screen shot when they know darn well he's a Republican a "mistake."
            You
            > might claim that Scooter Libby was found "not guilty" in a screen shot
            > (when the opposite was true). But all these "mistakes" and and other
            > assorted slants add up.
            >
            > And they add up to this: the disinformation is deliberate.
            >
            > Food for thought, from
            > http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fox_News#Case_studies--the
            > studies, etc. are sourced; emphasis mine:
            >
            > A year-long study by the University of Maryland's Program on
            > International Policy Attitudes
            >
            <http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Program_on_International_Pol\
            \
            > icy_Attitudes> (PIPA)[9]
            > <http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf>
            > reported that Americans who relied on the Fox News Channel for their
            > coverage of the Iraq war were the most likely to believe
            misinformation
            > about the war, whatever their political affiliation may be. Those
            > mistaken facts, the study found, increased viewers' support for the
            war.
            >
            > The study found that, in general, people who watched Fox News were,
            more
            > than for other sources, convinced of several untrue propositions which
            > were actively promoted by the Bush administration and the cheerleading
            > media led by Fox, in rallying support for the invasion of Iraq:
            >
            > (percentages are of all poll respondents, not just Fox watchers)
            >
            > * Fifty-seven percent believed the falsity that Iraq gave
            > substantial support to Al-Qaida, or was directly involved in the
            > September 11 attacks (48% after invasion).
            > * Sixty-nine percent believed the falsity that Saddam Hussein was
            > personally involved in the September 11 attacks.
            > * Twenty-two percent believed the falsity that weapons of mass
            > destruction had been found in Iraq. (Twenty-one percent believed that
            > chem/bio weapons had actually been used against U.S. soldiers in Iraq
            > during 2003)
            >
            > In the composite analysis of the PIPA study, 80 percent of Fox News
            > watchers had one of more of these misperceptions, in contrast to 71
            > percent for CBS and 27 percent who tuned to NPR/PBS.
            >
            > As the Washington Post reported[10]
            > <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27061-2003Oct14.html>
            ,
            > "The fair and balanced folks at Fox, the survey concludes, were 'the
            > news source whose viewers had the most misperceptions.' Eighty percent
            > of Fox viewers believed at least one of these un-facts; 45 percent
            > believed all three."
            >
            > As Alternet reported, "For each of the three misperceptions, the study
            > found enormous differences between the viewers of Fox, who held the
            most
            > misperceptions, and NPR/PBS, who held the fewest by far. Eighty
            percent
            > of Fox viewers were found to hold at least one misperception, compared
            > to 23 percent of NPR/PBS consumers. All the other media fell in
            > between."[11] <http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16892>
            >
            > The Project for Excellence in Journalism's "State of the News Media
            > 2005" concluded that Fox was "the most one-sided of all major news
            > outlets." On Iraq, 25 percent of 2,000 stories analyzed were negative
            > and 20 percent were positive. "Fox News Channel was twice as likely to
            > be positive than negative, while CNN and MSNBC were evenhanded." Also,
            > "with the exception of Republicans who prefer Fox News," Americans
            don't
            > seek out news sources that reinforce their beliefs.[12]
            > <http://stateofthemedia.com/2005/index.asp>
            >
            > Also, you can hear from the lips of someone who worked there, Charlie
            > Reina:
            > "The roots of Fox News Channel's day-to-day on-air bias are actual and
            > direct. They come in the form of an executive memo distributed
            > electronically each morning, addressing what stories will be covered
            > and, often, suggesting how they should be covered. To the newsroom
            > personnel responsible for the channel's daytime programming, The Memo
            is
            > the bible. If, on any given day, you notice that the Fox anchors seem
            to
            > be trying to drive a particular point home, you can bet The Memo is
            > behind it." Again, everything there is sourced.
            >
            > David Brock, who used to work on behalf of the right-wing types, wrote
            > an open letter to Rupert Murdoch
            > <http://mediamatters.org/items/200504200004> , challenging his
            > ridiculously claim that his is an objective network. His work is
            > sourced, too.
            >
            > Here are just some hilarious Fox screen shots
            >
            <http://welcome-to-pottersville.blogspot.com/2007/03/fox-news-at-its-fin\
            \
            > est.html> --some of them more infamous than others, and all pretty
            > funny until you realized that this really happened and is not
            > "photoshopped" i.e., not purposely re-done for laughs. I mean, "Are
            > Saddam Hussein's WMDs in Hezbollah's hands?" when WMDs aren't there?
            And
            > they were looked for, even though it was known that there were no WMDs
            > to be found. Of course, Joe Wilson
            > <http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm> peeped us on all
            > that. Likely you would not have heard that on Fox News.
            >
            > Finally, and this is from a column by Mark Mellman
            >
            <http://thehill.com/mark-mellman/hounding-fox-news-coverage-2007-03-20.h\
            \
            > tml> , an opinion piece by a Democrat, so perhaps you won't agree with
            > his opinion, but it's FACT not opinion that Fox ran a "story" on Sen.
            > Obama attending a "Muslim Madrassah." It's so ridiculous that it
            > shouldn't even be commented upon--did he get special instructions or
            > something as a six-year-old?--but they made up a story out of whole
            > cloth to deliberately smear him
            > <http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/19/fox-obama-madrassa/> . And
            > apparently it's not enough for him to be a Chrisitian--of course,
            we'll
            > leave alone the tiny fact that no religious Test shall ever be
            required
            > as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United
            > States <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article06/>
            > --because his church has been attacked, too
            >
            <http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/20/politics/main2588082.shtml?so\
            \
            > urce=RSSattr=Politics_2588082> . Apparently, right-wingers don't
            embrace
            > the church's "Black Value System" of emphasizing family, education and
            > de-emphasizing a definition of being middle class as
            > keep-up-with-the-Joneses materialism.
            >
            > Now, perhaps most viewers are unaware of the extent of disinformation
            > that is broadcast regularly. It seems to me that a real news
            > organization would present the facts and that viewers could still be
            > conservative, politically. Then again, Fox may be a good source of
            > laughter and enterntainment. But don't pretend that it actually
            strives
            > to be objective or "fair and balanced." (Given the lunatic rantings
            from
            > their featured "stars" like Bill "Loofah" O'Reilly, I'd call it
            "fairly
            > unbalanced.") I don't think the CBC is out of touch, but out of their
            > collective mind. Certainly, they are talented and intelligent enough
            to
            > find a serious venue for a serious discussion of the issues.
            >
            > Best,
            > Erica
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.